Entry 8: Men-versus-Women Theories

Dr. Deng commented on my so-called "theory" that agreement is a positive phenomenon, but it doesn't imply that disagreement is a negative phenomenon. I added that under certain circumstances, agreement can be a bad thing and disagreement can be a good thing. Dr. Deng claimed that this is a great observation on my part, and I was extremely honoured to hear it. I like to make theories because honestly, everyone has their own theories. Either, they just choose not to voice them, or they simply want to be politically correct and tell themselves not to be judgemental. Here's my statement: People are actually naturally biased; it's just a question of how biased they are on certain things.


This seminar, I'd say, is the most entertaining I've ever had throughout my NUS life because we deal with the perpetual research on the differences in communication between males and females. Everyone deep inside knows that men and women talk differently (Admit it, people. We don't always talk on the same wavelength), but how are they different? Many researches have been done to observe and you know, I want to continue making my own "visceral theories" that either support or rebuke any previous researches and findings.


DISCLAIMER: These are just half-assed theories with some truth in them. Like all cultural studies, culture isn't about absolution, it's all about relativity. If you don't believe my theories, take them to real life and test them. In fact, please challenge my theories. And everyone, you don't be so politically correct all the time; otherwise, life is just boring.


Theory #1: Frequency varies between men and women.

The above diagram illustrates how men and women talk between themselves. The upper graph shows how men talk to each other, the lower graph shows how women talk to each other. Men take less frequent turns to talk compared to women within a given time length. Why? We men have a "know-it-all-ism/informative conversation". For example, when Man A and Man B are talking and it's Man A's turn to speak, Man A is likely to speak as much as he knows. The same goes for Man B. We feel good talking when we look back at the conversation and think that we've gained a lot of cerebral insight. When we talk about football, we talk in a cocky tone because we are contributing to each other's brains. The more tangible content we share, the better. That's why in a guy talk, the dude who says the least is seen as the sissy. When lions feast on a carcass, the one who doesn't fight a lot loses out. It's the same for men.


This is also why when men are together, there are moments of "dead air". Those "dead air" moments are necessary and in fact, because we have this, we sometimes think women are talkative. When two men have nothing to say to each other, we just don't say anything. It won't hurt our friendship, anyway. Why do you think we male friends can sit together on the bus and stay quiet for a number of moments? For women, it's different; when they meet, they feel the need to talk because well, they're friends. They think: "How can we NOT talk? We're friends!" Talking is relationship for women, but not for men. At least, most of the time. 


Women on the other hand, talk different. When Woman A and Woman B are talking, they take turns more frequently. For women, it's about "feel-each-other-ism/relational conversation". Unlike men, women talk but it's not all about the content. Rather, it's about everything other than the content. That's why they make a lot of turns talking (i.e. overlapping). That's why we men think they talk A LOT.


This brings to one topic I believe explains differences in communication styles between men and women. Women adopt "relational conversation" because they tend to collaborate and work together, hence opting to overlapping their conversational responses more than the men. The men challenges each other and that's why they don't somewhat help out with each other on the conversational responses.

Theory #2: Men are stupid; women are complicated. Really.

This theory usually applies to cross-gender conversations. We men judge based on what is being said. Explicitly. If something is not said, we judge that nothing has happened. Yes, we are kinda dumb. But the thing is, this is how we think: If you didn't say it, then why should we make assumptions that maybe the other party have hidden agendas? For women, it's the opposite. In many times, especially between couples, it's not about what the women say. What they didn't say is actually MORE important. Women see this as mutual/shared understanding: they don't say everything because the men are supposed to know the things she didn't say.

We men talk explicitly. When we talk, we exchange all information directly. It's like sharing gifts: we don't gift-wrap them, we just hand each other gifts bare. Women talk implicitly. When they talk, they exchange most information directly. In sharing gifts, they gift-wrap their messages to us men. Most of the time, we men may like the thought but the problem remains: sometimes, we men don't see the tied ribbon, or the women tied the ribbon too tightly. 

Theory #3: What people think and what people say are two COMPLETELY different things.

For men, it's a variation of Renee Descartes' adage: "We think, therefore we say." Seriously, if we think about something in a particular way, we say it accordingly. I said that men are dumb, and this is why we are dumb. Comedian Russell Peters thinks so too. More formally, thinking and saying are commonly thought to be one and the same. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Thinking and saying are just COMPLEMENTARY, but they're two completely different things.


Women however, treat the two entities differently. Just because they think something doesn't mean they would say the same thing accordingly. For men, saying IS thinking.  If we don't say, we don't think. Women however, think even when they don't say anything. Just watch Peters' joke here and tell me whether he's telling the truth.


Theory #4: Humans = monkeys, especially on the way men and women talk together.

Charles Darwin said that we humans were monkeys. I'd think that there's some truth in what he said. You see, when monkeys of different genders get together, the male monkeys instinctively try to outdo each other in the presence of the female ones. Truthfully, this isn't restricted to monkeys; it applies to all types of animals. The female monkeys however, stay quieter than the male ones. It's the same for human beings: Researches have shown that men indeed talk more in mixed-sex conversations. Males have inborn instincts to be more dominant than females in any species.


It's the same in classroom settings. In my Japanese classes, the men make more noise than the women. We male students in Japanese classes like to make noise periodically, that's how we make our presence felt. Women don't always see the point in doing this but to us men, making your presence means everything. Are the men doing this basically to impress the women for some reason? Maybe we do.


Theory #5: Men are defensive, women are protective.

defend: denotes warding off actual or threatened attack.

protect: denotes the use of something (as a covering) as a bar to the admission or impact of what may attack or injure.

Taken from Merriam-Webster, this can illustrate how men and women are indeed different in communication styles. What words would you normally associate with "mother"? What about "father"? Mother = protective; Father = defensive. When you think about it, it doesn't feel right to think fathers as protective, and mothers as defensive. Protective doesn't mean defensive, although they are closely intertwined in meaning. Why do you think all military bodies state that their purpose is to "DEFEND the country", not to "PROTECT the country"? Defending actually connotes attacking as well; that's why the US loves to hammer the Middle East and say that they're "defending the country".


Why am I talking about being defensive or protective? This illustrates how I think of former UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

Margaret Thatcher is often see as a strong (read: masculine) woman who fixed the UK during tumultuous times. Simply put, people say that she has male qualities. Here's my counter argument: Is she really masculine? Seriously? I don't necessarily think so; in fact, I'd say that she's more feminine than masculine. Women are inherently mothers in their own right, and they are naturally protective. Margaret Thatcher wasn't a masculine woman, she's a protective mother of her country. There's a subtle difference: If women see a strong need to protect something, they would do/say things that people may think as masculine (being firm on something). However, that doesn't mean they're masculine. If men don't fight back in the presence of something adverse, it would be the non-masculine way of doing things (you're not being righteously firm about yourself, which is the un-manly thing to do). Try using my theory for any other "masculine woman" you can think of: are they really masculine, or actually being protective of something that belongs to them?


Think about this: If a couple receives an offensive comment from a stranger about their child, who do you is likely to punch the stranger? Obviously, it's the man. Both the man and woman would naturally feel the need to look after their child's well-being, but their reactions may be different because of their natural instincts. The man would see punching the stranger as "defending his child". The mother would not do the same; she would make sure the child isn't hurt as a form of "protecting the child".


There's a grey area between being defensive and being protective, and this is reflected in how men and women generally talk differently. Men are indeed territorial both in action and words; this is why throughout history, men have waged more wars than women, and women just wouldn't understand why men like to... "fight". Fighting in words or action is a form of defending, not protecting.


Theory #6: Men and women both curse/swear, for different reasons.

Both men and women have their fair share of the use of probably every other expletive not found in the dictionary, and curses are not always used for bad purposes. Theory #6 is closely related to theory #5: women curse to protect; men curse to defend. Men curse each other and continue the cycle because we're challenging and defending our "turfs". For instance, if Man A curses Man B, chances are, Man A is trying to take Man B's territory. It's Man B's duty to defend his turf by exchanging curses too. This is applicable also in casual settings: When my friend curses me light-heartedly, he's poking at my territory. I'll just return the favour by poking his territory as well. This is why we men seem to curse a lot, sometimes to unnecessary extent, for communicative benefits. 


For women, they curse for a slightly different reason. They do so especially when they have something protect, both tangibly and intangibly. They don't curse as much as men do (arguable stance, perhaps) because they're protecting themselves and therefore, they see the need to curse less than the men especially when everything's fine the way it is. This is also why many men think it's undesirably masculine to see women curse when whatever they're protecting are not compromised (i.e. when their cursing are unjustified).


Theory #6: Men are more decisive than women, but not for all the right reasons.


Men are more decisive than women, and our communicative decisions seem brasher because of the fundamental rule: we are just more assertive/aggressive than women. It's being shown since the Stone Age. For instance, in mixed-groups in NUS, we men reach any decision more readily than the women. Why? It's possible related to my theory #3: women would deliberate rather than making any rash decisions. Men like to see things happen faster. That's why some people contend that men do make decisions quicker (and we make terrible decisions out of it too); women would take a step back and think more, thereby reaching to a decision slightly later. In fact, men are indeed stupid sometimes; we wouldn't even admit our terrible decision-making. This article, though somewhat unverified, has some truth in it on a neuro-scientific level too.


Theory #7: Men and women see "problems" differently.


Men and women both don't like problems; they make our lives less sweeter. The universal rule applies: regardless of sex, we talk about problems primarily as a form of venting frustration. It's not a good idea to bottle up your frustrations on problems to yourself; otherwise, you'll implode. Just watch Anger Management, which stars Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler. 


The thing is, men see problems as challenges needed to be solved. That's why when men talk about problems between themselves, we are actually trying to look for solutions. That's it. Most of the time. You see, if we talk about problems alone, we feel that it's a big drag. Men who especially talks about problems all the time can be irritating to others; in fact, if men talk too much about their problems, they'll make themselves look very weak and it's a big blow to their manhood (in fact, this is also why in Japanese norm, men aren't supposed to do things to make themselves look weak, such as talking about personal problems for crying). This may apply to women too but it affects men on a greater scale.


For women, problems aren't necessarily meant to be solved. Problems can be seen as the common topic. Do you think that in a couple, when the woman is having a problem, the man should give her the solution or empathise her? If the man does the former, although he may have done a good thing, the woman feels like he doesn't understand her feelings. Women see problems as something that affect their feelings. Men see problems as something that affect their manhood.


So there you have it. These are my visceral theories that you may want to reflect on whenever you have spare time. Bear in mind that there's bound to be exceptions to my theories, but this doesn't completely negate my theories. It's the same if I say that Singaporeans are kiasu. You know that there are exceptions to this, but still you'd agree with this statement.


In the meantime, please make comments and in fact, flame me for my somewhat sexist theories. Speaking of which, sexism was one of the topic discussed in the seminar.

Entry 7: What does "being polite" really mean?

This week, our topic is on face and politeness, and you know what, I found that from a culturally vast point of view, politeness is like perfection:

Politeness: marked by an appearance of consideration, tact, deference, or courtesy.

Perfection: Freedom from fault or defect.

The above definitions are taken from Merriam-Webster, and they're readily understood by people. Simply put, people know what they mean intuitively. But can you give a universal example for each of them? It's not as easy as you think. The idea of "Ladies first" is commonly understood to be a form of politeness in probably any modern society.


However, in historic Japan (think late 19th century), especially in traditional areas such as Kyoto and Tochigi, it's rude for females to walk in front of men. People have criticised that this is somewhat sexist, but this was just how they do things back then. It's still observable these days, albeit more unusual. But were traditonal Japanese people necessarily rude with this instance? You can't say that, because females walking behind men was deemed the polite thing to do.


What about perfection? You can define it, but can you exemplify it? Invididual A can define say, the "perfect spouse". But if you ask Individual B the same question, you would get a different answer. Ask 1000 people the same question and you'd get 1000 different answers.


Let's be more relevant from here onwards. According to Leech (1983), there are 6 differents maxims to classify politeness:

1. Tact - minimise cost to others; maximise benefit to others
2. Generosity - minimise benefit to self; maximise cost to self
3. Approbation - minimise dispraise of other; maximise praise of other
4. Modesty - minimise praise of self; maximise dispraise of self
5. Agreement - minimise disagreement between self and other; maximise agreement between self and other
6. Sympathy - minimise antipathy between self and other; maximise sympathy between self and other

For discussion purposes, I want to "play around" with the above maxims.


Situation #1:
I have had a long day, and I receive a call from my mother to do some grocery shopping. Learning how tired I am, she changes her mind and tells me to forget about the errand. However, now I'm obliged to do the errand. 


This scenario challenges both the tact maxim and generosity maxim. Frankly, it's something I experience everyday too. Who's being tactful here: me or my mother? My mother wants to minimise cost to me now (tact), but I want to minimise benefit to myself (generosity).


Situation #2:
I praise someone generously because I really think this person is that admirable. The person doesn't feel comfortable with my praises and thinks I'm patronising her, so she rejects them. I don't take it well because I think she lacks self-esteem.

This scenario challenges both the approbation maxim and modesty maxim. I approve her because I feel like doing so; she deserves to be praised. Instead of being grateful, she feels a little uncomfortable and rejects my praises. I then think she's lacking self-esteem because by denigrating oneself, she's actually taking a beating at her own self-image.

The scenarios above show that tacit & generosity maxims, and approbation & modesty maxims are complementary (or "un-complementary") to each other.  Now, what about the agreement and sympathy maxims? I feel that there's a missing link between them. Thus, I think that there should be a seventh maxim: Distance maxim. My proposed maxim works as the following:

• Distance - maximise social closeness between self and other; minimise social distance between self and other

Social distance can affect the agreement and sympathy maxims, and I'll give scenarios to illustrate (NOTE: there is no sarcasm in play for the below scenarios):

Scenario #3:

My close friend and I watch a movie. I think the movie sucks big time, but my friend says it rocks. We argue (not quarrel) about it as a form of daily conversation.

Chances are, if the other is not my friend, I would've agreed but I didn't because of social closeness; he's my friend. If I had agreed instead, it'd be like I'm cutting the conversation. By disagreeing, we're creating a topic. Agreement is a positive thing, but this doesn't necessarily make disagreement something negative.

Scenario #4:

My close friend's long-sick dog has passed away. Rather than feeling sad, I feel happy for him because I'm happy that his pooch isn't suffering anymore (euphemistic, I know).

Social distance plays a part here because if the dog's owner is someone socially distant from me, I wouldn't use antipathy in a direct manner. Since he's my friend, I feel more readily okay to feel antipathy (although tact must come before becoming antipathic).

In terms of culture, nothing is absolute. The old adage "There are always two sides to a coin" applies to cultural (communication) studies and the above theory is just one of the ways to classify for research purposes. 

Entry 6: Which cultural system do you belong to?

You know, when I read back all the entries I've published for my GEK1036 blog, I've noticed a pattern. I actually observed from my previous blogs that rather than expressing my sincere thoughts and opinions for the topic of the week, I merely dissected what was discussed in the seminar. This isn't bad per se, but given the liberty I have at what to say (this is my blog), I feel that I'm under-utilising this privilege. I swear that I even sound docile for my own entries. So, for this topic (Communication System - Components & Representation), I'll try to make more visceral comments to each components of Hofstede's analyses (1980, 1984, 1991) and categories, which I personally feel are very questionable to begin with.


Power Distance

Hofstede proposed two categories for power distance which, in layman terms, it's how "thick" the wall between people of different status is. They are high power distance and low power distance. According to Hofstede's data, Filipinos and generally Eastern (not just Asian) people are found to adopt high power distance, while Westerners are more towards the low power distance. The standings for a number of a few countries are raising my eyebrow:

1. The index for Japan is 54, which is somewhere in the middle of the table. I've been learning Japanese for 7 years and have been to Japan to observe the social dynamics within 7 days. To me, this standing is a gross understatement. I would even argue that Hofstede's evaluation for Japan is quite flawed because it's very dated (this is done in 1980, anyway) and we can't really agree with something that dates back three decades ago. I think the Japanese have one of the highest power distance in the world; it's even reflected in their daily language. They have the phenomenon of keigo (Japanese honorifics) used extensively in business settings. For instance, the singular English pronoun "I" can be intepreted in at least 6 ways in Japanese ("watashi" = polite; "watakushi" = honorific; "boku" = casual masculine; "atashi" = casual feminine; "washi" = polite elderly; ore = impolite), for your information.
2. Singapore's index is 74? Not in this current time. I bet it's lower now, because I've seen plenty of cases where low power distance is observed, regardless of the environment. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that the power distance isn't that high even in the military setting (read: National Service). God, I've even used coarse language in the presence of a few of my superiors. In fact, the idea of National Service being of conscript nature contradicts Hofstede's claim that we have high power distance. A lot of our superiors are also our friends outside the military setting before and after NS, anyway.
3. My friend strongly disagreed with Taiwan's index of 58. He said Taiwan should be above Singapore based on current circumstances. And you know, I can actually relate to his sentiments.

Uncertainty Avoidance
This proposed phenomenon refers to what degree of risk-taking a group of people would  inherently possess. According to his data, the Greeks, Portuguese, Japanese and French tend to avoid uncertainty; the Swedes, Danes and Americans are high risk-takers. According to stereotype, Asians are naturally people who opt for "safe choices", while the Americans have the "Cowboy Complex" to do reckless things. This may be true so I won't rebuke Hofstede's data, but here's what caught my attention:

1. Singapore in last place? Singaporeans loves taking heavy risks? Is this for real? We even beat the Americans?? I don't think so. This is a gross overstatement. Our Singapore ministers have commented several years ago (back when our economy was still alright) that we Singaporeans don't take risks often enough. Plus, since this data were taken in 1980, is it saying that we were originally risk-takers during those time? I find that really hard to swallow, actually. If anything, we should've belong to anywhere in the middle of the table.

Individualism VS Collectivism

Perhaps Hofstede's most extensive topic branch of the study of cultural components, this talks about the dynamics of a group of people. Individualism stresses "the moral worth of an individual" (wiki); collectivism emphasises the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals (wiki). Sounds deep, right? Actually, this topic is more of philosophical/political nature rather than just anthropological or sociological. Hofstede's data shows that the Americans are the most individualistic, while the Venezuelans and most Asians are the most collectivistic. I won't  rebuke this data either; for a long time, I feel that the Westerners are mostly individualistic while Asians have the more nucleus-like nature of being collectivinistic.



Here's a poser for you: Are we a community of human beings, or human beings that form a community? Same topic, different perspectives.

1. In the Singapore context, we used to have the kampung (Malay for "village") spirit but as we become more urbanised (read: westernised), we become more individualistic. This is not to say that being individualistic is a bad thing altogether, but there are some drawbacks to individualism. Being individualistic can also be seen as being selfish, and this is true to some extent. As Singapore becomes more individualistic, the "wall" between each of us gets thicker and in such sense, we somewhat drift apart. Heck, I don't even know who my neighbours are; all I know is that, when we hear Chinese dramas blaring next door, my family knows they're in their home. Our respective group representation constituencies (GRCs) make continual effort in fostering togetherness in a neighbourhood because they want to counter (not abolish) the negative forces that come with individualism.

1. Americans are stereotyped to preach independence and individual rights; after all, they are known as the country for free speech. I wholeheartedly agree that they're individualistic; how else would you explain their mindset that elicits the common following question: "You're a grown man, and you still live with your mother?", heavily parodied Principal Skinner of The Simpsons . Living with your parents isn't an undesirable thing in Singapore; it's actually something worth looking up to. It doesn't help with the fact that since Singapore is a small country with limited land resources, that collectivism is in favour in Singapore (read: living with your parents even as an adult).
2. In Japan, it is a commonly understood belief that one's actions is strongly reflected on his/her parents. A Japanese celebrity was dishonourably humiliated when he was caught for possessing/consuming drugs several years ago, and his parents came to publicly apologise for their son's actions. If this had happened in US context, the parents would've come into the limelight to defend their children's innocence.

Masculinity VS Femininity

This refers to the extent masculine or feminine traits prevail. By masculine, it stresses on assertiveness and advancement and pretty much the opposite for feminine. According to Hofstede's data, the Japanese have the highest index for having the "thickest" wall between masculine and feminine traits. Sweden is right at the opposite end of the spectrum. Here are my comments for some countries:

1. I completely agree with the Japanese data; the Japanese have a strong distinctiveness in their masculine and feminine traits. It is even reflected in their daily language. In English, there is only one personal pronoun for yourself (i.e. "I") but there are masculine and feminine variations in Japanese for that same pronoun ("boku" = masculine; "atashi" = feminine). However, if females use the masculine pronoun, it may mean that they want to be treated as equally as their male counterparts. Yes, using different pronoun does render an effect to those around him/her. If males use "atashi", they would appear very feminine and their social context, weird. Furthermore, it is common for Japanese males not to voice out their private emotions in conversation, especially if it may render himself looking weak. Being masculine in Japan is about knowing how to keep mum over feelings of displeasure, i.e. "sucking it in".
2. Machismo is a positive masculine trait in Latin America, something I know that Priscilla would agree with me. This may explain and justify Hofstede's data.
3. Singapore may personally still be somewhere in the middle, like Hofstede's data.

High Context VS Low Context

Proposed by anthropologist Edward T. Hall (1976), high context means most of the shared information is either internalised in physical context, whereas low context means information is shared explicitly. Stereotype would classify high context as being "vague" and low context as being "indiscreet". Oriental people are known to be very high contexted, and for Japanese context, I can really relate to this notion:

1. According to CNA Japanese bureau chief Michiyo Ishida from Tokyo, when Japanese businessmen respond to an offer "I'll think about it", it implicitly means they would take the offer, but if it's "I'll consider it", it means they are declining it. Plus, the Japanese dislike direct confrontation both physically and in speech. This explains why they don't often make eye contact in business context (staring is very confrontational). Plus, their Japanese honorifics is a form of not being confrontational (for one, it's used with a passive tone).
2. Americans are known to be low context. They just say it as it is, since being honest is good. They can be brutal, but even this is desirable to some extent. Even their language is somewhat direct in nature (which explains their "linear" contrastive rhetoric discussed in the previous seminar). Just watch the reality TV show The Apprentice to know what I mean.

The topic is very broad, and this is just one way of seeing culture in macro view. It's very interesting just like the last topic, and I'm really looking forward to what we have for next week.


P.S. Oh wow, I've actually exceeded the minimum requirement of 8 blog entries set by Dr. Deng. How verbose can I be...?

Entry 5: Is your line straight, parallel, swirly, erratic or just off-track?

I apologise for publishing my entry for the week later than usual; it's been a hectic week with projects, assignments and midterm papers getting in the way post-midterm break. This week's topic is Written Discourse, and before I wrote this post, I went through the blogs of others in GEK1036. Many find this topic hard to understand, but on the other hand, I find this topic pretty interesting. In fact, it's one of the most interesting topic (and phenomenon) we've ever had. Perhaps I say this because I'm a Japanese animation (anime) reviewer and I can actually relate to this on a personal level. I love to write reviews on anime titles at The Nihon Review as AC, and my fellow reviewers and I criticise our works constructively. Mind you that this isn't an anime blog; we do edit each other's review entries meticulously. Our administrator/editor Sorrow-kun is an Australian graduate who is really particularly with our reviews' cohesion, balance between succinctness and elaboration, grammar and vocabulary, and other written discourse structures. We reviewers here regard each other's reviews as literary works, not as personal journals.

Putting aside my leisure hobby, let me explain what were discussed in last week's seminar. The first thing I noticed when I looked through the handout, is the all-familiar rhetoric visual diagrams. Frankly, these diagrams were the first to catch my attention when I took the module CS2301 Business and Technical Communication a year ago. The textbook, which I believe Dr. Deng is one of the writers, features this diagram and since then, I've been eager to know more about it (hence, taking this module as my GEM). According to Kaplan (1972)'s research findings, there are five types of paragraph development, and I'll go through each of them and relate my own thoughts:

1. English linearisation is an English expository discourse where it's basically as follows: topic statement > examples and illustrations > developing central idea for proving/arguing subject > tying all the structures together. As a writer, this is how I write my reviews; plus, I would like to extend my gratitude to Sorrow-kun for buffing up my writing skills joining NHRW a few years ago. 
2. Parallel construction is natively Semitic, and it involves series of parallel coordinate clauses. To those most familiar with English linearisation writing technique (like most of us Singaporeans), this development would often be seen as repetitive and "waffly".
3. Circularity is natively Oriental (Chinese/Japanese), and the topic is perceived in varying angles and intricately indirect. This is very much the opposite of English linearisation, and I'll elaborate more about this later on.
4. Digressive freedom is all about being liberal with what's being written, often complemented by extraneous materials. There are no rules on the direction course of a sample, but usually it should come back on topic eventually.
5. Digressive Nazi (self-proclaimed) is natively Russian, and it's the more extreme case of digressive freedom.

We can all relate to English linearisation given our dominantly English writing background, but what is exactly "constructive parallel writing"? Here's an instance: "I was in this room, and I took the chair out from it." This is generally English-linear, but if written in parallel manner, it can be phrased in two ways: semantic subordination ("I was in this room. I took a chair out from it") or grammatical subordination ("The chair was taken out from the room I was in"). To us this is English butchery awkward English but to Semitic readers, this may seem naturally valid. Why this is so? Perhaps it's based on historic writing styles. In their native Semitic language - Hebrew and Arabic - this is their nature of language. So this begs another question: Does this mean that writers with Semitic background tend to write like this, or is it their literal transcription coming into play? Actually, this is debatable and it's up to you to decide. In a nutshell, parallel writing is about seeing a situation in parallel perspectives.

In the example of semantic subordination, the original sentence is broken up into two rather than linking to just one sentence. English writers will criticise this as being superfluous (something Sorrow-kun often criticise my works for), but if one puts the two clauses together, it becomes a singular line a la English linearisation. It becomes parallel if broken into two; simply put, the two clauses concern basically the same topic and they complement each other in the same course of direction. In the example of grammatical subordination, the "boy" becomes the central pivot of the two clauses. The two clauses still progress in the same direction, with the central pivot relating them together.

Circular writing is very contrary to linear writing; rather than writing in a straight progressive direction, circular writing is about not writing in implicitly straight fashion. It is said that this writing style is adopted because writing out of individual self-expression is deemed "socially harmful" (in my previous entry on spoken discourse, I had a hunch on how there's a hint of censorship in Chinese writing, whereas there's a hint of freedom of speech in English writing. I guess my hunch was pretty accurate). By being indirect, it connotes eloquence and commendable effort by the writers. This is where the old adage applies: "There are two sides to every coin". What is seen as straightforward by English writers, is seen as shallow and ineloquent to Oriental writers. What is seen as multi-dimensional by Oriental writers, is seen as poorly digressive by English writers.

The indirectness/suggestiveness of Oriental writing involves heavy use of rhetorical questions (questions that warrants no answers), analogies and anecdotes, and they're used for various intentions. By being indirect, the readers are supposed to inherently understand what the writer is addressing about. Why do the writers do this? This is because being direct is deemed forward (read: brash) and lacking delicacy. But for English writers, being indirect is considered being extravagant and even pretentious. This apparent discrepancy is commonly observed because of the cultural backgrounds each party may come from. Oriental writers may not favour direct writing, especially if it deals with something disruptive and controversial to the eyes of the readers (or even the environment, given certain circumstances). English writers hate this form of writing, and favours direct writing. After all, under current circumstances, anything disruptive or controversial actually works for them; that's why English writers gain readership: through generating controversy. Oriental writers would get flamed instead.

Then, there's further discussion on inductive (Oriental circularity) versus deductive (English linearisation) argument methods. As a reviewer, I adopt the funnel-like deductive form of argument. Take a look at one of my reviews and Sorrow-kun's. Observe how we begin the review with something general in the first paragraph (though still related to the anime in topic), and then proceed further in a more focused manner. The deductive method is pretty much opposite, but the more important thing to ask is, why the difference in argument methods? Is it because English linearisation favours specification while Oriential writing favours generalisation? Or, is it because in terms of argumenting points, English linearisation favours seeing "a tree as a collection of leaves" (leaves = arguments) and Oriential writing favours seeing "a leave that constitutes to a tree"?


The last part of the seminar highlights the differences between English and Chinese letters. English writers strong favours succinctness a.k.a. "cutting to the chase". By being succinct, it connotes the idea of being straightforward and they want to do this because English letter writers believe that the motif of a letter speaks for itself. Chinese writers however, highly regard points related to the motif just as much. That's why they opt to write about other things first, before explaining the actual motif. If they choose to write like English writers would, it would appear shallow, ineloquent lazy-writing. Basically, the rationale is still the same as what is covered above.

This phenomenal difference between English and Oriental written discourses is something I find fascinating. I don't understand Chinese at all so I don't understand the complexities of what goes in written discourse in terms of English-Chinese transliteration, but I do understand on an intermediate level another Oriental language, Japanese. Japanese is very much similar to Chinese in terms of indirectness/suggestiveness, and they is a rationale behind it.

P.S. You may want to take a look at this comprehensive article dealing with written discourse and Japanese transliteration. It's a gem I came across while finding some material to talk about for the week's blog entries.