How to make head or tail of ‘bridging’ and ‘bonding’?: addressing the methodological ambiguity1

A distinction has recently been proposed between bridging (or encompassing) and bonding (or inward-looking) social networks. However, existing theoretical contributions remain vague as to the fundamental meaning of both concepts. As a consequence, two distinct interpretations have developed alongside each other. In the present paper, we employ data on voluntary association membership in Flanders to empirically illustrate that both approaches can lead to substantially different outcomes and therefore appear to tap into different dimensions of bridging versus bonding. These findings underline the problematic nature of the current conceptual ambiguity. We conclude that should the bridging/bonding distinction add meaningfully to our understanding of the external effects of social networks, it is essential to resolve the conceptual and methodological imprecision.     

跨文化传播:内涵错层与价值冲突

由于社会实践、价值观念、思维模式和语言符号存在一定程度的“不可通约性”,跨文化传播不可避免地存在着障碍。通过“中国方案”在14家国际主流媒体中的报道文本分析发现,跨文化传播的障碍具体表现为两种:符号内涵的错层与价值观念的冲突。符号内涵的错层缘于跨文化传播过程中因语境转换导致文化折扣,价值观念的冲突则源于认知转译与认知搭桥所造成的价值观念变换。