Transcript Lecture note 5

Practical guides for communication
1. Do not guess and just ask
2. Do not say the product only but process as well
3. Do not bottom up but top down
4. Be aware of and provide background
5. Be aware of and provide introduction
Guide 3:
Top down versus bottom up
Top down development
Top
Down
Top down development
I saw a man who was my classmate in primary school and was a shy boy
Most important
Less important
Least important
 The above is the generic structure of English language and other
languages such as German and Dutch, which reflects the top
down expression
 The structure of Chinese language is just in opposite, which is the
root of some features of Chinese communication
Top down development
Situation: A and B; B had a delicious lunch with a friend C.
A: Have you had lunch;
B: I had a friend C to visit me and he helped me to cook lunch; we
cooked tomato which is a healthy food. ………?
Not quite clear about whether B had a lunch or not; he had lunch
but he told to A something about how he made lunch
Top down development
Top
Take lunch
Cook food
With a friend C
Tomato
Down
Bottom-up approach is never efficient, as it takes too much
attention from audience, and when it runs to top, audience may not
have enough attention
Case study
Case study (e-mail communication)
Continue the previous example:
B’s response to A’s email:
> I have completed a report. …..
-----
When B responds to A, B
includes A’s email. However, B’s
response is written at the end
of A’s email.
B: I will read it …..
B’s response violates ‘top down’ principle. The problem is that A will have to read
his or her past email, which will take him or her extra time. It may be possible
that we they glance their email or read a little bit response of B, they can recall
what they wrote in the past. That is to say, there is no need to ask A to review his
or her past email.
Remark: Chinese approach usually puts the response at the end.
Chinese culture underlying this is:
Chinese people are afraid of being criticized at outset.
It happens that in technical communication, when the question is in
its very nature a type of “what” question. Chinese people tend to not
respond to “what” say X but to “why” X or tend to respond to the
intention of the audience who raised “what” question (here, how the
respondent knows the intention of the audience? By guess).
For example, A said to B: have you had lunch. B’s thinking may be:
For example, A said to B: have you had lunch? B’s thinking may be:
1.What is the intention of A? Suppose that B guesses that the
intention of A is to invite B to have a lunch if B knows that A does not
have lunch. Suppose that B does not want to have lunch together
with A at this point. B’s response may be: sorry, I do not have time to
have lunch with you today or simply say, yes I have had lunch already.
2.Why do we need to have lunch (suppose that time is too early)? B’s
response may be: “it is too early to take lunch now.”
3.Who do we make lunch? B’s response may be: “there is no
restaurant around here to have a Chinese buffet.”
All the responses sound like not hitting to the question, and this
practice is ubiquitous to everywhere in communication in China.