In all, I found the module to be of general relevance. Although the topics covered are along the lines of the study of linguistics, the how and why differences happen and exists along social lines would help me in articulating and analyzing some future experiences.
This to be important as the 'tools' taught in this module would enable myself and the class as a whole to better handle the cultural intricacies in the future especially when dealing with individuals from around the world in the working world. Be it the public and private sector, I find that the progress of globalization and its growing importance compels individuals to better understand and handle situations especially when it comes down to face-to-face relations if we are to survive in this global economy.
Of all the sessions, I find the presentations to be the most endearing. This is because, I saw through my own research and the first hand research of others the application of what we have learned in the 12 weeks that passed. Although results of the groups are imporatnat, I find the learning process to be most important. The formualtion of an actual research is something undergraduates rarely do in NUS.
Often, we rely heaviliy on second hand or even third hand sources for our own learning needs. The main thing I learned from the research is that learning through first hand discovery is far more lasting than learning through books and other contraptions the academic world has conjured up. I say this as an academic myself as after suffering through many modules of political science, this assertion is ever more true.
I thought the tutorials were fun in the beginning few sessions. However, after the mid-term break, I felt that the mood of the class was on the decline rapidly. With many other modules' deadlines due and the fact that the mental attention span is closing faster, I guess one can see why tutorial sessions were getting drearer. On the bright side of things, I find the tutorial sessions to be well developed by the lecturer although perhaps fixed groups could have been formed in the beginning sessions in order to facilitate comfort in talking and discussion of the topic matter.
One aspect of the learning experience I did not really feel comfortable with was the use blogging for reflections. Perhaps, I make this comment on the basis that my own experiences in the internet community. Through research, I've found that one's digital identity is a extremely powerful tool for manipulation and blackmail. Hence, my paranoia and disdain for any form of digital identity. However, the e-reflections serve to a small degree to me the function of solidifying the learning process. While it may seem cool to have learning through blog entries, it actually caused me to dread this module's lecture because I have to comment on it. I like the topics relatively well, but I have a stronger negative feeling for this blog. Hence, one can notice the extremely late posts in this blog.
With that said, I wish I had time to learn more about linguistics in depth without having to be graded upon. With training in engineering and political science, I pride myself as a Jack of all trades and master of none. Likewise, I do like learning and gaining new insights about new topics everyday, but to a larger degree a dislike for assessment exists.
I think this module would be beneficial in the long journey of life. As I journey on I can only pray whatever I have learned in university as well as this module would help me in my goal of service to God and country.
Semper Fidelis
PS. This blog identity will be deleted upon completion of the semester. Take care and God bless
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Face, Politeness, and Power
E-learning week, how interesting the human species have developed technology and learning modes.
Although I went through this lecture at home, I found myself intrigued by the topic. I always thought politeness is merely something imbued from upbringing and tradition and would be hard to articulate in clear terms as the topic itself is subjective in nature.
In particular, politeness and context appealed to me as the most interesting part of the topic.
On reflection, I notice that we often use polite language for the sake of polite language. Of course, offence may still be taken if one rudely interrupts a conversation or request an item. However, I find that polite language has actually lost its meaning. Take for example, MRT rides. On numerous occasions, I find myself being shoved aside with "excuse me" being used as a verbal recompese for the indiscretion purporsively extended. Another example is when we do shopping or just merely browse through products that we may or may not intend to buy. Often, the shop attendants would announce their intention to assist but the question I ask myself is, What if I announce my intention not to buy anything as yet without the nice flowery language? Would I be considered more rude to lie and cause the attendent to waste his time on me or be more forthcoming with my intentions?
If the purpose of politeness is to minimize rude behaviour, then on what basis does one measure what constitutes rude? Taking the situational context, how one perceives the situation and hence the language used is based on the norms and upbringing of the individual. Social context in terms of relativeness of the individual to another group or individual is similarly based on how one percive his or her relation to the other party.
Take for example, a recent case whereby a old cleaner uncle told off a prime minister of a small country when the prime minister commented on his willingness to work even at a old age beyond that of normal retirement. In this case, the old cleaner uncle perceives his social standing as irrelevant to the position of the prime minister. In some cultures, it is even rude to treat a person different based on his or her social standing. What I am trying to say is that politeness ought to be used only when truly intended to be nice for the sake of individual respect for the other individual regardless of any other context.
Take the aforementioned case, the uncle could have told the prime minister tactfully he would rather not be working, using tact not because the other individual is of a higher social standing but of genuine respect for an likeminded flawed human. On the other hand, the prime minister may not be rude in his direct use of language, but rude in the sense that the content of his language may be deemed as offensive to some. As such, what could have been said to the old uncle is to ask out of genuine concern how is the state of health and ask what are the common things that the old uncle faces in his old age.
Differences ocur in society, but the need to minimize tensions need to be investigated. Is it for the grater good for self or greater good of others. That is the question I ask myself often when I ananlyse societal norms.
Although I went through this lecture at home, I found myself intrigued by the topic. I always thought politeness is merely something imbued from upbringing and tradition and would be hard to articulate in clear terms as the topic itself is subjective in nature.
In particular, politeness and context appealed to me as the most interesting part of the topic.
On reflection, I notice that we often use polite language for the sake of polite language. Of course, offence may still be taken if one rudely interrupts a conversation or request an item. However, I find that polite language has actually lost its meaning. Take for example, MRT rides. On numerous occasions, I find myself being shoved aside with "excuse me" being used as a verbal recompese for the indiscretion purporsively extended. Another example is when we do shopping or just merely browse through products that we may or may not intend to buy. Often, the shop attendants would announce their intention to assist but the question I ask myself is, What if I announce my intention not to buy anything as yet without the nice flowery language? Would I be considered more rude to lie and cause the attendent to waste his time on me or be more forthcoming with my intentions?
If the purpose of politeness is to minimize rude behaviour, then on what basis does one measure what constitutes rude? Taking the situational context, how one perceives the situation and hence the language used is based on the norms and upbringing of the individual. Social context in terms of relativeness of the individual to another group or individual is similarly based on how one percive his or her relation to the other party.
Take for example, a recent case whereby a old cleaner uncle told off a prime minister of a small country when the prime minister commented on his willingness to work even at a old age beyond that of normal retirement. In this case, the old cleaner uncle perceives his social standing as irrelevant to the position of the prime minister. In some cultures, it is even rude to treat a person different based on his or her social standing. What I am trying to say is that politeness ought to be used only when truly intended to be nice for the sake of individual respect for the other individual regardless of any other context.
Take the aforementioned case, the uncle could have told the prime minister tactfully he would rather not be working, using tact not because the other individual is of a higher social standing but of genuine respect for an likeminded flawed human. On the other hand, the prime minister may not be rude in his direct use of language, but rude in the sense that the content of his language may be deemed as offensive to some. As such, what could have been said to the old uncle is to ask out of genuine concern how is the state of health and ask what are the common things that the old uncle faces in his old age.
Differences ocur in society, but the need to minimize tensions need to be investigated. Is it for the grater good for self or greater good of others. That is the question I ask myself often when I ananlyse societal norms.
Cross Gender Communication
Cross Gender Communication is a topic that I found boring at first but found it amusing later. In the beginning, I thought the differences of conversation between the genders was widely the same despite cultural backgrounds. Proven otherwise, I am now aware that although gender differences do change the way discourse is carried out with similarly slight difference within the same gender conversation when applying cultural backgrounds.
In the context of Singapore, we have become a blend of western and asian cultures. I feel that the connotation of using certain terms to address sexes have been nullified. Instead, titles have become functional and in a sense a-gendered. Take for example the use of "Ms". As mentioned in class, Ms is mistaken commonly for a short for Miss. The use of either is only an functional word to pertain to the title of the individual.
Addressing an individual with miss or ms would not in the context of Singapore connote that the adressor is in any way discrimatory to the addressee's status. Singaporeans in general will relate to feminism to mean equality in job opportunities, and social status. However the terminology used to address individual would in general not connote any bias. The need for defense against bias only results when one is not confident of one's status wherever and whoever the individual might be, male or female.
Similarly, written language in general TODAY also do not have gender-bias meaning although some may argue otherwise. In the modern society, humans despite of their gender have been relegated to functional entities. The words to describe these functional groups and entities may have been brought down from the inherent bias of language, but the inherent implicit bias have not. When we think of doctors, prime ministers, or any function in society, we no longer have the notion that any is exclusive only to a certain gender. Except military service which I find is decareasingly a female service. However the conotation still exist.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Written Discourse- Lecture 4 Week 5
The lecture on written discourse was an interesting learning experience. The differences in writing by different ethnic groups made me wonder how many variations there are out there in the world, as there are so many forms of written discourse out there both ancient and modern, with some lost to time itself. The basis of the various forms of essay made me thought of possibilities why some cultures wrte the way they do.
The course of events that first made written discourse needed and feasible took different routes in each civilization. As such, the form of discourse written would differ greatly when writing about similar topics across various culture. While it may be argued that the need for a written form of language may be be argued to be fundamentally the same in all civilizations, one may also argue that the cultural perspectives and social norms greatly influence the use of writing and its form taken. Take the Chinese civilization for example, the written language in the beginning was primary used by government officials trained in philosopical teachings of Confucius and Mencius. Thence, their writings would result in a form varied and its influences are still heavily felt by Chinese writers today. Thus when one's mind think in his/her native language and writes in another languaage, the resulted discourse in the other language becomes heavily skewed towards the form and nature of the native language. Imagine yourself in a similar position.
The influences on one's cultural writing may also be due to external variables thus resulting in variations of form in written discourse even within one ethnic group. What would result out of this? Perhaps this explains how oriental writing may seem similar despite many dissimlar cultural backgrounds. Take India, China, and Manchuria for example, their native languages share similar attributes in essay forms. This may be due to the fact that Buddhistic writings were introiduced to Chna by India and heavily influenced the minds of scholars of their day. The Manchu learned almost wholesale from the Chinese in written discourse asthey adapted to the chinese culture. As such, one can make the logical conclusion that written discourse itself has its forms and shapes due to external factors even in western societies.
Lastly, I want to say that although the forms of essays may differ culturally, the world is changing so fast with globalization that perhaps in tjis generation we will see a convergence of styles and types despite cultural backgrounds. This will be a interesting phenomenom to view. Perhaps we will all be speaking Chimerican in years to come?!
The course of events that first made written discourse needed and feasible took different routes in each civilization. As such, the form of discourse written would differ greatly when writing about similar topics across various culture. While it may be argued that the need for a written form of language may be be argued to be fundamentally the same in all civilizations, one may also argue that the cultural perspectives and social norms greatly influence the use of writing and its form taken. Take the Chinese civilization for example, the written language in the beginning was primary used by government officials trained in philosopical teachings of Confucius and Mencius. Thence, their writings would result in a form varied and its influences are still heavily felt by Chinese writers today. Thus when one's mind think in his/her native language and writes in another languaage, the resulted discourse in the other language becomes heavily skewed towards the form and nature of the native language. Imagine yourself in a similar position.
The influences on one's cultural writing may also be due to external variables thus resulting in variations of form in written discourse even within one ethnic group. What would result out of this? Perhaps this explains how oriental writing may seem similar despite many dissimlar cultural backgrounds. Take India, China, and Manchuria for example, their native languages share similar attributes in essay forms. This may be due to the fact that Buddhistic writings were introiduced to Chna by India and heavily influenced the minds of scholars of their day. The Manchu learned almost wholesale from the Chinese in written discourse asthey adapted to the chinese culture. As such, one can make the logical conclusion that written discourse itself has its forms and shapes due to external factors even in western societies.
Lastly, I want to say that although the forms of essays may differ culturally, the world is changing so fast with globalization that perhaps in tjis generation we will see a convergence of styles and types despite cultural backgrounds. This will be a interesting phenomenom to view. Perhaps we will all be speaking Chimerican in years to come?!
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Lesson 2 - Speech Events
Sorry for the late post y'all.
This class was interesting to me. The items normally learned intuitively by individuals as they interact with other individuals was clearly articulated and defined. As such, I felt that this lesson will be relevant to the future as events that occur naturally around us can be clearly and objectively articulated and classified. By equipping individuals to analyze events objectively, the individual would be able to anticipate and overcome potential obstacles and problems in the future at any work event.
The events of the past experiences shared during discussion session also helped me understand how other individuals deal with similar issues. For example, the issue of debt collection was interesting as it has never occurred to me to use certain etiquette when attempting to reclaim an debt owed. Perhaps among my groups of friends we never had the problem as money owed would be paid as soon as possible or just requested plainly to have it returned, Even then, offense would not be implied or felt.
Lastly, perhaps my biggest takeaway from this class was the fact that each individual has to be dealt in the proper context with the eight components more or less in an appropriate manner. However, appropriate manner is subjective to one's interpretation of the situation. Perhaps in that case, one must appeal to the values and principles we have learned from our cultures and past experiences.
This class was interesting to me. The items normally learned intuitively by individuals as they interact with other individuals was clearly articulated and defined. As such, I felt that this lesson will be relevant to the future as events that occur naturally around us can be clearly and objectively articulated and classified. By equipping individuals to analyze events objectively, the individual would be able to anticipate and overcome potential obstacles and problems in the future at any work event.
The events of the past experiences shared during discussion session also helped me understand how other individuals deal with similar issues. For example, the issue of debt collection was interesting as it has never occurred to me to use certain etiquette when attempting to reclaim an debt owed. Perhaps among my groups of friends we never had the problem as money owed would be paid as soon as possible or just requested plainly to have it returned, Even then, offense would not be implied or felt.
Lastly, perhaps my biggest takeaway from this class was the fact that each individual has to be dealt in the proper context with the eight components more or less in an appropriate manner. However, appropriate manner is subjective to one's interpretation of the situation. Perhaps in that case, one must appeal to the values and principles we have learned from our cultures and past experiences.
Lecture 3 - Spoken Discourse
The lesson focused on phone conversations that do seem to show statistical differences between Chinese and other groups. However, based on the simple discussion done by the small groups, it seems that most individuals within the class although from Asian backgrounds seem to have a preference to the western model of phone conversation. I believe that this is representative of the pervasive cultural dynamics between modern Asian and Western society.
With that said, perhaps the study of cross-cultural communication ought to be reviewed on a even more regular basis. With globalization and the ease of transportation of personnel and most importantly ideas, the study of differences spoken by different cultures and societies may need to be understood as an dynamic overlapping discourse. Thus, that would make any study of spoken discourse out of date by the time the author publishes his/her study.
The latter part of the class was interesting as the creative spark of different groups were applied to story telling. It was interesting to note that although we all had the same pictures, we all had an different interpretation of events. This had me thinking. If an simple cartoon series can be interpreted in so many ways, how much more the study of discourse of diverse cultures and societies. Would the cultural background of the researcher studying another culture have an impact on the outcome of the study? With the dominance of the western academics in tertiary education, would the research outcomes of any social fields be skewed or portrayed with a tinted lens? In the same vein, how about Asian students in these fields being taught by western academics? What would that speak of objectivity?
With that said, perhaps the study of cross-cultural communication ought to be reviewed on a even more regular basis. With globalization and the ease of transportation of personnel and most importantly ideas, the study of differences spoken by different cultures and societies may need to be understood as an dynamic overlapping discourse. Thus, that would make any study of spoken discourse out of date by the time the author publishes his/her study.
The latter part of the class was interesting as the creative spark of different groups were applied to story telling. It was interesting to note that although we all had the same pictures, we all had an different interpretation of events. This had me thinking. If an simple cartoon series can be interpreted in so many ways, how much more the study of discourse of diverse cultures and societies. Would the cultural background of the researcher studying another culture have an impact on the outcome of the study? With the dominance of the western academics in tertiary education, would the research outcomes of any social fields be skewed or portrayed with a tinted lens? In the same vein, how about Asian students in these fields being taught by western academics? What would that speak of objectivity?
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Week 2 - Speech Acts
Reflections
The lesson on Speech Acts helped me understand how compliments and replies are categorized within the confines of language studies. However, what piqued my interest was the fact that the stereotypes about Asian culture with regards to our replies wasn't proven in the short experiment done. Perhaps it may due to the fact that we were all trying to write down what it seems politically correct to reply and not what we really would have said. For example, had an old acquaintance come up to me and started a conversation, I would be trying hard to locate my memories about the individual much less carrying on in much conversation.
Towards the last part of the lesson, I thought about how the replies and compliments paid would be representative of the cultural context of the individuals. One thought that occurred to me was that this could be totally irrelevant in the modern day context.
Firstly, with rapid globalisation, our compliments and replies have transformed into a generic object whereby despite the different cultures, speech acts are similar to each other as most try to adhere to international norms in the business world. This is due to the fact that most Asian economies make a great emphasis on attracting many Western investments and MNCs and thus compelling them to even adhere to Western norms in conversation in order to win over the business/es.
This leads to the second thought, if international speech norms are already established, compliments and replies become vestigial words that contain in itself the value of greetings and nothing more can be deduced from the speech act itself. If the compliments and replies are established as presumed, the words spoken and the manner in which it was spoken cannot be used to infer any cultural norm/s of the speakers concerned. As such, these words become just a mere whiff of warm air and do not function in any ways other than to bring a formal acquaintance into existence.
Lastly, the last part of the lesson regarding different types of scenario in which to observe speech acts had me thinkin. If the individuals know they are being observed, the experiment result would be skewed or bias. Field observation would seem like the best choice for observing people. However, the problem I identified was not the fact that the variables are too much to be controlled. Rather, would it be ethical to eavesdrop on a conversation even for a scientific experiment? Where do we draw the line? With that I leave you to think.
Semper Fidelis
The lesson on Speech Acts helped me understand how compliments and replies are categorized within the confines of language studies. However, what piqued my interest was the fact that the stereotypes about Asian culture with regards to our replies wasn't proven in the short experiment done. Perhaps it may due to the fact that we were all trying to write down what it seems politically correct to reply and not what we really would have said. For example, had an old acquaintance come up to me and started a conversation, I would be trying hard to locate my memories about the individual much less carrying on in much conversation.
Towards the last part of the lesson, I thought about how the replies and compliments paid would be representative of the cultural context of the individuals. One thought that occurred to me was that this could be totally irrelevant in the modern day context.
Firstly, with rapid globalisation, our compliments and replies have transformed into a generic object whereby despite the different cultures, speech acts are similar to each other as most try to adhere to international norms in the business world. This is due to the fact that most Asian economies make a great emphasis on attracting many Western investments and MNCs and thus compelling them to even adhere to Western norms in conversation in order to win over the business/es.
This leads to the second thought, if international speech norms are already established, compliments and replies become vestigial words that contain in itself the value of greetings and nothing more can be deduced from the speech act itself. If the compliments and replies are established as presumed, the words spoken and the manner in which it was spoken cannot be used to infer any cultural norm/s of the speakers concerned. As such, these words become just a mere whiff of warm air and do not function in any ways other than to bring a formal acquaintance into existence.
Lastly, the last part of the lesson regarding different types of scenario in which to observe speech acts had me thinkin. If the individuals know they are being observed, the experiment result would be skewed or bias. Field observation would seem like the best choice for observing people. However, the problem I identified was not the fact that the variables are too much to be controlled. Rather, would it be ethical to eavesdrop on a conversation even for a scientific experiment? Where do we draw the line? With that I leave you to think.
Semper Fidelis
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)