In academic writings, which are called academese, some professionals feel compelled to use academic jargons and abstract language in their articles. It is becoming a stereotype for all the scholarly writings to be tedious otherwise the papers would seem to the others as works lack professionalism. Steven Pinker criticizes this phenomenon that it is nonsense for the academese to be “turgid, soggy, wooden, bloated, clumsy, obscure, unpleasant to read and impossible to understand” (Pinker, “Why Academics Stink at Writing”). The communication between the professionals and the academic audience becomes unpleasant because of the obscure academese. In fact, in the communication between the officers in the government and its people, this unpleasant …show more content…
Jame Paul Gee states that politics and literacy “are inextricably interwoven” (62). Politics should be where the distribution of social good in the society happens (Gee 62). The bureaucrats, being the holder of this literacy interwoven with politics, should, of course, use the language reasonably for the social good. However, many bureaucratic writings are not able to be reasonable. In one of the largest Chinese forum-like online communication platforms, Baidu Tieba, one netizen in Anji county contributed a post complaining about the officer’s reply to a concern on high school education quality in the website of the local education bureau. The spokesperson of the education bureau …show more content…
To support this idea, they might illustrate that the flexibility of language facilitates the establishment of good relationships, as Steven Pinker described that language has its ability to negotiate with relationships well (Pinker, “Words Don’t Mean What They Mean”). Additionally, the “calculated ambiguity” works for diplomats and it is a great support of the existence of the ambiguous bureaucratese (Pinker, “Words Don’t Mean What They Mean”). However, these bureaucratic statements, even though can continue the negotiation, cannot really solve problems validly and reasonably. Take the famous 1992 Consensus between the mainland China and Taiwan region, as an example. People may argue that this consensus exactly shows the wisdom of bureaucrats because its statement that “both sides recognize there is only one ‘China’: both mainland China and Taiwan belong to the same China” brings peace to the strait (Taiwan Affairs Office). However, this statement is not strong enough to solve the Taiwan problem because this statement did not validly show what the “China” refers to here. Until today, Taiwan problem is still an internal political issue lying on both sides of the
In this article written by David Bartholomae, the author discusses problems basic writers make and about how they must use the discourse (communication style) of the academic community they are writing to, to be an effective writer. Bartholomae believes that “Inventing the University," is being able to assemble and mimic the universities language(5). Which means, if a student wants to be an efficient writer, he or she must be able to speak the language of his or her audience. Bartholomae writes that a common mistake of basic writers is that they don’t use an authoritative voice, and tend to switch into a more passive voice. This could be due to the fact that students have difficulty establishing their mindset or attitude for an audience
Graff, Gerald. “Hidden Intellectualism”They Say, I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst, eds. New York: Norton, 2009. 297-303. Print.
In her article “The Needless Complexity of Academic Writing” published on October 26, 2015, Victoria Clayton argues that academics should not write to such a high level that they are not able to be understood by those who are not
Graff, G., Birkenstein, C., & Durst, R. K. (2009). The Growing College Gap. "They say/I say": the moves that matter in academic writing : with readings (p. 379). New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Murray, Charles. “Are Too Many People Going to College?” They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter In Academic Writing. Ed. Gerald Graff. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012. 222-242. Print.
To elaborate a symbolical usage to the point of exaggeration or claiming vague reflections between reality and metaphors might be present in academic papers. Even eloquent language becoming incomprehensible, is not uncommon in academic papers done by university students. Though papers of such kind are pointless academic writing is far from pointless. Indeed, it is a skill required in every aspect of academia. Therefore, mastering academic writing is the key to the scholarly world.
Graff, Gerald, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel K. Durst. "They Say/I Say": The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing: With Readings. Vol. 2e. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2012. Print.
Herbert, Bob. “Hiding From Reality.” They Say I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. Graff, Gerald. Birkenstein, Cathy. New York. London: 2012. 566.
This article is about children’s perspective and how to get valid meaningful information from the child’s perspective about their learning experiences. This paper focuses on a sociocultural perspective of children as learners in their own right and co-constructers of their own meaning of learning (Smith, Duncan, & Marshall, 2005). This article also looks at how children can contribute to and make meaning of their learning and how they express that. Children use meaning-making to make sense of their world through and by the experience of narratives (Wright, 2012, p. 26). By using a sociocultural view of children, they are seen in a positive light that sees them as competent confident learners who can contribute and have a voice. This is also
Graff, Gerald. “Hidden Intellectualism”. They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. Comp. Graff, Gerald, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russell Durst. New York W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.
Thomas, C. (2011). Is the American Dream Over? They Say, I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Meaningful communication between two or more individuals rarely leads to 100% agreement between all parties involved. More commonly, there are disagreements on certain points. In a close relationship like a marriage, which is also a partnership; in a strong business relationship; or in a hostage situation, these disagreements must be worked out satisfactorily for both sides in order for the relationship to remain healthy and/or the outcome to be positive. When the parties must reach an agreement or a compromise, one of the best communication strategies is negotiation.
Film critics and audiences have dubbed I Not Stupid an excellent commentary on the education system and government paternalism. The movie stars three school children who have been channelled into the undesirable EM3 stream, and shows the trials and tribulation of these children and their parents. I Not Stupid has been described as a "coming of age movie"1 for its rare ability to criticise the government and its policies and bring pertinent issues to light, so much so that many are surprised that it managed to get past the not-too-kind local board of censors. This presents us with an interesting question - with its explicit references to the government and its blatant criticisms of government policies, how did this political satire get past the censorship board? Was it a case of the censors deciding that this sort of criticism was acceptable once in a while? Or perhaps the censors just saw the movie differently. At first mention, the latter might sound very unlikely. However, if we ask ourselves what the real butt of the satire is, we might begin to realise that there is a possibility that this movie is not intended to be a political satire at all. In fact, it is my contention that the butt of the satire in this movie is the Singaporean mentality, and not the government.
This model distinguishes six possible sources of conflict that may arise: incompatible goals, differentiation, interdependence, scarce resources, ambiguous rules, and communication problem (McShane and Von Glinow 332-333). Incompatible goals involves that “the goal of one person or department seem to interfere with another person’s or department’s goal” (McShane and Von Glinow 333). Differentiation is described as the “difference among people, departments, and other entities regarding their training, values, beliefs, and experiences” (McShane and Von Glinow 333). Interdependence “occurs where individuals operate interdependently except for reliance on a common source or authority” (McShane and Von Glinow 335). Scarce Resources are a source of conflict when several persons or units require the same recourse to fulfill their goals. Ambiguous Rules occur as a source of conflict because “uncertainty increases the risk that one party intends to interfere with the other party’s goals” (McShane and Von Glinow 335). Communication Problems are a source of conflict “due to the lack of opportunity, ability, or motivation to communicate effectively” (McShane and Von Glinow 333).
International negotiations may comprise a number of different channels during a peace process. Negotiations between states may take place in public front channels or they may be veiled to maintain secrecy of the bargaining process. This essay will look at the later and examine whether the beneficial effects of secret diplomacy can also yield negative consequences. This essay will be divided into three sections. The first section will define secret diplomacy, referred to as back channel diplomacy (BCD), and outline some of its characteristics. The discussion will outline why parties use BCD and convey the benefits and disadvantages. The second section will outline the function of BCD in two negotiation case studies. The first will look at Israel and Palestinian negotiations leading up to the Oslo Accords in 1993. The second case study will examine British negotiations with the IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland leading up to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. The third and final section will evaluate the use of BCD in both cases and convey some lessons for policymakers. This essay argues that whilst BCD can be helpful in facilitating a peace process, it can be damaging if it is not managed with front channel diplomacy (FCD).