Bubble
7 years ago
Sunday, October 25, 2009
“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.
Monday, October 19, 2009
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’.
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’.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, October 5, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
