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.

Presentations: The American Way

During the summer break, I was given the opportunity to intern at Yale University’s Office of Sustainability. On the last week of my internship, I had to give a presentation on the research report which I had completed. Analysing my presentation as a speech event, a few components stood out to me. I would like to highlight these components and compare the fundamental differences between an office presentation in the U.S and in Singapore.

Genre:
Office Presentation

Topic:
Sustainable and economic practices at Yale University

Purpose:
For me to explain my research report

Setting:
Office conference room, with participants seated around a rectangular table facing the screen in front

Key:
Generally serious tone, with occasional jokes

Participants:
Myself, senior office staff and fellow interns

Form:
Spoken English, with the use of slides and tables

Act Sequence:
Me: Explanation of concept
Senior staff*: Views/Comments
Fellow interns*: Views/Comments
Me: Clarification
(Repeat Cycle)
*Interchangeable

Rules for Interaction:
Addressing senior staff by first name, interjecting comments, minimal digression

Norms of Interpretation:
A relatively small power distance in American organizations
A presentation is seen as an opportunity to discuss and exchange ideas mutually. It should not be a one-way traffic (i.e. presenter to staff)

The first difference I observed is the organization of participants during my presentation, or rather the absence of it. There was no specific seating arrangements, (unlike in Singapore and Asia where seat allocation is given high emphasis) the senior staff and interns sat wherever they felt was most comfortable. In fact, the assistant director was seated at a secluded corner of the table. It showed little or no hierarchal classification of the participants.

This very naturally led to a very different act sequence of the presentation. In most presentations in Singapore, a standard sequence will be: the explanation by presenter, followed by comments by senior staff at the end of the presentation, and finally comments by junior staff. What I noticed was the sharing of ideas halfway through my presentation, and it did not have to be a senior staff to break the flow; the fellow interns also interjected comments and questions whenever they felt there was a need to.

The difference in rules for interaction, underscores the cultural differences I experienced. Deemed as impolite in the Singapore context, I addressed my superiors by their first name during my internship stint. At the beginning, I found it very uncomfortable. I saw it as an offensive manner to address someone you respected. Within a few days however, I grew accustomed to it, knowing that my superiors would prefer being addressed by their first name. On top of that, interjecting comments (as mentioned) and some digression were some of the other unspoken rules which I had observed.

With hindsight, I am more able to understand those differences. A norm of interpretation I feel, is the small power distance in American Organisations. Members from the lower hierarchy, including myself, could give views and comments. Although decisions will ultimately be made by someone from the top, Americans are generally more open to ideas from each other. Another point to note is that, a presentation in the American context, acts more like a discussion forum for all. The presenter takes the role of a facilitator in the forum, and participants take turns to comment.