Thursday, 25 February 2010
All good things come to an end!
This is my final entry on the blog, so hope you all enjoyed reading my outlook on the various topics. The main outcome that I learnt is that there is no universal model for any particular topic or genre but instead everything is open to interpretation. Therefore I have left some interesting questions for you all to answer so please feel free to leave your opinions and insight.
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Politeness and Face in Different Cultures
In international business today, employees are often exchanging cross-cultural communication either face to face, via emails, telephone or even over video conferencing. One of the areas that have an effect on this is the concept of politeness and face, which is particularly important to make an effective linguistic exchange.
Johnstone (2008 p: 145) describes the notion of politeness as:
‘ways in which speakers adapt (or fail to adapt) to the fact that their interlocutors, accrual or imagined have social needs like their own’.
I believe the level of politeness in a person’s linguistic choice is often dependant on the environment and the type of relationship they hold with the person they are interacting with. For example you wouldn’t use the same terminology or language used when speaking with your friends as you would with your boss.
According to Holmes(2001) politeness works on a scale where if you are very polite, an indirect linguistic approach will be used and in contrast if you are impolite a direct approach will be used.
Politeness has a direct relationship with the concept of ‘Face’, which according to Brown and Levinson (1987) is an emotion which represents the need to be appreciated and approved which can be saved, lost, maintained or enhanced. Brown and Levinson
(1987)research showed there are three areas which must be constantly paid attention to when interacting with others:
1.Negative and positive face
This includes the positive self image we try to maintain as well as the wish to continue business without being imposed on.
2.Negative and positive politeness
This is relates to the concept of face but is more concerned about how we treat people.
3.Face-threatening acts (FTAs)
These are acts which can cause harm to an individual's self image.
Face is not only lost verbally but also through written discourse. An example of this is an email exchange between a colleague based in China and I, during my placement year:
Email 1- To colleague in China
(Click on image to enlarge)
The email makes use politeness markers with the use of ‘please’ attempting not to impose on the reader. I have also made use of positive politeness and face, since I open the email by thanking the employee for attending the meeting allowing the reader to feel appreciated. Despite this I also make use of a face threatening act by putting forward a request ‘please send the minutes and the timeline....’ which imposes on the employee to do something. By complaining about the team members being late, a threat to the employee’s positive face is created.The email therefore uses a very direct approach and hence on the Holmes (2001)continuum would be categorised as impolite.
Email 2- From colleague in China
(Click on image to enlarge)
This email in contrast is very indirect and hence reflects a high level of politeness (Holmes, 2001). According to Brown and Levinson (1987) this email opens with positive politeness as my colleague takes an interest in my opinion by stating ‘hope you felt the meeting went well’. The email then goes on to use negative politeness and face with the use of a hedge: ‘if you could please take the time out', in an attempt to impose on me a polite manner. The email also consists of compliments: ‘team brought good insight’ and ‘organised well’. There is also evidence of a threat to his face by admitting the mistake of being late and to avoid disagreement at the end of the email it states: ‘ensure this will not happen again’.
From this analysis we can see that the two emails are very different and politeness has a direct relationship with the cultural values a person holds. According to Kong (1998) who did a study on the differences of doing requests in Hong Kong and Britain, one of the main outcomes were that Britain has an ‘involvement system’ where as China has a ‘deference system’. This is clear to see in my email where I would like to get on with ‘business’ and avoid speculation, my colleague in China is more concerned with the long term negotiation.
It can often be difficult for management within businesses that operate globally to grasp this concept, since the level of politeness and face in one particular culture may not be as important in another culture.
This leads to me to the question: politeness is tricky for businesses, therefore in this day and age shouldn’t there be a standardised communication system across the world?
References
1. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP.
2. Holmes, J. (2001) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 2nd edn. London: Longman.
3. Johnstone, B. (2008) Discourse Analysis. 2ndedn. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
4. Kong, K.C.C. (1998) ‘Are simple request letters really simple? A comparison of Chinese and English business letters. Text: An Inter-disciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. 18 (1): 103 – 41.
Johnstone (2008 p: 145) describes the notion of politeness as:
‘ways in which speakers adapt (or fail to adapt) to the fact that their interlocutors, accrual or imagined have social needs like their own’.
I believe the level of politeness in a person’s linguistic choice is often dependant on the environment and the type of relationship they hold with the person they are interacting with. For example you wouldn’t use the same terminology or language used when speaking with your friends as you would with your boss.
According to Holmes(2001) politeness works on a scale where if you are very polite, an indirect linguistic approach will be used and in contrast if you are impolite a direct approach will be used. Politeness has a direct relationship with the concept of ‘Face’, which according to Brown and Levinson (1987) is an emotion which represents the need to be appreciated and approved which can be saved, lost, maintained or enhanced. Brown and Levinson
(1987)research showed there are three areas which must be constantly paid attention to when interacting with others:
1.Negative and positive face
This includes the positive self image we try to maintain as well as the wish to continue business without being imposed on.
2.Negative and positive politeness
This is relates to the concept of face but is more concerned about how we treat people.
3.Face-threatening acts (FTAs)
These are acts which can cause harm to an individual's self image.
Face is not only lost verbally but also through written discourse. An example of this is an email exchange between a colleague based in China and I, during my placement year:
Email 1- To colleague in China
(Click on image to enlarge)
The email makes use politeness markers with the use of ‘please’ attempting not to impose on the reader. I have also made use of positive politeness and face, since I open the email by thanking the employee for attending the meeting allowing the reader to feel appreciated. Despite this I also make use of a face threatening act by putting forward a request ‘please send the minutes and the timeline....’ which imposes on the employee to do something. By complaining about the team members being late, a threat to the employee’s positive face is created.The email therefore uses a very direct approach and hence on the Holmes (2001)continuum would be categorised as impolite.
Email 2- From colleague in China
(Click on image to enlarge)
This email in contrast is very indirect and hence reflects a high level of politeness (Holmes, 2001). According to Brown and Levinson (1987) this email opens with positive politeness as my colleague takes an interest in my opinion by stating ‘hope you felt the meeting went well’. The email then goes on to use negative politeness and face with the use of a hedge: ‘if you could please take the time out', in an attempt to impose on me a polite manner. The email also consists of compliments: ‘team brought good insight’ and ‘organised well’. There is also evidence of a threat to his face by admitting the mistake of being late and to avoid disagreement at the end of the email it states: ‘ensure this will not happen again’.
From this analysis we can see that the two emails are very different and politeness has a direct relationship with the cultural values a person holds. According to Kong (1998) who did a study on the differences of doing requests in Hong Kong and Britain, one of the main outcomes were that Britain has an ‘involvement system’ where as China has a ‘deference system’. This is clear to see in my email where I would like to get on with ‘business’ and avoid speculation, my colleague in China is more concerned with the long term negotiation.
It can often be difficult for management within businesses that operate globally to grasp this concept, since the level of politeness and face in one particular culture may not be as important in another culture.
This leads to me to the question: politeness is tricky for businesses, therefore in this day and age shouldn’t there be a standardised communication system across the world?
References
1. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP.
2. Holmes, J. (2001) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 2nd edn. London: Longman.
3. Johnstone, B. (2008) Discourse Analysis. 2ndedn. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
4. Kong, K.C.C. (1998) ‘Are simple request letters really simple? A comparison of Chinese and English business letters. Text: An Inter-disciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. 18 (1): 103 – 41.
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Collaborative Writing- Helpful or just Hassle?
How many of us can really say we haven’t worked in a team collaboratively, at one point or another to create a written document? These days it seems the majority of companies and institutions are always promoting team work to complete projects, business proposals or even just to socialise. At university especially within business degrees collaborative writing is encouraged, not only to allow students to illustrate their business knowledge on paper but also to become accustomed to writing in a team to fulfil a particular task-ready for the real world.
Lay and Karis (1991, p. 5) define collaborative writing as ‘that process in which authors with a differing expertise and responsibilities interact during the invention and revision of a common document’.
This concept of utilising each person’s expertise to create a clearly defined document can often lead to many benefits. I always hear the good old saying of: ‘10 heads are better than 1’, implying that a group soluton is more effective than an individual solution- but is this always true?
The famous researcher; Farkas (1991) determines collaborative writing is not only a form of writing but a form of human collaborative activity, which can often be carried out with little difficulty but at other times it can be a complex process. I am sure there have been several occasions when some of you have felt the frustration of group work- I definitely know I have! Not only is it time consuming to coordinate the group effectively but often conflict can arise within a team.
Farkas (1991, p. 15) determines six different factors that lead to the difficulty in collaborative writing:
1. Integrated documents are very complex artifacts
2. Process of preparing a document becomes more complex when performed collaboratively
3. Writing process generates strong emotion commitments
4. Documents are reworkable and are subject to infinite revision
5. Collaborative writers lack fully adequate terms and concepts to create a clear and precise common image of the document
6. It is difficult to predict or measure success
Some of these problems can be illustrated in the following example, when I had to work in a team at university to run a virtual company and collaboratively create a strategic business plan. Abstract 1 is the text I have written and Abstract 2 shows an edited version by a colleague.
Abstract 1
(Click on image to enlarge)
Abstract 2
(Click on image to enlarge)
Farkas (1991, p. 15) highlights complexity arises in collaborative writing when you have a longer document which ‘conveys larger amounts of information’. This document was a long proposal amongst five members, which caused more difficulty as we needed a consistent writing style across the board. Farkas (1991) explains by reworking a piece of text, it demonstrates my colleague was attempting to put her 'stamp on it', which left me feeling demoralised and frustrated. In conjunction with this, another problem is each person will often have a different perception of the common image of the document (Farkas, 1991). The font and style as well as use of a logo varies between the two texts and thus how I perceived the document was different to what my group member had in mind. In addition the conflict really came into play when each text uses a different strategy for the company, where I determine we will be using a ‘mass’ marketing approach, my colleague says we will be using a ‘targeted’ approach. By having two strategies it led to differences in way in which the business was run.
In my opinion, although the task was extensive, at times it would have been easier to complete individually. Conflict between people’s written skills are bound to prevail, since one person’s interpretation of a particular context will differ to another person’s. Thus it is important to note there is never a right or wrong way of writing or expressing a particular piece of writing.
Another impact, not covered in Farkas’ (1991) model is the concept of power relations which I believe has a strong impact on collaborative writing. How many times have you all come across that one dominant person in the group who feels a particular title or status gives them the right to impose their beliefs more strongly? My colleague was the Managing Director of the group and hence believed she had more of a right to impose her style of writing, despite that I was the Marketing Director.
These problematic areas bring me to the question: does collaborative writing cause more conflict or harmony when creating a written document?
References
1. Farkas, D.K. (1991) ‘Collaborative Writing, Software Development, and the Universe of CollaborativeActivity’. In Lay, M. M., & Karis, W. M. (Eds) (1991) Collaborative Writing in Industry: Investigations in Theory and Practice. New York: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc
2. Lay, M. M., & Karis, W. M. (Eds) (1991) Collaborative Writing in Industry: Investigations in Theory and Practice. New York: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc.
Lay and Karis (1991, p. 5) define collaborative writing as ‘that process in which authors with a differing expertise and responsibilities interact during the invention and revision of a common document’.
This concept of utilising each person’s expertise to create a clearly defined document can often lead to many benefits. I always hear the good old saying of: ‘10 heads are better than 1’, implying that a group soluton is more effective than an individual solution- but is this always true?
The famous researcher; Farkas (1991) determines collaborative writing is not only a form of writing but a form of human collaborative activity, which can often be carried out with little difficulty but at other times it can be a complex process. I am sure there have been several occasions when some of you have felt the frustration of group work- I definitely know I have! Not only is it time consuming to coordinate the group effectively but often conflict can arise within a team.
Farkas (1991, p. 15) determines six different factors that lead to the difficulty in collaborative writing:
1. Integrated documents are very complex artifacts
2. Process of preparing a document becomes more complex when performed collaboratively
3. Writing process generates strong emotion commitments
4. Documents are reworkable and are subject to infinite revision
5. Collaborative writers lack fully adequate terms and concepts to create a clear and precise common image of the document
6. It is difficult to predict or measure success
Some of these problems can be illustrated in the following example, when I had to work in a team at university to run a virtual company and collaboratively create a strategic business plan. Abstract 1 is the text I have written and Abstract 2 shows an edited version by a colleague.
Abstract 1
(Click on image to enlarge)
Abstract 2
(Click on image to enlarge)
Farkas (1991, p. 15) highlights complexity arises in collaborative writing when you have a longer document which ‘conveys larger amounts of information’. This document was a long proposal amongst five members, which caused more difficulty as we needed a consistent writing style across the board. Farkas (1991) explains by reworking a piece of text, it demonstrates my colleague was attempting to put her 'stamp on it', which left me feeling demoralised and frustrated. In conjunction with this, another problem is each person will often have a different perception of the common image of the document (Farkas, 1991). The font and style as well as use of a logo varies between the two texts and thus how I perceived the document was different to what my group member had in mind. In addition the conflict really came into play when each text uses a different strategy for the company, where I determine we will be using a ‘mass’ marketing approach, my colleague says we will be using a ‘targeted’ approach. By having two strategies it led to differences in way in which the business was run.
In my opinion, although the task was extensive, at times it would have been easier to complete individually. Conflict between people’s written skills are bound to prevail, since one person’s interpretation of a particular context will differ to another person’s. Thus it is important to note there is never a right or wrong way of writing or expressing a particular piece of writing.
Another impact, not covered in Farkas’ (1991) model is the concept of power relations which I believe has a strong impact on collaborative writing. How many times have you all come across that one dominant person in the group who feels a particular title or status gives them the right to impose their beliefs more strongly? My colleague was the Managing Director of the group and hence believed she had more of a right to impose her style of writing, despite that I was the Marketing Director.
These problematic areas bring me to the question: does collaborative writing cause more conflict or harmony when creating a written document?
References
1. Farkas, D.K. (1991) ‘Collaborative Writing, Software Development, and the Universe of CollaborativeActivity’. In Lay, M. M., & Karis, W. M. (Eds) (1991) Collaborative Writing in Industry: Investigations in Theory and Practice. New York: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc
2. Lay, M. M., & Karis, W. M. (Eds) (1991) Collaborative Writing in Industry: Investigations in Theory and Practice. New York: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Genre analysis on adverts: change can only be a good thing!
Genre analysis is a concept I am sure many of you have come across before, not only in linguistics but also in music, books or even movies.
In terms of linguistics Swales (1990 p.45) defines genre analysis as:
'a recognizable communicative event characterized by a set of communicative purposes identified and mutually understood by the members of the professional or academic community in which it regularly occurs’
In simple terms genre analysis is important since it gives a piece of text a category and identifies the nature of the text and writer. I believe genre analysis is particularly important within management writing as it helps many writers, linguistics and even students create a more logical and effective piece of writing targeted at a specific audience.
The genre of promotional texts such as adverts is particularly interesting as they work as powerful linguistic tools for businesses to communicate with their customers. Bhatia (2004) argues that an advert in any type of business will attempt to include nine rhetoric moves known as the Move Analysis to promote a product or service. The Move Analysis in essence provides a structure for a piece of text to follow:
1. Headline
2. Targeting the market
3. Justifying the product or service
4. Detailing the product or service
5. Establishing credentials
6. Celebrity or typical user endorsement
7. Offering incentives
8. Using pressure tactics
9. Soliciting a response
However even those of us who aren’t IT experts, will have noticed over the last couple of years the technological capabilities have transformed the way in which companies approach their advertisements, especially in terms of the language or rather the lack of language used. Due to the new emergence of social media sites such as Facebook, Bebo and Twitter, business communication has been revolutionised.
Bhatia (1993) highlights to some extent since each piece of discourse will vary there is some flexibility within the Move Analysis and many of the moves will not be followed in chronological order.Partridge (2007) explains that often genres will change over time due to changes in technology as seen in the example of mobile phones which has brought about a text messaging genre. This is a concept the Move Analysis fails to recognise since it provides justifications of why each move should be used but doesn't highlight how each move should be used for different texts as time evolves.
This brings me to the question: due to the different channels of communication today, does the Move Analysis need to be updated or adapted to fit in with new subgenres that technology has brought about?
Here are some perfect examples I found on the social networking site, Facebook (www.facebook.com):
A1
A2
The first advert (A1) by Tesco makes use of a headline: ‘Internet exclusive offer’, to attract the reader. The advert is short, perhaps in an attempt to quickly attract the reader's attention. The main message is that the online facility not only includes the normal store offers of ‘buy one get one free’ but also ‘hundreds of online exclusives’. The advert closes with a clickable link the website.
The second advert (A2) by Blackberry also uses a catchy headline: ‘Haven’t you heard?’. This implies that that the offer is common knowledge and could make the reader feel isolated if they do not know about the offer. Blackberry tries to entice the reader with an image as well as financial incentives such ‘Blackberry Curve 8520 free and on our £20 tariff- that’s less than the rest’. Colloquial language is used such as 'gorgeous', to fit in within the context of a social networking site.
From the analysis found an adaption of the Move Analysis to fit in with the subgenre of adverts on social networking sites could be:
1.Short catchy phrase
2.Image of the product/company
3.Incentives of the product/service
4.Click through link to website
Perhaps this new Move Analysis will help companies create specific online adverts in today’s technological dependant world?
References
1. Bhatia, V.K. (1993) Analysing Genres: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
2. Bhatia, V.K. (2004) Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-based View. London: Continuum.
3. Partridge, B. (2007) Discourse Analysis: An introduction. London: Continuum.
4. Swales, J. M. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
In terms of linguistics Swales (1990 p.45) defines genre analysis as:
'a recognizable communicative event characterized by a set of communicative purposes identified and mutually understood by the members of the professional or academic community in which it regularly occurs’
In simple terms genre analysis is important since it gives a piece of text a category and identifies the nature of the text and writer. I believe genre analysis is particularly important within management writing as it helps many writers, linguistics and even students create a more logical and effective piece of writing targeted at a specific audience.
The genre of promotional texts such as adverts is particularly interesting as they work as powerful linguistic tools for businesses to communicate with their customers. Bhatia (2004) argues that an advert in any type of business will attempt to include nine rhetoric moves known as the Move Analysis to promote a product or service. The Move Analysis in essence provides a structure for a piece of text to follow:
1. Headline
2. Targeting the market
3. Justifying the product or service
4. Detailing the product or service
5. Establishing credentials
6. Celebrity or typical user endorsement
7. Offering incentives
8. Using pressure tactics
9. Soliciting a response
However even those of us who aren’t IT experts, will have noticed over the last couple of years the technological capabilities have transformed the way in which companies approach their advertisements, especially in terms of the language or rather the lack of language used. Due to the new emergence of social media sites such as Facebook, Bebo and Twitter, business communication has been revolutionised.
Bhatia (1993) highlights to some extent since each piece of discourse will vary there is some flexibility within the Move Analysis and many of the moves will not be followed in chronological order.Partridge (2007) explains that often genres will change over time due to changes in technology as seen in the example of mobile phones which has brought about a text messaging genre. This is a concept the Move Analysis fails to recognise since it provides justifications of why each move should be used but doesn't highlight how each move should be used for different texts as time evolves.
This brings me to the question: due to the different channels of communication today, does the Move Analysis need to be updated or adapted to fit in with new subgenres that technology has brought about?
Here are some perfect examples I found on the social networking site, Facebook (www.facebook.com):
A1
A2
The first advert (A1) by Tesco makes use of a headline: ‘Internet exclusive offer’, to attract the reader. The advert is short, perhaps in an attempt to quickly attract the reader's attention. The main message is that the online facility not only includes the normal store offers of ‘buy one get one free’ but also ‘hundreds of online exclusives’. The advert closes with a clickable link the website.
The second advert (A2) by Blackberry also uses a catchy headline: ‘Haven’t you heard?’. This implies that that the offer is common knowledge and could make the reader feel isolated if they do not know about the offer. Blackberry tries to entice the reader with an image as well as financial incentives such ‘Blackberry Curve 8520 free and on our £20 tariff- that’s less than the rest’. Colloquial language is used such as 'gorgeous', to fit in within the context of a social networking site.
From the analysis found an adaption of the Move Analysis to fit in with the subgenre of adverts on social networking sites could be:
1.Short catchy phrase
2.Image of the product/company
3.Incentives of the product/service
4.Click through link to website
Perhaps this new Move Analysis will help companies create specific online adverts in today’s technological dependant world?
References
1. Bhatia, V.K. (1993) Analysing Genres: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
2. Bhatia, V.K. (2004) Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-based View. London: Continuum.
3. Partridge, B. (2007) Discourse Analysis: An introduction. London: Continuum.
4. Swales, J. M. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sunday, 31 January 2010
The beginning is always a good place to start!
So what will this blog really be about? Well I have chosen the following three topics to reflect upon:
1. Genre Analysis of Adverts
2. Collaborative Writing
3. Politeness and Face in Different Cultures
I find these topics particularly interesting and have decided to illustrate the relevance of them in conjunction with my own experiences.
1. Genre Analysis of Adverts
2. Collaborative Writing
3. Politeness and Face in Different Cultures
I find these topics particularly interesting and have decided to illustrate the relevance of them in conjunction with my own experiences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)