Marra and Maxims

When I first started reading Marra's Recording and Analyzing Talk Across Cultures, I did not see how it pertained to the classroom.  I can see how the classroom is a work place where communication is critical to learning, but I think that adult communication in the work place for adults is very different than a classroom full of children.  I think that this is true for most cultures.  I question whether one form of talking is culturally driven  and whether one type of talk is more efficient or better than another.  I thought that the purpose for this study was to find a generalization in the talk of the Maori people.  Further more I do not think that the methodology would of the Maori people is very contextualized.
The Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) analysis or method for working with Maori people which are, "respect for people; present yourself to people face to face; look, listen...speak; share and host people; be cautious; do not trample over the mana of people; don't flaunt your knowledge."  I thought that not flaunting your knowledge was very interesting.  I feel as though this is not a valued method for the work place or the classroom.  Someone from this culture could act differently in the classroom.  Children are naturally self centered and I believe that as a teacher we are not necessarily keeping that self centeredness but we certainly value many ideas and knowledge about a subject as long as its relevant to the topic.  Where as I am guessing Smith found that ideas are limited to a minimum, since flaunting knowledge is something socially unacceptable and the relevance to the subject must be very strong.
Speaking of relevance, this example directly relates to Grice's Maxims which are found in McKay and Bokhorst-Heng's book in chapter six.  I remember learning about this my introduction to linguistics course and also mentioned it last week in our conversations on what is good writing (another great example of me flaunting my knowledge...).  I really like these guidelines for comparison, but never realized that my interactions could have negative effects in a different culture.
So many times I have heard in parent-teacher conferences that I did not speak up in class enough and I changed based on this critique that I got in lower level grades.  Does this method of analyzing interactions mean that we should not encourage students of a particular culture to speak up during class and share their ideas because of the perceptions that they may have of different Maxims?

Writing Across Borders

The main point in the first part of the documentary was that students and teachers of different cultures vary on views of what good writing is and how to write.  This was present in many ESL students at Oregon State.  The one professor said, in a point of view paper on cafeteria food in schools, that she felt much differently about the topic since she grew up in a part of the world where nutrition was much lower than in the United States.  As teachers we must recognize that writing reflects our background experiences, and sometimes our students have very different experiences than ours.  A Japanese and Peruvian student describes the format of an essay being different in Japan and Peru.  In their eyes,  they value the way that they write because of the enforcement that they had in the country they are from.  It would be the same if a student that came from a school in Chicago that told their students to make their paragraphs only a couple of sentences to be short and to the point and then that student goes to a school in the suburbs and then gets marked off for making their paragraph too short.  The student from Colombia mentions that writing is also a reflection of how you speak in your culture.  I would agree that it is a cultural thing for Americans to say "How are you?" in passing and not wait for your answer.  I can see how it may be disagreeable to different cultures, but because it is something that we do not see as offensive but practical and acceptable, I do not think there is anything wrong with it.  Now if I know that a person has different customs, I will accomedate myself because I know that they are used to something different.  Is it wrong of me to think that my own cultural habits are wrong?  I feel as though I should still keep my cultural habits and my own identity, but when helping students with their intellectual growth and development to leave my preferences at the door. 
What this documentary enforces is that writing is relative, what you have read or said and gotten good feedback on is what you will try to reproduce.  However, that does not always mean that everyone will like it.  When teaching students of different cultures than your own, and even students with the same culture, the way that they have been expected to express themselves is a valued and appropriate technique.

Connor and Kubota

Connor's article shows Connor's definition of culture, which is something that we tried to define in the beginning of this course.  They say that culture is, "'a set of patterns and rules share by a particular community.'"  This view of culture can suggest that there are cross-cultural differences, and cause analysis of those differences.  Some say that cross-cultural difference analyzation can be a form of discrimination.  Then the article mentions that not analyzing the difference can also be a form of neglect and discrimination.  So what does this mean for us?  When do we need to distinguish difference and when do we need to not distinguish difference?

In the article the contrastive rhetoric has been accused of guiding students to write for the cultural norm rather than use their own cultural difference.  This reminds me of the linguistics courses I have taken, and how acceptability is preferred to correctness and grammaticality is based on each dialect's every day speech use, not Standard English.  It is okay to tell a student that when writing a document that has to do with power or money (application, interview, grant writing, ect.) that you need to use Standard English.  In one of my classes we questioned why English is so widely studied in second language acquisition.  It is such a powerful language and has been spread through out history.  Since that time, we have globalized our business.  Having a universal language, at least in the business world, would make so many things easier.  However, having a universal language is impossible and dangerous to culture and society.  I think that World Standard Spoken English is a bad idea because of the strong connection with culture and language.

Kubota's article 1999, was describes how children of Japanese dissent are wrongly viewed based on the cultural views of the United States teachers.  It was interesting to see the educational perceptions that some have of Japanese culture being proven wrong.  Thinking that schools have "less emphasis on creativity, self expression, individualism, and critical thinking relative to U.S. education" is very wrong.  Even though the teachers may have a different format than the teachers in the United States that does not mean that the children are not developing through the same experiences.  The Japanese students are tapping into all different senses.  One interesting aspect is that they reinforce a collectivism rather than individualism, however it is wrong to think that the individual does not go into the community.  It is good for students to develop "both individual and group dimensions."  I feel as though there is a stigmatism against memorization skills across the United States and within this article.  I feel as though memorization is an excellent skill to practice because like it or not there are some things that you will have to do in this fast paced world that you need to remember some things for a short period of time.  This is why teachers should present their information in a variety of ways, so that their students can memorize things faster.  

I feel as though there are so many ways to teach material and other countries may have better methods and are worth investigating.  However, I also feel as though I will have restrictions by my colleges, administrators and parents.  Parents, for good reason want their children to be taught in a similar way that they were taught in order to help their children with homework and because they themselves turned out well because how they were taught.  Are my assumptions true?  Will I not be able to adopt a Hansei reflection section in my daily activities because of the norms of the school and community?

This weeks readings in Holliday were about otherness.  The first passage shows how otherness can be seen and stereotypes are formed on what we relate with the otherness we see.  He thought that he would be offending the neighbors by asking them if they wanted to watch television at their house, when in fact they were grateful that they allowed them to come and watch.  I asked my roommate if she had the same experience with her best friend from high school who is a converted apostolic christian.  I am not educated enough to know all the practices of this religion, but I do recognize that she dresses differently, wears her hair differently, and believes different things than I and my roommate believe.  Recently she was in her friend's wedding, and I asked if she avoided asking or doing certain things because of the company that she was exposed to.  She said that she first tried to say something about television and nobody understood what she was talking about and she did not talk about anything related to that after.

The second passage showed me how emotions influence peoples stereotypes.  When we have a negative emotion with a certain race, language variation, or social class we will generalize that emotion with all people of that same race, language or social class.  The two people in the example may have had a positive emotion and ended up getting together. This would obviously give them and their relations a good opinion of that culture.  I feel as though otherness and stereotypes are driven by emotions, feelings, and relationships.

The third passage was about power and discourse.  This point made me question, when do people have enough.  When does othering go too far and when is it appropriate to act on or claim that someone is othering you?

My project link is here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Yvq0eYFrY

Identity

2/7
Social influences have a great impact on cultural identity, and a large part of this is language.  An immigrant that comes into this country and is surrounded by a language variety that exists in the region, obviously they are going to adopt words into their vocabulary that others may not use.  My friend from the bilingual program had to learn English when she lived in Texas.  Socially, she was exposed to many users of the phrase “ya’ll.”  When she moved here she changed her speech again, in order to match the speech of her peers.  This goes for racial and ethnic speech as well.

The article talks about crossing and what social instances do to affect speech.  I found it shocking that Asian adolescent students faked not having very good English skills in order to get out of class activities.  As a bilingual educator this is important to recognize crossing.

Norton’s article was similar to the content of Hall.  Norton investigated how social identity affects our language learning.  The story of Martina made me think of something I was talking about with a friend, how public speaking or performance makes us nervous.  With years of practice everyday in our own language some of us still suffer from this anxiety.  However, each time you practice and the more good feedback you receive makes you more confident that the next time it will be better.


I thought it was so noble of Martina to eventually be independent enough to do things that a mother should do for their children.  Martina was not satisfied with her identity as a non-fluent English speaker.  She practiced and took uncomfortable leaps to gain fluency, just like we have been thrown into uncomfortable situations and deal with the embarrassment.  However, not every speaker of English ever overcomes the fear of public speaking and avoids it all together.  I think that there was something deep inside of Martina that pushed her to have a new social identity in Canada.  Norton expresses the notion that communicative competence must include a speaker’s ability to claim the right to speak.  Claiming the right to speak implies the speaker has confidence in their speech rather than native like speech.  Becoming fearless of the odd looks you might receive or the confusion that might occur are aspects of claiming the right to speak.  I think that this is crucial for communicative competence.  I do not think that speakers have this level of competence, because of some perceived notion of their social identity at a plateau.  


Like we saw and affirmed in class, that immigrants often struggle because it is like starting all over again, I think that part of the new beginnings that language learners have is reaffirming their old identity and a change in their old identity.  De Fina says that the way people use their “socially established resources” or “social categories (race, gender, ethnicity, ect.)” to tell their stories is an indicator of identity.  I took this to mean, that when people join different groups, meet new people, or move new places, they may change their identities to the changes they encounter or they may keep the identities that they already have.  


Overall I was astounded at how complex identity is.  Before reading the articles, I thought that there were two types of identities, the way you perceive yourself and the way others perceive you.  Situation identities, use social languages, discourses, and conversations are categories that Gee believes influences our identities.  So basically what ever you say, think or feel in any situation and with or against any certain person.  

I want to know whether you think identity acts with culture as one or if they are independent of each other.  Even perhaps if identity is a sub category of culture or if culture is a component of identity.