|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
leeroy
Joined: 30 Jan 2003
Posts: 777
Location: London UK
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:21 pm Post subject: A ramble... |
 |
|
Hi there,
For those of you that don�t know, I�m currently doing a BA in Language Studies. The exam for this year�s English module is coming soon � and this is revision time. What follows is a stream of consciousness, I find that the re-gurgitation and re-phrasing of course material along with my own experiences helps me remember stuff  . That�s what I�ve done here � it�s nothing like a highly polished academic text, rather a hodge-podge of quotation (source below) and personal observations, theories and ramblings� (So, I�m posting it here on Dave�s � mostly as I�ve typed all this stuff anyway and it�s no great deal pasting it here). Ignore it, comment on it, criticise it, whatever
The source here is a reading from �Redesigning English: New Texts, New Identities� (Open University, Milton Keynes, 2002). The reading specifically is taken from.. err� something by Mark Poster, 1990, pp.117-27.
In a recent newspaper advice column, a reader queried how best to adapt their written style of genre to email and other computerised forms of electronic communication. This isn�t a word-for-word copy, rather how I basically remember it.
Q. �How (if at all) should the presentation of a message in an email to a client differ from a formal letter? Should the normal writing conventions (such as Dear Sir/Madam, placement of addresses etc�) be carried over to emails? What are the rules of etiquette, indeed if there are any?�
A. �Email, essentially, is an electronic representation of spoken English, rather than written. Thus we write emails in much the same way as we would speak in a telephone conversation. Emails do not have to be as formal and stodgy as letters, although in professional contexts it would be prudent to include certain indicators of formality (much as we still might use in telephone conversations) where appropriate�.
Mark Poster echoes similar sentiments at the beginning of Reading C, he recognises that
| Quote: |
�Electronic message services and computer conferencing substitute computerised writing for spoken conversations��
|
He highlights ways in which these new forms of electronic communication create new contexts from which discourse emerges; people are able to create �new identities�, communications are �degendered�, traditional social hierarchies are �destablised� and these are now �restabilised� using new criteria. People in discussion forums might discuss similar subjects to (say) a group of friends or associates in a pub � but the manner in which these things are discussed differs profoundly.
In �face to face� communication, and other more traditional modes such as telephone conversations, notions of �true identity� are kept relatively intact. When speaking with someone it is normal that their identity or (perceived) social standing will affect, in some way, the way that the intended message is comprehended and replied to. In much of the new electronic forms of communication such clues as to the identity (etc..) of the speaker are unknown, thus
| Quote: |
�Anonymity is complete. Identity is fictional in the structure of the communication� With computer message services, language use is radically separated from biographical identity.�
|
This has been treated as a freedom by some, why should someone�s social standing or physical appearance affect the authenticity or value of their statement? Surely it is the message that is important, not the background details of the deliverer!
But if the content of a message depends, in some way, on the integrity of the speaker in question then anonymity such as this could create an opportunity to deceive or mislead. I could claim (for example) to be a big-cheese at EF head office, and then post on Dave�s ESL caf� that EF systematically lace the water supply in EF schools with amphetamines � in order to encourage a more dynamic teaching staff. (OK, it�s a daft example, but you see my point!) In some cases some external knowledge of a speaker�s identity is essential in evaluating the validity of their message. For the most part (at least in these contexts), though, it is not.
I also take issue with the concept of total and complete anonymity on discussion forums. Most of the regular posters at Dave�s know, through anecdotal evidence of previous posts, some information about other poster�s identities. I know that Capergirl (RIP) works in Canada (in fact we are even invited to state our location next to our handle). Many here know that I am 24 years old, have worked in Indonesia and now work in London (with aspirations to move to Spain and/or Latin America). We know that biffinbridge is openly critical of the Arab culture in which he is surrounded, and that Roger works in China and is strongly opinionated about the nature of the Chinese educational system and its implications on English language teaching.
This is not to say that any of us can be certain about the above information � but for the most part we assume it is true, as we refer to it anecdotally from explicit or implicit statements made in the past. It is also fair to say that �background knowledge� such as this affects the way in which we interpret future messages from such posters; when I (drunkenly) queried if there were many homosexuals involved in ELT, some inferred an undercurrent of homophobia while others (who were, evidently, accustomed to my online persona of �leeroy�) correctly ascertained that this was an honest if somewhat bluntly worded query. Without realising it, undercurrents of identity (and, to a certain extent, social hierarchy) exist in discussion forums too � we are not completely �anonymous� � rather new identities are created, which are a
| Quote: |
�reconfiguration of the self-constitution process, one(s) with � new set of constraints and possibilities.�
|
While discussion forums, computer conferencing (etc�) certainly allow more freedom in terms of Who is able to discuss What with Whom, they suffer new constraints. Patterns of discourse in discussion threads can often be awkward;
| Quote: |
�Problems arise over matters like taking turns and keeping the discussion going. Certain types of statements, those of expository style and logical rigor, tend to stifle discussion, while open-ended statements invite responses and further the work of the conference. Even more importantly, participants continuously must be as explicit as possible about what they are saying, and frequently clarify their statements by the use of metastatements. A good portion of the discussion must be devoted to messages about messages, supplementary information to supply what is ordinarily embedded in the context of the speech. Unlike synchronous speech acts, computer conferencing messages reflect on their own linguistic practice to an unprecedented degree. Because the conventions of speech are so drastically upset, computer conferencing easily becomes talk about talk.�
|
I see this often � the most substantial threads will usually not be the ones containing the most factual information or debate, rather they are the ones where people are continuously referring back to previous messages, quoting themselves and others, arguing over the semantics and implied personal meanings from poster to poster.
In fact, in the unlikely event that anyone does bother to reply to this, I can see the direction it may well take...
"Leeroy - you have too much time on your hands"
"Mate, a dyslexic monkey could have done better than that. You're at university? And a teacher? My God!"
"Leeroy you suck, you're the scum of the earth - and evidently also a racist, satanist and anti-semite"
My point being that all too often in forums such as these, what is discussed is not the subject matter at hand - rather issues surrounding the identity (and, by implication) validity and integrity of the poster.
That�s all for now folks. Torrents more on its way � the exam�s in October. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dmb
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 8397
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| well titled Leeroy. That was a rant and a half. Hang on. I need to go back and read it again. I'll get back to you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lagerlout2006
Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 985
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Was there a question?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
leeroy
Joined: 30 Jan 2003
Posts: 777
Location: London UK
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmb
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 8397
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:33 pm Post subject: Re: A ramble... |
|
|
[quote="leeroy"]Q. �How (if at all) should the presentation of a message in an email to a client differ from a formal letter? Should the normal writing conventions (such as Dear Sir/Madam, placement of addresses etc�) be carried over to emails? What are the rules of etiquette, indeed if there are any?�
[quote]
Is that not a question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
