To sum up

This course has indeed been an eye-opening experience. I never did realise that there are so many elements in our interactions with others. Nevertheless, it's hardly surprising to know that we have unconsciously incorporated some of these strategies in our everyday communication. After all, these theories have been derived from observing and analysing people's speech patterns.

This course has made me more aware of the events going around me. Also, I liked the interactive lessons - it's definitely a far cry from the usual big lecture hall style of the modules I take. I hope to be able to transfer the skills I have learnt to my interactions with others to become a better communicator.

Computer-mediated communication: The era is here

Computer-mediated communication (cmc) has taken the world by storm in recent years. From emails to MSN then Facebook and Twitter, they have significantly changed the way we communicate. People are increasingly taking to these social platforms as a mode of communication even though many say they are no replacement for face-to-face communication.

So much so that there are reports saying that the internet is lowering the standard of English we use in writing. For example, they have noticed an increasing trend of students using netspeak when writing essays like 'u' for 'you', 'den' for 'then', etc. It's also interesting to note that some abbreviations like 'awol' have actually found its way into English dictionaries.

With technologies changing everyday, it is unforeseeable where it will take communication to. Already we have Skype and tele-conferencing. Who knows, maybe we won't even have to meet to have quality communication equivalent to that of a face-to-face experience (i.e. with smell and touch) without the need to meet in the future.

Cross-gender interaction: She is a beautiful country.

I've always wondered why we use the pronoun 'she' to refer to a country. Don't we only use 'she' to refer to females? A country is inanimate hence shouldn't 'it' be the correct pronoun to use? Just like how we refer to any other thing that doesn't have a sex.

And if a gender-specific pronoun has to be used, why is it not the more masculine 'he' since countries, after all, all try to be strong and powerful? Truly odd as all of these are male characteristics.

Then again, people usually refer to their country as their motherland. Perhaps this is why we use the female pronoun; Because a country is seen to provide a nurturing environment just like how a mother would.

Face and politeness: It's an everywhere thing

So we realise that the concept of face and politeness again boils down to the culture of an environment. I think although positive politeness is largely associated with the Asian context, Singapore with its Western influences, may be gradually heading the way towards negative politeness. This can be seen in people's (including me) reluctance to give up seats in buses or trains for fear of offending the other party.

Also, in another instance, as my sister is working in a Japanese organisation, it is interesting to note that they add 'san' when addressing everyone, even if it is from Singaporean to Singaporean. Hence it would be like 'Teresa-san' instead of just Teresa. This is like what they say, 'When in Rome, do what the Romans do.'

Cultural components and representations: One for all and all for one?

One of the dimensions in Hofstede's dimensions of cultural variability is individualism versus collectivism. This dimension is reflected in the recent tension between the US and China regarding internet freedom. The US advocates internet freedom where people have free access to information. The freer flow of information, they argued, builds stronger societies. On the other hand, China is of the view that restricting internet freedom protects their people from what they termed "menaces to Chinese society". They believe that the government and internet media both have a responsibility to guide opinion as the country is still at a crucial stage of reform and development, and that it is a period of marked social conflicts.

The individualistic nature of the US can be seen from their acknowledgment of society as a grouping of unique individuals, with each person playing a role in building a society. Collectivist China however sees society as an entire group of individuals without regard to personal identity. This may be rooted in their history of communist rule where people were all equal without differentiation.

Here, we are shown how a lack of understanding of different cultures may potentially result in undesirable clashes.

Written discourse: Going back to our roots

It struck me in class last week that no matter how Westernised we've all become, we're still Chinese at heart. The class activity was clear evidence for this. Even though we were instructed to write a letter like how we thought an Australian would, we inadvertently wrote it like a Chinese would. The offering of sweeteners before the actual deal is typical of the circular rhetoric. It seems you can take the Chinese language out of the person but you cannot take the Chinese out of him. Then again, if this is the case, how do we change our writing styles to suit the audience?

Spoken discourse: English versus Chinese

We learnt that there are differences between English and Chinese narratives. They are in line with the Chinese focus on the community rather than the individual in contrast to Western society. With such a belief, the Chinese prefer to blend in instead of stand out. Also, they tend not to make direct statements to avoid sounding offensive. These are reflected in their narratives with English narratives placing a greater emphasis on the characters and the Chinese, i.e. giving names to individual characters in the story. Another is the English narratives making more direct statements than the Chinese ones.

Here's a memorable quote from the movie 'Miss Congeniality' which I feel highlights the importance of cross-cultural understanding in spoken discourse.

Gracie Hart: In Hawaii don't they use aloha for hello and goodbye?
Miss Hawaii: Yeah, so?
Gracie Hart: So if you're on the phone with somebody and they won't stop talking and you say, ok take care, aloha, don't they just start over again?

Speech events: Insights into the society

It just occurred to me how dynamic speech events can be. Since a speech event is dependent on the culture, it implies that there can be many variations for one speech event.

For example, we discussed in class the act sequence of a Japanese marriage proposal.

Man: Holds woman's hand (optional), looks at woman, and says "Please marry me".
Woman: Stands with head down. Silence.

A Singaporean one would probably go like this:



Man: Kneels down with flowers and/or ring in hand, looks at woman, and says "Will you marry me?".
Woman: Says "Yes I will".

The differences in the marriage proposals give us hints on the societal views and norms of the two countries. We see that in the Singaporean version, the woman is given more autonomy with the presentation of a question that required an answer. The act of kneeling down also showed that the women here are on an equal footing with men.

I guess this is what 'be aware of your surroundings' mean. Watch the events around you, listen to them, and learn about the environment you're living in.

Speech acts: Same same or different?

In the past week, I came across people requesting to be allowed to pass in different ways. The English speaker said, "Excuse me". The Chinese speaker said, "借过". And what about the Hokkien speaker? 'Siam' was what he said.

What I thought particularly interesting was that while all three were essentially the same speech act performed with the same strategy, they received widely differing responses. The English and Chinese speakers had their requests complied with nary an expression of disapproval. However, the Hokkien speaker had his complied with almost a look of disgust on the other party's face. The displeasure was apparent.

This makes me wonder - are speech acts in languages perceived to be more crude and rude regarded as lesser cousins to those made in 'more refined' languages thereby garnering less-than-positive responses?

I sure hope not because then we would all need to speak Queen's English just to feel welcomed and accepted!

P.s. Queen's English is just an example. It may or may not be perceived as more refined.