I stumpled uppon a version of the above graph on an obscure sub-reddit. It is interesting and though provoking. I am sure it will spark an interesting discussion on r/Switzerland
It was a bit of a challenge to track down the initial version of the graph. Which was published in Rösch, Martin, and Kay G. Segler. “Communication with Japanese.” Management International Review 27, no. 4 (1987): 56–67. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/40227860](http://www.jstor.org/stable/40227860).
The graph, as we can se in the image, is based on an older publication in particular on the book: [Hall Edward T](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_T._Hall). 1976. Beyond Culture First ed. Garden City N.Y: Anchor Press.
>A high-context (HC) communication or message is one in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message. A low-context (LC) communication is just the opposite; i.e., the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code. Twins who have grown up together can and do communicate more economically (HC) than two lawyers in a courtroom during a trial (LC), a mathematician programming a computer, two politicians drafting legislation, two administrators writing a regulation, or a child trying to explain to his mother why he got into a fight.
Note that positioning the languages/cultures on the diagonal does not make any sense. The diagonal should represent the the amount of context vs. information in a certain message of a language exists. If at all, they should be arranged strictly vertically. But ever since Rösch arranged them diagonally, everyone does it like a parrot (shows how many read the original source).
Lost all credibility when claiming Germans are not direct (or at less so than the English)
so, any idea how he came to the conclusion on how to arrange these countries or did he pull the list just out of the place where the sun does not shine?
sadly the article is gated
because this
>The low-context cultures, those highly individualized, somewhat alienated, fragmented cultures such as the Swiss and the German, in which there is relatively little involvement with people, can apparently absorb and use man’s mechanical extensions without losing their cultural integrity. In these cultures, people become more and more like their machines
sounds more like he just put his opinion down rather than do real scientific analysis
Berner: Aouää!
Q.E.D
I’m not sure I understand the graph, but I’ll use it every time someone asks me how I’m not yet fluent in Japanese after learning it for so long.
All of these are languages except one
and btw, what are “Italiens”
I think it has been taken too far away. But way to far.
Let’s bring it only to language.
Schrank, Liebe, Klasse are pretty clear and need almost no context to be understood, neither written nor spoken
In Corean, Japanese or Chinese, whichever the word you say of one or two syllable, it will be very difficult for them to understand without context or more words to know which or the ZhangFeng or sono or paksong. In case of japanese and it gets much better written, but even written those words could need context to know a deeper meaning.
With European languages in general it is usually clearer, germanic even more precise because the enormous capacity of building one syllable clusters with many sounds in it, something that Asian languages are very poor at. St, str, schr, schl, Sp, spr, spl, tr, pr, kl, kr br, dr…. Etc and then one or many vowels and even after that still more consonants potentially. So you need less context because German or Swedish can put on two hits a lot of info in it. And logograms are not needed. The best of the two worlds.
Macht doch total sinn. Schlächti Kommunikation = mehr schaffe = mehr stunde verrächne + mehr stress. Tönt nach uns
if have no idea how to read this plot. what’s supposed to be the x and y axes?
11 comments
I stumpled uppon a version of the above graph on an obscure sub-reddit. It is interesting and though provoking. I am sure it will spark an interesting discussion on r/Switzerland
It was a bit of a challenge to track down the initial version of the graph. Which was published in Rösch, Martin, and Kay G. Segler. “Communication with Japanese.” Management International Review 27, no. 4 (1987): 56–67. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/40227860](http://www.jstor.org/stable/40227860).
The graph, as we can se in the image, is based on an older publication in particular on the book: [Hall Edward T](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_T._Hall). 1976. Beyond Culture First ed. Garden City N.Y: Anchor Press.
>A high-context (HC) communication or message is one in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message. A low-context (LC) communication is just the opposite; i.e., the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code. Twins who have grown up together can and do communicate more economically (HC) than two lawyers in a courtroom during a trial (LC), a mathematician programming a computer, two politicians drafting legislation, two administrators writing a regulation, or a child trying to explain to his mother why he got into a fight.
Original Graph by Hall: https://imgur.com/a/1gXwgPB
Note that positioning the languages/cultures on the diagonal does not make any sense. The diagonal should represent the the amount of context vs. information in a certain message of a language exists. If at all, they should be arranged strictly vertically. But ever since Rösch arranged them diagonally, everyone does it like a parrot (shows how many read the original source).
Lost all credibility when claiming Germans are not direct (or at less so than the English)
so, any idea how he came to the conclusion on how to arrange these countries or did he pull the list just out of the place where the sun does not shine?
sadly the article is gated
because this
>The low-context cultures, those highly individualized, somewhat alienated, fragmented cultures such as the Swiss and the German, in which there is relatively little involvement with people, can apparently absorb and use man’s mechanical extensions without losing their cultural integrity. In these cultures, people become more and more like their machines
sounds more like he just put his opinion down rather than do real scientific analysis
Berner: Aouää!
Q.E.D
I’m not sure I understand the graph, but I’ll use it every time someone asks me how I’m not yet fluent in Japanese after learning it for so long.
All of these are languages except one
and btw, what are “Italiens”
I think it has been taken too far away. But way to far.
Let’s bring it only to language.
Schrank, Liebe, Klasse are pretty clear and need almost no context to be understood, neither written nor spoken
In Corean, Japanese or Chinese, whichever the word you say of one or two syllable, it will be very difficult for them to understand without context or more words to know which or the ZhangFeng or sono or paksong. In case of japanese and it gets much better written, but even written those words could need context to know a deeper meaning.
With European languages in general it is usually clearer, germanic even more precise because the enormous capacity of building one syllable clusters with many sounds in it, something that Asian languages are very poor at. St, str, schr, schl, Sp, spr, spl, tr, pr, kl, kr br, dr…. Etc and then one or many vowels and even after that still more consonants potentially. So you need less context because German or Swedish can put on two hits a lot of info in it. And logograms are not needed. The best of the two worlds.
Macht doch total sinn. Schlächti Kommunikation = mehr schaffe = mehr stunde verrächne + mehr stress. Tönt nach uns
if have no idea how to read this plot. what’s supposed to be the x and y axes?
Low ones are rich countries