This is the final post for this blog and I am a little sad and apprehensive that this module is coming to an end soon. To sum it up, I have never really seen GEK1036 as so much of a module, but more of a discovery and learning experience in cross-cultural communication. The way the class is being conducted, with the many diverse viewpoints and comments on topics, interesting videos being shown, as well as the interactive discussions we had really made me enjoy this GEK1036 experience even more.
Particularly, two of the topics discussed in class really caught my attention and interest, and they are speech events and cross-gender communication. Speech events can come in so many types, and the analysis of some of these speech events really made me understand and grasp the concepts and components better. Just like in my research experience on the speech event of food ordering in NUS canteens, a simple activity like that can actually bring out many insights into cultural and sociological differences and similarities. It made me look at daily conversations and communicative situations in a different light, and understand the ways different people communicate in various situations. As for the cross-gender communication, I liked it alot because it gave us the opportunities to questions and challenge the way we communicate with the opposite sex, and understand where each of the genders are coming from. I am sure I can take home many things from these 2 lessons and hopefully apply some of these in my daily life.
Lastly, I just wanna say I never regretted taking this module, and also wanna thank Dr Deng for his commitment and passion towards teaching this class. The efforts put in planning the tutorials and finding the interesting videos make a difference. Perhaps a small feedback will be to allocate more discussion, presentation, and role playing into the class, so as to make it more lively. Nonetheless, all in all, I will definitely recommend other friends to take this "non=examinable" and "non-stress" module, which will also greatly benefit one's development and learning.
Wishing everyone a wonderful n blessed Easter weekend.
In the twinkling of an eye, we had our last formal lesson for our module GEK1036 Cross-cultural communications & discourse. Today's topic was on computer-mediated communication(CMC), something which has infiltrated into the lives of most students. Nowadays, its so common to see young people using CMC tools like MSN, facebook, Skype, Twitter and even previously IRC/ICQ when they were in fashion. We can observe that the trends of using CMC tools are on the rise, and even some adults and older generation are starting to appear on facebook n twitter. Indeed CMC has no age limits and boundaries, and people from across the globe can use these avenues to communicate with one another.
From the latest statistics, we can see the penetration rate of Internet in Singapore is high, 72.4 % in year 2009. Internet has become somewhat like more of our handphone, something which we find it hard to live without. Internet has also grown to become a popular mode of communication between people, as seen from the growing numbers of people who use MSN, facebook etc. Personally, I find that this trend brings about its pros and cons in a society. On one hand, this CMC tools allow Singaporeans to exchange information faster, and enable us to expand our social circle in the global context as well. However, on the other hand, I feel that it sorta affects our ability to socialize and interact well in actual face-to-face context, simply because we become so used to chatting over the computer instead. Upon saying that, I am not trying to downplay the way in which Internet allow us to meet and interact with people we never imagined we will talk to, as well as express ourselves behind a hidden window.
Also, we looked at the gender differences in CMC, which give us a greater insight into the way men n women interact through CMC tools. Findings have shown that men uses a more adverserial style of communicating, and tend to use longer messages as well as make stronger assertions. Women, however, tend to use a more supportive style of communicating, use more expressions of support, have longer opening and closings than men. Some of these can be attributed to the way we communicate in real-life, as we learned in our class of cross-gender communication that women tend to focus more on relationship while men focus more on task n information. As such, men generally simply talk only when there is a need to, and when there are things to be done.
From this last formal lesson we had, I would say that I have learned a great deal on communication and cultures. The course material and syllabus has definitely benefited me in a way which helps improve my personal development and understanding of language.
Another of one of my favourite classes among all the classes we had so far for this module. It touches on a topic closely related to daily life and interaction, which is cross-gender interaction. Today's discussion started off with us looking at how language itself can even be gender biased, as we see that "man" is often used generally to refer to humankind, both male and female. For example, we often hear people saying that "the dog is man's best friend." Though the word "man" is used here, but I am sure it refers to both men and women. There are plenty of female dog owners in Singapore, as many as male dog owners, or maybe even more. As such, the use of the language has also certain gender bias in it, and we can also see in many other words and phrases, like "fireman", "chairman" & "businessman".
The other aspect of the discussion today which generated alot of interest is regarding the differences in the way which men and women talk. Dr. Louann Brizendine, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco states in ``The Female Brain" that ``A woman uses about 20,000 words per day while a man uses about 7,000." With this research, we can clearly see that the average woman talk more than man in a day, and this could be largely attributed to the many words spoken in conversations that the average woman have with other women in single=sex conversations. This is due to other research showing that woman talk less than man in a mixed-gender conversation. I guess in single-sex conversations for men, men generally talk less because men tend to be more concerned with exchange of information, rather than feelings. As such, once the information supply runs out, men tend to put a stop to their conversations.
Also, men generally tend to use less listener responses as compared to women in conversations. This is in line with what we learned from class, that women tend to play the more supportive role in conversations, and give responses to other people speaking. Men, on the other hand, can be pretty quiet while listening, but that should not be misunderstood that they are not listening at all. This could be just due to the way guys are wired up, and how men prefer to speak only when it is their turn. Here are some other interesting differences I have found on the Internet regarding they way men and women talk(just in general, may not apply to every individual):
What a woman says, what she really means... - I need = I want - We need = I want - We need to talk = I need to complain - Sure...go ahead = I don't want you to - I need new shoes = the other 40 pairs are simply the wrong shade - You have to learn to communicate = Just agree with me - Are you listening to me? = Too late, you're dead
What a man says, what he really means... - I'm hungry = I'm hungry - I'm tired = I'm tired - Nice dress! = Nice cleavage! - Yes, I love your new hairstyle = I liked it better before - Yes, your haircut looks good = $50 and it doesn't even look different! - I like the first dress you tried on better = Pick any freakin' dress and let's go! - What's wrong? = I don't see why are you making such a big deal out of this.
As we can see, the way in which a man and woman talk and what they really want to say can be pretty different. So, I fully agree with the quote that "cross-gender interaction is actually cross-cultural interaction". However, upon saying that, it does not mean we can sit back and not make the effort to understand n appreciate the opposite gender, and to learn to see things from each other view points.
This week class is a continuation on cultural systems from last week. The class started with introducing to us the 6 maxims surrounding politeness. Its something new to me, in the sense that there are so many different principles of politeness in communication. It gives me a greater view of how we can display politeness in the way which we relate to others and the things which we say.
Something that struck me particularly in the discussion is how certain pairs maxims are actually 2 sides of the coin. For example, the tact maxim maximize benefit to others while the generosity maxim minimize benefit to self. When you make things easier for others, you are being considerate; while if you take that extra effort or spend that extra cost to benefit others, you are being generous in the sense. The other example is the approbation maxim and modesty maxim, whereby it is the difference in how generous you give praises to others and how little praises you give to yourself. So in summary, I feel its an issue of your emphasis on self and others. If we can place more importance on others than self, we are one step closer to being courteous and well-mannered in our exchanges with people of various cultures.
The next novel idea to me is that of negative & positive politeness. I never knew that there is such a thing called negative politeness. It is defined as respecting the hearer's need to be independent and freedom of action. Sometimes this is achieved when we do not say anything at all. This is interesting - not saying anything can actually be a form of politeness. I have never seen it in this way before. I guess it really depends on context and the relationship between the speaker n hearer. There may be times when we should learn to say more of "Thank You" and "Sorry" so that we do not start to take one another for granted although the relationship may be close. :)
Wow this is one of the most interesting classes I have attended since the start of this semester. Really appreciate Dr Deng efforts to prepare this class and even the video for us to watch. :) Mainly issues and topics in the area of culture are discussed in the class. The class started off with Dr Deng asking us to list down the top 10 characteristics of Singapore culture. Many interesting local cultures surfaced, like Kiasuism, Singlish, using tissue to chop tables, eating supper and even being driven by efficiency in the system. This got me thinking as to how these distinctive local cultures are formed and why they appear in Singapore. One of the possible reasons is the ideals, habits and values SIngaporeans develop as we progress, as well as the multi cultural environment which creates alot of diversity and cross-cultural heritage.
As we moved on, Hofstede's dimensions of cultural variability were introduced to us. There are 5 main dimensions, but I decided to focus on 2 of them for exploration in this blog post. Firstly, I shall touch on the dimension of individualism vs collectivism. I am not surprised Singapore is ranked 53 in the area of individualism. It shows that we are more group-oriented and emphasizes more on teamwork. I beleive that is largely due to the fact that the government emphasises on democracy and building up a nation together. Every single person plays a part and together we can make a difference. Oh no, I start to feel like I am making some sort of propanganda for Singapore haa. But anyway, I feel that a truly beautiful society should have a balance between both individualism and collectivism. Individualism allows each person to have their own freedom and to pursuit his or her own well-being. However, being part of a group allows us to build strong relationships and develop ourselves fully as a whole. So, if we can strike a balance, that will be the ideal case.
Next, I shall talk about my perception on power distance. From the definition I got from http://www.geert-hofstede.com/, Power distance is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. As I looked through the list of ranking, I noticed Asian countries are ranked high while Scandinavian countries are ranked at the lower end. Perhaps in Asian countries, people are more comfortable with where they are at, and do not exactly strive to fight more for their own rights. We are okay with our current state of being, and the amount of power and influence that we have. On the other hand, people in Western countries believe more in individual rights and getting more or even equal power as others in higher positions. For me, I believe equality in a society is something which cannot n will never be achieved, as there will always be others in authority and others who are not. This world is not a fair world, after all.
To end off, I shall leave you with a quote from Hofstede himself as food for thought:
" Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster." --Prof. Geert Hofstede, Emeritus Professor, Maastricht University.
After a one week Chinese new year cum not-so-mid semester break, we had our first class after the break. It was quite a refreshing and interesting class today with plenty of fruiftul discussion. The topic for today was on written discourse.
We went through various writing styles by people of different cultural groups, namely the English linearity, Arabic parallelism and the oriental circularity. What struck me in today's class is how the similar pieces of information/ideas/opinions can be penned down in such distinctive ways by different authors. Specifically, we read of how this Chinese writer crafts his poetry form of writing to bring forth a hidden message. This makes me think of how restrictive and controlled people's writings are at that time. They were so aware of the dangers of directly critising people and things, such that they phrase their writing in another manner. I feel that such writing are even more powerful and intelligent, as they make use of imagery and metaphors to make their point in a subtle way. Moreover, they are socially sensitive in not offending people as their message is conveyed in an indirect form.
An interesting point I have learned today is that using the same language does not necessarily mean miscommunication will not surface. In fact, even if people of different cultural backgrounds speak a common language, there still may likely be miscommunication or communication problems. Another useful point I have learned today is how even making a simple request through a letter have its own structure and approach. We read about how a Chinese writer in Australia phrased his request in a very courteous and structured manner. The structure was from salutation, facework, reasons for request, request and sign-off. They can vary in terms of the order. After this class, I believe I will be able to plan my writings in a more structured manner, as well as consider carefully whether the reader, with or without necessary background, will be able to understand my writings.
A unique resignation letter, but it follows a certain structure too! :)
Today in class we learnt about speech events in greater detail, and analyzed the spoken discourse of speech events. One specific example is that of telephone conversations, and how they often followed a unspoken structure. Participants of a telephone conversation take turns to speak, and that in fact is a kind of pattern we subconsciously follow. We also looked at specifically Chinese phone openings and how they consisted of relation-oriented comments and other-oriented questions. I feel that the reason why Chinese often begin in such a manner because it shows we treasure relationship a lot. By showing concern and finding out more about the person's well-being first, it shows that Chinese generally emphasize more on relationship than task.
Another interesting discovery is that technology plays a significant role in how we communicate nowadays. Just like we discussed in class today that with the invention of Caller-ID, less people begin the conversation by asking the other party's identity or stating their identity. Also, young people nowadays prefer to converse through SMS, facebook or MSN as compared to real-life face-to-face conversations. I feel that through this various communication channels, our expressions and conversations may become shorter and more brief. Also, people will start to have less awareness and sensitivity to real-life expressions, body language and non-verbal communication. Perhaps, from today onwards, I should try to cut down on my sms and facebook, but make more meaningful conversations with my friends in real life. :)
During today's class, the lesson and discussion revolved around speech events which are basically defined as structured activities governed by rules for use of speech. Also, the 10 parts of a speech event was explained, with examples given. As I look back on today's lesson, I began to have a clearer picture of what a speech event constitutes and how speech events helps us to understand more about a culture or a group of people.
When Dr Deng taught in greater details about the various components of speech events, I was intrigued by the fact how these components actually shape and form the speech events. For example, the setting of the speech event can actually greatly affects the speech event itself. Take for instance, when a person make a speech in a classroom as compared to when that same person make a speech in a huge auditorium in front of a few hundred people. I am sure the manner in which he starts off his speech, as well as the actual contents of his speech will vary greatly. There may even be more pauses or stammering when he speaks in front of a larger audience size.
The other issue I found interesting in today's class is when we talked about a specific speech event, like the Japanese marriage proposal. As I found out in today's class, there are actually quite a number of hidden rules as to how a guy should propose to a lady in the Japanese context. It makes me wonder how these hidden rules came about and why some people still hold on to these rules subconsciously. Why does it have to be the male who proposes to the female first? Can't it be the other way round? I thought females are arguing for equality treatment in the modern context, so if we want to be truly equal, any party can initiate a marriage, right?
Also, I feel that perhaps the idea of kneeling down when proposing shows the sincerity and respect one has towards the other, and also the solemnness, spirituality and trust in this new commitment which both parties are entering into. In Aztec culture, when a man decided he fancied the idea of getting engaged, he has to speak to his parents who then consulted with community elders. Approaches were made to the family concerned and, if accepted, the engagement was in place. Before the wedding could be held, the soothsayer was consulted as to lucky wedding days. If the couple married on a bad day, their union was doomed. This whole wedding game sounded like it involved so many people in the marriage, and even the day of marriage plays such a critical role in the marriage itself. I wonder if this still holds true in the modern context, say in Singapore culture. Are we still bounded by past beliefs and traditional norms, like where a marriage is not just about two people, and how marriage dates are so instrumental in the success of a marriage?
Just wanna end this post with an interesting marriage proposal :)
The seminar today is the first actual lesson to be conducted for this module on cross-cultural communication and discourse. After today's seminar, I feel that I have gained a greater insight and understanding into the concept of a speech act and how a speech act is being used in various cultures. There are many forms of speech act, like for example promise, threaten, invite, praise, criticize and even apologize. In my daily life, I hardly notice that simple things like making a promise or presenting a request are also classified under speech acts. Moreover, these speech acts varies to a large extent when people of different culture and background use them.
Speech acts can vary in many ways and one of the ways is sociopragmatic variation. I feel that other than the demographic factors like age, occupation, religion & race, a person's family upbringing and circle of friends play a significant role in affecting the way you perform your speech acts. For example, if you are brought up by parents who constantly use a lot of vulgarity when conversing with one another, chances are that the manner in which you make a request will not be very courteous. Other than that, the peers which you mix with also influences the way you use your words. If you have friends who are rather blunt and always make comments on one another openly, subconsciously you may also tend to be less tactful when making criticisms of others.
As we discussed about compliments in our class, Dr Deng asked one of our classmates "What was the last compliment that you gave?" It also got me thinking about that question. To my surprise, I actually cannot recall when was the last time I gave a compliment to someone else. I attribute that to two possible reasons, either I have been really stingy with my compliments, or that I have a really poor memory such that I forgot when was the last time I gave a compliment. Through this, it may also illustrate the disadvantages of data collection by recall protocols, because we are humans and do not always remember details of our speech that accurately.
Through the discourse completion task(DCT) in the form of the questionnaire we did, the results showed that 43% of our compliment responses are accepting and only 16% of them are rejecting. These results may not be thoroughly accurate, because the written responses are mainly written with our espoused theory in mind. It reflects what we believe we will respond under the certain situation or conversation given in the questionnaire. However, in real-life, the actual manner in which we respond are based more on our theory-in-use, referring to the real-time practical actions n words we use. This link provides more information on espoused theory and theory-in-use. Like in the questionnaire we did, I may think I will take compliments well and accept most of them, but in real life it may not be that case.
All in all, this seminar has made me more aware of the various speech acts that can be performed, and how various factors affect the way in which we perform the speech act. From today onwards, I think I might just be that little bit more observant when friends around me make a compliment, apologize or even threaten others.
