Throughout this semester, I have done six investigations to apply what I've learnt from this course to analyze the discourse of the language learning centre that I work in. Below is a brief summary of the six investigations:
#2 To identify the main social actors of the investigation site, their social practices and actions as well as the different cultural tools used to facilitate them
#3 To investigate one of the most significant events- consultation of curriculum with reference to Hymes's SPEAKING model and also the 'marked' behavior as well as the different kinds of cultural competencies
#4 To look into a formal internal email message to see how discourse community is constituted
#7 To investigate the politeness strategies used
#8 To identify the procedural rules of conversations
#11 To analyze the power relationship among participants
Before doing the investigations, I have listed out a certain questions that I found in this site. Since most of the staff are female and there is a distinctive hierarchy which signifies the different levels of power the participants have, I was wondering how such 'rules' were constituted and why people acted on them.
Having done the six investigations, I now have a clearer idea of the way people communicate and the way they construct reality. The way the staff communicate is largely affected by the power relationship among them. The titles given to different positions have formed a distinctive hierarchy and hence, influencing how the staff use politeness strategies to protect each other's face and the implicit procedural rules of conversations. To be a member of this discourse, all the staff have to share certain cultural competence such as the education system of the company and the knowledge of the special terms written on internal text messages.
With the cultural competence constituted among the staff, members of this site have formed a 'discourse community' sharing communicative goals and knowledge required for effective communication. Through the daily written or verbal communication within the company, identities and responsibilities have been projected to the employees; and by responding and involving in them, the employees have accepted the membership and the associated responsibilities. This explains why most of the staff act on those 'implicit rules' passed on to them by the company.
As I have mentioned earlier, most of the staff in this site are women. Since women are more indirect and they tend to use euphemisms or hedges more than men, it is important for the members, especially for the male staff, to have a good understanding of the shared 'rules' here. A better way to learn them is by observation; by then members will know the 'normal' way people act and will avoid the marked behaviour which might lead to unwanted miscommunication.
I have shared my analysis with one of my male workmates, who has got into trouble because of his misuse of direct comments made to the senior. According to him, he is now well-aware of the importance of knowing the 'implicit rules' and acting on them in order to survive in this 'female circle'. He also added that this situation is not uncommon in the society nowadays. Since there are more ladies entering the job market than before, the things that we learnt from our company is apllicable to the broader social context so as to avoid miscommunication.
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Friday, 30 April 2010
Investigation #11 Discourse and Power
Having a deeper look into the internal messages (Investigation #4) and the after-class conversation (Investigation #8) of the language centre that I am working in, I find a clearer picture of the power relationships among participants and in the broader social order.
After considering the eight key principles of CDA by Fairclough and Wodak, I found a few common features that my investigation site shared with the principles. Firstly, power within this company is negotiated in the company discourse. People in different positions are given various titles which signal the level of power they have among the staff. For instance, there is a Headmaster, school principal, academic manager, academic panels, senior lecturers and part time tutors etc. All these titles help constitute a clear power relationship between the staff. However, all of these are made sense based on the presupposition the members have for the power level of these titles.
As shown in the after-class conversation, subordinates tend to respect the higher power by showing willingness to involve and giving preferred responses. In most of the circumstances, only those with higher power dare interrupt in a conversation. We can see that the social assumption of the need for the junior to respect the senior is reinforced. The ideology of higher power gets more respect is then enforced.
The word use in the internal message also signifies the power relationship between the employer and the employees. From the message regarding the bulleting intranet website, phrases like ‘we will use the bulletin board to inform you… please check and reply… everyday to get yourself updated’ reveal the assumption that the employer tries to pass on to the employees. Part time staff who are supposed to work only on weekends are expected to be responsible for job duties beyond their working hour. It is also the employees’ responsibilities to ‘get themselves updated’ with the company’s latest condition. By replying the message, employees have agreed on the identities and responsibilities that the higher power have imposed on them.
Although most of the members tend to accept and act on assumptions and ideologies come with the power relationships, there are two kinds of people who resist following these insider ‘rules’. The first group is the foreign native speakers; they express their ideas freely without pay much attention to the hierarchy. Nevertheless, they are not seen as being impolite or uncooperative since most of the senior staff are well-aware of the cultural difference Asians and Westerners have. Another group is those local staff who have bargaining power, for instance , the law students. They are seen to be more favourable for company’s reputation as the society carries an assumption that law students are more brilliant and out-standing. Therefore, these law-major part time staff do not always follow the ‘rules’ associated with the power relationship.
From the analysis done based on the context of my investigation site, the power relationship in the broader social order is also reflected. The titles given to different positions constitute a distinctive hierarchy and hence, a clearer power relationship among the members. Ideologies and social assumptions are reinforced. Subordinates mostly respect the higher power and use the independence face strategies to show their respect to them. People who have higher bargaining power could resist this; just like when you were Stanley Ho having so much influencing power, you would not care much about what title the others have and be restricted by the power relationship.
After considering the eight key principles of CDA by Fairclough and Wodak, I found a few common features that my investigation site shared with the principles. Firstly, power within this company is negotiated in the company discourse. People in different positions are given various titles which signal the level of power they have among the staff. For instance, there is a Headmaster, school principal, academic manager, academic panels, senior lecturers and part time tutors etc. All these titles help constitute a clear power relationship between the staff. However, all of these are made sense based on the presupposition the members have for the power level of these titles.
As shown in the after-class conversation, subordinates tend to respect the higher power by showing willingness to involve and giving preferred responses. In most of the circumstances, only those with higher power dare interrupt in a conversation. We can see that the social assumption of the need for the junior to respect the senior is reinforced. The ideology of higher power gets more respect is then enforced.
The word use in the internal message also signifies the power relationship between the employer and the employees. From the message regarding the bulleting intranet website, phrases like ‘we will use the bulletin board to inform you… please check and reply… everyday to get yourself updated’ reveal the assumption that the employer tries to pass on to the employees. Part time staff who are supposed to work only on weekends are expected to be responsible for job duties beyond their working hour. It is also the employees’ responsibilities to ‘get themselves updated’ with the company’s latest condition. By replying the message, employees have agreed on the identities and responsibilities that the higher power have imposed on them.
Although most of the members tend to accept and act on assumptions and ideologies come with the power relationships, there are two kinds of people who resist following these insider ‘rules’. The first group is the foreign native speakers; they express their ideas freely without pay much attention to the hierarchy. Nevertheless, they are not seen as being impolite or uncooperative since most of the senior staff are well-aware of the cultural difference Asians and Westerners have. Another group is those local staff who have bargaining power, for instance , the law students. They are seen to be more favourable for company’s reputation as the society carries an assumption that law students are more brilliant and out-standing. Therefore, these law-major part time staff do not always follow the ‘rules’ associated with the power relationship.
From the analysis done based on the context of my investigation site, the power relationship in the broader social order is also reflected. The titles given to different positions constitute a distinctive hierarchy and hence, a clearer power relationship among the members. Ideologies and social assumptions are reinforced. Subordinates mostly respect the higher power and use the independence face strategies to show their respect to them. People who have higher bargaining power could resist this; just like when you were Stanley Ho having so much influencing power, you would not care much about what title the others have and be restricted by the power relationship.
Investigation #8 Analyzing a conversation
Note: There is something wrong with the spacing of this blog site. The conversation transcription may be quite hard to read without proper spacing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a transcription of an after-class conversation between the Academic Manager and me in the staff room of the language learning centre that I work in.
Transcription convention: C=Chritine (the Academic Manager);J=Joey (Myself);K=Miss K (Senior lecturer);= = simultaneous speech;//=interruption;(.)= pause; ()=non-verbal communication
1 C: Hey Joey! (smile)How was the class today?
2 J: Oh.. it went well! (smile)
3 C: How was the 12H class?
4 Did Victor behave himself?
5 J: Haha. He still talked to me with his mean language
6 saying it was my bad to find someone else
7 to talk to him about his misbehaviour
8 rather than directly talking to him by myself.
9 Haha, I guess he is scared of your talk//last time.
10 K: //Which Victor?
11 Did I teach him before?
12 What's his chinese name?
13 J: Victor Chau Yiu Bong
14 C: =Oh.. I'm sure you didn't.(smile)
15 K: HAHAHA (laugh)
16 Yes, if I did then I'm sure
17 he wil know what is discipline!
18 J: Yes, I wish he knew.
19 He is trying to act like those rebellious big brother.
20 (sigh)
21 C: Haha.
22 But from the way he talked
23 I think he is trying to be friendly to you.
24 J: Maybe he just needs to protect his face
25 in front of his friends. Haha.
26C: Haha yea.. (.)
27 Hope he won't make too much disturbance.
28J: Yea haha.
29C: Yea yea(.) (smile)
30J: (smile)
31C: (Turning away)Okay.
32 Thank you. Thank you.(smile)
33J: Thank you. Thank you Christine.(smile)
For a normal conversation between the manager (or the lecturers) and the part time tutors, the one with higher power, that is the manager or the lecturers, ritually summons the conversation. As shown in the conversation transcription, the higher power starts off by asking "how was the class today" (line 1). This is a usual opening for most of the conversations of my investigation site and the meaning of the utterance is equivalent to the greeting "have you eaten yet". The adjacency pair of sommon-answer (line 1-2) habitually takes place at the beginning of the conversation.
As for the topic of the conversation, it is usually initiated by the higher power. The manager starts the topic after greeting; Subordinates then tend to stick to the topic and give relevant response. In the above conversation, the manager raises the question-the discipline matter of a certain class, and then the part time tutor answers to the questions with details (line 3-9). It takes the adjacency pair of answer-question.
In line 10, we can see that the senior lecturer interrupts and asks if she knows that student. From the response of the two participants of the conversation, it is shown that they are used to the interruption made and they simply let her take the turn to speak. However, this kind of interruption is only 'appropriate' for the more senior staff who have relatively higher power over the participants of the conversation.
The closing of the conversation often includes some ritualistic expressions, for instance, 'yea','okay'. Towards the end of the conversation (line 26-27), the manager says 'yea','okay'and also pauses to signal invitation or willingness to pass the turn. In this company, it is not unusual for the senior to say something like 'hope the situation will improve' (line 27)in the pre-closing of the conversation. And to end the conversation, there is a strong institutional culture for the staff, regardless of the seniority, to say thank you for more than once at the end of the conversation. People who do not follow this ritual would be considered impolite or uncooperative.
Throughout the whole conversation, it can be noticed that participants often say 'haha'. It might be a way for them to show their willingness to take the turn; it might also be a positive face strategy to show friendliness and involvement in the conversation. As for the senior, by saying 'haha' might help reduce the weight of imposition of the conversation; it creates a more casual atmosphere for the conversation to go on with the subordinates.
Other than circumstances such as the junior making queries to the senior, the above identification of the 'procedural rule' can be applied to most of the before or after-class conversation between the senior and the part time staff. Even for the dialogues in the bulletin intranet of the company, it is ritually the higher power ones start off the conversation and initiate a topic and then the junior will take the turn to give preferred response. Interruption would mainly be made by the senior lecturers. They sometimes interrupt by leaving comments and making jokes, but that is not a normal approach for the junior to follow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a transcription of an after-class conversation between the Academic Manager and me in the staff room of the language learning centre that I work in.
Transcription convention: C=Chritine (the Academic Manager);J=Joey (Myself);K=Miss K (Senior lecturer);= = simultaneous speech;//=interruption;(.)= pause; ()=non-verbal communication
1 C: Hey Joey! (smile)How was the class today?
2 J: Oh.. it went well! (smile)
3 C: How was the 12H class?
4 Did Victor behave himself?
5 J: Haha. He still talked to me with his mean language
6 saying it was my bad to find someone else
7 to talk to him about his misbehaviour
8 rather than directly talking to him by myself.
9 Haha, I guess he is scared of your talk//last time.
10 K: //Which Victor?
11 Did I teach him before?
12 What's his chinese name?
13 J: Victor Chau Yiu Bong
14 C: =Oh.. I'm sure you didn't.(smile)
15 K: HAHAHA (laugh)
16 Yes, if I did then I'm sure
17 he wil know what is discipline!
18 J: Yes, I wish he knew.
19 He is trying to act like those rebellious big brother.
20 (sigh)
21 C: Haha.
22 But from the way he talked
23 I think he is trying to be friendly to you.
24 J: Maybe he just needs to protect his face
25 in front of his friends. Haha.
26C: Haha yea.. (.)
27 Hope he won't make too much disturbance.
28J: Yea haha.
29C: Yea yea(.) (smile)
30J: (smile)
31C: (Turning away)Okay.
32 Thank you. Thank you.(smile)
33J: Thank you. Thank you Christine.(smile)
For a normal conversation between the manager (or the lecturers) and the part time tutors, the one with higher power, that is the manager or the lecturers, ritually summons the conversation. As shown in the conversation transcription, the higher power starts off by asking "how was the class today" (line 1). This is a usual opening for most of the conversations of my investigation site and the meaning of the utterance is equivalent to the greeting "have you eaten yet". The adjacency pair of sommon-answer (line 1-2) habitually takes place at the beginning of the conversation.
As for the topic of the conversation, it is usually initiated by the higher power. The manager starts the topic after greeting; Subordinates then tend to stick to the topic and give relevant response. In the above conversation, the manager raises the question-the discipline matter of a certain class, and then the part time tutor answers to the questions with details (line 3-9). It takes the adjacency pair of answer-question.
In line 10, we can see that the senior lecturer interrupts and asks if she knows that student. From the response of the two participants of the conversation, it is shown that they are used to the interruption made and they simply let her take the turn to speak. However, this kind of interruption is only 'appropriate' for the more senior staff who have relatively higher power over the participants of the conversation.
The closing of the conversation often includes some ritualistic expressions, for instance, 'yea','okay'. Towards the end of the conversation (line 26-27), the manager says 'yea','okay'and also pauses to signal invitation or willingness to pass the turn. In this company, it is not unusual for the senior to say something like 'hope the situation will improve' (line 27)in the pre-closing of the conversation. And to end the conversation, there is a strong institutional culture for the staff, regardless of the seniority, to say thank you for more than once at the end of the conversation. People who do not follow this ritual would be considered impolite or uncooperative.
Throughout the whole conversation, it can be noticed that participants often say 'haha'. It might be a way for them to show their willingness to take the turn; it might also be a positive face strategy to show friendliness and involvement in the conversation. As for the senior, by saying 'haha' might help reduce the weight of imposition of the conversation; it creates a more casual atmosphere for the conversation to go on with the subordinates.
Other than circumstances such as the junior making queries to the senior, the above identification of the 'procedural rule' can be applied to most of the before or after-class conversation between the senior and the part time staff. Even for the dialogues in the bulletin intranet of the company, it is ritually the higher power ones start off the conversation and initiate a topic and then the junior will take the turn to give preferred response. Interruption would mainly be made by the senior lecturers. They sometimes interrupt by leaving comments and making jokes, but that is not a normal approach for the junior to follow.
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Investigation #7 Analyzing politeness
Here is a conversation of my two workmates- a senior lecturer (Miss K) and a part-time tutor (Nicola):
1 Miss K: Hey Nicola, I just checked the marked paper,
2 there seems to be some miscalculation for Jeremy and Jasmine's
3 papers.
4 Nicola: Oh really? I'm sorry for that.
5 Should I double-check the paper all over again?
6 Miss K: Nah.. it's alright. I've made correction for both of them.
7 By the way, know the calculation can be quite complicated.
8 Maybe you can pay more attention to the mark different parts
9 carry,it makes my head ache.
10 Nicola: Sure,sure! You're right.
11 I misread that all the questions of partB carries 4 marks each,
12 just like partA.
13 I should go double-check the whole pile.
14 I will be more careful.
15 Thanks for your reminder.
16 Miss K: Haha, work hard together!
17 All teachers here are bombarred by numbers instead of
18 alphabets...
As shown in the above conversation, the central message that Miss K tried to convey is to criticize the accuracy of Nicola's marking; which is a face threatening act to Nicola. There might be a greater desire for Miss K to maintain face for both of them than to be efficient or urgent, therefore, she tried to minimize the FTA by using the following politeness strategies.
In order not to threaten the positive face of Nicola, Miss K did the criticism 'with redressive action'. First of all, she used certain negative politeness strategies. In line 2, she pointed out the mistake made by Nicola indirectly. Instead of accusing her of deducting extra mark from the students, she avoided personalized words such as 'I' or 'you' and said 'there seems to be...'
To reduce the weight of imposition of the fault to Nicola, Miss K also used a number of positive politeness strategies. As shown in line 7-9, we can see that Miss K tried to portray herself as one of the victims under the complicated marking system and then indirectly drew Nicola's attention to the point that Nicola mistook every part carries the same mark of the paper. At the end of the conversation (line 16-8), she encouraged Nicola to work hard together with all the staff and stressed that everyone was under the same harsh condition. This can help Miss K show her understanding and sympathy, as well as to create an in-group identity for Nicola.
As for Nicola, her apology (line 4) might threaten her positive face; and in her later conversation, she adopted some positive politeness strategies. She first approved what Miss K said was right (line 10) and gave reason for her mistake (line 11-2). Other than offering to do something to make up for her fault (line 13), she also promised that she would be more careful (line 14).
This is not a rare situation in my investigation site. Whenever the junior staff make a mistake, the senior will use this approach to clarify the issue. With greater power and with the existence of social distance, senior staff tend to use negative politeness strategies to respect the junior and avoid threatening their face without redress. They sometimes use positive politeness strategies to get the junior involved in the group; it might also be a way for them to prevent themselves from creating an overt power distance. As for the junior staff, they often use the positive politeness strategies to show that they have common ground with the senior- to work their best for the students.
1 Miss K: Hey Nicola, I just checked the marked paper,
2 there seems to be some miscalculation for Jeremy and Jasmine's
3 papers.
4 Nicola: Oh really? I'm sorry for that.
5 Should I double-check the paper all over again?
6 Miss K: Nah.. it's alright. I've made correction for both of them.
7 By the way, know the calculation can be quite complicated.
8 Maybe you can pay more attention to the mark different parts
9 carry,it makes my head ache.
10 Nicola: Sure,sure! You're right.
11 I misread that all the questions of partB carries 4 marks each,
12 just like partA.
13 I should go double-check the whole pile.
14 I will be more careful.
15 Thanks for your reminder.
16 Miss K: Haha, work hard together!
17 All teachers here are bombarred by numbers instead of
18 alphabets...
As shown in the above conversation, the central message that Miss K tried to convey is to criticize the accuracy of Nicola's marking; which is a face threatening act to Nicola. There might be a greater desire for Miss K to maintain face for both of them than to be efficient or urgent, therefore, she tried to minimize the FTA by using the following politeness strategies.
In order not to threaten the positive face of Nicola, Miss K did the criticism 'with redressive action'. First of all, she used certain negative politeness strategies. In line 2, she pointed out the mistake made by Nicola indirectly. Instead of accusing her of deducting extra mark from the students, she avoided personalized words such as 'I' or 'you' and said 'there seems to be...'
To reduce the weight of imposition of the fault to Nicola, Miss K also used a number of positive politeness strategies. As shown in line 7-9, we can see that Miss K tried to portray herself as one of the victims under the complicated marking system and then indirectly drew Nicola's attention to the point that Nicola mistook every part carries the same mark of the paper. At the end of the conversation (line 16-8), she encouraged Nicola to work hard together with all the staff and stressed that everyone was under the same harsh condition. This can help Miss K show her understanding and sympathy, as well as to create an in-group identity for Nicola.
As for Nicola, her apology (line 4) might threaten her positive face; and in her later conversation, she adopted some positive politeness strategies. She first approved what Miss K said was right (line 10) and gave reason for her mistake (line 11-2). Other than offering to do something to make up for her fault (line 13), she also promised that she would be more careful (line 14).
This is not a rare situation in my investigation site. Whenever the junior staff make a mistake, the senior will use this approach to clarify the issue. With greater power and with the existence of social distance, senior staff tend to use negative politeness strategies to respect the junior and avoid threatening their face without redress. They sometimes use positive politeness strategies to get the junior involved in the group; it might also be a way for them to prevent themselves from creating an overt power distance. As for the junior staff, they often use the positive politeness strategies to show that they have common ground with the senior- to work their best for the students.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Investigation #4 Genres and Generic Conventions
In this investigation, I will look into a formal internal email message of my site. The different moves of the text will first be identified and the generic conventions will also be analyzed to see how they constitute the 'discourse community'.
In the chosen text of a formal internal email message, a 'move structure'can be identified and applied to most of the other formal internal messages of this company. As reflected in the attached text, the first move of the message is to give a clear subject line which can effectively summarize the whole message; the second move is to salute, followed by the third but the first most important move of this text, that is to state the purpose of this email with two sub-moves: i)listing enclosure and ii)inviting consideration. The fourth move is to provide detailed information of the teaching schedule and the fifth move is to request for confirmation. What coming next is the sixth move asking for the exact date and time for the next meeting and the seventh, which is to give contact information. The eighth move is to thank, followed by the closing with additional contact details.
As compared to other internal email messages, it is shown that these messages share a stable sequencing and structure (please refer to attached text 2). Certain compulsory moves such as giving a subject line, salutation, stating purpose, providing contact detail, thanking and closing with additional contact information are strictly followed. A 'discourse community' is formed, given that the members all share the knowledge that this is an official message.
This internal email message also signals membership. For instance, the teaching schedule provided in the email message has included the course codes for the assigned teaching classes. These course codes can be seen as 'discriminary' since only members of the site know how to interprete the code, for example, CW stands for Comprehension and Writing as well as the difference between * and non-* class.
In addition, by sending this message the sender has projected the identity of employees to the receivers; and by replying or confirming the message the recipents have agreed on the identity of employees.
We can conclude from the previous analysis that this formal internal email message has built the reality of 'who' the readers are and 'what' they have to do. With the cultural competence of this genre, members of this sites have formed a 'discourse community' sharing communicative goals and knowledge of the sent messages.
Attached text 1
Attached text 2
In the chosen text of a formal internal email message, a 'move structure'can be identified and applied to most of the other formal internal messages of this company. As reflected in the attached text, the first move of the message is to give a clear subject line which can effectively summarize the whole message; the second move is to salute, followed by the third but the first most important move of this text, that is to state the purpose of this email with two sub-moves: i)listing enclosure and ii)inviting consideration. The fourth move is to provide detailed information of the teaching schedule and the fifth move is to request for confirmation. What coming next is the sixth move asking for the exact date and time for the next meeting and the seventh, which is to give contact information. The eighth move is to thank, followed by the closing with additional contact details.
As compared to other internal email messages, it is shown that these messages share a stable sequencing and structure (please refer to attached text 2). Certain compulsory moves such as giving a subject line, salutation, stating purpose, providing contact detail, thanking and closing with additional contact information are strictly followed. A 'discourse community' is formed, given that the members all share the knowledge that this is an official message.
This internal email message also signals membership. For instance, the teaching schedule provided in the email message has included the course codes for the assigned teaching classes. These course codes can be seen as 'discriminary' since only members of the site know how to interprete the code, for example, CW stands for Comprehension and Writing as well as the difference between * and non-* class.
In addition, by sending this message the sender has projected the identity of employees to the receivers; and by replying or confirming the message the recipents have agreed on the identity of employees.
We can conclude from the previous analysis that this formal internal email message has built the reality of 'who' the readers are and 'what' they have to do. With the cultural competence of this genre, members of this sites have formed a 'discourse community' sharing communicative goals and knowledge of the sent messages.
Attached text 1
Attached text 2
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Investigation #3 Analyzing a Speech Event
Among all the speech events of company meeting, I choose to investigate one of the most significant event- consultation of curriculum, with reference to Hymes's SPEAKING model. Some consequences of certain 'marked' behavior and the different kinds of cultural competencies will also be covered as this investigation goes along.
As for the setting and scene, the consultation of curriculum meeting of the language centre that I am working in takes place once in a semester. It is usually held in the conference room at a designated time during weekdays when there are no students come for class. All the staff sit around the table, with the principal and panels sit closely together. This meeting is agreed to be formal but everyone is free to give opinions.
The ratified participants of this activity include the principal, panels, academic officers and senior teaching staff. Part-time tutors and customer service officers in this case are the unratified participants who are expected to be present but do not have much opportunity to speak.
The ends of this meeting vary for different participants. For the higher power ones such as the principal and panels, their purpose is to elicit more opinions for curriculum modification; but for the ones with lower power, the underlying purpose for them to come might be to show that they are participative in the company.
The meeting starts off by the panel introducing the agender and inviting everyone to give opinions and recommendation. Then, the senior teaching staff usually take the turn to express their thought. The academic officers do speak up sometimes but their speech is relatively shorter. At the end of the meeting, part-time tutors and customer service officers are invited to add opinions. Surprisingly, the principal is the last to speak in the activity rounding up the whole meeting and thanking everyone for their contribution. When I first came to this company, I thought the panel was too aggressive that she took the role of the principal to start off the meeting. My new workmates and I dared not speak up as we thought we had to let the principal talk first until we were taught that the principal only speaks up at the end of the meeting. That is because she doesn't want to interrupt the meeting and she wants everyone to throw their ideas freely. In this case, every member got to know the sequence of the acts so that they know when to speak up and express their ideas at the right time.
The key of the meeting is known to be formal, however, no one is expected to wear formal dressing and cantonese is acceptable even though it is an English language school. People who are in formal dressing and speak in a serious tone will be seen as a distant outsider. The company always encourages a casual and friendly atmosphere for meeting so that everyone will feel free to speak up.
As for instrumentalities, the knowledge of the curriculum and students’ performance are the most crucial cultural tools for this meeting to go smoothly and effectively.
The most interesting norm that I observed in the meeting is to say thank you for more than two times every time when a person takes the turn to speak. At first, I would think it was too pretentious but then people are so comfortable with this and if someone forgot to thank others, s/he will be seen as a disrespectful person.
I would say this meeting is a mixed genre of company meeting and forum. Every member can speak for themselves in a casual way but still, the unstated norms of the meeting are anticipated to be followed.
After analyzing the meeting by Hymes's SPEAKING model, it is reflected that cultural competencies are necessary for avoiding ‘marked’ behaviors and are helpful to generate more effective in-group communication.
As for the setting and scene, the consultation of curriculum meeting of the language centre that I am working in takes place once in a semester. It is usually held in the conference room at a designated time during weekdays when there are no students come for class. All the staff sit around the table, with the principal and panels sit closely together. This meeting is agreed to be formal but everyone is free to give opinions.
The ratified participants of this activity include the principal, panels, academic officers and senior teaching staff. Part-time tutors and customer service officers in this case are the unratified participants who are expected to be present but do not have much opportunity to speak.
The ends of this meeting vary for different participants. For the higher power ones such as the principal and panels, their purpose is to elicit more opinions for curriculum modification; but for the ones with lower power, the underlying purpose for them to come might be to show that they are participative in the company.
The meeting starts off by the panel introducing the agender and inviting everyone to give opinions and recommendation. Then, the senior teaching staff usually take the turn to express their thought. The academic officers do speak up sometimes but their speech is relatively shorter. At the end of the meeting, part-time tutors and customer service officers are invited to add opinions. Surprisingly, the principal is the last to speak in the activity rounding up the whole meeting and thanking everyone for their contribution. When I first came to this company, I thought the panel was too aggressive that she took the role of the principal to start off the meeting. My new workmates and I dared not speak up as we thought we had to let the principal talk first until we were taught that the principal only speaks up at the end of the meeting. That is because she doesn't want to interrupt the meeting and she wants everyone to throw their ideas freely. In this case, every member got to know the sequence of the acts so that they know when to speak up and express their ideas at the right time.
The key of the meeting is known to be formal, however, no one is expected to wear formal dressing and cantonese is acceptable even though it is an English language school. People who are in formal dressing and speak in a serious tone will be seen as a distant outsider. The company always encourages a casual and friendly atmosphere for meeting so that everyone will feel free to speak up.
As for instrumentalities, the knowledge of the curriculum and students’ performance are the most crucial cultural tools for this meeting to go smoothly and effectively.
The most interesting norm that I observed in the meeting is to say thank you for more than two times every time when a person takes the turn to speak. At first, I would think it was too pretentious but then people are so comfortable with this and if someone forgot to thank others, s/he will be seen as a disrespectful person.
I would say this meeting is a mixed genre of company meeting and forum. Every member can speak for themselves in a casual way but still, the unstated norms of the meeting are anticipated to be followed.
After analyzing the meeting by Hymes's SPEAKING model, it is reflected that cultural competencies are necessary for avoiding ‘marked’ behaviors and are helpful to generate more effective in-group communication.
Monday, 22 February 2010
Investigation #2: Action and Practices
Within the discourse of internal communication of my company, some social practices and actions regularly take place. In this investigation, I will focus on analyzing the main social actors, their social practices and actions as well as the different cultural tools used to facilitate them.
The main social actors of my company, which is an English language learning centre, are the Principal, the academic officers, full-time lecturers and part-time tutors. The two major social practices they engaged, which are to be discussed in the later parts are making formal annoucement and eliciting opinions from employees.
When making formal annoucement such as releasing payment arrangment notice, the company usually take the following actions: i. The principal declares the new arrangement and ask the academic officer (AO) to deliver the messages to all the staff; ii) AO prints official hard copies for the staff; iii) AO posts a message on the intranet, namely Bulletin Page, to remind the staff to get a printed copy; iv) full-time and part-time teachers check the message on-line, respond and thank for the reminder; v)teachers collect the copy and sign to proof they have got the annoucement. In is shown that the order of actions is from the highest power to the staff with lower power. Teaching staff is rather passive in taking actions. By delivering the notice to the staff, the principal has projected the identity of staff to the teachers; and by signing the notice, teachers has also accepted the identity of staff of the company.
When eliciting employees' opinions such as asking for their comments about students' performance, the actions tend to be more interactive: i) Principal tells AO to ask for teachers' comments; ii) AO posts the request on Bulletin Page; iii) teaching staff check and reply to the thread; iv) AO thanks for the information or asks follow-up questions; v) teachers and AO discuss over the page; vi) AO reports it back to the principal. It is reflected that teaching staff have taken a comparatively more active role in the actions in this case.
A number of tools are used to mediate the actions mentioned above. For technical tools, the social actors use text, the Bulletin Page, printed announcement, and machines (computers and printers)etc. There are also semiotic tools, for example, language, knowledge of the company's system and jargons as well as the login ID for staffs.
Tools like the Bulletin Page have speeded up the action of delivering the intended message and have encouraged a more participative role of the teaching staff. However, staff cannot express their real thoughts freely on the page as it is a public space for the whole company and every social actors and members of the discourse are able to see it.
Within the same discourse of internal company communication, different social practices take place with a set of actions. With the aids of the cultural tools, some of the actions are made more easily; however, there are still some constraints that limit some of the actions of the members.
The main social actors of my company, which is an English language learning centre, are the Principal, the academic officers, full-time lecturers and part-time tutors. The two major social practices they engaged, which are to be discussed in the later parts are making formal annoucement and eliciting opinions from employees.
When making formal annoucement such as releasing payment arrangment notice, the company usually take the following actions: i. The principal declares the new arrangement and ask the academic officer (AO) to deliver the messages to all the staff; ii) AO prints official hard copies for the staff; iii) AO posts a message on the intranet, namely Bulletin Page, to remind the staff to get a printed copy; iv) full-time and part-time teachers check the message on-line, respond and thank for the reminder; v)teachers collect the copy and sign to proof they have got the annoucement. In is shown that the order of actions is from the highest power to the staff with lower power. Teaching staff is rather passive in taking actions. By delivering the notice to the staff, the principal has projected the identity of staff to the teachers; and by signing the notice, teachers has also accepted the identity of staff of the company.
When eliciting employees' opinions such as asking for their comments about students' performance, the actions tend to be more interactive: i) Principal tells AO to ask for teachers' comments; ii) AO posts the request on Bulletin Page; iii) teaching staff check and reply to the thread; iv) AO thanks for the information or asks follow-up questions; v) teachers and AO discuss over the page; vi) AO reports it back to the principal. It is reflected that teaching staff have taken a comparatively more active role in the actions in this case.
A number of tools are used to mediate the actions mentioned above. For technical tools, the social actors use text, the Bulletin Page, printed announcement, and machines (computers and printers)etc. There are also semiotic tools, for example, language, knowledge of the company's system and jargons as well as the login ID for staffs.
Tools like the Bulletin Page have speeded up the action of delivering the intended message and have encouraged a more participative role of the teaching staff. However, staff cannot express their real thoughts freely on the page as it is a public space for the whole company and every social actors and members of the discourse are able to see it.
Within the same discourse of internal company communication, different social practices take place with a set of actions. With the aids of the cultural tools, some of the actions are made more easily; however, there are still some constraints that limit some of the actions of the members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
