One of the main lessons I drew from the last Friday’s class was the differences in language use in traditional and computer mediated communication. With increased speed of communication and the lack of physical cues in some modes of CMCs (for example instant messaging), we have resorted to increased use of abbreviations, emoticons and symbolic representation of objects and the like to fill the void. My concern, however, is that with increased diversity and different interpretations of such netlingo, would it lead to greater miscommunication?
As an extension, other than viewing netlingo as a fourth medium of communication (Crystal, 2001,), I would also suggest that the use of CMCs can be looked at from a “cross-cultural point-of-view”. On one side, we have people who have limited interaction with (or use of) CMC. On the other, the tech savvy group with exposure to all new netlingo additions and influences of CMC. Issues like differences in their way of communication via either traditional or computer-mediated methods can be looked at. For example, do people with high exposure to CMC vary in their way of making email requests in contrast to people with little exposure?
The rise of computer-aided communication has brought about a whole wave of issues that we should be concerned with. Other than security issues, the way that we look at communication has also been changed dramatically. Thus, this would serve as an excellent opportunity for us to better understand our evolving environment more.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus
In our last lesson, dissimilarities in communication styles were examined. From how men talk more in public settings to the topic of discussion, genders greatly vary in the way communication takes place. Out of the numerous take-aways from that class, the idea that verbal interactions among men were more information-focused than women intrigued me the most. Why was there such a difference? Is it a biological difference? Or culturally reinforced?
After thinking about it for awhile, I came up with a theory. It all goes back to our primitive ancestors and the roles they played in obtaining food for the community. It was the time when men used their prehistoric tools to hunt for preys while women gathered for fruits in groups. Communication among the men during the hunts would be centered around topics related to the hunt (such as how to move in on the target). Any additional communication may alert the prey and threaten the success of the hunt. For the women, however, there was no such restraint on communication. Instead, communication served as a form of relaying information, a method of improving relationships and a way to pass time!
That was a combination of biological and cultural influences. I wonder if there is any truth in that?
Nonetheless, a theory is a theory unless proven otherwise and I LOVE coming up with theories!:)
After thinking about it for awhile, I came up with a theory. It all goes back to our primitive ancestors and the roles they played in obtaining food for the community. It was the time when men used their prehistoric tools to hunt for preys while women gathered for fruits in groups. Communication among the men during the hunts would be centered around topics related to the hunt (such as how to move in on the target). Any additional communication may alert the prey and threaten the success of the hunt. For the women, however, there was no such restraint on communication. Instead, communication served as a form of relaying information, a method of improving relationships and a way to pass time!
That was a combination of biological and cultural influences. I wonder if there is any truth in that?
Nonetheless, a theory is a theory unless proven otherwise and I LOVE coming up with theories!:)
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Having missed the class on politeness last week, this week’s reflection will be based on what I can understand from the notes in relation a video I found on Youtube.
What is politeness about?
For the purposes of this reflection, I will not attempt to define politeness because I think that the idea is so abstract, it is not possible for laymen like myself to accurately capture its essence in only a few words. Strangely however, when people are asked to identify when someone is being rude in a given culture and context, we are often able to answer that correctly. This is possibly due to our brain being able to process intangible information that we are unaware of.
How do people achieve politeness?
In the above video, Mr Rude was listening to Mr Small’s audiobook “How to be polite”. Within it, Mr Small proposed 4 strategies to achieve politeness:
1) Always return a pleasant greeting with an equally kind word
2) Remember to praise your friends on the lovely meals they have prepared
3) Always respect your friend’s opinion
4) Make sure to extend a heartfelt thanks to your host as you are about to leave
Despite Mr Rude’s inability to follow the strategies, we can see how they may fit into the theoretical frameworks of Leech and Brown and Levinson. The following table summarises my interpretation:
Strategy Maxim (Leech) Type of politeness (Brown & Levinson)
1 Generosity Positive
2 Approbation Positive
3 Agreement Negative
4 Approbation Positive
Such categorisation is certainly up for debate but the main idea is that knowing how to be polite is a very valuable skill in human interactions. Although we may not know how to define it, instinctively we may still feel offended when we are not treated politely. Also, acts of politeness may not neatly fall into a particular category or type because multiple strategies may be used in more complex situations. Hence, it is important for an individual to know (and perhaps apply) several different methods people employ to be polite to others in a particular culture and context.
To end off, here is how you should NOT behave when you wish to be polite to others.
What is politeness about?
For the purposes of this reflection, I will not attempt to define politeness because I think that the idea is so abstract, it is not possible for laymen like myself to accurately capture its essence in only a few words. Strangely however, when people are asked to identify when someone is being rude in a given culture and context, we are often able to answer that correctly. This is possibly due to our brain being able to process intangible information that we are unaware of.
How do people achieve politeness?
In the above video, Mr Rude was listening to Mr Small’s audiobook “How to be polite”. Within it, Mr Small proposed 4 strategies to achieve politeness:
1) Always return a pleasant greeting with an equally kind word
2) Remember to praise your friends on the lovely meals they have prepared
3) Always respect your friend’s opinion
4) Make sure to extend a heartfelt thanks to your host as you are about to leave
Despite Mr Rude’s inability to follow the strategies, we can see how they may fit into the theoretical frameworks of Leech and Brown and Levinson. The following table summarises my interpretation:
Strategy Maxim (Leech) Type of politeness (Brown & Levinson)
1 Generosity Positive
2 Approbation Positive
3 Agreement Negative
4 Approbation Positive
Such categorisation is certainly up for debate but the main idea is that knowing how to be polite is a very valuable skill in human interactions. Although we may not know how to define it, instinctively we may still feel offended when we are not treated politely. Also, acts of politeness may not neatly fall into a particular category or type because multiple strategies may be used in more complex situations. Hence, it is important for an individual to know (and perhaps apply) several different methods people employ to be polite to others in a particular culture and context.
To end off, here is how you should NOT behave when you wish to be polite to others.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Contemplating cultural variability
Hofstede and Hall - two names that I shall not forget after last week’s class on cultural variability. Using the dimensions as proposed by the two gentlemen, we got a deeper insight into how different cultures may vary from each other. These include: power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, reliance on context and a myriad of other aspects of culture. To understand the implications of these findings on cross-cultural communication, I will venture into raising examples for each (of which some were mentioned by the video we watched at the end of class as well as during class discussion).
Power distance – In high power distance cultures, it is critical that an individual is conscious of the hierarchies that may exist in his/her counterparty’s culture. For example, when dealing with such bosses, it would be encouraged that the individual (that is, employee) address and speak to the boss with a certain degree of respect.
Individualism – Where a culture is collectivistic in nature, the individual should be careful when giving extra attention to persons within an in-group. For example, praising or scolding an employee in front of the rest of the employees should be avoided.
Masculinity – In this dimension, most of the traits that define masculinity of a culture should not be extrapolated to an individual (such as assertiveness, less caring, etcetera) as they are highly dependent on individual’s personality. For culture-wide norms, however, we can look at how clearly defined roles for different genders are and the degree of interaction between the genders. Therefore, in a masculine culture, an individual of a particular sex should be more understanding when communicating with the opposite sex. For example, if a female counterparty does not look at you in the eye when she responds to you, it may not mean that they are being rude but that they are conforming to their cultural norms.
Uncertainty avoidance – An individual facing high uncertainty avoidance cultures should be prepared to handle great resistance when proposing new ideas, etcetera. Thus, in such situations, an individual may need to stress more on the benefits of the change and take more steps to reduce the reluctance of the other parties involved.
Reliance on context – When dealing with a counterparty who comes from a culture that is different in its degree of reliance on context, an individual should be more understanding of differences that might prevail in the communication. For example, a person from high-context culture may have to supply more information to someone who is not within the same culture. On the flipside, an low-context-culture individual should be wary of nonverbal (or context) cues when interacting with parties who relies more on context.
Of course, like many other notions dealing with culture, an individual must be cautious of overgeneralisation and since Hofstede’s study focused on people in working environments, an additional pinch of salt must be taken when the ideas are considered in a non-work-related setting. Otherwise, these findings serve as a generally good guideline for issues that people should be aware of in cross-cultural communications.
Power distance – In high power distance cultures, it is critical that an individual is conscious of the hierarchies that may exist in his/her counterparty’s culture. For example, when dealing with such bosses, it would be encouraged that the individual (that is, employee) address and speak to the boss with a certain degree of respect.
Individualism – Where a culture is collectivistic in nature, the individual should be careful when giving extra attention to persons within an in-group. For example, praising or scolding an employee in front of the rest of the employees should be avoided.
Masculinity – In this dimension, most of the traits that define masculinity of a culture should not be extrapolated to an individual (such as assertiveness, less caring, etcetera) as they are highly dependent on individual’s personality. For culture-wide norms, however, we can look at how clearly defined roles for different genders are and the degree of interaction between the genders. Therefore, in a masculine culture, an individual of a particular sex should be more understanding when communicating with the opposite sex. For example, if a female counterparty does not look at you in the eye when she responds to you, it may not mean that they are being rude but that they are conforming to their cultural norms.
Uncertainty avoidance – An individual facing high uncertainty avoidance cultures should be prepared to handle great resistance when proposing new ideas, etcetera. Thus, in such situations, an individual may need to stress more on the benefits of the change and take more steps to reduce the reluctance of the other parties involved.
Reliance on context – When dealing with a counterparty who comes from a culture that is different in its degree of reliance on context, an individual should be more understanding of differences that might prevail in the communication. For example, a person from high-context culture may have to supply more information to someone who is not within the same culture. On the flipside, an low-context-culture individual should be wary of nonverbal (or context) cues when interacting with parties who relies more on context.
Of course, like many other notions dealing with culture, an individual must be cautious of overgeneralisation and since Hofstede’s study focused on people in working environments, an additional pinch of salt must be taken when the ideas are considered in a non-work-related setting. Otherwise, these findings serve as a generally good guideline for issues that people should be aware of in cross-cultural communications.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Writing about writing
Learning about the cultural differences of written discourse last Friday is particularly enlightening for me for I have finally discovered why I never really fancied Chinese writing and why I always did badly for my Chinese essays! Here are my thoughts on why this so:
Firstly, having an explicit and direct mindset when comprehending Chinese writing prevents one from truly understanding the essence of the ideas presented. More often than not, an individual may become deluded (like myself) by the seemingly superficial ideas of the author when if further comprehension could have revealed a deeper layer of thought. Thus, sadly for me, this inability to see the deeper layers has eroded my interest in Chinese writing.
With regards to my disastrous performances in Chinese essay writing, I would attribute it (erroneously or not) to my habit of thinking in English and then directly translating the ideas into Chinese. This allowed the transference of English-writing style into my Chinese essays, which were in turn graded (and most likely not appreciated) by my teachers who were from China! Of course, this is mere speculation on my part. My essay scores could also be due to my ideas being of secondary quality.
With that, I would like to end off with another thought hanging in my head: Would written discourse be less subjected to culture-specific differences given that we are explicitly taught and exposed to different ways of writing by people (especially teachers) coming from all over the world? As opposed to our relative lack of direct exposure to and learning about spoken discourse in other cultures?
Firstly, having an explicit and direct mindset when comprehending Chinese writing prevents one from truly understanding the essence of the ideas presented. More often than not, an individual may become deluded (like myself) by the seemingly superficial ideas of the author when if further comprehension could have revealed a deeper layer of thought. Thus, sadly for me, this inability to see the deeper layers has eroded my interest in Chinese writing.
With regards to my disastrous performances in Chinese essay writing, I would attribute it (erroneously or not) to my habit of thinking in English and then directly translating the ideas into Chinese. This allowed the transference of English-writing style into my Chinese essays, which were in turn graded (and most likely not appreciated) by my teachers who were from China! Of course, this is mere speculation on my part. My essay scores could also be due to my ideas being of secondary quality.
With that, I would like to end off with another thought hanging in my head: Would written discourse be less subjected to culture-specific differences given that we are explicitly taught and exposed to different ways of writing by people (especially teachers) coming from all over the world? As opposed to our relative lack of direct exposure to and learning about spoken discourse in other cultures?
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Hmmm....
Between the rising pile of work I am facing and the festive joy of Chinese New Year that I wish I could linger in, I think it is time for me to get some not-so-torturous items off my to-do list!
Friday’s class on spoken discourse (with special attention directed to telephone conversations, narratives and listener responses) was particularly interesting to me because I found out that:
1) I lack substantial experience in dealing with phone conversations (i.e. I don’t make/receive phone calls much)
2) I am really bad in narratives (aka lousy storyteller) and
3) I am very proficient in giving out listener responses!
This leads me to wonder if there could be a causal relationship in the abovementioned points I noted about myself. Maybe by being a bad storyteller, it subconsciously reduced my confidence in carrying out phone conversations with others which in turn increased my usage of listener responses in lieu of proper value-adding responses. The reliance on listener responses could have then been perceived by the other parties as being “pre-closing devices” in my phone conversations. Sufficient recurrence of these events might have discouraged people from calling me and thus significantly reducing the exposure I have in dealing with phone conversations!
Of course this is just speculation on my part, there could be many valid reasons as to why I do not receive many phone calls (such as a limited social circle dominated by people who have other communication preferences).
Regardless, before I end off, I would like to address a point made by Dr Deng in class: “The first ‘hello’ in a phone conversation is a response to the phone ringing.” To a large extent, I agree with this point but I would also like to suggest that that particular ‘hello’ also serves as a signal for the other party that the phone connection has been made.
Thank you for listening to my rambles and a happy rest-of-the-recess-week to all!
Friday’s class on spoken discourse (with special attention directed to telephone conversations, narratives and listener responses) was particularly interesting to me because I found out that:
1) I lack substantial experience in dealing with phone conversations (i.e. I don’t make/receive phone calls much)
2) I am really bad in narratives (aka lousy storyteller) and
3) I am very proficient in giving out listener responses!
This leads me to wonder if there could be a causal relationship in the abovementioned points I noted about myself. Maybe by being a bad storyteller, it subconsciously reduced my confidence in carrying out phone conversations with others which in turn increased my usage of listener responses in lieu of proper value-adding responses. The reliance on listener responses could have then been perceived by the other parties as being “pre-closing devices” in my phone conversations. Sufficient recurrence of these events might have discouraged people from calling me and thus significantly reducing the exposure I have in dealing with phone conversations!
Of course this is just speculation on my part, there could be many valid reasons as to why I do not receive many phone calls (such as a limited social circle dominated by people who have other communication preferences).
Regardless, before I end off, I would like to address a point made by Dr Deng in class: “The first ‘hello’ in a phone conversation is a response to the phone ringing.” To a large extent, I agree with this point but I would also like to suggest that that particular ‘hello’ also serves as a signal for the other party that the phone connection has been made.
Thank you for listening to my rambles and a happy rest-of-the-recess-week to all!
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
GTFSKPMARN - The Ten Elements of a Speech Act
I am frustrated! After ruminating on the topic for so many days, I still find myself unable to identify when a speech event has taken place. Breaking it down logically, the components of a speech event are straightforward - you need an activity with rules, norms and a generic structure where the predominant mode of communication is speech. Why then am I unable to discern when a speech event has occurred?
Disregarding that inability, however, what fascinates me the most about speech events is how we are able to pick up on the different yet numerous rules and norms that are involved in a specific context/culture. I personally think that this could be largely attributed to the ability of potential participants to consciously or subconsciously imitate the behaviours of others who were in similar situations. Of course, this depends on whether the speech event can be directly observed. In cases where we cannot, then we rely on experienced individuals or the “experts” to relay the expectations to us (as in the case of interviews). This standpoint is obviously open to debate and I welcome any opposing view!
With that, a happy CNY to all!:)
Disregarding that inability, however, what fascinates me the most about speech events is how we are able to pick up on the different yet numerous rules and norms that are involved in a specific context/culture. I personally think that this could be largely attributed to the ability of potential participants to consciously or subconsciously imitate the behaviours of others who were in similar situations. Of course, this depends on whether the speech event can be directly observed. In cases where we cannot, then we rely on experienced individuals or the “experts” to relay the expectations to us (as in the case of interviews). This standpoint is obviously open to debate and I welcome any opposing view!
With that, a happy CNY to all!:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)