1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of All flesh is equal
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Research has consistently shown that in comparison to some Western cultural groups, such as American and British individuals, people from Eastern Asian cultures pay heightened attention to the hierarchical position of interaction partners, thereby displaying greater politeness to high-ranking individuals. This study aimed to challenge the long-standing assumption that politeness is invariably contingent upon the status of communication partners in Chinese culture. We demonstrated that due to their religious belief in the principle that “all flesh is equal,” Chinese Buddhists exhibited consistent levels of politeness irrespective of the status of their interlocutor. In Study 1, we investigated how Han Taoists and Buddhists responded to junior or senior individuals when declining a request. The results indicated that while Taoists demonstrated increased politeness to senior colleagues compared to juniors, the recipient’s status did not affect the politeness levels of Han Buddhists. Additionally, there were no observed differences in politeness between the two groups in the junior condition. Study 2 replicated these findings among Tibetan Buddhists. Collectively, these findings suggest that religious affiliations may exert enduring effects on important aspects of politeness strategies and communication styles.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00219.li
2025-04-21
2025-05-22

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00219.li
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adam, M. T.
    (2013) Buddhism, equality, rights. Journal of Buddhist Ethics, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Khatib, M. A.
    (2012) Politeness in the Holy Quran: A sociolinguistic and pragmatic perspective. Intercultural Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1515/ip‑2012‑0027
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2012-0027 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ambady, N., Koo, J., Lee, F., & Rosenthal, R.
    (1996) More than words: Linguistic and nonlinguistic politeness in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (), –. 10.1037/0022‑3514.70.5.996
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.996 [Google Scholar]
  4. An-Che, L.
    (1948) Bon: The magico-religious belief of the Tibetan-speaking peoples. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, (), –. 10.1086/soutjanth.4.1.3628469
     https://doi.org/10.1086/soutjanth.4.1.3628469 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bagde, U.
    (2014) Essential elements of human rights in Buddhism. Journal of Law and Conflict Resolution, (), –. 10.5897/JLCR2013.0170
     https://doi.org/10.5897/JLCR2013.0170 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bouchara, A.
    (2015) The role of religion in shaping politeness in Moroccan Arabic: The case of the speech act of greeting and its place in intercultural understanding and misunderstanding. Journal of Politeness Research, (), –. 10.1515/pr‑2015‑0004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brew, F. P., & Cairns, D. R.
    (2004) Do culture or situational constraints determine choice of direct or indirect styles in intercultural workplace conflicts?International Journal of Intercultural Relations, , –. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2004.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2004.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brocca, N., Nuzzo, E., Velásquez, D. C., & Rudigier, M.
    (2023) Linguistic politeness across Austria and Italy: Backing out of an invitation with an instant message. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.02.018
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.02.018 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, P., & Levinson, S.
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, L., & Winter, B.
    (2019) Multimodal indexicality in Korean: “Doing deference” and “performing intimacy” through nonverbal behavior. Journal of Politeness Research, (), –. 10.1515/pr‑2016‑0042
     https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2016-0042 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown, L., Kim, H., Hübscher, I., & Winter, B.
    (2022) Gestures are modulated by social context: A study of multimodal politeness across two cultures. Gesture, (), –. 10.1075/gest.20034.bro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.20034.bro [Google Scholar]
  12. Chan, D. K. S.
    (1996) Tightness-looseness revisited: Some preliminary analyses in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Psychology, (), –. 10.1080/002075996401179
     https://doi.org/10.1080/002075996401179 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fukushima, S., & Sifianou, M.
    (2017) Conceptualizing politeness in Japanese and Greek. Intercultural Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1515/ip‑2017‑0024
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2017-0024 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gaziano, J., & Lewis, J.
    (2013) All beings are equal but some are more equal than others: Buddhism and vegetarianism in the US. Western Buddhist Review, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Goldstein, M. C., & Tsarong, P.
    (1985) Tibetan Buddhist monasticism: Social, psychological and cultural implications. The Tibet Journal, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Goffman, E.
    (1967) Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face interaction. Anchor Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (1983) The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. American Sociological Review, (), –. 10.2307/2095141
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2095141 [Google Scholar]
  18. Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. N.
    (1992) Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (), –. 10.1037/0022‑3514.62.2.246
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.246 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M.
    (2010) Cultures and organizations: Software for the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Janney, R. W., & Arndt, H.
    (1993) Universality and relativity in cross-cultural politeness research: A historical perspective. Multilingua, (), –. 10.1515/mult.1993.12.1.13
     https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1993.12.1.13 [Google Scholar]
  21. Johns, A., & Félix-Brasdefer, J. C.
    (2015) Linguistic politeness and pragmatic variation in request production in Dakar French. Journal of Politeness Research, (), –. 10.1515/pr‑2015‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0006 [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S.
    (2005) The relation between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, , –. 10.1177/0022022104272905
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104272905 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kádár, D. Z.
    (2024) Ritual and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108624909
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108624909 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kádár, D. Z., & House, J.
    (2021a) “Politeness markers” revisited — A contrastive pragmatic perspective. Journal of Politeness Research, (), –. 10.1515/pr‑2020‑0029
     https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2020-0029 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2021b) Interaction ritual and (im)politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.021
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.04.021 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kádár, D. Z., House, J., Todo, K., & Xiao, T.
    (2024) Revisiting the binary view of honorifics in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, (), –. 10.1515/pr‑2023‑0035
     https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2023-0035 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kim, Y. H., & Cohen, D.
    (2010) Information, perspective, and judgments about the self in face and dignity cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, , –. 10.1177/0146167210362398
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210362398 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kim, Y. H., Cohen, D., & Au, W. T.
    (2010) The jury and abjury of my peers: The self in face and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, , –. 10.1037/a0017936
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017936 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kim, M. S., & Wilson, S. R.
    (1994) A cross-cultural comparison of implicit theories of requesting. Communication Monographs, (), –. 10.1080/03637759409376334
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376334 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kvaerne, P.
    (1972) Aspects of the origin of the Buddhist tradition in Tibet. Numen, (), –. 10.1163/156852772X00025
     https://doi.org/10.1163/156852772X00025 [Google Scholar]
  31. Li, H., & Cao, Y.
    (2019a) The body in religion: The spatial mapping of valence in Tibetan practitioners of Bön. Cognitive Science, (), Article e12728. 10.1111/cogs.12728
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12728 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2019b) Hands occupied: Chinese farmers use more non-manual pointing than herders. Lingua, , –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2019.02.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  33. Mapson, R.
    (2014) Polite appearances: How non-manual features convey politeness in British Sign Language. Journal of Politeness Research, (), –. 10.1515/pr‑2014‑0008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2014-0008 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mills, S.
    (2014) Language, culture, and politeness. InF. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp.–). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Mills, S., & Kádár, D. Z.
    (2011) Politeness and culture. InD. Z. Kádár & S. Mills (Eds.), Politeness in East Asia (pp.–). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511977886.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511977886.004 [Google Scholar]
  36. Moon, C., & Han, G. S.
    (2013) Social psychology of hierarchical interactions: Politeness and hierarchical relational stress. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, , –. 10.21193/kjspp.2013.27.4.001
     https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2013.27.4.001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Moon, C., Uskul, A. K., & Weick, M.
    (2019) Cultural differences in politeness as a function of status relations: Comparing South Korean and British communicators. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, (), –. 10.1002/jts5.40
     https://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.40 [Google Scholar]
  38. Miyamoto, Y., & Schwarz, N.
    (2006) When conveying a message may hurt the relationship: Cultural differences in the difficulty of using an answering machine. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, (), –. 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  39. National Bureau of Statistics of China
    National Bureau of Statistics of China (2020) China statistical yearbook 2020. RetrievedAugust 5, 2024, fromhttps://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/ndsj/2020/indexeh.htm
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Nwoye, O. G.
    (1992) Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90092‑P
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90092-P [Google Scholar]
  41. Paglieri, F., Borghi, A. M., Colzato, L. S., Hommel, B., & Scorolli, C.
    (2013) Heaven can wait: How religion modulates temporal discounting. Psychological Research, , –. 10.1007/s00426‑012‑0473‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0473-5 [Google Scholar]
  42. Park, Y. S., & Kim, B. S.
    (2008) Asian and European American cultural values and communication styles among Asian American and European American college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, (), –. 10.1037/1099‑9809.14.1.47
     https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.14.1.47 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pruegger, V. J., & Rogers, T. B.
    (1994) Cross-cultural sensitivity training: Methods and assessment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, (), –. 10.1016/0147‑1767(94)90038‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(94)90038-8 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sanchez-Burks, J., Lee, F., Choi, I., Nisbett, R., Zhao, S., & Koo, J.
    (2003) Conversing across cultures: East-West communication styles in work and nonwork contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (), –. 10.1037/0022‑3514.85.2.363
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.363 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sharifian, F.
    (2008) Cultural schemas in L1 and L2 compliment responses: A study of Persian-speaking learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research, , –. 10.1515/PR.2008.003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2008.003 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sifianou, M.
    (2013) The impact of globalisation on politeness and impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.016 [Google Scholar]
  47. Turner, V.
    (1969) The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Aldine Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Uskul, A. K., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E.
    (2008) Ecocultural basis of cognition: Farmers and fishermen are more holistic than herders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (), –. 10.1073/pnas.0803874105
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803874105 [Google Scholar]
  49. Yao, F.
    (2020) The egalitarianism and non-egalitarianism of Buddhist ethics. Asian Philosophy, (), –. 10.1080/09552367.2020.1818443
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09552367.2020.1818443 [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhang, Y. B., Lin, M. C., Nonaka, A., & Beom, K.
    (2005) Harmony, hierarchy and conservatism: A cross-cultural comparison of Confucian values in China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Communication Research Reports, (), –. 10.1080/00036810500130539
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00036810500130539 [Google Scholar]
  51. Zhong, C.-B., Magee, J., Maddux, W., & Galinsky, A. D.
    (2006) Power, culture, and (in)action: Considerations in the expression and enactment of power in East Asian and Western society. InB. Mannix, M. Neale & Y. Chen (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams: National culture & groups (Vol., pp.–). Elsevier Science Press. 10.1016/S1534‑0856(06)09003‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1534-0856(06)09003-7 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00219.li
Loading
All flesh is equal
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00219.li
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00219.li
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00219.li
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: religion ; interpersonal communication ; social hierarchies ; culture ; politeness ; Buddhism

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error