Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
well hellooooo!
"Your understanding of the subtle, and not-so-subtle, differences, as well as the traditional greetings of a country, conveys a great deal. It sends a message about how you view and value a culture and whether you respect your colleagues and potential partners" (reuters.com, 2011).
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/21/us-modern-etiquette-idINTRE72K1MU20110321
There are many ways to say "hello" without using words and amongst different cultures these are recognized with specific significances. One must have an awareness of what is expected when sharing greetings in any culture. This article goes on to explain the accepted ways to greet a person in a business setting.
In these uncertain times, one may not be embarking on a career or even finishing a degree in their native country. It is important to know, not only proper greetings, but all accepted non-verbal communication of the society they may become a part of. What you do will weigh heavily on the impression you leave on people. This does not solely apply to gesture. The people of a culture take to heart their distinctiveness and hold dear the societal rituals that define them as a community. Each culture has a style as does every speaker of its language. The style chosen to convey a message may result in undesired interpretation.
“How something is said takes precedence over what is said” (Chaika, 2008). Children of most cultures are taught certain rules that will steer them clear of consequence. In adulthood, those same, unspoken rules apply to save us from humiliation in social settings. Observation tells a member of society what is acceptable and what is not. If it is standard practice to shake hands upon greeting a business associate and another party chooses to hug, there will be an awkward situation to then remedy. Would it be acceptable to call the infraction out in public? Some cultures just might think it is. In which case, the offender best be ready for embarrassment.
I am one of those that will steadfastly correct any wrong doing without just cause. There are several social situations, far more substantial than a “hello” where immediate correction is demanded, but if a colleague were to hug me instead of shake my hand – I suppose that could slide! I’m grateful to have learned the customs of other cultures because they might not be as forgiving as I might be. What would happen if a woman hugged an Arab man?
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/21/us-modern-etiquette-idINTRE72K1MU20110321
There are many ways to say "hello" without using words and amongst different cultures these are recognized with specific significances. One must have an awareness of what is expected when sharing greetings in any culture. This article goes on to explain the accepted ways to greet a person in a business setting.
In these uncertain times, one may not be embarking on a career or even finishing a degree in their native country. It is important to know, not only proper greetings, but all accepted non-verbal communication of the society they may become a part of. What you do will weigh heavily on the impression you leave on people. This does not solely apply to gesture. The people of a culture take to heart their distinctiveness and hold dear the societal rituals that define them as a community. Each culture has a style as does every speaker of its language. The style chosen to convey a message may result in undesired interpretation.
“How something is said takes precedence over what is said” (Chaika, 2008). Children of most cultures are taught certain rules that will steer them clear of consequence. In adulthood, those same, unspoken rules apply to save us from humiliation in social settings. Observation tells a member of society what is acceptable and what is not. If it is standard practice to shake hands upon greeting a business associate and another party chooses to hug, there will be an awkward situation to then remedy. Would it be acceptable to call the infraction out in public? Some cultures just might think it is. In which case, the offender best be ready for embarrassment.
I am one of those that will steadfastly correct any wrong doing without just cause. There are several social situations, far more substantial than a “hello” where immediate correction is demanded, but if a colleague were to hug me instead of shake my hand – I suppose that could slide! I’m grateful to have learned the customs of other cultures because they might not be as forgiving as I might be. What would happen if a woman hugged an Arab man?
Hugh Laurie: the British accent vs the American
This clip features Hugh Laurie (famous british actor who is now famous in America for his television series “House”) as a guest on the daytime show “Ellen”. (Hosted by Ellen Degeneres – famous American comedienne)
It’s interesting to see two people try to decipher popular words from two different languages. One might believe that American English and British English are the same language simply because one can understand the other without “learning” the other’s language. When, in reality, what is being understood are the sounds. This clip is an excellent example of how similar sounds can be combined in such a way as to be indeterminable by someone who is not familiar with the culture in which combining specific phonemes creates meaning only in the social settings of a specific culture. This is the feature of these similar languages that must be learned through experience.
“Pronunciations, word choice, even grammatical forms all are linked to the social structure of the community the speaker belongs to” (Chaika, 2008). If given time in the right setting, Laurie could easily learn what the quizzed words mean and vise-versa. Humor is apparent when watching the two of them try to guess the slang words from each other’s language because the American audience finds their slang easy to understand, while Laurie reacts as if he has just been spoken to in gibberish. What makes it more amazing is that neither one of them realizes that just the way they are saying the word to each other can convey meaning. Without having an understanding of the social significance of each phrase, it is impossible for them to guess what the words might mean – eve when giving their best effort. Do you think Hugh Laurie would stand a better chance if given twenty minutes in a room with the Black-Eyed Peas and 3 teenagers?
baby talk
"Researchers at Northwestern University have found that even before your little one begins to speak, words play an important role in your child's comprehension and communication. "
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/experts-talking-to-your-baby-can-build-language-skills/?iref=allsearch/
Out of uncertainty and desire to be a successful parent, grow studies such as this. It may seem commonsensical that parents must actually speak to their children in order for them to learn language yet, on a global level, the how surrounding first language acquisition are still not exactly common knowledge.
Before my daughter was born, I decided that she will be talked to as a, thinking and feeling, human being from her first breath on. I watched as my friends used coded words and phrases to explain the world to their children and I was less than impressed with the results they were getting. If a child's first language is learned by the sounds he hears in social settings than shouldn't those sounds form real words?
This study, however simple, shows that infants learn the phonemes that give meaning to the objects in their world. Infants are capable of hearing all of the sounds in al of the world’s languages, but will absorb and use those that are most commonly heard in social interactions around him. How often would an infant hear a “beep” synchronized with an object present in his everyday life? It is much more likely that the child will hear his parents use the same combination of sounds, or morphemes, and eventually will make connections with objects most commonly present when those sounds are heard.
Did we really need a study to tell us this? “Kids don’t come with handbooks”, as my grandparents always said, there is no right or wrong way until future generations discover that there just may be a right way. If there’s one thing we can take from this study it is that no matter if the word is real or fabricated, the sounds will come together to form meaning in the child’s world.
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/experts-talking-to-your-baby-can-build-language-skills/?iref=allsearch/
Out of uncertainty and desire to be a successful parent, grow studies such as this. It may seem commonsensical that parents must actually speak to their children in order for them to learn language yet, on a global level, the how surrounding first language acquisition are still not exactly common knowledge.
Before my daughter was born, I decided that she will be talked to as a, thinking and feeling, human being from her first breath on. I watched as my friends used coded words and phrases to explain the world to their children and I was less than impressed with the results they were getting. If a child's first language is learned by the sounds he hears in social settings than shouldn't those sounds form real words?
This study, however simple, shows that infants learn the phonemes that give meaning to the objects in their world. Infants are capable of hearing all of the sounds in al of the world’s languages, but will absorb and use those that are most commonly heard in social interactions around him. How often would an infant hear a “beep” synchronized with an object present in his everyday life? It is much more likely that the child will hear his parents use the same combination of sounds, or morphemes, and eventually will make connections with objects most commonly present when those sounds are heard.
Did we really need a study to tell us this? “Kids don’t come with handbooks”, as my grandparents always said, there is no right or wrong way until future generations discover that there just may be a right way. If there’s one thing we can take from this study it is that no matter if the word is real or fabricated, the sounds will come together to form meaning in the child’s world.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
powerful words
"Senator Obama does not say that he is going to solve our problems. He talks about how "We" can bring about change together. At this point, I'd like to address Clinton's "just words" comment by talking about just three words. They may very well be the most powerful three words in the English language: We The People. You probably recognize these first three words of the United States Constitution."*
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/764579/three_words.html
The quote above is just to give you an idea of where this post is headed.
*Hal Cohen, Yahoo! Contributor Network May 14, 2008
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/764579/three_words.html
The quote above is just to give you an idea of where this post is headed.
It's difficult to say which English words are the most powerful however in reading this article I noticed that the author has no issue bringing to light the hard and fast truth about how this nation came to be, but hesitates in his use of expressive speech when eluding to a higher power. We, as a people, are very careful whenever religion comes up in conversation. We must not offend others and if we aren't quite sure, then, as this author did, we just don't say it. I wonder why he didn't spell slavery as sla-ery? This is a hot-button issue as well and one that I would think holds greater tension than whether a reader believes in G-d. More people have direct connection to the slave era than they do any higher power – it’s personal yet he was sure to capitalize the beginning of this enigmatic half-word thus implicating importance, but when criticizing the mindset of our founding fathers he uses every available letter.
I don't believe in a G-d, but I believe that we, the people have a choice in that thanks to the few who came before us. The paragraph in reference includes words from the “Pledge of Allegiance”, not the "Preamble to the Constitution":
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Every part of this is powerful and holds different meaning today than it did when it “meant White, Christian, Land-owning Men”(Cohen, 2008). In the end, it comes down to interpretation and what we, the people hold as rich points.
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Every part of this is powerful and holds different meaning today than it did when it “meant White, Christian, Land-owning Men”(Cohen, 2008). In the end, it comes down to interpretation and what we, the people hold as rich points.
Monday, January 24, 2011
sacrifice
"Jordan can't swim and is terrified of water.
"But when the man went to rescue him, he said 'save my brother first'."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10699190
- Toowoomba Chronicle, Jan 12, 2011. "Tale of family sacrifice and tragedy"
This article was posted after flooding on Monday, January 10, 2011 in New Zealand.
The use of the words sacrifice and tragedy evoke emotion by themselves but the strength of these words dissipates as the article goes on. These quotes from the article are representative of the cognitive dissonance people face daily. It is fair to suggest that Jordan did the right thing. Faced with circumstances unforeseen, Jordan said what any human being, short of someone with a sociopathological disorder, would say because it would challenge how he viewed himself and change the way his family and community thought of him if had he instead exclaimed, "save me first". Even if this is what he might have been thinking, there would have been consequences or sacrifices, if you will, had he verbalized that thought. Would Jordan have made the same decision if he was aware that his own demise would be the outcome of his request to have his brother saved first? Can losing your life really be deemed a sacrifice if that was not the intent of the preceding action?
It is also important to note that Jordan said "first" which would imply that there was someone to be saved next.
Kenneth Burke’s Dramatism Pentad* addresses this issue as well. Burke’s critical technique questions why people do the things they do. Perhaps Jordan's fear motivated him to suggest his brother be saved first.
One can read this article with tear-filled eyes and attribute heroism to Jordan’s act, as is the intent of the writer. One could also read this article as I did, noticing that the real tragedy here is the act of a parent continuing to drive a vehicle into water 'up to their car wheels' thereby choosing to put the family in danger.
The article uses several emotionally heavy words and provokes readers to ask themselves what they might do if faced with the same decision.
My deepest sympathies go out to the families of those taken by this flood.
*Burke, Kenneth. 1945. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)