Etic and emic standpoints for the description of behavior.

Abstract

It proves convenient -though partially arbitrary -to describe behavior from two different standpoints, which lead to results which shade into one another. The etic viewpoint studies behavior as from outside of a particular system, and as an essential initial approach to an alien system. The emic viewpoint results from studying behavior as from inside the system. (I coined the words etic and emic from the words phonetic and phonemic, following the conventional linguistic usage of these latter terms. The short terms are used in an analogous manner, but for more general purposes.) Characteristics of the Two StandpointsThe principal differences between the etic and emic approaches to language and culture can be summarized as follows: Cross-cultural versus specific

Explanatory models in psychiatry

“…The ideas and contributions of the so-called emic-etic paradigm have now become so well accepted as a tool for social research that it is difficult to appreciate how controversial they were several decades ago. Kenneth Pike developed this framework acknowledging the insider's and the outsider's perspective for social analysis from experience studying previously unknown languages without a bilingual guide (Pike, 1967;Headland, Pike and Harris, 1990). Drawing on basic linguistic concepts, he developed a paradigm for cultural study and social analysis.…”

The multifaceted role of language in international business: Unpacking the forms, functions and features of a critical challenge to MNC theory and performance

“…Such research would thereby go beyond the etic, culturally neutral, outsider view of language to the generation of deep, contextual, emic understandings of language in IB which represent a locally grounded perspective (cf. Pike, 1967).…”

Déambulations autour du paradigme et de la temporalité de l’interaction

“…Plus précisément, si l'on peut observer dans les interactions que la production efective d'un locuteur en deuxième position dans un échange ne corres pond parfois pas à ce que le premier avait projeté, peuton, en restant idèle à ce qui est pertinent pour les participants, faire intervenir un paradigme des enchaîne ments possibles pour expliquer le décalage entre l'attente et la réalisation ? Autre ment dit, la construction de paradigme dans ces cas ne contraintelle pas à aban donner l'approche « émique » (Pike 1967), par laquelle on tente de s'approcher le plus possible de l'expérience des participants, ou du moins de ne pas la perdre de vue, pour s'engager dans une approche « étique » (liée aux catégorisations du cher cheur) 8 . 8.…”