Computer-Mediated Communication

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.

Cross-Gender Interaction

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.

Alright, once again, a video for ya to enjoy:

Cultural Systems: Face, Politeness & Power

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. :)

A video from our dear PCK:

Cultural Systems: Components & Representation

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.

N of course a video to brighten up your day :)