Introduction

　This chapter affirms the contribution and importance of using paradigmatic approach to understanding human communication, while also cautions that the potential limitation of the approach tends to oversimplify communication behaviors of a specific group of people. Chinese communication is examined in this paper to demonstrate the argument. The analysis concludes that in order to draw a more complete picture of Chinese communication behaviors we have to go beyond the harmony paradigm to look into the dynamic aspect of real life interaction in which harmony itself is sacrificed and strategic approaches are taken. 

　Searching for a paradigm for exploring and understanding human communication behaviors is a constant practice in scholarship. The advantage of abstracting complicated thoughts and knowledge of human communication is in its simplicity of learning a group of people. However, the disadvantage is reflected in its missing of valuable different components existing within the group which might blind the view of diversity. 

　In the process of paradigm searching for human communication Asante (1980) indicated that Afrocentric, Eurocentric, and Asiacentric paradigms represent the three main categories that guide scholars, students, and practitioners in intercultural communications study, though, unfortunately, most intercultural communication theories have an Eurocentric bias. Aiming to critique and improve the problem of Eurocentric bias towards the study of Asian communication, Miike (2002, 2003, 2004) proposed an alternative metatheory of human communication from an Asiacentric vision.

Explanation of Asiacentric View

　According to Miike (2003), Asiacentric view of human communication must incorporate three assumptions. First, ontologically, Asiacentric paradigm of human communication dictates that the myriad are interrelated across time and space; second, epistemologically, the myriad become meaningful only in relation to others; and third, axiologically, the myriad can only survive in the web of harmonious relationship. Chen and Starosta (2003) echoed Miike's explication and further pointed out that, methodologically, Asiacentric view reflects that human communication is a transforming process which revolves in an endless nonlinear cycle. In addition, teleologically, Asiacentric communication view tends to adopt the notion of "the way things are" to which one must adjust one's daily interaction. 

　The Asiacentric paradigm of human communication provides on the one hand a highly abstract picture of Asian people and convenience of understanding Asian communication patterns; on the other hand, although the paradigm helps us see the uniqueness of Asian communication that is distinct from what are practiced in other continents, it is running a great risk for oversimplifying and overgeneralizing communication behaviors of "such a diverse group of people who are so different culturally, socially, religiously and economically" (Chen & Starosta, 2003, p. 1) in the socalled "Asia". In other words, the abstraction of Asiacentric communication paradigm neglects the internal dynamic diversity within Asia. The advantage and disadvantage of paradigm searching is as well reflected in the study of a single culture. 

　Aiming to overcome this inherent dilemma of paradigm searching, this paper attempts to explore the internal diversity of Chinese culture which is often overlooked in the process of research. More specifically, this paper approaches the way Chinese communicate from the behavioral level that shows the real face of Chinese communication which tends to be missing in the paradigm used to guide the research.

The First Face of Chinese Communication

　Abundant studies have been devoted to the understanding of Chinese communication behaviors (e.g., Chang & Holt, 1991, 1993; Chen, 19978, 2000, 2001a, 2004a; Chen & Ringo, 2002; Cheng, 1987; Chung, 1996; Huang, 200; Hwang, 19978, 1988a; Jia, 19978; Ma, 1992; Xiao, 2004). The paradigmatic theme among these studies that is used to explain the way Chinese communicate is "harmony." As the core value of Chinese culture, harmony guides Chinese communication behaviors.  Chen (2001a) solidified the studies by developing a harmony theory of Chinese communication in which he proposed an assumption dictating that "Chinese communication aims to reach a harmonious state of human relationship" (p. 48), and, based on the assumption, stipulated an axiom:  "An increase in the ability to achieve harmony in Chinese communication will increase the degree of communication competence" (p. 58).

　Obviously, the concept of harmony has been graven on the minds and hearts of Chinese people for centuries (Wright, 1953), as stated in the Doctrine of the Mean, harmony was considered as "the universal path which they all should pursue…and a happy order will prevail throughout heaven and earth, and all things will be nourished and flourish" (Legge, 1955, p. 2). Thus, all actions are aiming to achieve harmony, and different moral standard and guidelines for appropriate behaviors are then generated based on the concept of harmony.

　Thus, to achieve harmony in human interaction, Chen (2001a) pointed out that one has to develop three sets of ability. First, intrinsically, to internalize jen (benevolence), yi (righteousness), and li (rite/courtesy); second, extrinsically, to accommodate shi (temporal contingencies), wei (special contingencies), and ji (the first imperceptible beginning of movement) in the action; and third, strategically, to exercise guanxi (interrelation), mientze (face), and power appropriately. Chen's model represents a more complete picture of examining Chinese communication behaviors from the perspective of harmony. Others more directly applied the concept of harmony to one single aspect of Chinese communication. 

　For example, Chen and Xiao (1993) related harmony as the guiding principle in social interactions to the performance of li in Chinese communication, and argued that from this principle eight specific communication strategies could be developed, including xian li hou bin (courteous before the use of force), li shang wang lai (courtesy requires reciprocity), emotional control, avoidance of aggressive behaviors, avoidance of saying "no," face saving, stress on particularistic relationship, and ingroup/outgroup distinction. Therefore, in order to successfully communicate with Chinese, one needs to skillfully apply these characteristics to the process of interaction.

　Chen and Chen (2002) looked at the influence of harmony on a specific communication behavior. They argued that to Chinese the state of harmony cannot be achieved unless one maintains appropriate role relationships and accepts the established hierarchy. Thus, indirectness of expression becomes the means of achieving harmony in Chinese otheroriented communication process. Ma (1992) contended that indirect communication style is nonassertive, nonargumentative, nonconfrontational, and communicating little information via the coded and explicit, comparing to the Western direct style which reflects strong emotionality, confrontational style, and communicating information in the explicit code.

　Jia (19978, 2001) and Hwang (19978, 2004) explored harmony from the concept of mientze (face).  According to Jia, Chinese keep a harmonious relationship through three functions of facework, including using face to replace the law for regulation and punishment, to cultivate the gentlemanhood, and to distribute material, relational, and social resources among community members. It is this facework that especially prevents Chinese from getting into a conflict situation.  Based on harmony, Hwang further integrated the concepts of mientze and guanxi by proposing a model used in Chinese conflict management situation. For the purpose of harmony maintenance in the three types of relationship, Chinese tend to adopt "taking care of face" approach in vertical ingroup relationship, "giving face" approach in horizontal ingroup relationship, and "striving for face" in horizontal outgroup relationship. In addition to harmony maintenance purpose, Hwang as well stipulated different approaches used by Chinese for the purpose of personal goal attainment, coordination, and dominant response in the three different types of relationship.

　Harmony is also enhanced by an appropriate execution of guanxi (Chang & Holt, 1991, 1993, 2004; Ma, 2004). As a multidimensional concept, guanxi (interrelation) is not only a normative factor in Chinese society, but also one constructed through a strategic process. It denotes a way of controlling interpersonal resources, power, and social status (Hackley & Dong, 2001; Yan, 1996). How to develop a harmonious relationship, especially particularistic relationship, therefore determines whether a successful communication will be achieved while interacting with Chinese. Chinese particularistic relationship is regulated by a specific communication rule which dictates whom to speak, where to speak, and how and when to speak in the process of interaction (Chen & Chung, 1994; 1997).

　Chang and Holt (1991) and Chang, Holt, and Lin (2004) extended the harmonious guanxi to the concept of yuan (destined relations). Yuan is Chinese psychological attitude for accepting "having destined affinity" (you yuan) or "having no destined affinity" (wu yuan) as it is present or absent naturally. Yuan is a prerequisite factor in the process of explaining meaningfully Chinese interpersonal relationship. Chang, Holt, and Lin indicated that yuan reflects the existence and depth of relationship, the quality of relationship, the degree of attractiveness, and the attitude towards relationship. Yuan as well functions to promote social harmony.

　Keqi (politeness) is another rule of Chinese communication developed from the emphasis of harmony (Feng, 2004; Gao & TingToomey, 1998; Gu, 1990). Keqi is the embodiment of harmony in Chinese communication. As Feng pointed out, keqi or polite behavior is especially exercised in the acquaintance relationship which acts as an impetus to develop the relationship into a more intimate state. In other words, to practice keqi or keep a polite attitude is a mean to sustain harmonious relationship in Chinese communication.

　As to bao (reciprocity), scholars (e.g. Chang & Holt, 1994; Holt & Chang, 2004; Wen, 1989) indicated that it functions to maintain a dynamic balance in a tension situation of Chinese communication. The practice of bao is based on the sincere appreciation towards one's counterparts in interaction, it renders extra amount of goodwill and willingness to sacrifice in Chinese communication so that a better or harmonious connection can be developed. Of course, bao is also like the two edges of a sword, it can either show appreciation or revenge based on the justification of an eye for an eye embedded in the principle of reciprocity. 

　Finally, two more influential concepts embedded in harmony need to be mentioned: feng shui and zhan bu (divination). Feng shui is an art of time and space arrangement that aims to achieve the maximum benefit of human interaction through the maintaining of harmonious relationship between humans and earth (Chen, 2004b; Skinner, 1982; Wang, 1991). Chen (2004) analyzed the impact of feng shui on Chinese communication and explained that in interpersonal communication feng shui advocates particularistic relationship structure and selective communication style to reach harmonious and happy encountering. In organizational communication in order to bring in fortune and harmony a company should select a name that matches its public image, have the company location appropriately be compatible with the surrounding environment, design a comfortable office space for employees, and select personalitymatching employees and management.

　Zhan bu (divination) represents Chinese dialectical communication which mirrors Chinese psychological need in pursuing the harmonious association among heaven, earth and human being (Chuang, 2004 Jung, 1977; Nan, 1992). As a counseling tool, zhan bu gives Chinese a direction of action or nonaction in the dynamic communication process through which a balancing mind towards high or low fortune can be retained. In other words, zhan bu provides an opportunity of selffulfilling prophecy that helps Chinese reduce communication uncertainty (Chung, 2004).  

　Together, Chinese communication behaviors explicated above based on harmony paradigm obviously give us a clear picture about and is quite helpful in understanding what is Chinese communication. Nevertheless, after carefully examining the literature, we find a potential pitfall in the picture. That is, most studies, under the guise of Chinese belief in harmony, tends to reveal or emphasize only the positive side of Chinese communication. It is likely to mislead people to think that Chinese society is a conflictfree one in which people are harmoniously striving for a peaceful life, and overlook the potential negative or dark side which represents the other face of Chinese communication (Chen, 2001a; Chen & Zhong, 2000).

The Other Face of Chinese Communication

　The other face of Chinese communication emerges from the question: What will happen if harmony cannot be uphold in interaction? Several scholars (e.g., Chen, 2001a, 2002, 2003; Hwang, 2004) raised the question in their research, but did not fully examine it. This is the "power" aspect (Chen, 2001a) or the "power game" Chinese play (Hwang, 1988b) as harmony becomes a victim especially when the need of interactants are incompatible or the resources are scarce in interaction. To really understand Chinese communication one cannot ignore this aspect.

　To appropriately regulate the visible and invisible power running through every knot in the network of Chinese communication and keep it in balance is the way to establish a harmonious state of interaction for Chinese people. When the balance is in jeopardy, we see that Chinese can express their emotion quite directly and aggressively in public and launch a fierce and naked action fighting for resources (Chen, 2002).  

　As previously mentioned, harmony in Chinese society is sustained by li (rite/courtesy) which is the rule of playing the power game. At the initial stage of interaction, Chinese always show courteous attitude through respect, positive reciprocity, and sincerity to build a harmonious communication climate (Xiao, 2004). If one's respect, expressed by "Humbling oneself and giving honor to others" (Xiao, 2002, p. 42), or the reciprocity rule, expressed by "Dealing with someone as he deals with you" (p. 45), is violated, the principle of "xian li hou bin" (courteous before the use of force) is likely to be applied because Chinese feel their mientze is lost (Chen & Xiao, 1993). To Chinese conflict will inevitably rise in this situation.

　It is interesting to note that from the aspect of keqi the rule of game for li is dictated by the degree of depth of relationship between interactants. According to Feng (2004), Chinese people will show keqi when interacting with an acquaintance, but not to strangers and those with intimate relationship. However, it is more likely for Chinese people to get involved in a conflict with strangers rather than with the intimate. This practice has its cultural origin because of the emphasis of particularistic relationship in Chinese society which leads to a sharp distinction between ingroup and outgroup members. At the same time of developing a strong "we feeling", Chinese distrust outgroup members. Thus, showing respect, reciprocity, and sincerity to a stranger tends to be less meaningful in the process of Chinese communication.

　The loss of "we feeling," the loss of face, the missing of keqi, or the denial of li in the process of Chinese communication often results in the loss of emotional control and the release of aggressive behaviors. The negative or dark side of Chinese communication will surface subsequently in this situation. This side of Chinese communication is far more dynamic and genuine than the side regulated by harmony paradigm which is dictated by certain destined and explicit rules of interaction. 

　Two kinds of behavior are manifested in this dynamic side of Chinese communication. The first one, more severely, is falling into the cycle of bao chou (revenge). This is an irrational "an eye for an eye" action which can be justified by the principle of reciprocity mentioned previously. Wen (1989) indicated that Chinese revenge behavior has a strong ethical basis associated with family system, specifically related to xiao (filial piety) and often happens accidentally rather than prearranged. The expression of raw emotion in a revenge situation can be as severe as homicide. Chinese history books never lack the records of homicidal conflict due to discord between different families. The outburst of senseless or irrational behavior in interpersonal communication level is as well not uncommon in Chinese society.

　While revenge represents an extreme outlet of solving conflict, utilizing behavioral strategies or tactics to overcome one's counterparts is a more common way practiced by Chinese when harmony is not a concern. Using compliancegaining or persuasive strategies to achieve one's communication goal is a universal phenomenon in human societies. The development and study of theory, knowledge, and skills of compliance gaining in Western world has a long history in communication discipline (Burgoon, Pfau, Parrott, Birk, Coker, & Burgoon, 1987; Gass & Seiter, 1999; Marwell & Schnmitt, 1967; Miller, Boster, Roloff, & Seibold, 1977; Schneider & Beaubien, 1996; Wiseman, Sanders, Congalton, Gass, Sueda, & Ruiqing, 1995). However, Chinese compliancegaining or persuasive strategies are distinct from Western's in three aspects (Chiao, 1988a, 1988b, 1989): (1) the records of Chinese compliancegaining strategies were mainly preserved in the oral tradition due to the incompatibility with harmony teachings based on Confucianism; (2) Chinese compliancegaining strategies were generally expressed in a form of metaphorical phrase; and (3) most compliancegaining strategies were originated from military action that were applied to social or interpersonal interaction.

　Abundant studies have been devoted to examining Chinese strategic behaviors (e.g., Chai, 1993; Chu, 1991; Cleary, 1988; Lieu, 1980; Senger, 1988; Wang, 1990; Yu & Yu, 1995). Among the collections of Chinese compliance gaining strategies, the "36 stratagems" is the most systematically recorded model which can be classified into five categories, including dangerous situation, indirect action, enemy or opponent, trick or deception, and specific goal (Senger, 1988). Based on the meaning of the 36 stratagems, Chen (1995) further analyzed and grouped them into eight factors: delusion, borrowing, misleading, threat, retreat, termination, espionage, and agitating. 

　In addition to the 36 most commonly cited stratagems, there are many more used in daily interaction. Chen and Zhong (2000) added 29 more recorded stratagems into the 36 stratagems and found the total 65 Chinese compliancegaining stratagems can be categorized into seven dimensions: delusion, burrowing/misleading, distraction, indirect exploration, espionage/self inflicting, adapting, and deceiving.  

　The dimension of "delusion" is using strategies to confuse counterparts and take advantage from their miscalculation; "burrowing/misleading" is usiing counterparts' strength to defeat them;  "distraction" is achieving goal by distracting counterparts' attention from the key events; "indirect exploration" aims to use a subtle way to detect counterparts' intention before the next move; "espionage/self inflicting" attempts to alienate relationship between counterparts and to fool them by selfimposing misery; "adapting" is using the current situation as a tool of persuasion; and "deceiving" is saving one's energy by deceiving or delaying. 

　The above surprising variety of Chinese compliancegaining strategies shows the dynamic side of Chinese communication which reflects that Chinese are far more beyond the superficial perception as being conservative, polite, humble, and self controlled, but can also be much more humane as being artful, crafty, cunning, deceitful, and sly in interaction.

　When the strategic aspect of interaction crawls into harmony paradigm or framework, we see a new spectrum of power game in Chinese society.  In other words, under the disguise of harmony the elements of harmony become a tool used to achieve one's communication goal. For example, unlike Western society the locus of power in China is embedded in seniority and authority (Chen & Starosta, 19978). That is, power is attributed to the elder and those in superior positions, such as rulers, parents, teachers, husbands, and educated civil servants, in the particularistic relationship structure of Chinese hierarchical society. Because their words provided a direct way of solving conflicts, the senior and authoritative by rule are key figures to reinforce and perpetuate the harmony system in Chinese society (Powers, 19978), but in the situation of power struggling or for personal gains those in the two positions can subtly or publicly abuse the assigned right or power from the system.  

　Chen and Chung's (2002) case study demonstrated the case of power abuse in Chinese society. The authors observed an endoftheyear meeting of a religion group in Taiwan and found that the most senior person (Mr. Li), with an age of 84 and 39 years service in the group, successfully used his seniority to stall the decisionmaking engine. His behavior completely defied all characteristics of typical Chinese approach, based on harmony, to decisionmaking or interaction. For example, right at the beginning of the meeting, before he showed his disapproval of the chairelect (Mr. Lee assumed he'll be elected as the chair), he first said this: "I am 84 years old now, I have been in this religion for almost 40 years, and now I am approaching the end of my life…" Then in the process of the meeting Mr. Lee continuously "interrupted" the conversation among group members by trying to lead the discussion to his own direction, and occasionally he threatened to "open fire" if his points are not recorded. The young chairelect had no choice but to follow Mr. Lee's "command", because he is only 43 years old with 22 years service in the group. When asked other group members (nine officials) about their feeling towards Mr. Lee's behaviors after the meeting, all of them said that they didn't like it. The typical answer from them is that they "had no choice, because T. Lee is much older than them and they didn't want to offend him" (p. 53). 

　The Chinese use of strategic behaviors is also manifested in language expression. The standoff between China and United States in April, 2001 due to the spy plan incident is a good example (Chen, 2001b). Chinese government dealt with the incident from the perspective of "face losing" perspective from the beginning of negotiation by directly and openly demanding US to "apologize" to China and bear full responsibility for the incident. US claimed that no apology will be made because no wrong doing was involved in the incident. Chinese government, back up with the face strategy, then denounced US as "arrogance" and "repeatedly making mistakes." The conflict negotiation continued for ten days, US yielded its position from saying "regret" to "very regret" to "very sorry" for the death of Chinese pilot. After measuring the situation China decided to accept US' "very sorry" statement by interpreting it as "apology" so that the "face" could be saved for its nation and the whole Chinese people. The direct and open expression and confrontation is not a way of interaction encouraged by the harmony paradigm, but for the purpose of personal or national gain, harmony becoming a tool for achieving the goal is quite common in Chinese communication.

　Ma (1997) as well noticed that "Saying yes for no and no for yes" is a Chinese rule of language expression. In a normal situation, according to Ma, Chinese tend to "say yes for no" to avoid embarrassing encountering and "say no for yes" in the situation that demands "keqi". Both expressions are based on otherorientation which is a way to ensure harmony. Nevertheless, in selforiented situation in which personal goal is the focus Chinese tend to use "say no for yes" strategy to "yu qin gu zong" (concession before gaining) especially in the process of negotiation. Moreover, the "say yes for no" strategy is often used to escape from a disadvantaged situation. This pattern of circular thinking by intentionally violating the rule of language expression can be difficult to imagine for those from linear thinking cultures.

　The real face of Chinese communication cannot be demystified unless the veil of harmony paradigm that prevails the study of Chinese communication is lifted. It is this side of Chinese communication that gives us a dynamic live picture of the daily life interaction in Chinese society. As a philosophical or ideal goal, harmony is no doubt a guiding principle of Chinese communication behaviors and that makes Chinese communication a unique process. Thus, to say that Chinese are people of li is a true statement, but this does not necessarily denote that Chinese society is a conflict free one. Life with conflict or unharmonious encountering is a norm rather than an exception in any human society, it will not be complete for knowing Chinese communication simply having one's observation limited on the ideal aspect. A complete picture has to be supplemented by the "here and now" performance which is represented by how Chinese people handle the interaction in a dissonant or conflict situation. 

Comments and Conclusion

　The paradigmatic approach to the study of human communication has an undeniable merit in helping people abstract complex concepts and allowing them to reach a basic understanding of communication behavior of a specific group of people. Unfortunately, the limitation of paradigmatic approach is reflected in its oversimplifying the dynamic nature of human communication. 

　The harmony paradigm used to understand Chinese communication behaviors tends to mislead scholars to idealize or beautify the Chinese way of interaction. In other words, it runs into a risk of contradicting the Chinese belief of bian (change). As an important ontological assumption, the idea of bian dictates that human communication is an endless, transforming, and cyclic process in which no substance of its substratum is fixed (Chai & Chai, 1969; Chen, 1996). Based on the ceaselessly dialectical interaction of the two opposite but complementary forces, yin (the amiable force) and yang (the unyielding force), a great harmony is achieved. Thus, harmony itself is a dynamic rather than a static state.

　To further specify the nature of bian in regard to human communication, Chen (2004) pointed out that the dynamic interaction of yin and yang follows the principles of inwarding concentration and forwarding expansion of bian. The inwarding concentration represents the internal power of condensing forces within the system which is released at the full point to induce a series of change. The inwarding concentration process itself is a changing process too through which a dynamic balance can be sustained within the system. The forwarding expansion is the external extension of change which proceeds like the movement of time, continuously and openly. The dynamic diversity is then produced through this forwarding extension process. The inwarding concentration and forwarding expansion exemplify the nature of bian that is based on temporal and spatial interaction and integration. 

　It is from this perspective of bian that Chen (2001a) proposed the concepts of shi (temporal contingencies), wei (spatial contingencies), and ji (the first imperceptible beginning of movement) to better examine the real face of Chinese communication. On the one hand, Chinese learn to act in the right place at right time by observing the trail of possible consequences of the ongoing interaction so that a harmonious state can be reached and maintained. On the other hand, when harmony becomes a victim or in a conflict situation, Chinese also learn to handle shi, wei, and ji in a skillful way in order to strategically overpower their counterparts in interaction.  

Summary

　In conclusion, while this paper affirms the contribution and importance of using the paradigmatic approach to understanding human communication, no matter using continent, such as the Eurocentric or Asiacentric view of human communication in recent years (e.g., Chu, 1986; Dissanayake,  1986, 1989, 2003; Miike, 2002, 2003; Wang & Shen, 2000) or a single culture as the unit of analysis, the author also cautions that the potential limitation of the approach tends to oversimplify, overgeneralize, or even stereotype communication behaviors of a specific group of people. This paper uses the harmony paradigm to demonstrate the two faces of Chinese communication. It is concluded that in order to better draw a complete picture of Chinese communication behaviors we have to go beyond the harmony paradigm to look into the dynamic aspect of real life interaction in which harmony itself is sacrificed and strategic approaches are taken. 

　

References\

Asante, M. K. (1980). Intercultural communication: An inquiry into research directions. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 4 (pp. 401410). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Burgoon, J. K., Pfau. M., Parrott, R., Birk, T., Coker, R., & Burgoon, M. (1987). Relational communication, satisfaction, compliancegaining strategies, and compliance in communication between physicians and patients.  Communication Monographs, 54, 307324.

Chai, S. L. (1993).  On strategy.  Taipei: Shu Chuan.

Chai, C, & Chai, W. (1969). Introduction. In J. Legge (trans.), I Ching: Book of Changes. New York: Bantam.

Chang, HC., & Holt, G. R. (1991). More than relationship: Chinese interaction and the principle of Guanhsi. Communication Quarterly, 39, 251271.

Chang, HC., & Holt, G. R. (1993). The concept of yuan and Chinese interpersonal relationships.  In S. TingToomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Crosscultural interpersonal communication (pp. 2857).  Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chang, HC., & Holt, G. R. (1994). Debtrepaying mechanism in Chinese relationships: an exploration of the folk concepts of pao and human emotional debt. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27, 351387.

Chang, HC., Holt, G. R., & Lin, H. D. (2004). Yuan and Chinese communication behaviors.In G. M. Chen (Ed.), Theories and Principles of Chinese Communication (pp. 451481). Taipei: WuNan.

Chen, G. M. (1995, November). A classification of Chinese persuasive communication strategies. Paper presented at the 1995 annual meeting of Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, Texas.

Chen, G. M. (1996). I Ching Ba Kua and the development of interpersonal relationship. Chinese YiChing Learning, 202, 6468.

Chen, G. M. (Ed.) (19978). Chinese conflict management and resolution.  A special issue of Intercultural Communication Studies, 7(1).

Chen, G. M. (Ed.) (2000). Chinese conflict management in intercultural context. A special issue of Intercultural Communication Studies, 9(2).

Chen, G. M. (2001a). Towards transcultural understanding: A harmony theory of Chinese communication. In V. H. Milhouse, M. K. Asante, and P. O. Nwosu (Eds.), Transculture: Interdisciplinary perspectives on crosscultural relations (pp. 5570). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chen, G. M. (2001b). From sorry to apology: Understanding the Chinese. Chinese Community Forum, July 11, No. 200127. Available: http://www.ChinaNet.org.

Chen, G. M. (2002). The impact of harmony on Chinese conflict management. In G. M. 

Chen & R. Ma (Eds.), Chinese conflict management and resolution (pp. 319). Westport, CT: Ablex.

Chen, G. M. (2003). An introduction to intercultural communication.  Taipei: Wunan.

Chen, G. M. (2004a) (Ed.). Theories and principles of Chinese communication (in Chinese). WuNan, Taipei: Taiwan.

Chen, G. M. (2004b). Feng shui and Chinese communication behaviors. In G. M. Chen (Ed.), Theories and Principles of Chinese Communication (pp. 483502). Taipei: WuNan.

Chen, G. M. (2004, November). Bian (change): A perpetual discourse of I Ching. 

Paper presented at the 2004 annual meeting of National Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois. 

Chen, G. M., & Chung, J. (1994). The impact of Confucianism on organizational communication.  Communication Quarterly, 42, 93105.

Chen, G. M., & Chung, J. (1997). The five Asian dragons: Management behaviors and organizational communication.  In L. A. Samovar and R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader.  Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 

Chen, G. M., & Ma, R. (Eds.) (2002). Chinese conflict management and resolution. Westport, CT: Ablex.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2003). Asian approaches to human communication: A dialogue. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12, 115.

Chen, G. M., & Xiao, X. (1993, November). The impact of "'harmony" on Chinese negotiations.  Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Miami, Florida.

Chen, G. M., & Zhong, M. (2000). Dimensions of Chinese compliancegaining strategies. Human Communication, 3, 97109.

Chen, V., & G. M. Chen. (2002, November). He xie (harmony): The axis of Chinese communication wheel. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Cheng, CY. (1987). Chinese philosophy and contemporary human communication theory.  In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and Western perspectives (pp. 2343).  New York: Academic.

Chiao, C. (1988a). A primary examination of the strategic behaviors in Chinese culture. In K. S. Yang (Ed.), The psychology of Chinese people (pp. 415430).  Taipei: Kuei Guan.

Chiao, C. (1988b). An establishment of a model of Chinese strategic behaviors.  In K. S. Yang (Ed.), The psychology of Chinese people (pp. 431446).  Taipei: Guei Guan.

Chiao, C. (1989).  Chinese strategic behavior: Some general principles.  In R. Bolton (Ed.), The content of culture: Constants and variants (pp. 525537).  New Haven, Conn: Hraf. 

Chu, CN (1991). The Asian mind game. New York: Rawson.

Chu, G. C. (1986). In search of an Asian perspective of communication theory. Media Asia, 13, 35.

Chuang, R. (2004). Zhan bu and Chinese communication behaviors. In G. M. Chen (Ed.), Theories and Principles of Chinese Communication (pp. 503515). Taipei: WuNan.

Chung, J. (1996). Avoiding a "Bull Moose" rebellion: particularistic ties, seniority, and thirdparty mediation. International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 20, 166185.

Cleary, T. (1988) (Trans.). The art of war: Sun Tzu.  Boston:  Shambhala.

Dissanayake, W. (1986). The need for the study of Asian approaches to communication. Media Asia, 13, 613.

Dissanayake, W. (1989). Paradigm dialogue: A Europocentric universe of discourse. In B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. J. O'keefe, & E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication: Vol. 1. Paradigm issues (pp. 166168). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dissanayake, W. (2003). Asian approaches to human communication: Retrospect and prospect. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12 (4), 1737.

Feng, H. R. (2004). Keqi and Chinese communication behaviors. In G. M. Chen (Ed.), Theories and Principles of Chinese Communication (pp. 435450). Taipei: WuNan.

Gao, G., & TingToomey, S. (1998). Communicating effectively with the Chinese. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gass, R. R., & Seiter, J. S. (1999). Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Gu, Y. G. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatic, 14, 237257.

Hackley, C. A., & Dong, Q. (2001). American public relations networking encounters China's guanxi, Public Relations Quarterly, 46, 1619.

Holt, G. R., & Chang, HC (2004). Bao and Chinese communication behaviors. In G. M. Chen (Ed.), Theories and Principles of Chinese Communication (pp. 407434). Taipei: WuNan.

Huang, S. (2000). Ten thousand businesses would thrive in a harmonious family: Chinese conflict resolutions styles in crosscultural families. Intercultural Communication Studies, 9(2), 129144. 

Hwang, K. K. (1988a). The Chinese renqin relationship.  In C. Y. Wen and S. H. Xiao (Eds.), The Chinese: Their perception and behaviors (pp. 4370).  Taipei: Jiu Liu.  

Hwang, K. K. (1988b). Renqin and mientze: The Chinese power game. In K. K. Hwang (Ed.), The Chinese power game (pp. 755). Taipei, Taiwan: Jiu Leu.  

Hwang, K. K. (19978).  Guanxi and mientze: Conflict resolution in Chinese society. Intercultural Communication Studies, 7, 1740.

Hwang, K. K. (2004). Face and communicative actions in Chinese society. In G. M. Chen (Ed.), Theories and Principles of Chinese Communication (pp. 311336). Taipei: WuNan.

Jia, W. (19978).  Facework as a Chinese conflictpreventive mechanism: A cultural/discourse analysis. Intercultural Communication Studies, 7, 6382.

Jia, W. (2001). The Remaking of the Chinese Character and Identity in the 21st Century: The Chinese Face Practices. Westport, CT: Ablex.

Jung, C. G. (1977). Forword. In R. Wilhem (Ed.), The I Ching or Book of Changes (pp. xxixxxxix). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Legge, J. (1955). The Four Books. Taipei, Wen Yo.

Lieu, J. F. (1980). The strategy. Taipei: Bi Shan Yan.

Ma, R. (1992). The role of unofficial intermediaries in interpersonal conflicts in the Chinese culture. Communication quarterly, 40, 269278.

Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. (1967). Dimensions of compliancegaining behaviors:  An empirical analysis.  Sociometry, 39, 350364.

Miller, G., Boster, F., Roloff, M., & Seibold, D. (1977). Compliancegaining message strategies: A typology and some findings concerning the effects of situational differences.  Communication Monographs, 44, 3751.

Miike, Y. (2002). Theorizing culture and communication in Asian context: An assumptive foundation. Intercultural Communication Studies, 11 (1), 121.

Miike, Y. (2003). Toward an alternative metatheory of human communication: An Asiacentric vision. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12 (4), 3963.

Miike, Y. (2004). Asiacentric paradigm of communication theory. In G. M. Chen (Ed.), Theories and Principles of Chinese Communication (pp. 5574). Taipei: WuNan.

Nan, H. J. (1992). Yi Ching Za Shuo. Taipei: Lao Gu.

Powers, J. H. (19978). Conflict genres and management strategies during China's "Ten years of turmoil." Intercultural Communication Studies, 7, 149168.

Schneider, D. E., & Beaubien, R. A. (1996). A naturalistic investigation of compliancegaining strategies employed by doctors in medical interviews. The Southern Communication Journal, 61, 332341.

Senger, H. (1988). The book of stratagems: Tactics for triumph and survival.  New York: Viking.

Skinner, S. (1982).The living earth manual of Feng Shui.London: Graham Brash. 

Wang, G., & Shen, V. (2000). East, West, communication and theory: Searching for the meaning of searching for Asian theories. Asian Journal of Communication, 10, 1432.

Wang, S. C. (1990) (Ed.).  Wisdom game: The seventy ji.  Taipei: Lon Ho. 

Wang, Y. D. (991). The mysterious feng shui. Guangxi: People.

Wen, C. Y. (1989). Bao en and fu chou: An analysis of exchange behaviors. In G. S. Yang (Ed.), The psychology of Chinese people (pp. 347382). Taipei: GuiGuan.

Wiseman, R. L., Sanders, J. A., Congalton, J. K., Gass, R. H., Sueda, K., & Ruiqing, D. (1995). A crosscultrual analysis of compliance gaining: China, Japan, and the United States. Intercultural Communication Studies, 10 (1), 117.

Wright, R. F. (1953).  Struggle vs. harmony: Symbols of competing values in Modern China. World Politics, 6, 3144.

Xiao, X. (2002). Li: A dynamic cultural mechanism of social interaction and conflict management. In G. M. Chen & R. Ma (Eds.), Chinese conflict management and resolution (pp. 3949). Westport, CT: Ablex.

Xiao, X. (2004). Li and Chinese communication behaviors. In G. M. Chen (Ed.), Theories and Principles of Chinese Communication (pp. 379405). Taipei: WuNan.

Yan, Y. (1996). The culture of guanxi in a north China village. The China Journal, 35, 125.

Yu, J. P., & Yu, J. M. (1995).  An analysis of the 36 ji.  Beijing: Jin Dun.