<?xml version="1.1" encoding="utf-8"?>
<article xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.1/xsd/JATS-journalpublishing1-mathml3.xsd" dtd-version="1.1" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">SSR</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Scientific and Social Research</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn>2661-4332</issn><eissn>2981-9946</eissn><publisher><publisher-name>Bio-Byword Scientific Publishing Pty. Ltd.</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.26689/ssr.v8i7.15785</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title>Analysis of the Influence of Differences in English and Chinese Modes of Thinking on Language Expression</title><url>https://artdesignp.com/journal/SSR/8/7/10.26689/ssr.v8i7.15785</url><author>CuiDan,NieYuhuan</author><pub-date pub-type="publication-year"><year>2026</year></pub-date><volume>8</volume><issue>7</issue><history><date date-type="pub"><published-time>2026-08-14</published-time></date></history><abstract>Language expression is shaped by linguistic structure, cultural convention, cognitive habit, and communicative purpose. Based on a critical review of English-Chinese contrastive research, this paper examines three related tendencies: holistic and analytic orientation, image-based and abstract-conceptual preference, and context-dependent and explicit-linear organization. It considers how these tendencies appear in lexical choice, sentence construction, discourse progression, and pragmatic framing. The discussion does not use broad cultural labels as self-sufficient explanations. Instead, it treats the observed contrasts as variable preferences mediated by genre, context, bilingual experience, and audience. The analysis suggests that effective teaching and translation should connect formal comparison with functional interpretation. Learners need to identify semantic boundaries, recover implicit clause relations, reorganize information for target readers, and adjust politeness strategies and cultural images to the communicative situation. It also explains why formally acceptable sentences may remain rhetorically awkward or pragmatically unsuitable for target readers. Such training can improve accuracy and coherence without turning recurrent differences into fixed stereotypes.</abstract><keywords/></article-meta></front><body/><back><ref-list><ref id="B1" content-type="article"><label>1</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Sapir E, 1921, Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B2" content-type="article"><label>2</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Nisbett RE, 2003, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently... and Why. Free Press, New York.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B3" content-type="article"><label>3</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Li CN, Thompson SA, 1976, Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language, in Subject and Topic. Academic Press, New York, 457–489.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B4" content-type="article"><label>4</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Lian S, 2010, Contrastive Studies of English and Chinese (Revised Edition). Higher Education Press, Beijing.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B5" content-type="article"><label>5</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Shen J, 2020, English-Chinese Differences Concerning Modes of Thinking. Modern Foreign Languages, 43(1): 1–17.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B6" content-type="article"><label>6</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Wang Y, 2023, From Cognitive View of Translation and Cognitive Translatology to Embodied-Cognitive Translatology. Language Education, 11(4): 72–80.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B7" content-type="article"><label>7</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Xiang Y, 2024, Differences in Chinese-English Thinking Perspectives and Translation Teaching. Creativity and Innovation (Chinese Version), 8(5): 54–59. https://doi.org/10.12184/wspcyycx2WSP2516-415508.20240805</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B8" content-type="article"><label>8</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Yang G, 2024, Analyzing the Impact of Differences in Chinese and English Thinking Styles on Chinese-to-English Translation—A Case Study of Zhang Peiji’s Selected Translations of Modern Chinese Prose into English. Modern Linguistics, 12(8): 338–342. https://doi.org/10.12677/ml.2024.128695</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B9" content-type="article"><label>9</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Kaplan RB, 1966, Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education. Language Learning, 16(1–2): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00804.x</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B10" content-type="article"><label>10</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Halliday MAK, Hasan R, 1976, Cohesion in English, Longman, London.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref><ref id="B11" content-type="article"><label>11</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><p>Nida EA, 1964, Toward a Science of Translating, E. J. Brill, Leiden.</p><pub-id pub-id-type="doi"/></element-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>
