Edge of Culture
Intercultural Technical Writing
By matthew McCool
Cultures don't write the same way, and it's not because cultures are writing poorly. For instance, it's quite common for many cultures to rely on what's called the delayed thesis, a sort of protracted introduction that meanders to a point. Along the way, writers with these perspectives may offer details, circumlocutions, context, history, and even proverbs, all in a way that strengthens the cause of an argument. Many of these characteristics, such as the use of abundant detail and proverbs, may seem highly unusual. And some readers may even laugh at the thought that an ancient aphorism somehow speaks to a current problem. Although these writing patterns are considered exemplary examples in their own culture, they're often assessed poorly from an American perspective. And this subtle shift makes all the difference, especially in the area of global cohesion.
Global cohesion refers to how the pieces of a document fit together. One way for distinguishing different techniques of global cohesion is to rely on contrastive methods of logic, such as the difference between deductive and inductive forms of reasoning. Deductive reasoning is known as a tight chain of logic. Premise A leads to B and premise B leads to C, a sequence that continues until the argument is complete.
Inductive logic, on the other hand, requires a leap of faith. Premise A leads to B, but premise B may lead to premise D. Deduction is what people usually think about when discussing logic, and induction is what people think about when discussing science. Although many cultures use a variety of writing and logical strategies, cultures normally rely on one method over the other. First, consider the structure of a deductive argument.
If you study other cultures, then you realize that human nature is affected by different perceptions of how the world works. Learning about other cultures provides the tools for learning about your own insights and observations of the world. This means that understanding how you perceive the world provides the foundation for accepting people from around the globe. As a result, learning how human nature is affected by culture makes you a more balanced person.
This first example illustrates a deductive argument explaining how studying cultures creates a more balanced person. The sequence begins with the claim that learning about culture leads to different perceptions of the world. These perceptions are tools for grasping deeper insights into human nature. Deeper insights into human nature create greater awareness and tolerance of different people and cultures. As a result, studying other cultures creates a more balanced person.
Many American writers will agree that a deductive argumentative structure such as this is clear, well-reasoned, and logically sound. The most interesting characteristic of deductive reasoning is not that it follows the classic if…then…else sequence, which is the kind of logic used in much computer programming. Instead, the remarkable thing is that this structure is not universal. Consider the following quasi-inductive argument.
If you study other cultures, then you realize that human nature is affected by different perceptions of how the world works. Once you begin to understand the deepest dimensions of culture, it becomes easier to understand your own values and beliefs. If you have doubts about how you perceive the world then you will become more tolerant. As a result, if you gain a better understanding of how culture impacts personal perspective, then you are more likely to embrace different people from around the world.
Some people may consider this a fairly decent argument. The problem, at least from the perspective of global cohesion, is that it requires a small leap in faith. Take the claim "if you have doubts about how you perceive the world then you will become more tolerant." Even if this is true, there is really nothing in the earlier premises to indicate how this assumption would arise. The sequence from A to B is loose, and quickly unravels soon thereafter. Surprisingly, international writing technical material for an international audience may suffer from the same setback.
One of the most interesting projects I worked on as an online developer was in collaboration with the internationalization team. Our goal was to build a small online training module for Japanese customers, which meant that we had to account for the basics—currency, time, and translation. Because this is the one project that received an upsurge in support calls, it was obvious that something went wrong with our project. Although one of the biggest problems with our Japanese deliverable amounted to insufficient context and detail, another important factor was an inappropriate sequence or chain of reasoning. We had relied on what many experts were advocating at the time, which was a linear online format. Because our work was initially designed for domestic users, we also followed the trusted deductive sequence. The problem, though initially subtle, was actually a rather deeper oversight in logic. We simply didn't adapt our content for the quasi-inductive format.
Although most of people on our internationalization team were hired specifically to adapt content for global users, none of us were aware of how logic and communication differed around the world. Had we known these differences, then we would have used what is known as the Japanese ki-shoo-ten-ketsu pattern, which demands more of the reader to fill in gaps. Hence, the quasi-inductive approach.
The moral of this lesson is that technical writing contains two key words. Had we focused more on the writing and less on the technical aspects of the project, we may have had a better chance of reaching our users. Instead, many of us learned about culture the hard way, through increased labor and cost. Although I didn't fully understand the implications at the time, this even marked the beginning of my understanding of how technical writing for an international user could be an act of culture.
************
Matthew McCool began his career in neuroscience but soon migrated to the humanities, online development, and internationalization. Matthew frequently writes on the intersection between culture and technology, and recently finished a short project on the same topic for O'Reilly Media. Matthew currently teaches at Southern Polytechnic SU and writes for the O'Reilly Network.