


































Frontiers of Contemporary Education 
ISSN 2690-3520 (Print) ISSN 2690-3539 (Online) 

Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce 

1 
 

Original Paper 

From Teachers‟ Minds to Speakers‟ Minds in the Applications 

to Psychology and Philosophy, Connected to Sociolinguistics in 

the Ways of Interactions for Better Relationships to Make Parts 

of Narratives 

Eri Kondo
1
 

1
 A researcher in linguistics, Nagoya-city, Aichi, Japan 

 

Received: February 5, 2022     Accepted: February 21, 2022    Online Published: March 23, 2022 

doi:10.22158/fce.v3n1p1               URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/fce.v3n1p1 

 

Abstract 

This paper is focused on discourse analyses that give us an insight that there is a cultural difference in 

showing empathy in dialogues from the issue of sociolinguistics. It would be based on further 

investigations and promotions to learn actual interactions as usages of languages, which is connected 

to a problem of bilingualism. The way to construct a conversation well shows a cultural view to give 

empathy in dialogues. This paper reveals the discourse frames in Japanese and American dialogues, 

related to frames of self of “we”, “you”, and “I”. It is significant for us to notice that these frames 

appear in expressions and discourse structures as speakers and hearers. It puts forward an 

investigation of ways with which people interact. 

Keywords 

psychology, philosophy, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis 

 

1. Introduction 

Many problems in education may have been left behind although things are gradually changing for the 

better. The issues on improving learning abilities and on advancing inferential thinking for obtaining an 

identity have been still controversial. Recently researchers have tended to find the relation between 

teaching methods and the effect on learning outcomes from an approach of classroom-based research 

projects. As a method, Johnson & Johnson (1994) propose that a cooperative learning against an 

individualism with a competitiveness is quite effective. Sugie Eds. (2016) suggest that learning through 

enough experiences would achieve a high ability of performances for all learners.   



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

2 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Surely teachers are mainly trained, based on their academic basis that is related to the way of learning 

in the psychological direction. However, there might be a distinction between how teachers think and 

how learners think in the same situations. Teachers want a focus from learners, and learners want a 

certain development. Novik & Gowin (1984, p. 7) draw an outline of ideas in teaching and learning by 

mentioning that “it is important to distinguish between the type of instructional strategy we employ and 

the kind of learning process in which the student is engaged”. A meaningful side is connected to 

“autonomous discovery learning (p. 7)”. If it is correct, it is indicative for learners to notice what is 

meant in a context as their discovery. Robinson (2002) roughs out a leadership of teachers, weighting 

up an idea that “school-wide, departmental, team and individual teacher goals should be informed by 

careful analysis of students‟ learning needs (p. 76)”. The issue is sketched out as an ability of 

problem-solving. At this point, learning should be focused on the advanced function from a 

psychological aspect. Evans & Over (1996) bring out the best in an explanation through drawing that 

“reasoning and decision making are topics of central importance in the study of human intelligence and 

the starting point for any understanding of human rationality should be behavioural” (p. 1). Then, this 

paper suggests that teachers should recognize that it is more desirable for learners to acquire a skill in 

ordinary days in acquiring a second language; therefore, the analysis takes up a cultural difference in 

proceeding conversations, based on a Goffman (1981)‟s proposal of a framework in operations of talks. 

It is related with the mixed tendency to sociolinguistics, sociologies, and philosophy. Mckay & Rubdy 

(2011, p. 9) provide an illuminating explanation of how social and sociolinguistic contexts interact with 

language learning and teaching, in a state of that “in examining the social context of language learning, 

we focus on how language teaching contexts are affected by the larger social, political, and educational 

setting in which the teaching takes place”. It is certain that there is a limited proficiency in the research 

of Spanish-English bilinguals (Robinson & Altarriba, 2018) and Turkish-Germany bilinguals against 

monolinguals who criticize bilingualism. If so, it is excellent that teaching and learning are connected 

to sociolinguistics. 

 

2. Literature Review 

Sociolinguists who analyze conversations have attempted to specify the relationship between language 

and culture from the viewpoint of the structure of language (Austin, 1962; Goffman, 1967, 1981; Grice, 

1975; Ide, 1992; Tannen, 1993; Young, 1994; Wardhaugh, 1998). Goffman (1981, p. 10) firmly 

establishes a connection between talks and functions, on behalf of that “a basic normative assumption 

about talk is that, whatever else, it should be correctly interpretable in the special sense of conveying to 

the intended recipients what the sender more or less wanted to get across”. In addition, it is noted that 

“we have a social encounter that ritually regularized the risks and opportunities face-to-face talk 

provides, enforcing the standards of modesty regarding self and considerateness for others generally 

enjoined in the community (p. 19)”. As it can be seen in the talks of (1) and (2), tolerable and adequate 

responses are relevant. Moreover, Goffman also adds that “when an individual is engaged in talk, some 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

3 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

of his utterances and nonlinguistic behavior will be taken to have a special temporal relevance, being 

directed to others present as something he wants assessed, appreciated, understood (p. 71)”.   

(1) A: “The store was closed by the time you got out?” 

B: “Darn it. I‟m afraid it was.” 

etc… 

A: “The store was closed by the time you got out?” 

B: “It was open but they won‟t have any „til next week‟”. 

etc… 

                                           (Goffman, 1981, p. 59) 

(2) A: “The store was closed by the time you got out?” 

B: [Striking head] “God. I‟m sorry. I‟m hopeless.” 

etc… 

                                      (Goffman, 1981, p. 59)   

Today, as a theory known well, the Worfian hypothesis is introduced. Whorf (1941) finds that the 

structure of language controls the way in which the speakers view the world; therefore, it seems that the 

person who speaks a different language has another view of the world. The theory is based on that the 

recognition through linguistic forms is unconsciously developed, connected with the linguistic thoughts 

of the cultural group. This assumption is now widely accepted. Be that as it may, there may be a 

liability in discourse structures. Schiffrin (1994) carries out an explanatory study of something not 

previously researched. The observation is treated as a judgement from interactional sociolinguistics. On 

the basis of the opinion, discourse structures are belonging to two significances of structural and 

functional effects. Especially, as the functional moment, it is likely said that we include “structure of 

speech (act, event) as ways of speaking” and “elements and structures as ethnographically appropriate” 

in the approach (Schiffrin, 1994, p. 21). As an emphasis, Schiffrin also notes that “speaking for another 

is an act whose meaning is also interactionally situated”, in the sense that “although space prevents us 

from a full examination of the interactive meanings of speaking for others, this act seems to be 

interpreted depending upon how the transfer of responsibility for speaking is achieved (p. 109)”. 

Moreover, Goffman (1981) and Schiffrin (1994) refer to self talks and an implication of self as a social 

act. It is assured that there is an interpretation that metacognitive behaviors are related to the 

recognition of self which is connected to sociology and philosophy of mind from Descartes (2002). 

This paper investigates the cultural difference from discourse structures. 

Watanabe (1993) explains a cultural aspect of framing by showing differences between American and 

Japanese speakers in their ways of framing of speech. The notion of framing in discourse is also 

defined by Tannen (1993). She said that “at the same time that expectations make it possible to 

perceive and interpret objects and events in the world, they shape those perceptions to the model of 

world provided by them (p. 21)”. Therefore, it is noticeable that we find the frame through analyses of 

discourse. Then, of course, it relies on the discussion of structures of sentences teachers always teach as 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

4 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

grammatical forms. For example, at the meaning of sentence (3), it is assumed that the speaker often 

conveys each meaning through phrases and words as (4) and (5). In the word order, the explanation to 

medicine or drugs happens at the same time. Especially, at ordinary conversations, speakers usually do 

not use the complete syntax. In this respect, there may be a distinction between speaking and writing 

systems. 

(3) Hi, Miyake, I go to the hospital once a month to get medicine for insomnia.   

(4) Hi, Miyake, 

I go to the hospital, 

Well, once a month, 

Uh, to get medicine 

Because of insomnia, you know 

(5) Miyake, 

Ore byouin ni iku  

Tsuki ichi  

Kusuri nano 

Fumin de 

We should discover the habitual view of the world through the language, that is, the frame by analyzing 

the form of languages. It will contribute to building the communicative relationships between different 

cultures.   

Firstly, Makino (1978) can explain a moderation between speakers and speakers‟ viewpoints by 

analyzing structures of language. His study is based on the Whorfian hypothesis as the proposed theory. 

He points out a different stance between Japanese and English (p. 49). In addition, he finds that an 

independent view of the speaker is clearly particular in Japanese conversations. Moreover, he mentions 

that these focuses suggest that empathy and an identity appear as a base in a conversation; therefore, it 

obviously means that there is a person who operates a conversation, having empathy (p. 51). His 

exploration insights that Japanese tend to show empathy more than English (p. 49). 

Next, Suzuki (1975) also states that a speaker does not consider a hearer as a partner from the 

subjective side of himself, and it often focuses on a situation of the third person of we that identifies 

another self psychologically in Japanese (p. 49). In addition, he defines the feature in Japanese as 

“empathetic identification”. Moreover, Lebra (1976) sets out Japanese culture in an “omoiyari 

(„empathy‟) culture (p. 38)”. She defines it as that “omoiyari refers to the ability and willingness to feel 

what others are feeling, to vicariously experience the pleasure or pain that they are undergoing, and to 

help them satisfy their wishes (p. 38)”. Further, as a feature of „omoiyari („empathy‟)‟ in a conversation, 

she finds that “the speaker does not complete a sentence but leaves it open-ended (p. 38)”.   

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

5 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Finally, it is helpful to describe the previous study in patterns of conversation in Japanese and English 

before moving on to the main research. It clarifies “omoiyari („empathy‟)” proposed by Lebra (1976) 

from the view of a pattern. Mizutani (1993), first, demonstrates that the pattern of Japanese dialogue 

does not agree with that of English dialogue. She defines the pattern of Japanese dialogue as 

“co-construction”. Japanese interlocutors continue their talks cooperatively as a base on the common 

assumption (p. 9). She focuses on the fact that Japanese speakers do not finish one utterance completely, 

but speakers and hearers make one utterance cooperatively (p. 6). On the other hand, Mizutani 

mentions that English speakers finish their utterances perfectly, and hearers wait for them to finish and 

begin their utterances (p. 6). Next, Sunakawa (1999) reports that there is a difference in the models of 

Japanese and American conversations. She mentions that the pattern of Japanese is named as a 

“Norishiro („flap for pasting‟)” Model, while that of English is a Jigsaw-Puzzle Model. The theory 

agrees with the explanation by Mizutani (1993) in respect to a classification whether there is an overlap 

or not. She put forward that “when we have two pieces of paper to be pasted together, we usually need 

some overlap in order to make them into one larger sheet (p. 18)”. Moreover, she adds that “when we 

play with a jigsaw puzzle, we try to keep finding appropriate pieces that should be embedded in the 

complete picture (p. 23)”. It shows that the overlap is not significant in English.   

The ultimate aim of this paper is to investigate how people interact with each other in dialogues. It 

means how a person gives a care between interlocutors in their first language and how people 

communicate with each other in each frame of discourse. In this paper, the primary concern aims to 

observe how people show their empathy in dialogues. In addition, the analyses are focused on finding 

specific sociocultural differences in speakers.   

This study focused on two aspects of interactions. One is a self, and another is empathy. A dialogue 

requires at least two speakers. When the two speakers begin a conversation, they have a consciousness 

of “you”, “I”, and “we” in dialogues. The cognition is psychological and philosophical. If a 

conversation is once begun, the speaker regularly builds up the three pieces of the recognitions of 

“you”, “I”, and “we”. They are aware of the issue that these three faces are independent. Empathy 

means that a speaker is associated with a hearer cooperatively. Or a speaker regards oneself as sharing 

the same characteristic in feeling with a hearer. Here, this paper suggests the following hypotheses: 

a) Empathy shows itself in dialogues. 

b) There is a difference between Japanese and English, in ways of showing empathy. 

c) The difference provides a distinction in ways of psychological side. 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

6 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3. Methodology 

This study uses video-recorded talk shows in Japanese and American English as its research materials. 

The channels of the programs used in this study are CNN, TV-Asahi and NHK. 

i) Larry King Live on CNN 

ii) Tetsuko no Heya on TV-Asahi 

Toppu Rannar on NHK 

In these talk shows, the guests are invited to the hosts‟ programs and talk to the hosts about their 

business or private lives. Concerning the American talk show, the interviewer is Larry King, who is an 

aged disk jockey. The five guests are listed in the following chart: 

 

Table 1. List of Participants  

Program Interviewers Guests Occupation Age 

A-A AH1 AG1 Designer 50‟s 

A-B AH1 AG2 Actor 60‟s 

A-C AH1 AG3 Anchor 50‟s 

A-D AH1 AG4 Novelist 30‟s 

A-E AH1 AG5 Spiritual leader 60‟s 

 

Next, concerning the two Japanese talk shows, in one program, the interviewer is Tetsuko Kuroyanagi, 

who is a 60‟s TV personality and in another program, the interviewer is Senri Ooe, who is a 30‟s 

musician. The five guests are listed in the following chart: 

 

Table 2. List of Participants 

Program Interviewers Guests Occupation Age 

J-A JH1 JG1 Actress 50‟s 

J-B JH1 JG2 Announcer 30‟s 

J-C JH2 JG3 Actor 40‟s 

J-D JH2 JG4 Ballet dancer 30‟s 

J-E JH2 JG5 Actress 40‟s 

 

Ten talk dialogues from the three programs are video-recorded. Removing the first five minutes, the 

following thirty-minute conversation is convenient as data for this study. Next, these recordings are 

transcribed according to the Transcription Convention taken from Hashiuchi (1999, pp. 41-42).   

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

7 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4. Analysis 

The occurrences of showing empathy in dialogues give us a difference between Japanese and English. 

The analyses demonstrate how one interlocutor emphasizes with another one. Japanese hosts took a 

longer time than American ones to change a topic in talks.   

In this section, this paper analyzes the data from the view of following-up by hosts to guests in English 

and Japanese talk shows. First, Japanese hosts talk frequently about their own experiences in the talk 

shows. It means that the hosts empathize with the guests and that the hosts follow up the guests by 

showing empathy in giving words.   

(6) 

01 JG: Bokuha sibu sibu yatte ta, 

02    mitai na tokoro arimasu. 

03 JH: Saishoha. 

04 JG: Ee. 

05 JH: Mata, are desuyo ne. Sono boku piano mo sou 

06 dattan desu kedo, minna de yakyuu toka iku noni, 

07 dansi dousi. Sore wo hitori nukete, mainichi 

08 renshuu sinakya ikenai nde, nani yatte ru no, 

09 [omae, mitai na.] 

10 JG: [Aa, arimasu ne, ee] 

11 JH: piano, onna ga yaru mono yatte [ru], mitaina. 

12 JG:                          [Ee.] 

(the English translation) 

01-02 JG: I have done it unwillingly. 

03   JH: At first. 

04   JG: Yes. 

05-09 JH: I also have had a similar feeling in piano. Everyone was playing baseball, but I got out of it 

and I had to practice piano everyday. They said, „what are you doing?‟ 

10   JG: Um-huh. So did I. Yes. 

11   JH: They also said that you did the thing women did, that is, piano. 

12   JG: Uh-huh. 

This is an example from a Japanese talk show between JH (a man, a singer) and JG (a man, a 

ballet-dancer). JH and JG talk about lessons in their childhood. JG talks about the lesson in ballet, 

while JH talks about that in piano. At 01-02, JG gives JH information that he disliked the lesson in 

ballet. It is a first step to these talks. At 03, JH gives empathy to JG, which is a sign to understand the 

plot. At 05-09, JH begins to talk about his experience about the lesson in piano. JH shows that he had 

the same experience as JG had in the lesson of ballet. This suggests one feature of a way to show 

empathy in a Japanese dialogue. First, the Japanese host seeks out a topic that he can show empathy 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

8 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

from the guest‟s conversation. Next, the host introduces his experience. The host needs to select the 

topic with which the guest can emphasize. Then, the host begins to talk about his unwilling experience 

in the piano lesson.   

(7) 

01 JH: Demo jyampu dekiru you ni natta to iu koto 

02    ha zuibun jyouzu de su yo ne. 

03 JG: jya maa minna simasu keredo ne. 

04 JH: jya a demo naka naka ne e. 

05    Watashi keiba no kishu ni narou to omotte yatte ta 

06    koto aru n desu kredo mo [ne]. 

07 JG:                      [Ee]. 

08 JH: demo maa yatte ta ra ba, haha ga anata jyampu 

09        suru toki doumo ochi [sou] na ki ga suru [tte] 

10 JG:                      [Ee,]            [ee]. 

11 JH: itte [ne]. Yamete kure nai ka tte iu kara ne. 

12 JG:   [Hai hai]. 

13 JH: Sore de yame ta n desu keredo mo ne. 

14    Dakara jyampu site ru kata miru to sugoi na a to 

15    omou n desu keredo ne. 

16 JG: Taimingu ga ne yappari aru n desu yone. 

(the English translation) 

01-02 JH: Are you an expert in horseback riding because you can jump, aren‟t you? 

03      JG: No, I am not. Everyone can do it. 

04      JH: No. It is not easy. 

05-06 JG: I have wanted to be a jockey. 

07      JH: Um-huh. 

08-15 JG: However, my mother said that she felt that you seemed to fall  

         when you jumped and asked me to give it up. Therefore, I gave it up.   

         When I see the person jump, I think that he is an expert. 

16   JG: There is a timing to jump.   

This is another example from a Japanese talk show between JH (a woman, a host) and JG (a woman, an 

announcer). JH and JG talk about their experience in horseback riding. The main topic here is that JG 

has done the horseback riding in her school days. This is a dialogue that a host follows up a guest by 

which a host introduces her own experience to a guest. This host‟s experience represents empathy. The 

show of empathy is connected to a common experience and feelings. It is defined as a strategy in 

Japanese talks. In the American talk shows, this characteristic is not seen. American hosts never 

introduce their own experiences. This difference proves the hypothesis (b).   



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

9 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Moreover, this characteristic in Japanese dialogues clarifies the issue that there is an overlap in a topic, 

which is related with Mizutani (1993) and Sunakawa (1999). Japanese point out the topic which the 

interlocutors can emphasize with each other when they proceed with conversations cooperatively. To 

put it more concretely, interlocutors confirm empathy to the partner by rephrasing that “I am also doing 

so” or “I also have such an experience”. As result, they complete and maintain the consciousness that is 

“we have a similar experience and can have empathy mutually”. As for cognition, finally, the series of 

ways of empathy in Japanese means that the maintenance of spatial cognition of “we”. Makino (1978) 

gives an exploration of mixing a subjective side with an objective side to the loss of the perspective (p. 

48). That is, Japanese tend to maintain the view of “we”. This agrees with “empathetic identification” 

defined by Suzuki (1975). These results seem to prove the hypothesis (a).   

Next, there is a characteristic that a host proposes a guest a following word when a guest hesitates 

about continuing utterances or pauses. It expresses that a host shows empathy to a guest and goes 

through a conversation by the proposal. This feature agrees with the idea of Sunakawa (1999).   

(8) 

01 AH: A terrific lady worked for you. You haven‟t spoken much about it,  

02    but it‟s been some time now, and I‟d like you to ask about her  

03    because we met her. Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, who died with her husband 

04    in that plane clash, worked for you in what capacity. 

05 AG: I really haven‟t talked .. and you know. I mean  

06     I‟ve not talked about this to anyone and had no idea that you would even ask me. 

07     Carolyn was someone I found in Boston, actually, in one Boston store, 

08     and offered her a job in New York to work with people that needed some special 

09     attention because … 

10 AH:                   VIPs 

11 AG: Yes, it may be because we were doing clothes for a film or for a personal  

12     appearance or certain, you know, it was really a personal thing. 

This is an example from an American English talk show between AH (a man, a disk jockey) and AG (a 

man, a designer). AH and AG talk about Carolyn Kennedy. At 01-04, AH refers to the relationship 

between AG and her, and asks AG about her by saying clearly, “I‟d like you to ask about her”. It is the 

first step to this talk. At 05-09, AG answers AH‟s question. At 10, AH offers a new appropriate 

utterance from “because”. It is certain that the host‟s proposal makes the guest extend the following 

story of the guest. This is a strategy.   

(9) 

01 AG: So the combination of yoga … 

02 AH:                          and Buddhism, right? 

03 AG: Yes, as you will see, it is really worthwhile,  

04     yoga practice as well as the sort of positive mental training. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

10 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

This is another example from an American English talk show between AH (a man, a disk jockey) and 

AG (a man, a spiritual leader). AG hesitates, then AH offers a new appropriate utterance to follow up 

AG.   

 

5. Discussion 

The occurrences of empathy have been examined. Japanese and English data have represented different 

results in the way they overlap in a topic. In Japanese, the interlocutor shows empathy by introducing 

own experiences to another one. Japanese in dialogues always select a topic which can have empathy 

with each other. According to the analysis of data, the Japanese have the consciousness to agree with 

the statements strongly more than to show an argument which is personal in it. It clarifies that Japanese 

tend to maintain the cognition of „we‟ by the display of empathy. In English, one interlocutor shows 

empathy by proposing the following word. The important point to note is a respect of sequence in 

dialogues. In English, a host and a guest have clear roles as a recognition. An interlocutor gives a view 

of “you”. Suzuki (1975, p. 53) defines self-recognition as “the absolute self regulation”. Next, the 

results reveal a difference in discourse frames such as a prototypical frame in Japanese dialogues of 

“we talk” and American ones of “you and I talk” respectively.   

As a philosophical discussion, it is possible to serve two analyses on these sociolinguistic findings in 

interactions. First, Descartes (2002, p. 10) mentions that “so after considering everything very 

thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is 

put forward by me or conceived in my mind” and adds that “but I do not yet have a sufficient 

understanding of what this „I‟ is, that now necessarily exists”. At this stance, it is inevitable for 

speakers to know the way of interactions to show the self. Next, Williamson (2005, p. 95) insists that 

“forms of context-relativity” are related to judge propositional values of truth or false. From this logic, 

it is natural that speakers should give statements to interpret utterances.   

As a psychological application to this argument to explain them exactly, a conversation continues, 

having developed abilities for inferences and analogies that do not show a stupidity in interpretations. 

Then, it is better to gain just a theory for the condition in interactions of conversations. Holyosak & 

Morrison (2005) suggest that we should recognize cognitive abilities of reasoning and conceptualizing 

in thinking. This paper concludes that it is a benefit to learn the structure of discourse against the 

shutdown of minds to connect to self-talks.   

As the sociological point, it would open another view to an identical self. Goffman (1963, p. 2) 

commands that “society establishes the means of categorizing persons and the complement of attributes 

felt to be ordinary and natural for members of each of these categories” and adds that “social settings 

establish the categories of persons likely to be encountered there”. For example, we sing a song at a 

music class, then we must learn the parts and tempos. At the same time, it is adequate that we should 

establish the social identity for business persons.   

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

11 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

To this end, these arguments may fundamentally prove the hypothesis (c): the difference provides a 

distinction in ways of psychological side. Therefore, we need further academic investigations that 

relate to psychology, philosophy, and sociolinguistics. 

 

6. Conclusion 

This study has represented the findings which analyze the cultural difference in cognition and the way 

of showing empathy in Japanese and English dialogues. The main findings are based on that Japanese 

proceed with the dialogues with the frame “we talk” and that English do with the frame “you and I”. 

Japanese tend to have a conscious of “we” in a conversation. On the other hand, English has a tendency 

of having a frame of “you and I talk”. These results of data have clarified the differences in overlaps of 

a topic as well as two frames. This study contributes to the interpretations of the different matter of 

showing empathy, in a state of speakers to change a new topic that related to social and cultural 

differences. I hope that this study helps us to be aware of how people in dialogues interact with each 

other. In addition, I believe that the understanding of it reveals a new realization for successful 

relationships in cases of job seeking and meeting. Further study on cultural framing in dialogues are 

demanded, based on miscommunicated situations.   

 

Eri Kondo has a master degree in linguistics at the graduate school of JWU in Tokyo. This paper is 

based on the thesis of bachelor approved by Sachiko Ide.   

 

References 

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

Chafe, W. (1980). The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. 

New Jersey: ABLEX Publishing Corporation.  

Descartes, R. (2002). Mediations on first philosophy. In J. C. David (Ed.), Philosophy of mind (pp. 

10-20). NY: Oxford University Press. 

Evans, J., & David, E. O. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Sussex: Psychology Press. 

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. NY: A touchstone book. 

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. NY: Pantheon. 

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 

Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole & Morgan (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, 

speech acts., pp. 41-58). NY: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 

Hashiuchi, T. (1999). Disukoosu [Discourse]. Tokyo: Kurosio Shuppan. 

Hayashi, R. (1996). Cognition, empathy, and interaction: Floor management of English and Japanese 

conversation. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.  

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 3, No. 1, 2022 

12 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Holyoak, K., & Robert, G. M. (2005). Thinking and reasoning: A reader‟s guide. In J. H. Keith, & G. 

M. Robert (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 1-12). Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press.  

Ide, S. (1992). On the notion of wakimae: Toward an integrated framework of linguistic politeness. In 

T. Michiko (Ed.), kotoba no mozaiku (pp. 298-305). Tokyo: MLS. 

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1994). The new circle of learning. Virginia: ASCD. 

Lebra, T. (1976). Japanese patterns of behavior. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824846404 

Makino, S. (1978). Kotoba to kuukan. Tokyo: Tokai Daigaku Shuppankai. 

McKay, S., & Rani, R. (2011). The social and sociolinguistic contexts of language learning and 

teaching. In L. Michael, & D. Catherine (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 9-25). 

Oxford: Wiley-blackwell.  

Mizutani, N. (1993). Kyoowa kara taiwa he. Nihongogaku, 12(4), 4-10.  

Novak, J., & Bob, G. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173469  

Robinson, C., & Jeanette, A. (2018). The psycholinguistics of bilingualism. In A. Jeanette, & H. 

Roberto (Eds.), An introduction to bilingualism: Principles and processes (pp. 69-92). NY: 

Routledge.   

Robinson, V. (2002). Excellence in educational leadership: Practices, capabilities and virtues that foster 

improved student outcomes. In B. Tony (Ed.), Principles of educational leadership and 

management (pp. 73-92). Los Angeles: SAGE. 

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. 

Sugie, S. (Ed.). (2016). Active learning in cooperative learning. Tokyo: Meiji.   

Sunakawa, C. (1999). Norishiro vs. jigsaw-puzzle: A comparative study of co-construction in advising 

disourse (Unpublished M.A. thesis). Japan Women‟s University. 

Suzuki, T. (1975). Kotoba to shakai. Tokyo: Chuukou Gyousha. 

Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. NY: Oxford University Press. 

Wardhaugh, R. (1998). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publisheres. 

Watanabe, S. (1993). Cultural differences in framing: American and Japanese group discussions. In 

Deborah Tannen (pp. 176-209).   

Whorf, B. L. (1941). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In L. Sapier (Ed.), 

Language, culture, and personality (pp. 9-49). Wisconsin: Sapier Memorial Publication Fund. 

Williamson, T. (2005). Knowledge, context, and the agent‟s point of view. In P. Gerhard, & P. Georg 

(Eds.), Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning, and truth (pp. 91-114). Oxford: 

Oxford University Press.   

Young, L. (1994). Crosstalk and culture in sino-American communication. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519901 

https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824846404
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173469
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519901

