Romanian Rhetoric

Romania is part of southern Europe and shares some the features we’ve come to associate with that part of the world – namely religiousity, authoritarianism and corruption. The previous post discussed the decision of its Constitutional Court to annul the Presidential elections which had taken place the previous month. 

This post will explore the cultural and linguistic aspects of that discussion 

– looking in particular at 2 recent posts from the Friendship Bridge blog – 

first that of Dumitru Bortun, a prominent academic at the National School, 

and then that of Dumitru Dobrev, a lawyer and founder of one of Romania’s 

political parties (USR). 
My immediate reaction to the first was that it was flowery and incoherent 

although I later revised my opinion to say that 

“It's very difficult, if not impossible, to translate the confused rhetoric which 

seems to characterise Romanian articles into coherent English. There are some 

interesting thoughts in Bortun's article but he spoils it all with his rhetorical flourishes”. 

My immediate reaction to the second was that it was simply hysterical.
Here I have to confess that, after living in the country for a decade, I do not 

have much command of the Romanian language – I rely on google translations. 

But this post is based on careful study of some of the literature about language 

and meaning – in particular an article about Intellectual Styles produced in 

1981 by Johan Galtung, the famous Peace campaigner (who died earlier this 

year at the age of 93) which drew attention to features of the UK/US, French, 

German and Japanese styles of discourse -   

There are actually only two profiles - one shared by the Saxon and Niponic styles and one by the Teutonic and Gallic styles. Broadly speaking, it is our contention that the former style fosters and encourages debate and discourse whereas the latter tends to discourage it. Japanese discourse tends to value social relations above all

Let me try to summarize by putting down in the shortest possible form the typical question put in the four intellectual styles when somebody is faced with a proposition:

• saxonic style: how do you operationalise it? (US version) How do you document it? (UK version)

• teutonic style: wie koennen Sie das zuruckkehren arbeiten?

• gallic style: (how can you trace this track/deduce it from basic principles?) peut-on dire cela en bon Franglais? (is it possible to say this in French?)

• nipponic stvle: donatano monka dsuka? (who is your master?)

The post so far could be accused of being a tad racist – and is indeed guilty 

of cultural denigration, speaking badly, as it does, of other societies and 

their cultures.
But here is where Richard Lewis’ book “When Cultures Collide” can help. 

His section on Romania can be found between pages 324 and 329 and this is 

his helpful comment on Cultural Factors in Communication

Romanians are oratorical by nature (neighbors say “long-winded”) and are proud of their sophistication in discourse. They rarely answer questions with yes or no, so it is not advisable to ask direct questions requiring affirmative or negative answers. It is better to hint at what you want and then be prepared to read between the lines of their reply. Their answers are in any case long and complex and may to some extent reflect what you want to hear. Their delicacy is Italian in nature, as is their capacity for flexible truth when questioned aggressively. Their style of address is personal, and they seek your own opinion or support rather than that of your organization.

Later, you will find this comment -

Romanians are often comfortable with ambiguity, whereas the Westerner wants final clarity. The communist legacy has left them with a poor sense of accountability, responsibility and best routes to the bottom line.

So perhaps my judgement about the Romanian discourse being somewhat flowery 

is not so off?