From the perspective of hypotaxis and parataxis, this paper explores the fundamental differences between English and Chinese syntactic structures. These linguistic distinctions are rooted in the divergent natural and humanistic traditions, national characteristics, and modes of thinking of Eastern and Western cultures. In the West, analytical thinking based on the subject-object dichotomy gives rise to the hypotactic nature of English. This hypotaxis relies on explicit grammatical markers and is characterized by tree-like, multi-layered structures, front-loaded focus, and the frequent use of impersonal subjects, passive constructions, and nominalization. In contrast, Chinese, influenced by the intuitive and dialectical thinking stemming from the concept of the unity of heaven and humanity, exhibits a paratactic character. This parataxis emphasizes semantic coherence, arranges sentences according to logical and temporal sequences of events, and tends to employ the active voice, personal subjects, and verbs, with the focus typically placed at the end. Building on this foundation, the paper incorporates translation examples to delineate conversion strategies adapted to the features of the two languages. These strategies encompass techniques such as word order adjustment, voice conversion, restructuring of attributives and adverbials, clause splitting, part-of-speech conversion, and addition or omission. The study demonstrates that various translation methods are not isolated techniques but are essentially conversion pathways that bridge the gap between hypotaxis and parataxis. Grasping this core categorical pair assists translators in producing renderings that conform to the expressive conventions of the target language while remaining faithful to the meaning of the source text.
References
[1] Gaidenko, I. O. (2015) Language and thought. Advanced Education, (3), 33-38.
[2] Wang, J. (2025) The essential difference between English and Chinese as explored from a blank-sign perspective. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 21(2), 193-209.
[3] Li, X., Yu, H. (2021) Parataxis or hypotaxis? Choices of taxis in Chinese-English translation. Lingua, 251, 103026.
[4] Chu, Y., Sun, P. (2022) A research overview and cause analysis of parataxis and hypotaxis. Scholars International Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 5(3), 94-99.
[5] Zhang, Y. (2023) Translating philosophy from and into Chinese in the light of Humboldt’s comparativism. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 50(3), 243-262.
[6] Chen, J. (2022) A “thinking for speaking” study on motion events’ lexicalization and conceptualization. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(9), 1804-1811.
[7] Jung, H., Ahn, H., Cho, J. (2025) Directionality of motion in second language acquisition: with a focus on L1-Korean L2-Russian speakers. Russian Language Journal, 75(1), 1-42.
[8] Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J., Nisbett, R. E. (2002) Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26(5), 653-684.
[9] Tabakowska, E. (2013) Form as meaning. Cognitive Linguistics and Translation: Advances in Some Theoretical Models and Applications, 23, 229.
[10] Wang, W. B. (2013) The temporality of English and the spatiality of Chinese hidden behind their superficial differences – starting from Humboldt’s notion of inner linguistic form. Foreign Lang China, 3, 163-173.
Share and Cite
Yin, Y. (2026) How Thinking Differences Appear in Texts: The Cultural Logic Behind English-Chinese Syntactic Divergences and Their Translation. Journal of Social Development and History, 2(4), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.71052/jsdh/VJNQ4954