In English-speaking countries where the subject is explicit, consider the problem that calling someone you carries the message of alienation of not being included in we.
- (Related: they and the friend-enemy theory)
In English-speaking countries, it is fundamental to make the subject explicit, especially when the second-person pronoun “you” is used, which may suggest that the caller is not part of the “we” or “us” group. This can create a sense of alienation in communication.
For example, using “you” in a directive or critical context may make the listener feel that only one person is being held accountable in that context. This is because it may undermine their sense of group membership and make them feel excluded from the common ground of “we.” This linguistic choice requires special consideration because it can unconsciously affect relationships and group unity.
On the other hand, using “we” indicates that responsibility and action are shared as a group and allows communication to proceed without alienating the other party. In the English-speaking world, such choices are important, and it is noteworthy that the quality of communication can change dramatically with a single use of language.
This issue demonstrates that English is a subject-explicit language, and that its explicit use has social and psychological consequences. How we treat the subject is not just a linguistic choice, but an important factor that reflects cultural values and the nature of human relationships.
Isn’t there an acceleration of division by explicitly stating WE and THEY?
Indeed, the explicit use of “we” and “they” in the English-speaking world risks accelerating division. These pronouns serve to draw boundaries between speakers and listeners, and can create conflict and alienation between groups.
The conflict between “we” and “they” is a linguistic act that makes a clear distinction between our group and others’ groups in the form of “us” and “them.” When this distinction is emphasized, it can undermine common goals and understandings and make cooperation and empathy between different groups difficult. For example, the use of “we” and “they” interchangeably in political, religious, or social contexts can easily result in reinforcing conflict and division.
This acceleration of division affects not merely linguistic choices, but also the worldviews and perceptions that these choices reflect. The use of “we” and “they” can hinder mutual understanding and cooperation because it unconsciously reinforces which groups are considered “in” and which are considered “out.”
On the other hand, a counterbalancing approach would be to use inclusive language and to choose expressions that blur boundaries. For example, using more neutral and inclusive language without the use of “we” and “they” is expected to avoid divisiveness and promote dialogue focused on common issues and objectives.
How’s that conversation going in the Japanese-speaking world in retrospect?
In conversations in the Japanese-speaking world, there are relatively few situations in which division is emphasized, because the distinction between subjects such as “we” and “they” is less explicitly stated than in English. The omission of the subject allows the listener to read the speaker’s intention from the context, and ambiguity is often tolerated, which is an aspect that is less likely to cause conflict or alienation.
For example, even when clear groupings such as “us” and “them” are necessary, the distinction is not always emphasized and is often coordinated within context and tacit understanding. Thus, the use of language tends to promote cooperative communication rather than risk accelerating conflict and division.
In addition, in Japanese, speakers often consciously use ambiguous expressions to reflect their consideration for the other party and their intention to avoid confrontation. For example, the words “we” and “everyone” are often used in a broad and inclusive sense, rather than to refer to a specific group, and thus are expressions that are less likely to alienate the listener.
However, this does not necessarily mean that division and conflict do not exist, but rather that the ambiguity of the Japanese language serves to conceal them. In the Japanese-speaking world, there is a strong tendency to avoid direct confrontation in linguistic expressions, so although divisions are unlikely to surface, latent conflicts and tensions may exist. Therefore, it is necessary to strike a balance between superficial ambiguity and actual social conflict.
The omission of the subject may smooth group boundaries.
The omission of the subject in Japanese is certainly thought to play a role in smoothing out group boundaries. The omission of the subject makes it ambiguous who belongs to “us” or “them” and thus makes it difficult to draw clear group boundaries.
This ambiguity avoids clear distinctions such as including or excluding others, creating a situation in which empathy and cooperation can naturally arise in conversation. Specifically, the use of broad expressions such as “everyone” and “we” maintains a sense of unity throughout the group without clarifying who is specifically included in the group. Thus, in Japanese conversation, communication proceeds without drawing clear boundaries, making inter-group conflict less noticeable.
In addition, there is a strong tendency in Japanese for speakers to intentionally use ambiguous expressions in order to be considerate of others and avoid friction. This allows for smooth communication, even when there are conflicting opinions or different positions, without superficially emphasizing them. As a result, group boundaries become smoother and discussions are more likely to take place on common ground.
This characteristic can be attributed to the influence of Japanese culture, which emphasizes harmony as a whole rather than emphasizing the uniqueness of individual groups and individuals. Therefore, the omission of the subject is considered an important element in blurring the boundaries between groups and facilitating dialogue as part of the social coordination function in the Japanese language.
Maybe there is a connection between the effect of not making dividing into parts explicit and the Japanese culture that avoids making the division explicit as something that undermines social harmony.
- Related: conflict avoidance.
As you say, there may be a deep connection between linguistic characteristics that do not make division explicit and Japanese culture that avoids it as a detriment to social harmony.
In Japanese culture, harmony is a deeply rooted value, and group harmony and cooperation are emphasized. Behind this lies a tendency to avoid open displays of conflict and division, and the language reflects this cultural value. It is common to omit the subject to avoid emphasizing any particular individual or group and to allow the dialogue to proceed peacefully.
Specifically, clear boundary-drawing phrases such as “we” and “you” are often avoided in meetings and daily conversations. This reduces the risk of direct confrontation and strives to maintain a superficial sense of unity. Japanese honorifics and euphemisms also function as a means of expressing opinions without provoking others, supporting a language culture that does not explicitly express division.
This linguistic ambiguity serves to keep social conflicts from surfacing and to maintain stability within the group. On the other hand, there is also a risk that ambiguity may mask inherent issues, and the balance between the two is important.
Thus, language and culture are closely linked in that the absence of explicit division functions as a means of maintaining harmony in Japanese society.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/主語省略による集団境界のなめらか化 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.