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.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
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 Thus, that would make any study of spoken discourse out of date by the time the author publishes his/her study.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)