Blogs

Greek seems to contain all of the structures in Aitchison's diagram. In our classes, Dan and I have covered most of phonetics and phonology, and have touched on some syntax, morphology, and semantics. In our general discussion in and out of class we have also seen some pragmatics through translating songs or talking about Greek history and culture. It is my opinion that you have not truly learned a language until you have put it into context. For this reason, when I am helping Dan learn Greek, I try to explain not only how a sound, a word, or a sentence are formed or structured, but also why they are this way, how have they evolved and changed when compared to ancient Greek, and what was that context around which they were formed. For example, the reason there are 5 different letters/diphthongs that today make the same 'ee' sound is because in Ancient Greek, which was a more melodic language, each of those had a different length associated with it that affected the rhythm of the word. Same for 'o' and 'e' (as in bed) sounds. 

The reason I choose to teach Dan in this way is because I noticed that my understanding of the Greek language was significantly bettered when I learned Ancient Greek, and it also made spelling and complex syntax much much easier. Dan is also a logic learner like me, so it helps him learn and/or remember something better if he understands why it is the way it is.

There are many different ideas of how language is modeled such as some simple models which only recognize two basic levels: the set of physical forms and the abstract meanings from those forms in a language. However, the most commonly used model is a four level model which includes phonetics, phonology, grammar, and semantics with greater divisions within these levels as well. Likewise, Hangul is composed of sounds which are then built into words. From these words come sentences based on grammar which contains the study of word and sentence structure. Finally, semantics studies the individual meanings of words, idioms and the meaning of greater content.

There are two main methods in which most approach a new language. The first method involves learning and understanding what makes up what they are saying. You first learn how to phonetically expression, phonology, morphology, syntax and finally semantics or the meaning of everything you’ve learned. The second method is backwards in that it forms a foundation of an understanding of the meaning of the words and sentences first, semantics, and then learns phonetic expression and phonology. Although one method is not better than the other, being all around conscious of both phonetic expression, phonology and meaning while you learn would help you better understand and remember what you are learning. For example, if you first learned with phonetically being conscious of the potential meaning would help you to be more intentional in what to look out for when advancing more in the language.

In terms of my own learning, I’m more comfortable with the phonetic method as it how I learned Spanish and gives a general basis of understanding of what you are saying. However, with my goal of being able to speak rather than read or write I probably would want to take the semantics method as I do not need to necessarily know exactly what makes up the words and sentences that I’m saying.

In the Korean language, there is a set of phonetics called Hangul. Hangul are alphabets that contain unique sounds to each of them, and they are combined to make different sounds and eventually words. Then, they reach the level of phonology, which means that each words convey different meanings, and they reach the level of grammar, which is the unique structure of different patterns of these words, consisting morphology and syntax. Finally, the semantics enables the meaning to be conveyed to others. I believe combining different disciplinary perspectives can help others learn and understand the language in more depth because it also involves the cultural aspect of learning. Because I have the basic knowledge of Korean, I am planning to combine sociolinguistics and applied linguistics to learn more in depth. I have over sociolinguistics since that is the disciplinary perspective that is most closely related to culture, and I believe the cultural aspect of the Korean language is what makes it so interesting, since it is so different from english. Because I am more interested in the cultural aspect of Korean, we started the class with learning slang, and we are planning to learn more cultural aspects.

Linguistics views language in an objective way. There are a few major branches of linguistics, which it is useful to understand in order to learn about language from a psychological perspective. Phonetics is the study of individual speech sounds; phonology is the study of phonemes, which are the speech sounds of an individual language. These two heavily overlapping subfields cover all the sounds that humans can make, as well as which sounds make up different languages. Syntax is the study of sentences and phrases, or how people put words into the right order so that they can communicate meaningfully. For me, I think the syntax of Western language and Eastern language differ the most. For example, if I want to say I like swimming in Japanese, I would say “I swimming like” (私は水泳が好きだ）,which means the subject and verb in different languages are totally in different orders. However, there might be exception. In Chinese, the order of saying “I like swimming” is the same as English. (我喜欢游泳) . As for my target language which is Korean, it is more similar to Japanese. Thus, I think Japanese knowledge will be really helpful for me learning Korean.

Language is a multi-layered study that includes phonetics, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and then branches into different discipline’s focus on linguistics. Sentence structure in Korean includes use of grammar, following a subject-object-predicate order, whereas English uses subject-predicate-object sequence. Understanding the different disciplinary perspectives can provide a better understanding of a language because language involves the communications between people. For example, a sociological linguist may examine the effects of different cultural norms, expectations and context, on the formation of language. I would give preference to sociolinguistics because I want to understand the culture of Korea as well, their people tend to be more modest and shy and I wonder if that has a language component. Because Korean has a different grammar structure from English, it is very unfamiliar, therefore my learning plan will probably shift to have a stronger emphasis on grammar.

According to the diagram, phonetics is surrounded by phonology, then syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, and etc. While it shows the scope of linguistics, it also helps visualize the core elements of a language. In language structure, the four-level models, phonetics, phonology, grammar, semantics are most commonly used. This applies to Korean. The Korean alphabet consists of the sounds of hangul. Different combinations of consonants and vowels produce a different sound. These sounds become words, and rearranging them forms the syntax and with sound, word, and meaning patterns, the grammar provides the backbone of the language. In How to Investigate Language Structure, author argues that the aim of grammar is to give structure to meaning and so decides to start the next chapter with semantics. But, if the sounds and words are the what, grammar is the how, and meaning is the why, it may be a better idea to explain the how before the why. I think the aim of grammar could be to give structure to the sounds and words, and the aim of semantics could be to explore meaning from or through them. However, this is just a thought.

Reading about the different disciplinary perspectives gives me a clearer map of language. The structure dependence, patterning, duality, and creativity of language gives me a better idea of approaching Korean. The vocabulary and grammar may be different from English, but just like I can create new sentences that consist of various words glued by grammar, I can do the same in Korean. Communicating through language is such a crucial part of our everyday lives, and it's crazy that someone could use up to 100,000 words per day. Language is a powerful tool.

JRF%20Learning%20Plan.docx

For starters, since my language partner told us that the Korean alphabet is easy to get start, out first task is to learn the alphabet as soon as we can. Later we would be able to read and speak. Moreover, I really like to watch Korean TV series and to listen K-pop songs. Thus, I would also practice my own listening and speaking skills while entertaining myself. After that, I guess we will do some higher level reading and writing.  

     After reading the articles, the concepts which are monochronic and polychromic really made me feel interested. People always compare these two cultures and match them into different countries. Monochronic culture refers to do just one thing at a time. They value a certain orderliness and sense of there being an appropriate time and place for everything. They do not value interruptions. They like to concentrate on the job at hand and take time commitments very seriously. On the contrary, Polychronic cultures like to do multiple things at the same time and a more fluid approach is taken to scheduling time. Also, in a polychronic culture, people attach more importance into relationships, rather than watching the clock. They have no problem being “late” for an event if they are with family or friends, because the relationship is what really matters. This is really amazing. I’ve been to plenty of countries, they are indeed could be defined into either monochromic or polychronic. For example, France is a typical polychronic country because according to my observation, French people do not value interruptions. My cousin is studying there and she told me that the French do not mind being late in a party or meeting because they do not value a certain orderliness. However, Japan is totally different from France, which is supposed to be regarded as a monochronic culture. In Japan, people are all expected to concentrate on job at hand and take time commitments very seriously. The majority of Japanese will not be late at working.

• the task(s) you are working on;
• a statement of what you hoped to accomplish;
• the strategies (activities and resources) you used to work on your task(s);
• an evaluation of the effectiveness of your strategies;
• how you will build on what you have learned about the language;
• how you will build on what you have learned about your strategies.

Due to Hurricane Florence, I met with my language partner only once last week. We worked on phrases to use at a restaurant, such as what to say when we tell them how many people are in our party, requesting a table versus a floor seat (a phenomenon in Korea!), how to order food, and more.

As this was something that was on my learning plan, I was very happy that we went over it. 

As most of this task is memorization, I think that my strategy to continue practicing these vocabulary words and phrases is to make flashcards to help me memorize and recall these words. Our language teacher also told us about a flashcard app on our phone that helps us play games and test ourselves about what we learned in class. It even has a spelling portion, something that I find as a big challenge. However, it pushes me to memorize more and try my best. I think that so far, my strategies have been effective. 

I plan to build on my strategies by putting time to memorize into my calendar. As I often forget to quiz myself, I think putting reminders on my phone to quiz myself a few times a week will help me stay on track and also remember the vocabulary better. 

I have learned that even in a restaurant setting where we interact with servers and cashiers who are strangers, there is a sense of unity regardless between Koreans. For example, when we call to the waiter for a request, we call her "ee-mo" which means "aunt" in Korean. It is interesting because if I called someone aunt in the USA while ordering food, I would be seen as pretty weird. However, in South Korea, it is not only ok but encouraged. I also learned that when we talk to the waiter, we use the informal tone. It was also interesting to see that because whenever I meet someone who is older than me who is a stranger, I am expected to use formal language. However, in a restaurant, that seems to not apply. The waiter is called aunt, and I am expected to use informal language when I speak to her.

• First Cultural Post:  What are your cultural learning goals for this semester?
• Which one or two topics will you explore during the course of the semester?
• How do you expect to explore these topics?
• What do you hope to learn through your exploration of these topics?

I have two cultural learning goals for this semester:

1. Learn about various types of Korean dishes

2. Learn about the hardships and benefits of being both Korean and American

I expect to explore #1 through my learning plan. I have integrated various aspects of it into my learning plan, and I think it will help me become overall more familiar with the dishes through this. I grew up eating Korean dishes, and I still do eat Korean dishes. However, I have realized in recent years that there are so many dishes that I don't know. I think food is a connector between people, and therefore I want to learn more about this. I hope to learn the importance of dishes, such as what food is served on what occassion, and the overall importance of eating the same dish together in unity.

I expect to explore #2 through having discussions with people who identify as both Korean and American as well as researching about some literature about this topic. I personally identify as both Korean and American, and it is difficult at times to be both when there are moments my cultures clash. As I was born in the USA and have never gone to South Korea before, I feel a simultaneous feeling of being connected and not connected. This semester, I hope to learn about others' experiences with this, how they balance it, and what they appreciate about having two cultural identities. I also hope to explore my own relationship between these cultures.

According to the Levels of Competence, I am the following:

In the Interpretive column, I am in the Beginner 2 category: I am good at understanding what the main idea is of conversations, texts, and more when I read or listen. However, I struggle when it becomes longer and uses more complex phrases. When differentiating my skillset in listening and reading, I think I would say that I am a bit better in listening due to having the extra cues of sound emphases that I do get when I read.

In the Interpersonal column, I am in the Intermediate Developing 1 category. I can, for the most part, talk about any topic quite easily if I am familiar with it. However, though I am able to recognize and share my thoughts on the topic, I am not able to give more insightful comments due to not knowing many vocabulary words and phrases.

In the Presentational column, I am in the Beginning 2 category for speaking. I struggle to speak and have a conversation in Korean without resorting to English. However, with topics that I am familiar with, I can usually maneuver my way around resorting to English by saying words that are similar in meaning to the word or sentence I am trying to say.

In the writing category, I am in the Intermediate Developing 1 category. I am able to write sentences about various topics. However, my spelling is not very good. I also am unsure at times where to add spaces between the Korean characters.

SharonShin_learningplan.docx

• While I was aware of the collectivist nature of Indonesian culture and the ways in which it contrasted with American culture, I was unaware of the statistical extent to which these two cultures differed. According to Dr. Hofstede, Indonesia was rated at 14 (very collectivist) whereas the US was rated at 91 (extremely individualist). This has many implications in the cultural practices of both nations, and I witnessed many such cultural phenomena while researching music in Indonesia.

In Bali, the gamelan ensemble is considered by the performers to be one large instrument being played by many, and each musician is contributing to the cohesive sound through their playing. Due to the large skill range in playing the 25 or so instruments in the ensemble - from hitting a large gong once every 4-32 beats to performing complex rhythmically interlocking melodic elaborations at the 1/4-beat level - the music is able to be played by both young and old, novice and expert. The melodic elaboration instruments play so fast that the melodies are split in two and each fragment is performed by two people, such that when they play together the melody comes together like a zipper to form one cohesive pattern. I was able to sit in and listen to rehearsals of several gamelan groups, and the performers evoke a very positive, familial atmosphere, sharing food, coffee and cigarettes between pieces. To perform a style of music that requires such rapid temporal and dynamic shifts requires frequent and exhaustive rehearsals. 

Adjusting to the culture of Indonesia was quite difficult, as I would consider myself to be a rather restrained person. At first my natural instinct was to avoid intruding and making a situation uncomfortable, only to find that my restraint was in itself uncomfortable. A personally important milestone in my research came when I was in Java for a week towards the end of my research. I was walking down a street while exploring the city of Yogyakarta when I heard a gamelan ensemble playing inside a building. I stopped for a while to listen to the music, until a passerby beckoned for me to enter the building. I walked in the entrance and, after waiting at the door for a while, walked into the room in which the gamelan was playing. The leader of the ensemble greeted me, invited me to sit and listen and continued his instruction of the new piece. Soon after, the gong player had to leave, and the instructor began to try to play gong while juggling leading the ensemble. I offered to play the gong and he gladly accepted, showing me the basic pattern for the piece before moving on to assist other performances. The rest of the rehearsal flew by, and the whole time I was basking in the sublime feeling that I had gotten over a personal hurdle of apprehension and had made new Indonesian friends as a result.

The reading on Figuring Foreigners Out talks about the difference in culture in foreign countries. Such cultural differences are non-verbal communications or physical signs that people can give, which could be different from culture to culture. Also, things like masculinity and individualism are different from culture to culture, and I understand that understanding this can be very difficult. For example, if you were to go up to a stranger in Korea and ask them for directions, they wouldn't really tell you anything; however, in America, that is something very common, and people do it all the time. I agree with the reading as there are cultures that are extremely different from each other. In Korean culture, strangers are very cold to others, but friends are almost like siblings. So it is very different compared to America where everything is kind of at a middle ground.

One of the primary themes in Figuring Foreigners Out is that communication is not solely conducted through spoken word or written language. There are subtle cues and cultural elements that contribute to conveying meaning and shaping context. In this specific article, the author identifies the following key areas outside of communication via words: individualist-collectivist (goal/reward mentality), nonverbal communication (motions), monochromic-polychronic (time relativity), internal-external (social placement in life), and direct-indirect (forwardness). While we typically think of cross-culture communication as learning the words and phrases of another language, this article highlights the importance of understanding nuanced social cues and norms. While the author cautions against making generalizations, most cultures do tend to lean towards certain ends of measurable communication dimensions. For example, we can compare the countries of the world on a relative basis.

Building upon this idea, Dr. Geert Hofstede, creator of the Hofstede Dimensions of Culture, developed a model that identifies six primary dimensions to differentiate cultures- outside of pure language variation. It is important to note that these dimensions exist even between two cultures that speak the same language (ex. America and Canada). The four primary dimensions are as follows: Power Distance Index (inequality, power, wealth differentiation, social movement), Individualism (relationships, group responsibility), Masculinity (gender roles, control, power), Uncertainty Avoidance Index (tolerance for ambiguity and variety of opinions), Long-Term Orientation (tradition, change, ethics), and Indulgence (materialism). For example, the United States is frequently recognized as an individualist-oriented society, while many Asian countries such as China are recognized as collectivist-leaning.

I certainly agree that the non-verbal and cultural cues are critical to the communication component of practicing and understanding a language. As a foreign language learner, it can be tempting to translate phrases and words in a very literal sense, but it is important to keep in mind the social context behind word choice. The categories identified in both of the articles seem to be appropriate for measuring the cultural dimensions of target cultures, but there is one important theme I think is missing: it is equally important to recognize your own cultural biases. The readings emphasize the variations that exist, but a key component is translating your own cultural notions into the target foreign culture. One suggestion that I would make is for cross-cultural studies students to assess their own standings on the various dimensions. Then, it will be easier to understand in which direction the cultural shift will have to take place in order to adjust to a new target language/culture.

Further, as it pertains to learning Maltese, I would like to learn a bit about the vast cultural diffusion that is evident in Maltese vocabulary, written script, and pronunciation. I have noticed that many words are near-cognates of Italian language, with a French pronunciation, written in a Semitic script. I am curious to learn what the social nuances are of choosing to write in the various alphabets and choosing to speak in either Italian or Maltese. I currently do not know very much about the demographics of the country or social factors that separate groups of people, but I would like to find out how language is used to make these distinctions. In addition, I would like to know what types of immigration patterns, have an impact on language development and choice in the country. In moving forward with learning Maltese, I plan on doing a few readings on the social construct and demographics of the country to enhance my communication abilities and cross-cultural knowledge.

While containing certain points of clear variance, both Figuring Foreigners Out and the Hofstede Dimensions of Culture provided standardized methods for differentiating or "scoring" different countries or cultures. They provided categories by which to compare cultures to each other (e.g. individualism, power distance, etc) and also to get an idea of what an individual in a certain country might think or act like. Using the standards of measurement that the readings provided could be useful as a rough, broad overview of a culture's views in general but I personally didn't think it would be very useful for determining an individual's values or thoughts. While knowing a culture's general views toward a concept or idea would be useful as a foundation, especially when first learning about that said culture, it would be significantly more fruitful to explore the different facets of opinions and values that people hold even in the same culture. 

While it would be tempting to simply generalize my native culture, the United States, as an individualistic society because it is perceived as the "land of opportunity" where you and you alone decide your own fate, it really isn't that polarized of a society. One of the core values of the U.S. is family and that family comes first, and while living alone isn't heavily looked down upon or shunned, it isn't considered a completely normal way of living.  On the other hand, my target culture of South Korea is considered a fairly collectivist society because of its emphasis on national pride and the idea that one's actions hold consequences for the family as well as for oneself. However, several sectors of the South Korean economy, especially the real estate market, benefit greatly from the significant population of the country that lives alone, with eating alone in restaurants being an everyday, accepted occurrence.  

• Summarize your assessment and goals in a blog post in your learning journal.

My Goals:

I have one overarching goal and three sub-goals. My overarching goal is to be proficient in bahasa Indonesia so as to pass my UR language requirement. My first sub-goal is to briefly review and master level one. For this, I will use Let's speak Indonesian level one. My second sub-goal is to briefly review and master level two. For this, I will use Let's speak Indonesian level two. My third sub-goal is to review and relearn level three's content. Here, I will use Indonesian in Grammar Context level three. Midway through the third sub-goal, my bahasa Indonesia should be sharp enough to pass as proficient. 

My Assessment:

For level one: I will lead a meeting among Thalia, Bow, Zack, and myself at a level comfortable to the other language students. I will record this conversation and use it as an artifact.

For level two: I will listen to Indonesian songs at a lower speed (adjusted on youTube) at first and then at regular speed. I will then be asked to translate the songs into English and write a summary about the songs in bahasa Indonesia. 

For level three: I will read news article in bahasa Indonesia and will have a conversation with Thalia in bahasa Indonesia. 

For my language requirement test: I am not familiar with the structure of the test.

The assigned reading from Figuring Foreigners Out was about basic types of differences between cultures. It touched on collectivism vs individualism, which pertains to the culture’s priority of seeking group vs. individual goals; nonverbal communication, which helps humans communicate more than just the sum of their words, but can cause misunderstandings in inter-cultural contact; monochronic vs. polychronic, which pertains to a culture’s sense of time [which has caused the most issues for me personally in intercultural contexts]; internal vs. external, which considers if the perceived locus of control is within the person or within their circumstances; and finally, direct vs. indirect communication, which is concerned with how people infer or state directly what they want to say.

The Hofstede Dimensions of Culture is similar, but with the following well-researched dimensions: Individualism, Power Distance, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long-Term Orientation, and Indulgence.

I do generally agree with these theories, with the caveat that country-wide statistics cannot possibly describe every culture within a country (especially in diverse countries like the U.S. and India). A few things in the readings which I had never been able to specify/name before was the cultural differences in time (Oh India, sweet India, where is your sense of time… :)) and the idea that one person can use nonverbal communication which means nothing in the other culture and thereby has communicated nothing when he thought he had.

I went ahead and checked out the comparative culture tool with India and the United States. I can definitely relate to the data! For example, the U.S. scores low (40) on the Power Distance index and India scores higher (77), showing how Indians have more appreciation and respect for hierarchical structure in society compared to Americans. I have seem that demonstrated daily in India, even in how people treat waitstaff in restaurants. In America, waiters/waitresses often interact as “friends”, using very familiar language and body language. Especially in the South, you can’t be surprised to hear a waitress call you “Honey” or say “If you need anything, just holler!” In India, on the other hand, even at casual cafés the servers keep a very respectful distance emotionally and generally treat patrons as being much higher in status than them. It confused me at first, but I had to remind myself to keep an open mind and accept that India is a different culture.

The readings primarily deal with organizing different countries/cultures in categories based on the traits the authors/researchers consider most informative.

Figuring Foreigners Out

This reading has chosen to categorize based on five habits/characteristics; Namely, level of individualism, verbal communication, sense of time, relationship with control, and level of directness in communication.

These categorizations are useful in my opinion for the following two reasons:

1) They point out aspects about cultures that many people may not have payed attention to prior to reading this article, not realizing that these are things that actually make a difference.
2) It puts into words ideas that other people  may have intuited but had not consolidated.

By doing this, these categorizations and their explanations help us understand more about other cultures, our own culture, and our selves.

However, as with any information, in contact with these categories lies the danger of sciolism. When reading this article, people who have no previous exposure to thinking about these topics can fall in the trap of not being able to distinguish other categories, in addition to these, or opposing to these, because in their mind these were the first ones to be established, therefore they must be correct.

Geert Hofstede and the 6D Model

Hofstede's Model uses a different set of traits than F.F.O. Namely individualism, power distance, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and indulgence. The same applies here as above, with the exception that the 6D model rates countries on these attributes on a 1-100 scale. Here lies my major disagreement with this model. Although I am a research as well and I understand the limitations to getting answers to certain questions these days, I also understand the importance of uncertainty, subjectivity, and generalizability. There is a limit to how correct these ratings are and how indicative they are of each country's culture. I have used this model in my research, so I am not trying to discredit it; I think however that the results should be taken with a grain of salt.

The readings indicate the obvious, that different cultures communicate and understand people differently.  Whether by using and understanding different gestures and phrases, or by prioritizing different people, members of culture fall on different points along the dimensions listed in the Figuring Foreigners Out reading.

I generally agree with the readings, that people and cultures score differently along the dimensions, but I do find it very hard to place a realistic quantity on any of the dimensions in the Hofstede analysis.  To analyze a culture as a whole strikes me as futile, and to not account for the variance among the people seems to yield too strong of a consensus with the score the country is given.  I do appreciate the ability to roughly compare countries, but am not too sure that it would have any great use beyond personal development (eg, any policy decisions that could be effected with this information).

I would not ally myself too closely to the “official” score of the countries so much as accurate anecdotes about the relevant areas in the country.  If I were to describe myself and my hometown, we would score right about the middle on the individual-collective axis, maybe 70% monochronic, almost entirely internal personal control, and employing very high context communication.  Instead of the Hofstede tool, I would prefer to rely on the verbal impression of Greece, specifically around Athens, Bartholomio, and Thessaloniki.  According to Smaragda’s insight, Greece would score just a little bit more collectivist, probably 50-50 poly- and mono-chronic.  Generally, a Greek would consider himself controlled by external forces, and communicates with high context.