Aufwiedersehen! (See you again!)

GEK1036 has really been a really amazing module. First of all, it got me blogging for the first time. I remember having to look up on how to add photos and videos onto my blog! I thought blogging has been a mostly good experience. While it takes a weekly commitment – and especially the weekends – I believe it is a worthy substitute for the quiz. The weekly reflections got me thinking much more about the topics, and also how the topics relate to my own experiences. And of course, being able to read everyone else’s blog really opens up a great deal of ideas and perspectives.

On the whole, I have benefited a lot from this module. The topic I enjoyed most was Communication Systems 1: Components and Representation. You probably would recall the beginning of the lesson where we watched a video on cultural differences (and that “M&M’s melt in your mouth, not in your hand” best describes the American culture). That lecture brought me back so many memories of my internship in US. I remember being the only Asian in my office and it really made me aware of both language and cultural differences. The lesson helped me to understand and appreciate those differences. It also got me thinking, seriously, what the Singapore culture is. I am certain that lesson will go a long way with me, especially when I am overseas again for my exchange program.

As for the report, I can say confidently that I am now a better requestor! Never in my life have I analyzed so many request responses in German and Singaporean English. It has definitely been an eye-opener (in some way literally, as I had to decode 294 request responses!). I have picked up some really good strategies to make compelling requests, and from the hearer’s perspective, I have learn how not to fall for others’ request strategies. Haha. Seriously, I have grown so self-aware of my requests that I mentally decode even the most pedestrian of requests every now and then. I hope it isn’t a bad sign though.

Finally, I want to thank Dr Deng for this entire semester. I have enjoyed it thoroughly. Also to everyone, it’s been really great knowing you guys. Thank you and I wish everyone all the best.

Oh yes, do keep in contact through facebook. You can add me on splendid_gladwin@hotmail.com See you around and take care!

“I’m the Secretary of State, not Bill.”

You probably would remember Hillary Clinton’s sudden outburst at a press conference at a university in the Democratic Republic of Congo a few months ago, when she was asked by a student what her husband Bill Clinton thinks about Chinese financial contracts with Congo.


“You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?” Hillary snapped, “My husband is not the secretary of state, I am.”


It turns out the question may have gotten lost in translation. The student approached Clinton afterward and apologized, saying he had meant to ask what President Obama thought about the issue.


Although it baffles me as to how “President Obama” could be mistranslated to “President Clinton”, this incident certainly highlights the serious consequences when two parties – in this case three – are lost in translation. Of greater significance, however, and in line with Wednesday’s lecture on Cross-Gender Interaction, this manifests an apparent change in women’s roles in cross-gender discourse today. Apart from Hillary Clinton, women with an “increasingly audible voice” include the likes of Michelle Obama, Angela Merkel and Indra Nooyi, as more of them take up major positions in the political and corporate arenas.


While men may start to feel threatened by this change, I believe it will bring us more good than bad. As both sexes are given an equal opportunity to speak, the world will be able to receive a more balanced mix of ideas and viewpoints from both sexes. Based on scientific research, women are predominantly “right-brainers” whereas men are predominantly “left-brainers”; the two sexes process information very differently. In an experiment conducted recently, a group of men and women, of approximately equal level of intelligence, were asked to solve a problem. While they did so, their brains were scanned, such that the amount of activity on each side of the brain can be tracked. The findings are that though they both come up with the same correct answer, the manner in which they do so is different. Thus, as more women speak up, we will have a diversity of perspectives towards different issues. When it comes to solving some of the world’s most difficult problems such as poverty, racism and climate change, it seems that humanity has received a bigger helping hand from the women than from the men.


Nonetheless, I strongly believe that the voice of men is far from fading or of less importance. The world will continue to be mesmerized by the strength and charisma of the voices of Barack Obama, Steve Jobs and Martin Luther King, Jr. In fact, the increasingly audible voice of women is likely to spur men to be even better speakers. I am definitely looking forward to see how this “competition” will bring out the best from both sexes.

When 'tml' Looks Bleak

I came across this article “Is Texting Making Us Bad Spellers?” on Scientific American’s website. http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=is-texting-making-us-bad-spellers-09-09-23

The writer of the article claims that while many critics point blaming fingers at text messaging for undermining the English language, research has shown that there is no clear relationship between the use of SMS lingo and the inability to spell. In fact, the results show that if one is a good speller academically, he/she is also likely to be a good speller in SMS language. If you had read on, you would have noticed the flurry of comments, all begging to differ.

Generally, I do agree that using SMS lingo does not necessarily affect one’s command of the English language. From my own observation, I have seen friends with excellent command of English who are heavy addicts of the SMS lingo. However, the hypothesis that, those who used more abbreviations when texting tended to be better spellers of Standard English, appears rather dubious. From my own experience, I do not see how using abbreviations in text messages can improve anyone’s spelling (not in the local context at least). Just take the abbreviation ‘tml’ as an example and it is not difficult to see my point. As you would know, ‘tml’ stands for the Singlish word ‘tomolo’. Some abbreviations are even more outrageous. For instance, ‘rofl’ stands for ‘roll on floor laughing’. I only knew what it stands for recently! Although these words are recognized and accepted by almost every Singaporean – both the good and bad English users – I feel that we should not rely too heavily on the SMS lingo. Chances are it will do more harm to our already grim standard of English.

The article should worry Singaporeans quite a bit. If Americans are concerned about the problems of SMS lingo, even when the country uses excellent English (and is perhaps the only country with the Spelling Bee competition broadcasted on national television), then Singapore faces a very daunting task. As it seems, while we are struggling to overcome the dominance of Singlish, our SMS language adds insult to the injury. The ambiguity as to whether the SMS lingo is detrimental to the English language makes the issue all the more challenging. In no time, we will get too comfortable with the casual mix of Singlish and SMS lingo. From there, no effort can rescue ourselves from this slippery slope.

Since the SMS lingo looks like it is here to stay, I feel that the best approach is not to go against it. Rather, I would choose to use it with greater moderation. And most importantly, I would abbreviate words and phrases “correctly” in Standard English. For instance, ‘tmr’ would definitely look better than ‘tml’.

You were born in the 80's if you know Singa the Courtesy Lion

That’s right. If you know Singa the Courtesy Lion, you were perhaps born during the 80’s. As you would know, Singa the Courtesy Lion was the mascot of the National Courtesy campaign which started since the early 80’s. The campaign was an initiative to encourage people to adopt a more courteous attitude, particularly towards tourists visiting Singapore. It was an indirect effort by the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board to polish Singapore’s tourism sector. (Courtesy, by broad definition, refers to acts of kindness and being polite in conversations)

Politeness is a vital aspect of customer satisfaction. A customer is satisfied not only when the service is delivered, but also when it is delivered with politeness and professionalism. Consider a scenario where you are buying a hamburger at a fast-food restaurant. Your hamburger comes fast and the counter staff says “Take your hamburger. $5.50!” Consider another scenario where your hamburger comes a little later and the counter staff says “Here is your order. That will be $5.50. Have a great day!” (Assume both burgers taste as great) From this example, we can see how big a difference politeness makes. While you may not be unduly affected by the impoliteness of one service encounter (after all, it’s just a hamburger), imagine a tourist who experiences a series of bad service encounters. More importantly, the tourist may be coming from a culture where politeness is an integral aspect of their language. It is not difficult to understand why the government initiated the National Courtesy Campaign for that purpose; although it seems like a queer idea that courtesy towards tourists, and not towards fellow Singaporeans, was of greatest importance.

The E-Learning lecture on Politeness, Face and Power gave me insights on whether the service sector is heading in the right direction towards promoting politeness. While the campaign encourages one to say “thank you” and “please” more often, it does not emphasize the use of various Politeness Maxims. There may be cases where a service staff may keep saying “please” but still sound offensive. Imagine a service staff approaching a customer who is smoking at a non-smoking area. He says: “Please don’t smoke. Here is a non smoking area. Go there please.” Now imagine another approach: “Sir, I am afraid this is a non smoking area. It’ll be great if you could help yourself to the smoking area located over there.” (Notice that neither “please” nor “thank you” is required in the latter) The message conveyed is the same in both approaches, but the use of tact maxim in the second approach with the help of a few downgraders, make the request a far more polite one.

Therefore, it seems like Singa the courtesy lion indeed had a much longer way to go. Promoting politeness involves "re-learning" the language and understanding the various Politeness Maxims. Increasing the frequency of “thank yous” and “pleases” in conversations will not go far. Of course, one cannot deny that using these words is a good way to start the courtesy ball rolling. They do make one’s day. A side note is that teaching the entire nation the various Politeness Maxims is an uphill task, if not impossible. What the people need is not comprehensive understanding of the concepts. However, it is essential (especially for the service sector) to know the basics of “improving politeness” and recognize its effectiveness.

The days of Singa the Courtesy Lion may be over, but hopefully it is not because we do not want to be polite anymore, but because we have recognized more effective methods to promote politeness.

Mind your own Business?

I was reading the Sunday Times and came across the article “Mind your own Business” in the LifeStyle section. It was an experiment carried out by the LifeStyle team to see how Singaporeans would react to a violent argument between a couple in public.

The couple team re-enacted their argument at several locations. The results gathered were both appalling and disappointing. Of those who intervened in the couple’s argument, only one was a local; the others were foreigners (2 British men and a German family of 3). The local passers-by would either look on from the side or ignore the couple altogether. The experiment was carried out in response to a letter on Straits Times Forum written by an Australian. He had written about how he came across an altercation one evening in Ang Mo Kio. As no one tried to intervene, he stepped in to stop the man from physically abusing the woman. He questioned Singaporean attitudes -or the lack of it- towards domestic struggle in public. Two locals then wrote in that “minding one’s business” is the way it is in Singapore and that he should not have interfered with the couple’s business.

The LifeStyle team also interviewed a few locals who were at the scene. While some were concerned about their personal safety, most were indifferent to the affairs of others. A psychologist pointed out that an urbanised society might have contributed to the “individualistic behaviour” of Singaporeans today, as opposed to the community spirit in kampungs of old.

The article reminded me of Wednesday’s lecture on cultural systems. Hofstede’s theory on dimensions of Cultural Variability (i.e. Individualism versus Collectivism) gives us an explanation on the results gathered from the experiment; albeit a weak one. According to the Individualism rankings (1980), western countries such as the U.S., Australia and Great Britain, take the highest positions while Singapore and many Asian countries occupy the lower positions. On a scale of 100, Singapore’s index of individualism stands at 20. The experiment seems to suggest that Singapore has climbed the rankings over 30 years. As Singaporeans grow more “individualist”, the society tends to emphasise on personal identity and independence. Thus in the experiment, the local passers-by most likely felt that if they were to intervene, their actions would intrude the privacy of the couple. The best way to react to it, was not to react at all.

However, based on the fact that those who chose to step in were mostly westerners, there seems to be a caveat in Hofstede’s theory. If it were to stand, it can only mean that over the 30 years, Singapore has actually surpassed the western countries on the Individualism rankings. This is of course an insensible assumption. I believe that the results from the experiment underscore other key contributing factors.

Indifference: I feel that Singaporeans are generally too apathetic to take any action. It is awfully true that in Singapore, we adopt a “mind your own business” attitude. Our lifestyle has grown so fast that we have absolutely no time for the affairs of others. The experiment was conducted during lunch hour and it is unlikely that anyone would be willing to sacrifice his/her lunch hour to interfere in the couple’s argument. Having said that, I have doubts if any Singaporean would have, even if the experiment had been carried out at a “better part of the day”. Those who chose to look on from the side probably cared to watch, but not to help.

Courage: Singaporeans are generally less courageous to do or say what they feel is right. In this case, there might have been a few who were genuinely willing to help, but might not have the courage to act. This partially links back with Hofstede’s theory that in less individualistic societies, people are less likely to speak up for themselves (or in this case, for their own values). In Singapore, people are growingly outspoken, but are still not courageous enough to intervene in the affairs of others, even when the need arises.

Writing my reflections on Singaporeans, I am fully aware that I am myself a Singaporean. Of course, there were times where I felt indifferent and lacked the courage to impose my values when faced with similar scenarios. I am determined, however, to give it a shot the next time.

Nothing Gold Can Stay

Wednesday’s lecture on written discourse left me with several doubts regarding the analyses of trends in the rhetoric of several language groups. In particular, I found Kaplans’ and Cai’s theories on Chinese rhetoric highly debatable. While the four-part qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure is evident in Oriental writing, it is but a sweeping supposition that the general styles of writing in a language group are shaped by the structure of its poetry.

I recall an English poem “Nothing Gold Can Stay” by Robert Frost. It was featured in the novel “The Outsiders” by S.E Hinton. The poem was so beautifully written, that its meaning only reveals itself after several times of reading. I learnt later that this particular poem earned Frost a Pulitzer Prize in 1931.

Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold,
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.

In essence, Frost conveys the message that nothing remains pure and perfect for long. The opening lines suggest that things (i.e. youth, friendship, love) are beautiful in its purest, yet they are hard to preserve. The next few lines suggest that beauty is but temporary, and it fades with time and maturity. Then, Frost portrays sin destroying beauty, and how it is lost forever.

As I interpreted the poem, I noticed that it has a structure very similar to the qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure. In the first two lines, Frost introduces the topic (Qi). Next, he develops the topic by using the analogy of a blooming tree in spring (Cheng). In line 6, he turns to a side topic (Zhuan), albeit with relevance to the main context. Eden is a biblical reference to the Garden of Eden. The meaning of this line has to be interpreted in depth by the reader with external knowledge. (writer responsibility) Finally, Frost deftly concludes the poem with one fitting line (He).

Unless it is by pure coincidence, it seems to suggest that the qi-cheng-zhuan-he structure is used not only in Chinese poetry, but also in English poetry; and possibly in poetries of other languages. One can only question the correlation between the style of writing and the structure of poetry. If the correlation exists, does it mean that poems by Frost and other great English poets also have a significant effect on the structure of English writing?

Although there are several writing styles that can be associated with the various language groups, certain styles are used across cultures and evolve from a complex combination of social factors. To me, it is far too difficult to determine a correlation between general writing styles and poetry structures. Having said that, I am eager to let my thoughts be challenged by other (less profoundly written) poems. After all, Frost was flawed in his writing. Isn’t his poem itself golden through the ages?

Swabian Straightforwardness

Lecture 4’s topic on spoken discourse brought me back some memories of Germany. Before my internship in U.S last summer, I was on a 4-week language immersion program in Stuttgart, Germany. It is located in the state of Baden Wuerttemberg.

During my stay there, I had a few telephone conversations with the native German speakers. I remember making several phone calls to Deutsche Post (the German post office), unfortunately regarding a lost parcel. The other telephone conversations I had were with my course assistant coordinator, Frau Sabine Michel. What I observed about the telephone calls were the fascinatingly short openings and closings.

Deutsche Post
Summons: Ringing
Self-Identification: “Guten Abend. Deutsche Post.” (Good Evening. Deutsche Post)
:
Closing: “Also... (Pause)” (Well/So...)

Frau Sabine Michel
Summons: Ringing
Self-Identification: “Michel”
:
Closing: “Also... (Pause)”

In Singapore, while it is common to hear an opening similar to that of Deutsch Post, it is highly rare to have anyone opening a telephone conversation with his/her surname. When I called Frau Michel for the first time, I was so taken aback by the abrupt greeting that I stumbled for a good couple of seconds before speaking. The fact that I tried speaking to her in German delayed the lag time further. Eventually, I had to reconfirm with her, “Guten Tag. Sind Sie Frau Michel?” (Good Afternoon. Are you Frau Michel?) We then continued our conversation with a mix of German and English.

Finally, when I got the needed instructions from her, I was yet again greeted by a short closing. As I have learnt during my stay in Germany, the word “also” (pronounced as “ow-zo”) has a very similar meaning to “well” or “so”. The function of the word is however so unique to native German speakers that when one says it, the other would know that it is time to end the conversation. It could also act as a cue that one plans to move on to another topic. In that conversation, upon saying “also”, Frau Michel paused for a while, as if to wait for a concluding statement from me. Thankfully, the conversation ended amicably without any misunderstandings.

While you may be as puzzled as I was initially, a little background information will help you better understand their style of telephone greeting and closing.

The people of Baden Wuerttemberg are commonly referred to as Swabians, and they are best known for their performance driven culture. They tend to be excessively serious and straightforward, even during conversations. Their unique culture has a great impact on the state’s pursuit for excellence. Home to several prominent companies (i.e. Daimler AG (Mercedes-Benz), Porsche, Bosch, SAP), Baden Wuerttemberg is one of modern Germany’s most economically successful states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swabia#Popular_culture

Wednesday’s lecture gave me insights as to why Frau Michel and Deutsche Post’s Phone openings/closings were considerably succinct. It is likely that the Swabian culture shaped the spoken discourse of the community. Unlike most communities, they see voice samples and further recognition as unnecessary and perhaps a loss of time. Their straightforwardness, even in telephone openings/closings, is indeed one of a kind.