01The formula and its expected meaning
"How are you?" is, in American English, a greeting far more than a question. Linguistics classifies it under "phatic communion", a concept coined in 1923 by the anthropologist Bronisław Malinowski in his essay "The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages" (supplement to Ogden and Richards' Meaning of Meaning): words whose primary function is to create and maintain the social bond, not to convey information. Asked in passing, often without a pause, the question calls for a brief, positive answer — "Good", "Fine, thanks" — possibly followed by a "How are you?" in return. The sociologist Harvey Sacks, founder of conversation analysis, devoted to this ritual an article whose title has remained famous, "Everyone Has to Lie" (1975): with a mere contact or an acquaintance, answering anything other than "fine" amounts to opening a tale of troubles the other party did not ask for — the polite "lie" is part of the social grammar of the exchange, and whoever answers a ceremonial question literally comes across, in his phrase, as a bore. Emanuel Schegloff showed for his part that the "howaryou" sequences of American telephone openings form a routine whose accomplishment requires precise interactional tuning ("The Routine as Achievement", 1986).
02Geography of the misunderstanding
The misunderstanding arises when a speaker from a culture where a question about one's state calls for a sincere answer takes the formula literally. The Russian case is the best documented: in a New York Times op-ed (January 20, 2014), the American writer and musician Alina Simone reports the words of her Moscow friend Galina — when an American asks her the question, it is like "a wall of ice crashing down between us" — and recounts that her own grandmother invariably answered "Terrible". In Russian, "Как дела?" among close friends opens a real conversation about how things stand; the American version is received there as a false promise of interest. The gap cuts both ways: the foreigner who details their health comes across as intrusive, the American who does not listen to the answer comes across as superficial or hypocritical. Research nonetheless calls for nuance: Coupland, Coupland and Robinson (1992) show that the boundary between phatic use and genuine question is negotiated in context — in their corpora of medical interviews with elderly people, the opening "how are you?" frequently receives literal answers, including between native English speakers; and Alessandro Duranti (1997) reminds us that greetings are not everywhere devoid of propositional content. It is thus not "Americans versus the rest of the world", but a different default setting of the same conversational tool.
03Historical genesis
The construction inquiring about another person's state through the verb "do" ("to prosper, to fare") is attested from Middle English onward; the reference site The Phrase Finder notes the association with health in the Paston Letters (1463). According to the linguistics blog Grammarphobia (drawing on the OED), the first known occurrence of "How do you do?" appears in Thomas Middleton, No Wit, No Help Like a Woman's (c. 1611), and "How are you?" appears in the same Middleton's Women, Beware Women (c. 1621): "How are you now, sir?". "How do you do" only became widespread as a greeting in the eighteenth century. In 1922, Emily Post codified society usage in Etiquette: upon introduction, polite society exchanges "How do you do?" without answering it literally. The American "howdy" comes from this same family — an abbreviation of "how do you do" according to the usual hypothesis, or directly from the older "how d'ye" according to The Phrase Finder. The tale of an "automation" of the formula in the industrial nineteenth century, sometimes encountered, is not documented by the sources consulted: the ceremonial use of the "how do you do / how are you" family is old, and it is its literal reading that constitutes the exception.
04Documented incidents
No diplomatic incident linked to the formula is documented in the reference press — the misunderstanding lives in expatriate testimony and the pragmatics literature. The clearest public case remains Alina Simone's op-ed 'The "How Are You?" Culture Clash' (The New York Times, January 20, 2014), which triggered a flood of responses from readers around the world writing to the author... to tell her how they were doing. On the theoretical side, the publication of Malinowski's essay (1923) and Sacks' article (1975) constitute the dated milestones in the description of the phenomenon.
05Practical recommendations
Do:
- Answer briefly and positively ("Good, thanks!", "Fine!"), then return the question: "And you?"
- Treat the formula as an equivalent of "hello": answering it means acknowledging it, not informing.
- If an American wants a real answer, they will signal it (a pause, a look, "No, really — how are you?"): that signal is the cue for elaborating.
Avoid:
- Detailing your health or emotions with a mere contact or when passing a colleague.
- Seeing hypocrisy in it: the ritual described by Sacks is a shared convention, not an individual deception.
- Correcting the other person or reproaching them for not waiting for the answer.
Geography of misunderstanding
Neutral
- usa
- canada
Historical origins
Famille « how do / how do you do / how are you » : interrogation sur l'état d'autrui attestée dès le moyen anglais (verbe « do » = se porter ; Paston Letters 1463), « How do you do? » chez Middleton v. 1611, « How are you? » v. 1621, généralisation comme salutation au XVIIIe siècle, codification mondaine par Emily Post (1922). Fonction phatique théorisée par Malinowski (1923), Sacks (1975), Coupland et al. (1992).
Documented incidents
- 2014 — Tribune « The "How Are You?" Culture Clash » : Simone documente la collision entre le « How are you? » phatique américain et sa lecture littérale russe — « c'est comme un mur de glace qui s'abat entre nous », dit son amie Galina du rituel américain ; sa grand-mère répondait d'un invariable « Terrible ». La tribune déclenche un afflux de réponses de lecteurs du monde entier écrivant à l'autrice pour lui dire comment ils allaient. (Simone, « The "How Are You?" Culture Clash », The New York Times, 20 janvier 2014.)
- 1923 — Publication de « The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages » en supplément du Meaning of Meaning d'Ogden et Richards : Malinowski y forge le terme « communion phatique » pour décrire les paroles de pur lien social — salutations, questions sur la santé, remarques sur le temps — cadre théorique dans lequel le « How are you? » américain est décrit depuis. (Malinowski 1923, supplément I au Meaning of Meaning, Kegan Paul.)
- 1975 — Publication de « Everyone Has to Lie » : Sacks y analyse le pas « how are you » des salutations américaines et montre que répondre « fine » quand tout ne va pas bien est un mensonge rituel socialement requis — répondre littéralement à la question cérémonielle fait de vous un raseur. (Sacks, dans Sanches et Blount (dir.), Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use, Academic Press, 1975, p. 57-80.)
Practical recommendations
To do
- Répondre bref et positif (« Good, thanks! »), puis renvoyer : « And you? »
- Traiter la formule comme un équivalent de « bonjour », pas comme une enquête sur votre état.
- Développer seulement si l'interlocuteur marque une pause et signale une vraie question (« No, really… »).
Avoid
- Détailler sa santé ou ses émotions en réponse à un « How are you? » de passage.
- Interpréter la formule comme de l'hypocrisie : c'est une convention rituelle partagée (Sacks 1975).
- Attendre que l'Américain pose des questions de suivi, ou le lui reprocher.
Neutral alternatives
- « How's it going? » / « How are you doing? » — variantes phatiques équivalentes.
- « What's up? » — registre très informel, réponse attendue « Not much ».
- « How do you do? » — registre formel de présentation (vieilli), auquel on répond… « How do you do? »