Saying “yes” for “no” and “no” for “yes”: A Chinese rule

Abstract ‘Contrary-to-face-value’ messages, which can only be understood from a contextual, not from a strictly text-based approach to communication, have caused many problems in communication between East Asians and Anglo-Americans. A typology of ‘contrary-to-face-value communication’ (CFVC), as identified in the Chinese culture, is proposed in this study. Four forms of CFVC are identified on the basis of the following two dimensions of CFVC: internal motivation (other-serving or self-serving), and external speech (saying “yes” for “no” or “no” for “yes”). Though confusing to cultural outsiders, each of the four forms can be justified from an insider's perspective.