This review assesses the literature that focuses on differences in argument between East Asia and the West. It provides comprehensive updated information about the differences, identifying specific gaps between the claims of philosophical literature and the findings from empirical research. By doing so, the present review aims at drawing an accurate picture of how people in East Asia perceive and approach argument, as contrasted with those in the West.
First, I start with a selective review of philosophical literature related to the key traditional value of communication in East Asian cultures (i.e., harmony) by contrasting it to that in Western cultures (i.e., personal agency). Second, I explain how the differences in the key values are related to the framework of Hall’s high- and low-context communication, which is relevant in examining differences in argument between East Asian and
Western cultures.
Next, I corroborate the review of the philosophical literature with empirical research on differences in (a) argument-related cognitions, which include reasoning and argumentativeness and (b) argument characteristics, which include forms, styles, and strategies. Overall, empirical research provided mostly consistent support for selected claims of philosophical literature on the differences in argument between East Asia and the West: perceptions of argumentativeness, inductive versus deductive forms, and succinct versus elaborate styles. In contrast, empirical research provided less consistent or insufficient support for other claims: intuitive/dialectic versus analytic/non-dialectic reasoning, nonlinear versus linear forms, and affective versus rational appeals as strategies.
Finally, I pointed out issues that need to be addressed in future research. To conclude, the findings provide valuable information to help us gain a more precise understanding of the differences between East Asia and the West.
View full abstract