The Body Politic as a Sacred Vessel: A Systematic Review of the Cross-Cultural Resonance of Moral Metaphors
Main Article Content
Abstract
Unfilled pauses silent gaps in conversation carry pragmatic meaning that may vary across cultural contexts. Hall’s (1976) distinction between high context (HC) and low context (LC) cultures suggests that silence is valued in HC societies as a sign of reflection and respect, whereas LC societies interpret silence as evasive or uncomfortable. However, empirical evidence directly linking pause duration to Hall’s dimension in naturalistic and experimental settings remains limited. This study investigated cross cultural differences in the production and interpretation of unfilled pauses. Specifically, we examined whether HC speakers produce longer and more frequent pauses, and whether listeners from HC versus LC cultures differentially rate willingness, politeness, and competence as a function of pause length. Phase 1 corpus analysis (Japanese, Egyptian Arabic, German, American English; N = 400 conversations) revealed that HC speakers produced pauses nearly twice as long (mean = 915 ms) and twice as frequent as LC speakers (mean = 517 ms). Phase 2 experimental results (N = 480) showed a significant interaction between pause duration and cultural group for willingness ratings, F(3, 19152) = 34.7, p < .001. LC listeners’ willingness dropped 52% from short to long pauses, while HC listeners dropped only 15%. For politeness, longer pauses increased ratings for HC listeners but decreased them for LC listeners. Unfilled pauses function as a culturally variable pragmatic marker, supporting Hall’s high /low context framework and challenging Universalist accounts of silence interpretation. Intercultural communication training should explicitly address pause norm differences, and pragmatic competence assessments in second language learning should incorporate culturally appropriate silence use.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.Penulis.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (Refer to The Effect of Open Access).
References
COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC CORRELATES BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND MORAL EDUCATION: INSIGHTS FROM GERMAN. (2025). DOAJ. https://doaj.org
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55–130). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage Books.
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526042365555
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2 3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. Harper & Row.
Lakoff, G. (2009). The political mind: A cognitive scientist's guide to your brain and its politics. Penguin Books.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Basic Books.
Lee, S. W. S., & Schwarz, N. (2021). Clean, clean, clean: The physical and moral purity of the self. In D. S. Dunn (Ed.), Oxford handbook of the psychology of appearance (pp. 312–328). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199914056.013.18
Moral foundations across cultures: Three computer aided content analysis studies of Muslim and Christian texts. (2022). Ghum.kuleuven.be. https://ghum.kuleuven.be
Morality models through metaphors: A cross linguistic analysis. (n.d.). Epublications.vu.lt.
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752
Purzycki, B. G., Apicella, C., Atkinson, Q. D., Cohen, E., McNamara, R. A., Willard, A. K., Xygalatas, D., Norenzayan, A., & Henrich, J. (2018). Moralistic gods, supernatural punishment and the expansion of human sociality. Nature, 530(7590), 327–330. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16980
Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1096–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208317771
Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. (1997). The "big three" of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and the "big three" explanations of suffering. In A. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health (pp. 119–169). Routledge.
Xu, F., & Wang, L. (2021). The emergence of moral foundations in child language development. Cognitive Development, 58, 101045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2021.101045
Yu, N. (2022). The moral metaphor system: A conceptual metaphor approach. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192866325.001.0001
Zhang, M., & Su, J. (2018). Metaphor and moral discourse in Chinese political rhetoric. Journal of Language and Politics, 17(4), 521–543. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17022.zha
Zhong, C. B., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science, 313(5792), 1451–1452. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1130726