How Metadiscourse Enhances Cross-Cultural Risk Communication in Public Health Emergencies: Evidence from Reciprocal Letters between Chinese and U.S. Universities
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Public health emergencies threaten societal well-being, making effective risk communication essential. Universities, through established international networks, serve as key actors in cross-border public health collaboration. This study examines how Chinese and U.S. higher education institutions deployed metadiscourse in reciprocal letters during the COVID-19 pandemic to construct cross-cultural risk communication. Analysis of 14 letters shows that interactional markers—including self-mentions, engagement markers, and boosters—were prioritized to foster dialogic engagement, convey empathy, and reinforce trust. Cultural differences shaped rhetorical strategies: U.S. universities favored factual framing and explicit self-references, reflecting low-context, evidence-based norms, whereas Chinese universities employed literary framing and attitude markers to project an emotionally supportive and collective voice. Despite these differences, both sets of letters emphasized collaboration, mutual support, and collective responsibility, illustrating how crises can activate collectivist orientations across cultural contexts. The findings highlight the significance of cultural and institutional factors in shaping cross-cultural risk communication and offer insights for designing trust-building, culturally sensitive messaging during public health emergencies.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Al-Subhi, A. S. (2025). Interactional multimodal metadiscourse in public health posters during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pragmatics and Society, 16(2), 255-281. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.22092.als
Aristotle. (2007). On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
Bochner, S. (1994). Cross-Cultural Differences in the Self Concept:A Test of Hofstede's Individualism/Collectivism Distinction. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25(2), 273-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022194252007
Candlin, C. N., & Candlin, S. (2002). Discourse, expertise, and the management of risk in health care settings. Research on language and social interaction, 35(2), 115-137. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3502_1
Cashdan, E., & Steele, M. (2013). Pathogen prevalence, group bias, and collectivism in the standard cross-cultural sample. Human Nature, 24(1), 59-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-012-9159-3
Claeys, A.-S., & Cauberghe, V. (2014). What makes crisis response strategies work? The impact of crisis involvement and message framing. Journal of Business Research, 67(2), 182-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.10.005
Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of the “appropriate” crisis-response strategies. Management communication quarterly, 8(4), 447-476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318995008004003
Covello, V. T. (2021). Communicating in risk, crisis, and high stress situations: Evidence-based strategies and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Dai, X., & Li, S. (2025). Interdiscursivity and its historical shifts in China’s public health risk communication letters: From SARS to the post-COVID-19 era. Medical Humanities, medhum-2025-013656. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2025-013656
Fincher, C. L., Thornhill, R., Murray, D. R., & Schaller, M. (2008). Pathogen prevalence predicts human cross-cultural variability in individualism/collectivism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1640), 1279-1285. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0094
Giordano, M., & Marongiu, M. A. (2021). Metadiscourse, rhetoric and the pandemic: A verbal-visual analysis of public information posters. In L. D’Angelo, A. Mauranen, & S. Maci (Eds.), New Explorations in Digital Metadiscourse (pp. 25-56). Palgrave Macmillan.
Glik, D. C. (2007). Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annual review of public health, 28(1), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144123
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor.
Han, N., Ren, X., Wu, P., Liu, X., & Zhu, T. (2021). Increase of Collectivistic Expression in China During the COVID-19 Outbreak: An Empirical Study on Online Social Networks. Frontiers in Psychology, 12:632204. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.632204
Hu, C., & Li, X. (2018). A Corpus-based Study of Metadiscourse in Tencent's and Amazon's Letters to Shareholders. Foreign Language Research, 200(01), 24-32. https://doi.org/10.16263/j.cnki.23-1071/h.2018.01.004
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. Continuum.
Jones, R. (2013). Health and risk communication: An applied linguistic perspective. Routledge.
Kashima, E. S., & Kashima, Y. (1998). Culture and Language:The Case of Cultural Dimensionsand Personal Pronoun Use. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(3), 461-486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198293005
Kellens, W., Terpstra, T., & De Maeyer, P. (2013). Perception and communication of flood risks: A systematic review of empirical research. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 33(1), 24-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01844.x
Lomas, T., Diego-Rosell, P., Shiba, K., Standridge, P., Lee, M. T., Case, B.,…VanderWeele, T. J. (2023). Complexifying Individualism Versus Collectivism and West Versus East: Exploring Global Diversity in Perspectives on Self and Other in the Gallup World Poll. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 54(1), 61-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221130978
Lu, W. (2025). Constructing Climate Justice in Discourse: Australian Logic. Journal of Current Social Issues Studies, 2(5), 268-275. https://doi.org/10.71113/JCSIS.v2i5.202
Ma, M. Z. (2021). Testing the parasite-stress theory of sociality based on the circular model of human values: A multilevel analysis approach. Personality and individual differences, 168, 110277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110277
Månsson, P., Abrahamsson, M., Hassel, H., & Tehler, H. (2015). On common terms with shared risks – Studying the communication of risk between local, regional and national authorities in Sweden. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 13, 441-453. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.08.003
Mohammad, T., Leila, S. Z., & Saber, K. M. (2022). Collectivism and individualism in US culture: An analysis of attitudes to group work. Training, language and culture, 6(2), 20-34.
Muganda, G. F. (2024). A multimodal discourse analysis of COVID-19 posters in Tanzania: the case of the University of Dar es Salaam. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 42(3), 433-446. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2023.2288059
Petersen, A. R. (1996). Risk and the regulated self: The discourse of health promotion as politics of uncertainty. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 32(1), 44-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/144078339603200105
Rogers, M. B., Amlôt, R., Rubin, G. J., Wessely, S., & Krieger, K. (2007). Mediating the social and psychological impacts of terrorist attacks: The role of risk perception and risk communication. International review of psychiatry, 19(3), 279-288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540260701349373
Sellnow, D. D., Lane, D. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Littlefield, R. S. (2017). The IDEA Model as a Best Practice for Effective Instructional Risk and Crisis Communication. Communication Studies, 68(5), 552-567. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2017.1375535
WHO. (2020, January 15 ). Emergencies: Risk communication. World Health Organization. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/emergencies-risk-communication
Yang, N. (2021). Engaging readers across participants: A cross-interactant analysis of metadiscourse in letters of advice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Pragmatics, 186, 181-193. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.017
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. sage.