问题描述：
英语翻译
Abstract The analysis of Chinese maxims shows strong
Confucian norms of filial piety operating in the family (Wang &
Dai,2009).Admitting that the norm is also strong in Korea,we
explore the difference in selfhood between Korea and China.
Taking a sociolinguistic approach,we characterize Chinese
collectivism as relational collectivism and pose the question of
how the collective works in Chinese selfhood.For comparative
purposes,we describe the working of the collective in Korean
selfhood and invite efforts to examine linguistic practice.
Key Words China,collectivism,Confucianism,Korea,
relationalism,selfhood
Bongyoung Choi
Korea Aerospace University,South Korea
Gyuseog Han
Chonnam National University,South Korea
Psychology of Selfhood in China:
Where is the Collective?
Confucius’ philosophy is deeply ingrained in many facets of life in
China—and in Korea as well.In the 13th century,Korean scholars
imported Neo-Confucianism and upheld it as the state ideology for the
following 500 years.Korea is regarded as the most Confucian country,
where the traditions and activities reflecting Confucian philosophy are
well kept and practiced routinely in daily life.Sharing these Confucian
norms and the collectivistic culture,the norms extracted from the
analysis of Chinese maxims by Wang and Dai (2009) are largely applicable
to the Korean society too.Despite many similarities in the two
cultures in terms of norm operation,however,subtle yet significant
differences can be noted if we examine the psychology of selfhood.
Selfhood is a highly inclusive term which deals not only with the self
but also with its positions (Hermans,2001) and relationships with
others and with collectives.For the analysis of selfhood,we start
with a scheme to reexamine the sphere of society.Applying a sociolinguistic
approach,we examine Chinese selfhood and Korean
selfhood with a focus on how the collective works.
Culture & Psychology Copyright © 2009 SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles,London,New Delhi and Singapore) http://cap.sagepub.com
Vol.15(1):73–82 [DOI:10.1177/1354067X08099616]
Commentary
Downloaded from http://cap.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on July 24,2009
Abstract The analysis of Chinese maxims shows strong
Confucian norms of filial piety operating in the family (Wang &
Dai,2009).Admitting that the norm is also strong in Korea,we
explore the difference in selfhood between Korea and China.
Taking a sociolinguistic approach,we characterize Chinese
collectivism as relational collectivism and pose the question of
how the collective works in Chinese selfhood.For comparative
purposes,we describe the working of the collective in Korean
selfhood and invite efforts to examine linguistic practice.
Key Words China,collectivism,Confucianism,Korea,
relationalism,selfhood
Bongyoung Choi
Korea Aerospace University,South Korea
Gyuseog Han
Chonnam National University,South Korea
Psychology of Selfhood in China:
Where is the Collective?
Confucius’ philosophy is deeply ingrained in many facets of life in
China—and in Korea as well.In the 13th century,Korean scholars
imported Neo-Confucianism and upheld it as the state ideology for the
following 500 years.Korea is regarded as the most Confucian country,
where the traditions and activities reflecting Confucian philosophy are
well kept and practiced routinely in daily life.Sharing these Confucian
norms and the collectivistic culture,the norms extracted from the
analysis of Chinese maxims by Wang and Dai (2009) are largely applicable
to the Korean society too.Despite many similarities in the two
cultures in terms of norm operation,however,subtle yet significant
differences can be noted if we examine the psychology of selfhood.
Selfhood is a highly inclusive term which deals not only with the self
but also with its positions (Hermans,2001) and relationships with
others and with collectives.For the analysis of selfhood,we start
with a scheme to reexamine the sphere of society.Applying a sociolinguistic
approach,we examine Chinese selfhood and Korean
selfhood with a focus on how the collective works.
Culture & Psychology Copyright © 2009 SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles,London,New Delhi and Singapore) http://cap.sagepub.com
Vol.15(1):73–82 [DOI:10.1177/1354067X08099616]
Commentary
Downloaded from http://cap.sagepub.com at BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIV on July 24,2009
问题解答：
我来补答展开全文阅读