~ Do you agree that men and women use language differently? In what areas?
Without a doubt, I agree that men and women use language differently. From the moment we are born we are socialized to be like a girl or a boy. This socialization includes the use of language and how it is different for girls and boys.
Girls are active listeners, nodding their heads, or giving a one word, Uh Huh, and facial expressions to give their speaker a sense that they are listening and hearing what is being said.
Girls are more focused on the connection between themselves and the speaker to build rapport and boys are more concerned with the facts and solving the problem.
Girls are relationally orientated talkers, whereas, boys are task orientated talkers.
In my own personal relationship, I try to be close with my finace by asking him about his day and really wanting to hear every little detail, however, there are times when I ask him how his day was just to ask and I really don't want to hear all the details. On the flip side my fiance does fall into most of the gender different communication categories, but not always. He does ask about my day and really wants to hear everything, he doesn't always try and fix the problem when I am talking to him, and he definitely shares his intimate private matters with me and it is not because I bring them up.
So, typically, yes, men and women do communicate and use language differently, but, it would be a stereotype to say that all men and women communicate the same way. I think we are changing the way we socialize our children and by becoming aware of our differences in any situation or relationship will change our communication and language use between genders.
Happy Blogging:)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Chapter 3, Listening and Perception Chapter 4, Encoding Messages:Spoken Language
~ Is it possible to perceive others without in some way judging or categorizing them? If so, how? If not, how can we make our judgments we do make more fair?
I cannot think of a situation that I was in that I did not make some sort of assumption and/or judgments about a person that I met, was talking to, or listening to. Without knowing someone, it is easy to try and fit them into a category because it is something that makes us comfortable. We often use person prototypes to help us identify and classify people. The media is a big part of this process and shows us who is who and how they fit into a certain categories and they nonverbally show us how we can fit into any given category by showing us what we would have to look like, what we would have to have, how much money we would have to make, and how we would have to behave.
We can make our judgments more fair by being aware of the assumptions and judgments that we are making, taking a moment to get to know the person, and by taking into account the surroundings which we may be influencing our thoughts.
I cannot think of a situation that I was in that I did not make some sort of assumption and/or judgments about a person that I met, was talking to, or listening to. Without knowing someone, it is easy to try and fit them into a category because it is something that makes us comfortable. We often use person prototypes to help us identify and classify people. The media is a big part of this process and shows us who is who and how they fit into a certain categories and they nonverbally show us how we can fit into any given category by showing us what we would have to look like, what we would have to have, how much money we would have to make, and how we would have to behave.
We can make our judgments more fair by being aware of the assumptions and judgments that we are making, taking a moment to get to know the person, and by taking into account the surroundings which we may be influencing our thoughts.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Chapter 9, Public Communication
° Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.
In chapter 9, I found The Toulmin Model not only interesting, but useful. According to Stephen Toulmin, there are six parts to an argument when wanting to convince our audience. These six parts are claim, qualifier, data, warrant, backing, and rebuttal or reservation.
“The claim is what the speaker wishes the audience to accept,” (Trenholm, p.265). Think about it this way; if you don’t get your audience to accept the idea you are presenting at the opening of your speech; how will you keep them engaged or even get them to consider your point. At this point your audience has either accepted your claim or not, if it is the latter, you have failed. I believe you must hook them!
“The qualifier indicates the strength of the claim,” (Trenholm, p. 265). I look at the qualifier as an incidence report of your claim, kind of letting your audience know the strength of your claim.
The qualifier is immediately followed by data. Data supports your claim and without data you will loose your audience and possibly your credibility. Data doesn’t always seal your claim; you must present a clear relationship between data and your claim.
Happy Blogging:)
In chapter 9, I found The Toulmin Model not only interesting, but useful. According to Stephen Toulmin, there are six parts to an argument when wanting to convince our audience. These six parts are claim, qualifier, data, warrant, backing, and rebuttal or reservation.
“The claim is what the speaker wishes the audience to accept,” (Trenholm, p.265). Think about it this way; if you don’t get your audience to accept the idea you are presenting at the opening of your speech; how will you keep them engaged or even get them to consider your point. At this point your audience has either accepted your claim or not, if it is the latter, you have failed. I believe you must hook them!
“The qualifier indicates the strength of the claim,” (Trenholm, p. 265). I look at the qualifier as an incidence report of your claim, kind of letting your audience know the strength of your claim.
The qualifier is immediately followed by data. Data supports your claim and without data you will loose your audience and possibly your credibility. Data doesn’t always seal your claim; you must present a clear relationship between data and your claim.
Happy Blogging:)
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Chapter 9: Public Communication
° Consider a well-known speaker, for example, the current President of the United States (or Presidential candidate). What is the speaker’s strongest characteristics as a speaker? Is it credibility, attractiveness, power, or all three? In what ways could the speaker build ethos in these areas?
Barack Obama is a well-known speaker who possesses all three of the characteristics mentioned in the question. Barack creates credibility through internalization by making connections with the American people which then creates a shared value system. People relate to Barack and feel that he will be the best candidate to run our country. Ultimately, Barack builds trust.
Well, I can’t say that Barack isn’t an attractive man, because he is, but I want to describe another form of attractiveness that Barack possesses. When American people feel that they have commonalities with a presidential candidate; it’s huge! They begin to feel a relationship based upon identification which creates a positive outcome for the candidate. It can be the beginning of a trusting, emotional, rewarding bond between citizens and the presidential candidate.
Lastly, Barack offers material incentives to his audience causing compliance amongst American voters. Barack in turn is perceived as having power and the ability to affect member’s lives directly.
The ways in which Barack could build ethos is through continued efforts to build trust amongst American citizens, build character, and by his association with those individuals who are experienced and respected.
Happy Blogging:)
Barack Obama is a well-known speaker who possesses all three of the characteristics mentioned in the question. Barack creates credibility through internalization by making connections with the American people which then creates a shared value system. People relate to Barack and feel that he will be the best candidate to run our country. Ultimately, Barack builds trust.
Well, I can’t say that Barack isn’t an attractive man, because he is, but I want to describe another form of attractiveness that Barack possesses. When American people feel that they have commonalities with a presidential candidate; it’s huge! They begin to feel a relationship based upon identification which creates a positive outcome for the candidate. It can be the beginning of a trusting, emotional, rewarding bond between citizens and the presidential candidate.
Lastly, Barack offers material incentives to his audience causing compliance amongst American voters. Barack in turn is perceived as having power and the ability to affect member’s lives directly.
The ways in which Barack could build ethos is through continued efforts to build trust amongst American citizens, build character, and by his association with those individuals who are experienced and respected.
Happy Blogging:)
Monday, September 15, 2008
Week 4: Chapter 9, Public Communication.
~Have you ever been influenced by a speaker? Think of the best speaker you've ever heard? What was it about that speaker that made his or her communication memorable? Think of the worst speaker you've ever heard. What do you remember about his or her message?
Yes, I have been influenced by a speaker and she was a speaker at a conference I recently attended about Meth.
One of the best speaker's that I have heard recently, (there are a lot of good ones), is a woman at a, "Meth is Our Problem," presentation that spoke about her Meth addiction, the stereotypes about who looks like a Meth user and who wouldn't be identified as a Meth user, how it affected her and her children, the measures she would take to get Meth, no matter the cost, how she took her first steps towards quiting Meth, and the struggle she went through to get back custody of her children, earn their trust, and love again.
What made this woman's communication so memorable was first by how she allowed all participants at this conference a look into her personal life. Her communication all six positive social functions, according to Rhetorician James Herrick. She was definitely well informed about Meth, she tested ideas about sterotyping Meth users (She looked like a normal soccer mom who was your next door neighbor), she persuaded the audience that there is no one that is immune from addiction, she shaped our knowledge about judging and stereotyping Meth users, she built a community by creating a shared vision within the room, across many ages and cultures, and she also distributed power by giving herself personal power (skills needed for personal success), she used psychological power (gave us knowledge to shape the way other people think), and most importantly she granted herself political power (A voice). Whew! She was good!
The worst speaker I have ever heard is my father, he would ocassionally give speeches at our church. What I remeber about his message is that they were all about power, and he wouldn't take any consideration regarding how his message might be interpreted in many different ways. He cared only about his core beliefs, attitudes, and values. He did not have credibility, emotion, or logic. It was a complete nightmare!
Yes, I have been influenced by a speaker and she was a speaker at a conference I recently attended about Meth.
One of the best speaker's that I have heard recently, (there are a lot of good ones), is a woman at a, "Meth is Our Problem," presentation that spoke about her Meth addiction, the stereotypes about who looks like a Meth user and who wouldn't be identified as a Meth user, how it affected her and her children, the measures she would take to get Meth, no matter the cost, how she took her first steps towards quiting Meth, and the struggle she went through to get back custody of her children, earn their trust, and love again.
What made this woman's communication so memorable was first by how she allowed all participants at this conference a look into her personal life. Her communication all six positive social functions, according to Rhetorician James Herrick. She was definitely well informed about Meth, she tested ideas about sterotyping Meth users (She looked like a normal soccer mom who was your next door neighbor), she persuaded the audience that there is no one that is immune from addiction, she shaped our knowledge about judging and stereotyping Meth users, she built a community by creating a shared vision within the room, across many ages and cultures, and she also distributed power by giving herself personal power (skills needed for personal success), she used psychological power (gave us knowledge to shape the way other people think), and most importantly she granted herself political power (A voice). Whew! She was good!
The worst speaker I have ever heard is my father, he would ocassionally give speeches at our church. What I remeber about his message is that they were all about power, and he wouldn't take any consideration regarding how his message might be interpreted in many different ways. He cared only about his core beliefs, attitudes, and values. He did not have credibility, emotion, or logic. It was a complete nightmare!
Friday, September 12, 2008
Chapter 2: Definitions, Models, and Perspectives
· Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.
Noise in communication caught my attention because it really does divert my attention when someone is talking to me. It can be something as simple as shoes that squeak, jewelry that screams, “look at me,” a lawn mower outside the building, or clothes that beg for your attention to their detail. Noise is such an unconscious thing that plays a vital role in communication.
I remember many classes at SJSU when I was distracted from the lecture by noise. I would feel frustrated and annoyed because I wasn’t engaging in my class. Becoming aware of Noise and how it pertains to and interferes with communication is important, not only for the receiver, but also the sender.
Happy Friday:)
Noise in communication caught my attention because it really does divert my attention when someone is talking to me. It can be something as simple as shoes that squeak, jewelry that screams, “look at me,” a lawn mower outside the building, or clothes that beg for your attention to their detail. Noise is such an unconscious thing that plays a vital role in communication.
I remember many classes at SJSU when I was distracted from the lecture by noise. I would feel frustrated and annoyed because I wasn’t engaging in my class. Becoming aware of Noise and how it pertains to and interferes with communication is important, not only for the receiver, but also the sender.
Happy Friday:)
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Chapter 2: Definitions, Models, and Perspectives
· Consider the pragmatic perspective. Does it make sense to think of communication as patterned interaction? How is communication like a game? How is it different from a game?
The pragmatic perspective presents the idea that conversation between two people, “consist of a system of interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time” (Trenholm p. 32). This is an interesting thought and I can see how this would be the case in many situations, but I can also see how it could be a disastrous assumption in other situations.
In a way it makes sense to think of communication as patterned interaction; take for instance a married couple who have been together for many years and have come to know and understand how their partner communicates, the cultural background that initially shaped their partner, have a pretty good understanding of their nonverbal communication, and where they tend to deviate from their usual communication habits. This does seem like a game; know the rules, use strategy, and know and/or figure out your opponent.
However, it would be foolish to think that you could have such defined lines and rules to adhere to when communicating with another person; that you would always know the next move or that it would level out and eventually become patterned. So, on the flip side, communication is different from a game in that it is always flowing and changing and there are so many ingredients that make up individuals, which in turn affects the way they communicate and make interpretations.
Happy Blogging:)
The pragmatic perspective presents the idea that conversation between two people, “consist of a system of interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time” (Trenholm p. 32). This is an interesting thought and I can see how this would be the case in many situations, but I can also see how it could be a disastrous assumption in other situations.
In a way it makes sense to think of communication as patterned interaction; take for instance a married couple who have been together for many years and have come to know and understand how their partner communicates, the cultural background that initially shaped their partner, have a pretty good understanding of their nonverbal communication, and where they tend to deviate from their usual communication habits. This does seem like a game; know the rules, use strategy, and know and/or figure out your opponent.
However, it would be foolish to think that you could have such defined lines and rules to adhere to when communicating with another person; that you would always know the next move or that it would level out and eventually become patterned. So, on the flip side, communication is different from a game in that it is always flowing and changing and there are so many ingredients that make up individuals, which in turn affects the way they communicate and make interpretations.
Happy Blogging:)
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Chapter 2: Definitions, Models, and Perspectives
● Consider the social constructionist perspective. How do we “build worlds” through communication? Think of some ideas we talk about in our culture that may not exist in other cultures. How do these concepts contribute to our happiness or success (of the lack of these) in our culture?
When considering the social constructionist perspective I understand it because in my family I was taught to look at the world through my parents and my collective family through the ways in which they taught me, spoke to me, and interacted with me. We had definite cultural traditions with guided me throughout my early years of life.
The ideas we talked about in my family were completely religion based (Traditional Roman Catholic). They were rigid and at times very extreme and did not exist in many other cultures outside of other Traditional Roman Catholic families. The concepts that I learned from my collective family did not benefit me and prohibited me from appreciating, understanding, and respecting other cultural norms and traditions. In addition, it separated me from other cultures and could have caused judgment and prejudice.
I am happy to say that I have since expanded my learning and have come to see with an open heart and open mind the different traditions, norms, and rules of other cultures with a loving appreciation and a thirst to know more about them.
Cherry:)
When considering the social constructionist perspective I understand it because in my family I was taught to look at the world through my parents and my collective family through the ways in which they taught me, spoke to me, and interacted with me. We had definite cultural traditions with guided me throughout my early years of life.
The ideas we talked about in my family were completely religion based (Traditional Roman Catholic). They were rigid and at times very extreme and did not exist in many other cultures outside of other Traditional Roman Catholic families. The concepts that I learned from my collective family did not benefit me and prohibited me from appreciating, understanding, and respecting other cultural norms and traditions. In addition, it separated me from other cultures and could have caused judgment and prejudice.
I am happy to say that I have since expanded my learning and have come to see with an open heart and open mind the different traditions, norms, and rules of other cultures with a loving appreciation and a thirst to know more about them.
Cherry:)
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Week #2 Discussion
▪ The Greeks believed that to be an orator, an individual had to be morally good. Comment on whether you agree or disagree. What, if any, is the connection between, truth, and public communication?
I do not believe that an individual has to be morally good to be an orator. Who defines what is morally good? Usually societies have a set of rules and norms that govern people and they vary from place to place. However, what is morally right for one person can be just the opposite for another; take for instance abortion.
The connection between goodness, truth, and public communication in my opinion lies within each individual and their belief systems that they choose to live by.
It is obvious that there are strong feelings that separate Republicans and Democrats on many issues that pertain to what is good, truthful, and how it pertains to public communication. But, really who’s to say that what the Republican Party stands for is better than what the Democratic Party stands for. It all melts down to the individuals who hold their own opinions about the Party they choose to affiliate themselves with and I am pretty sure that each person would defend their Party and have deep seated disagreements with the other Party. Ultimately, each person must feel that there is truth and goodness in public communication and this is turn creates interest and engagement.
Cherry:)
I do not believe that an individual has to be morally good to be an orator. Who defines what is morally good? Usually societies have a set of rules and norms that govern people and they vary from place to place. However, what is morally right for one person can be just the opposite for another; take for instance abortion.
The connection between goodness, truth, and public communication in my opinion lies within each individual and their belief systems that they choose to live by.
It is obvious that there are strong feelings that separate Republicans and Democrats on many issues that pertain to what is good, truthful, and how it pertains to public communication. But, really who’s to say that what the Republican Party stands for is better than what the Democratic Party stands for. It all melts down to the individuals who hold their own opinions about the Party they choose to affiliate themselves with and I am pretty sure that each person would defend their Party and have deep seated disagreements with the other Party. Ultimately, each person must feel that there is truth and goodness in public communication and this is turn creates interest and engagement.
Cherry:)
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Week #2 Discussion
▪ Pick one concept from the assigned reading that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.
Memory is one of the Five Canons of Rhetoric that states, “The speaker must find a way to keep the message firmly in mind” (Trenholm 6). I don’t know about you, but I often have to remind myself to stay focused and stay on tract when delivering a speech. Keeping my ideas in order is essential when presenting and makes all the difference in the overall delivery.
Mnemonics was developed to help speakers keep track of their arguments. I think the mnemonics system of memory is very useful and I will apply the idea when giving speeches by visualizing a house and all the rooms in it. By imagining walking into the house and presenting my idea and then moving from one room of ideas to the next is a spectacular way to keep on track and stay focused.
Cherry:)
Memory is one of the Five Canons of Rhetoric that states, “The speaker must find a way to keep the message firmly in mind” (Trenholm 6). I don’t know about you, but I often have to remind myself to stay focused and stay on tract when delivering a speech. Keeping my ideas in order is essential when presenting and makes all the difference in the overall delivery.
Mnemonics was developed to help speakers keep track of their arguments. I think the mnemonics system of memory is very useful and I will apply the idea when giving speeches by visualizing a house and all the rooms in it. By imagining walking into the house and presenting my idea and then moving from one room of ideas to the next is a spectacular way to keep on track and stay focused.
Cherry:)
Monday, September 1, 2008
A Speaker I admire. Week #1
Think of a speaker you admire. Does his or her power to persuade come from ethos, pathos, or logos? Think about your own ability to persuade others. What personal qualities do you have that make you persuasive? Does Aristotle’s classification scheme work for them, or do they fit into another category?
A speaker I admire very much is Hilary Clinton who uses her power to persuade through ethos and pathos. Of the two persuasive rhetoric’s; ethos gives her credibility, but pathos, is, in my opinion her strongest persuasion.
Hilary uses ethos by having the self assuredness to be a woman and run for president of the United States and by her experience as First Lady of the United States. Pathos is used by the way Hilary arouses emotions when speaking about issues that pale Americans and about issues we typically choose to ignore. When she talked about taxing oil companies and taking away their tax credits she aroused emotions in many Americans.
I believe that by the simple fact that Hilary Clinton is a female and ran for the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States is enough to stir up emotions for many individuals (especially women) who feel that we should have men and women run our country. This could be an example of both ethos and pathos. She shows she has the experience and arouses emotions.
When thinking about my own ability to persuade others, the personal qualities that I have that makes me persuasive are confidence, passion, reasoning, credibility about my topic, and awareness of my nonverbal messages and the importance of audience analysis.
Yes, I do believe that Aristotle’s classification scheme works for them. I do use ethos, pathos, and logos.
Have a fun week!
Cherry:)
A speaker I admire very much is Hilary Clinton who uses her power to persuade through ethos and pathos. Of the two persuasive rhetoric’s; ethos gives her credibility, but pathos, is, in my opinion her strongest persuasion.
Hilary uses ethos by having the self assuredness to be a woman and run for president of the United States and by her experience as First Lady of the United States. Pathos is used by the way Hilary arouses emotions when speaking about issues that pale Americans and about issues we typically choose to ignore. When she talked about taxing oil companies and taking away their tax credits she aroused emotions in many Americans.
I believe that by the simple fact that Hilary Clinton is a female and ran for the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States is enough to stir up emotions for many individuals (especially women) who feel that we should have men and women run our country. This could be an example of both ethos and pathos. She shows she has the experience and arouses emotions.
When thinking about my own ability to persuade others, the personal qualities that I have that makes me persuasive are confidence, passion, reasoning, credibility about my topic, and awareness of my nonverbal messages and the importance of audience analysis.
Yes, I do believe that Aristotle’s classification scheme works for them. I do use ethos, pathos, and logos.
Have a fun week!
Cherry:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)