Nursing care plan ( NCP ) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Nursing care plan ( NCP ) - Essay Example She has been recently widowed and is living with her daughter’s family. She has hypertension and has been taking maintenance medications to manage her blood pressure. She also has gouty arthritis and is taking diuretics and pain relievers to manage it. The symptoms of her disease include the dyspnea. This dyspnea is causing a reduction in her exercise tolerance, thus also reducing her activities of daily living. Her cough is productive with increased production of sputum. She also has wheezing and chest congestion. Based on her medical history with the disease, she remembers that she has had incidents of persistent coughing during her childhood years, including other common childhood diseases. She remembers that she has had childhood asthma during her school age years, as well as several incidents of bronchitis when she was in her teens and during her early adult life. Her husband was a smoker so she was exposed to second hand smoke for thirty years being married. Second-hand smoke often contributed to her persistent coughing in her adult and her late adult life. In reviewing her environment, she has been a housewife most of her life, except for ten years when she worked as a clerk in a stock broker firm. Her family has lived in an area which is near an asbestos plant which often emits toxic fumes into the air, and which often dumps dust and other wastes in the outskirts of their neighborhood. This plant has been contributory to various respiratory health issues because from the time the plant was built, the incidents of COPD have increased in the area, and some incidents of lung cancer have registered at rates higher than the rest of the general population. Her cough has persistently caused her difficulties in breathing; it has also caused her problems with sleeping as she would often have coughing bouts at night. Her cough is also productive, especially in the morning. Labored breathing is mostly apparent during

Cultural challenges regarding Volvo entering China Essay

Cultural challenges regarding Volvo entering China - Essay Example xvi). The country’s culture will determine how the firm will respond to strategic issues, and how these issues are interpreted (Becker, 2000, p. 90). Sweden verses China – the Cultural Challenges Hofstede’s cultural dimensions will be used as a framework to explain the cultural challenges between Sweden and China. These dimensions are widely used in different contexts, where there is going to a cross-cultural challenge, and different countries will fall within these dimensions (Steenkamp, 1999). Hofstede proposed that culture has different dimensions, and that these dimensions must be taken into account whenever one is looking at cross-cultural relationships. Volvo is based in Sweden, which obviously is a Western country. China is obvioiusly an Eastern country. As such, there is bound to be many cultural challenges which might arise when these two countries merge. One of Hofstede’s dimensions is the concept that some countries are individualistic, while ot her countries are collectivist. Basically, the individualist countries are an â€Å"I† countries – the individuals are paramount, and everybody is expected to be able to go it alone. The collectivist countries, on the other hand, see that everybody is a part of a group. This group might be a family, it might be a clan, or it might be an organization. At any rate, the members of the group, if the country is a collectivist country, show unfailing loyalty to that group (Hofstede, 1984, p. 84). In individualistic cultures, individual concerns are put ahead of group concerns; in collectivist countries, this is just the opposite (Steenkamp, 1999, p. 59). What the research shows is that China is a collectivist country – they score low on the scale for individualism, while Sweden scores high on this scale. What this means is that there is bound to be culture clashes, as the Chinese workers will have loyalty to the people inside their group – research shows that, within the collectivist cultures, the members of a group are willing to share with other members of that group, and are less willing to share with members who are not in that group (Ardchivilli et al., 2006). The Chinese workers therefore might decide to bond together and not share information with the Swedish workers, and this might be the same with the management. On the other hand, the workers and management in Sweden might be reluctant to share with anybody (Ardchivilli, 2006). Another dimension is power distance. The power distance concept has to do with hierarchies. Hierarchies may either be rigid or fluid, respected or not respected. It depends on if the country has a large power distance or a small power distance. The rigid hierarchies are often found in countries that have a large power distance. The hierarchies in these countries are in place, and they are not questioned. Therefore, the members of the hierarchies know their place in the hierarchy, and this is something tha t is accepted by the members of these groups. If there is a power inequality, this does not have to be explained. However, in the case of countries with a smaller power distance, this is not the case. If there are power inequalities within these groups, there needs to an explanation for the power inequalities. Moreover, the members of the hierarchy do not accept their fate – they strive for more equality. This means that, while they might respect the hierarchy, if they are not

The economy of Australia Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The economy of Australia - Research Paper Example Average family income is in the range of 55,000 USD annually, though differing drastically depending on which part of the country the person lives in. Australia has a relatively even distribution of wealth amongst its population. The GINI index, which is a measure of wealth disparities in a country, gives Australia a score of 30.5, only .1 above the European union, and 112th largest score in the world (in the GINI index a lower score means better or more even distribution of wealth). For comparison, Sweden, with the best GINI score has a 23, while America, with a terrible score for a developed country, has a score of 45 (CIA). Australia, as a country the size of a continent (it is the 6th largest country in the world) has a wide variety of natural resources including coal, iron, precious metals, diamonds, rare earth elements, natural gas and petroleum (CIA). IT is the largest net exporter of coal in the world, and accounts for 29% of global coal exports (CIA). Australia has highly developed transportation and communication infrastructure, with wide access to high speed internet and public transpiration in cities (CIA). Its primary mode of public transpiration is bus (CIA). Its infrastructure is much worse in rural regions, which have access issues. Australia has very strict and well adhered to employee protection laws, with only a very few countries having better (Global Edge). It has much more protection for long term than temporary workers, however, and this causes the perception of abuse amongst temporary and immigrants workers, usually from other pacific Islands (Global Edge). Salaray and benefits vary highly depending on employment sector, though public health care is less accessible than almost any other developed country, not being government funded (Global Edge). Australia’s principle industry is service, like most developed countries, though this is supplemented by mining, equipment manufacturing and steel foundering. Foreign

Invitations Refusal Strategies In American And Vietnamese

Invitations Refusal Strategies In American And Vietnamese Human communication is a combination of cooperation and understanding. Success in communication depends greatly on the ability to recognize speakers communicative intentions and pragmatic meaning of their utterances. Actually, those who may be regarded as fluent in a second language owing to their phonetic, syntactic and semantic knowledge of that language may still be unable to produce language that is socially and culturally appropriate. As a result, Larina (2008) shows that numerous problems in communication occur because people do not only speak different languages but use them in different ways according to specific social and linguistic norms, values, and social-cultural convention. Many people devalue the importance of invitations refusal strategies because normally, it is a person right to say something he/she doesnt like or doesnt want to. However, it is not as simple as it is thought to be since misbehavior in this domain can result in the interlocutors feeling of being shocked, angry, or even seriously insulted. It is because every body, as a human being, expects the appreciation and respect from others. America and Vietnam are two countries with different culture so their social and linguistic norms are different as well. This paper is an attempt to provide a cross-culture comparison of ways American and Vietnamese deal with a tactful-required kind of speech act: refusing an invitation. In this paper, the similarities and differences in refusal strategies between American native speakers and Vietnamese native speakers will be discussed under three circumstances: when the invitee is at a lower status; when the invitee is at an equal status; and when the inv itee is at a higher status. To make my topic more practical, I also suggest some implications in language teaching. I hope that this paper will be a contribution to the study of cross-cultural pragmatic understanding and effective communication. Speech acts In the 1950s and 60s two philosophers of language, John Austin and John Searle, developed speech act theory from their observation that language is used to do things other than just refer to the truth or falseness of particular statements. Austins book How to Do Things with Words (1962) is the next to a series of lectures he gave at Harvard University on this topic. John Searle, a student of Austin, further developed Austins work in his book Speech Acts, which was published in 1969. Austins and Searles work appeared at a time when logical positivism was the prevailing view in the philosophy of language. They launched a strong and influential attack on this work. The logical positive view of language argued that a sentence is always used to describe some fact, or state of affairs and, unless it could be tested for truth or falsity, is basically meaningless. Austin and Searle observed that there are many sentences that cannot meet such truth conditions but that are, nevertheless, valid sentences and do things that go beyond their literal meaning. Searle and Austin argued that in the same way that we perform physical acts, such as having a meal or closing a door, we can also perform acts by using language. We can use language, for example, to give orders, to make requests, to give warnings, or to give advice. They called these speech acts. Thus people do things with words in much the same way as they perform physical actions. Paltridge (2000) provided us the definition of Speech Act: A Speech Act is an utterance that serves a function in communication. Some examples are an apology, greeting, request, complaint, invitation, compliment or refusal. A speech act might contain just one word such as No to perform a refusal or several words or sentences such as: Im sorry, I cant, I have a prior engagement. It is important to mention that speech acts include real-life interactions and require not only knowledge of the language but also appropriate use of that language within a given culture. Socio-cultural variables like authority, social distance, and situational setting influence the appropriateness and effectiveness of politeness strategies used to realize directive speech acts such as requests (p. 15). Refusal as a speech act According to Al-Eryani (2007), a refusal is a respond negatively to an offer, request, invitation, etc. Refusals, as all the other speech acts, occur in all languages. However, not all languages/ cultures refuse in the same way nor do they feel comfortable refusing the same invitation or suggestion. Moreover, how one says no may be more important in many societies than the answer itself. Therefore, sending and receiving a message of no is a task that needs special skills. The interlocutor must know when to use the appropriate form and its function. The speech act and its social elements depend on each group and their cultural-linguistic values. Refusals are considered to be a face-threatening act among the speech acts. Face means the public self-image of a person. It refers to that emotional and social sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize. Refusals threaten the inviters face because they contradict hisher expectations and restrict the inviters freedom to act according to hisher will. On the other hand, refusals may threaten the addressees public image to maintain approval from others. Because a failure to refuse appropriately can risk the interpersonal relations of the speakers, refusals usually include various strategies to avoid offending ones interlocutors. However, it requires a high level of pragmatic competence and the choice of these strategies may vary across languages and cultures. For example, in refusing invitations, offers and suggestions, gratitude was regularly expressed by American English speakers, but rarely by Egyptian Arabic speakers (Nelson, Al-batal, and Echols, 1996). When Mandarin Chinese speakers wanted to refuse requests, they expressed positive opinion (e.g., I would like toà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.) much less frequently than American English since Chinese informants were concerned that if they ever expressed positive opinions, they would be forced to comply (Liao and Bressnahan, 1996). Politeness Politeness can be at once be understood as a social phenomenon, a means to achieve good interpersonal relationships, and a norm imposed by social conventions. So it is phenomenal, instrumental and normative by nature. According to Brown and Levinson (as cited in Politeness, 1997), politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearers face. Face refers to the respect that an individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that self-esteem in public or in private situations. Usually you try to avoid embarrassing the other person, or making them feel uncomfortable. Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) are acts that infringe on the hearers need to maintain his/her self esteem, and be respected. Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with these FTAs. What would you do if you saw a cup of pens on your teachers desk, and you wanted to use one, would you say, Ooh, I want to use one of those! say, So, is it O.K. if I use one of those pens? say, Im sorry to bother you but, I just wanted to ask you if I could use one of those pens? Indirectly say, Hmm, I sure could use a blue pen right now. There are four types of politeness strategies, described by Brown and Levinson (as cited in Politeness, 1997), that sum up human politeness behavior: Bald On Record, Negative Politeness, Positive Politeness, and Off-Record-indirect strategy. If you answered A, you used what is called the Bald On-Record strategy which provides no effort to minimize threats to your teachers face. If you answered B, you used the Positive Politeness strategy. In this situation you recognize that your teacher has a desire to be respected. It also confirms that the relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity. If you answered C, you used the Negative Politeness strategy which similar to Positive Politeness in that you recognize that they want to be respected. However, you also assume that you are in some way imposing on them. Some other examples would be to say, I dont want to bother you but or I was wondering if If you answered D, you used Off-Record indirect strategies. The main purpose is to take some of the pressure off of you. You are trying not to directly impose by asking for a pen. Instead you would rather it be offered to you once the teacher realizes you need one, and you are looking to find one. In many ways, politeness is universal. It is resorted to by speakers of different languages as a means to an end and it is recognized as a norm in all societies. Despite its universality, the actual manifestations of politeness, the ways to realize politeness and the standards of judgment differ in different cultures. On her thesis, Nguyen, T. L (2010) points out some aspects we should consider in order to achieve the goal of politeness as following: The social background of the communicator. Generally, the more educated a man is, the more he tends to show his politeness to other people. The more he knows about the suitable ways to show politeness, the better he uses them to be polite to others. Besides, the personality of the communicator is also very important here. Good-tempered person prefers to use face-saving act while bad-tempered person prefers face-threatening act when they come across the face-losing condition. The communicative circumstances. Communication is a very complicated process. In formal occasions, people tend to use formal expressions to show politeness, esp. between the new acquaintances. While in informal states, people tend to be casual to show intimacy even if it is in the very moment they meet. And that doesnt mean impoliteness. Look at the following example: Ex 1: A man came into a bar and said to the waiter: Hi! Buddy! Gimme some whisky, would ya? Although theyve never met before, the man used very casual phrases to enclose their relationship. This is a usual way to show friendliness to strangers in similar entertaining places. The social distance. The social distance between speaker and hearer is one of the factors that determine politeness behaviors. The notion of social distance refers to the consideration of the roles people are taking in relation to one another in a particular situation as well as how well they know each other, which means the degree of intimacy between interlocutors. However, there are still some exceptions. For example, people often use family names to call their close friends, and when these people speak to each other, they will use direct offer or request. But sometimes they use very formal expressions in their speech. Look at the following example. Ex 2: Husband to his wife: Would you be so kind as to hand the bread over to me? Surely we know that the wife has just quarreled with the husband and the husband is trying to amuse her in a certain way. The cultural differences. Different culture causes different views of values, which affects the criteria of politeness and leads to differences in various aspects. +Ways to greet each others and farewells. + Ways to address terms. + Ways to praise others. + Ways to express thanksà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Directness and indirectness Directness and indirectness are basic form of expression, which are universal in all languages and culture. Directness is a style of communication in which speaker want to get the straight forward to the points. The speech interprets exactly and literally what the speaker said. The power of directness is the hearer does not have to look for what the speaker might have mean by uttering such and such sentence. Everything in their interaction is expressed explicitly. Misunderstanding hardly occurs. Indirectness is any communicative behavior, verbal or nonverbal that conveys something more than or different from what it literally means. In order to protect privacy, to minimize the imposition on the hearer and to avoid the risk of losing face, there is a preference for indirectness on the part of the speaker to smooth the conversational interaction. For example when conveying the pragmatic meaning I want you to do it, the English make special effort to diminish and soften their imposition and show their respect for other peoples privacy. An illustration of this is when someone says can you pass the salt? Here, they are not asking about your ability to pass the salt the literal meaning of the sentence but requesting you to pass the salt. This is very common in service encounters where can is often used to refer to something other than ability or permission. There are many socio-cultural factors affecting the directness or indirectness of utterances. Nguyen (1998) (as cited in Nguyen, T. M. P, p.13) proposes 12 factors that, in his view, may affect the choice of directness and indirectness in communication: 1. Age: the old tend to be more indirect than the young. 2. Sex: females prefer indirect expression. 3. Residence: the rural population tends to use more indirectness than the urban. 4. Mood: while angry, people tend to use more indirectness. 5. Occupation: those who study social sciences tend to use more indirectness than those who study natural sciences. 6. Personality: the extroverted tend to use more directness than the introverted. 7. Topic: while referring to a sensitive topic, a taboo, people usually opt for indirectness. 8. Place: when at home, people tend to use more directness than when they are elsewhere. 9. Communication environment/setting: when in an informal climate, people tend to express themselves in a direct way. 10. Social distance: those who have closer relations tend to talk in a more direct way. 11. Time pressure: when in a hurry, people are likely to use direct expressions. 12. Position: when in a superior position, people tend to use more directness to their inferiors. These factors help to determine the strategies as well as the number of semantic formulae used when speakers perform the act of refusing. Comparison of refusal strategies in America and Vietnamese Basing on the data collected from Nguyen, T. L (2010), I will focus on three situations in which American and Vietnamese refuse the invitations from inviters who have higher, equal and lower status than theirs respectively. (1), (2), (3), (4) means position of the utterance is presented. When the invitee is at a lower status. The components which are typically found in Americans way of refusals when the invitee is at a lower status are (1) Gratitude/appreciation + (2) Excuse/reasons/explanation + (3) Positive opinion. For example, when a student declines a professors invitation of having lunch with his/her family, he/she might answer as following: Thank you. I have already eaten. Its so nice of you to ask. [(1) Gratitude + (2) Reason + (3) Positive opinion] 2. Thank you but I just had lunch. [(1) Gratitude + (2) Reason] 3. I just ate at the Indian restaurant down the street and I got a little indigestion, thank you though. [(1) Reason + (2) Gratitude] Vietnamese native speakers tend to use the formula: (1) Thank you + (2) Addressing term + (3) Offer for alternatives or a promise for future acceptance. For example: Cà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ £m Æ ¡n già ¡o sÆ °, Ä‘Ã ¡Ã‚ »Ã†â€™ khi khà ¡c em sà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ ½ dà ¹ng bà ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ ¯a cà ¹ng gia Ä‘Ã ¬nh thà ¡Ã‚ ºy à ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ ¡. (Thank you, professor. I will join with your family next time.) [(1) Gratitude + (2) Addressing term + (3) Promise for future acceptance] 2. Cà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ £m Æ ¡n già ¡o sÆ °, mà ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ i thà ¡Ã‚ ºy và   gia Ä‘Ã ¬nh cà ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ © dà ¹ng bà ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ ¯a tà ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ ± nhià ªn à ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ ¡. (Thank you, professor. Be yourself with you family.) [(1) Gratitude + (2) Addressing term + (3) Alternaitves] 3. Em cà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ £m Æ ¡n thà ¡Ã‚ ºy, thà ¡Ã‚ ºy dà ¹ng bà ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ ¯a tà ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ ± nhià ªn, em ngà ¡Ã‚ »Ã¢â‚¬Å"i uà ¡Ã‚ »Ã¢â‚¬Ëœng nÆ °Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ »Ã¢â‚¬ ºc trà   Ä‘Ã ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ £i thà ¡Ã‚ ºy cÃ…Â ©ng Ä‘Æ °Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ £c à ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ ¡. (Thank you, professor. Be yourself. I will drink some tea to wait for you.) [(1) Gratitude + (2) Addressing term + (3) Alternatives] According to the results above, both American and Vietnamese use expression of gratitude/appreciation in their refusals; However, gratitude maybe in different orders (either at the beginning or at the end of the utterance). One noticeable difference occurs in this component of refusal is that Vietnamese prefer offering a promise in the future to maintain the relationship between the professor and the student. Vietnamese speakers are somehow less likely to give a straightforward respond to decline the professors invitation. In contrast, Americans often say directly the reason why they cannot accept the invitation by saying I have eaten or I just had lunch. Besides, Americans only use their popular addressing term you and I while Vietnamese tend to use many addressing terms such as Professor or Mr. in the conversation between the professor and the students. When the invitee is at an equal status. The second case involves the speaker refusing an inviter who has equal position with him/her. When refusing a classmates invitation, American normally use this formula: (1) Regret/excuse + (2) Offer of alternatives or a promise for the future acceptance. For instance: Im really sorry. I have another commitment. I am generally available. Can we set it up for another time? [(1) Regret + (2) Reason + (3) Offer an alternative] 2. What a pity. I already have plans. Please let me know the next time you go and I would love to come along. [(1) Regret + (2) Reason + (3) Promise for future acceptance] Meanwhile Vietnamese semantic formula is (1) A promise for the future acceptance/ an offer of alternative + (2) reasons as following: Ä Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ »Ã†â€™ là ¡Ã‚ ºn sau nhà ©, là ¡Ã‚ ºn nà  y mà ¬nh bà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ ­n mà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ ¥t rà ¡Ã‚ »Ã¢â‚¬Å"i. Ä Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ »Ã¢â‚¬Å"ng à ½ chà ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ ©? (Perhaps next time, Im busy now. All right?) [(1) Promise for the future acceptance + (2) Reason] 2. Ä Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ »Ã†â€™ bà ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ ¯a khà ¡c Ä‘Æ °Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ £c khà ´ng? Hà ´m nay mà ¬nh mà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ ¯c hà ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ c rà ¡Ã‚ »Ã¢â‚¬Å"i. (Can we set it up for another time? I have to study today.) [(1) An offer of alternative + (2) Reason] These examples show that both Americans and Vietnamese rarely say no directly to their friends even though they are in equal status. Mostly, Americans use regret like Im sorry/what a pity to start their refusal. This style is culturally and socially important and appropriate in America. In contrast, Vietnamese may feel that it is less necessary to express their regret due to the familiarity and close social distance. It reflects traditional thinking of Vietnamese that in close relationship, people should be open, friendly and informal with each other. Although both two groups tend to use the excuse and reason to soften their refusal, there is slightly different in the order between Americans and Vietnamese. Whereas Vietnamese people offer alternatives or promise for the future acceptance before giving their excuse as a way to reduce threatening face of inviter, Americans use excuse first and follow other alternatives in the future. When the invitee is at an upper status. In the last situation, the speaker, who is at a high social status, declines an invitation to go to the spa with the staff. American speakers refuse this kind of invitation by saying patterns like (1) regret + (2) reason/excuse/explanation. For example: Sorry, Ive made plans. [(1) Regret + (2) Reason (subjective reason)] 2. That sounds lovely. But I have far too much to work right now. Thank for inviting me. [(1) Positive opinion + (2) Reason (subjective reason) + (3) Gratitude] Vietnameses responses are more complicated and detailed. The usual formula is (1) Gratitude + (2) Reason Cà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ £m Æ ¡n cà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ ­u nhÆ °ng mà ¬nh khà ´ng Ä‘i Ä‘Æ °Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ £c. Mà ¬nh khà ´ng muà ¡Ã‚ »Ã¢â‚¬Ëœn cà ¡c nhà ¢n vià ªn khà ¡c hià ¡Ã‚ »Ã†â€™u nhà ¡Ã‚ ºm. Thà ´ng cà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ £m cho mà ¬nh nhà ©. (Thanks, but I cant go with you. Im afraid to be misunderstood by other staffs. Sympathize with me!) [(1) Gratitude + (2) Reason (objective reason) + (3) Sympathy) 2. Cà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ £m Æ ¡n cà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ ­u rà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ ¥t nhià ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ u nhÆ °ng cuà ¡Ã‚ »Ã¢â‚¬Ëœi tuà ¡Ã‚ ºn nà  y mà ¬nh phà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ £i tham dà ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ ± Ä‘Ã ¡m cÆ °Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ »Ã¢â‚¬ ºi cà ¡Ã‚ »a Ä‘Ã ¡Ã‚ »Ã‚ ©a bà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ ¡n mà ¡Ã‚ ºÃ‚ ¥t rà ¡Ã‚ »Ã¢â‚¬Å"i. (Thank you so much but Im going to attend one of my friends wedding at the weekend.) [(1) Gratitude + (2) Reason (objective reason)] Once again, regrets are favored by Americans when refusing an invitation. Vietnamese, however, produce many thanks as gratitude first and state reasons later. In this case, although Vietnamese bosses are at higher status than invitees, most of them say thank you to their staff in order to appreciate their staffs good will. There is a striking difference between American and Vietnamese speakers when giving reasons for their refusals. Americans often give their subjective reasons like Im so busy, Ive made my plan to inform the inviter that they cant go. Because one of American culture values is to respect individual freedom. Therefore, if the invitees give their own personal reasons, the inviter will accept their refusals and are not curious about real reasons anymore. Meanwhile, Vietnamese tend to use objective reasons to soften the face threatening act of the refusals. Conclusion America and Vietnam are two countries with different linguistic and cultural features. However, in cross-culture linguistic, beside the differences due to socio-norm dissimilarities these two countries still have something in common. When taking strategies in refusing an invitation into consideration, we can find out main similarities and differences as following: Similarities: When refusing an invitation, American and Vietnamese speakers usually use indirect strategy with most communicating partners. Both of them avoid saying no directly to their interlocutors whether they are at high, low or equal status. The common tendency is that Americans and Vietnamese give a variety of reason to avoid losing their inviters faces. Differences: Americans produce much more expression of regrets and reasons to refuse invitations. Typically, regrets often follow reasons in an utterance of refusals. Americans tend to give their subjective reasons in most cases. Vietnamese counterparts are fond of offering alternatives or a promise for acceptance in the future to make the inviter feel released. They also try to give the interlocutors the objective reasons to soften the face threatening act. Teaching implications The results of this thesis demonstrate that refusing in general and refusing an invitation to be specific is a complex task because it requires the high level of communicative competence. In order to avoid pragmatic failure, speakers need to understand fully both socio-cultural strategies used by most native speakers and the rules for their appropriate implementation. Therefore, I have some following teaching recommendations for L2 teachers: Prepare authentic materials for learners because learning a second language also means learning a second culture. Students should have a chance to get familiar with materials that are closely related to the daily activities of the country of the language they are learning. Teach language forms and functions parallel and contextually in both formal and informal situations in order to develop the learners sociolinguistic ability in an L2. Encourage students to perform different speech acts in an L2 in different situations of social status, social distance, and with reference to the gender relation between the speakers and interlocutors. Organize activities that students can have chances to communicate with both native and non-native speakers of English.

Genophilosophy Essay -- Philosophy Philosophical Essays

Genophilosophy ABSTRACT: Contemporary progress in life sciences, particularly in genetic engineering, is changing our concept of "human being" and a whole series of other philosophical and common notions. The conventional idea of "subject" will no longer be the final reference for philosophical thinking, since even the subject qua biological or psychological structure will enjoy a high degree of unpredictability. The results of gene technology require reinterpreting such concepts as reproduction, individuality, history, freedom and subjectivity. This paper focuses on the question of freedom, where freedom means the capacity to deliberate and choose between different alternatives of action. We hold that the issue of freedom is relevant for genetics. Considering that genes can "decide" between alternatives, it is possible to speak about the freedom of genes, at least in a metaphoric sense. It has been suggested that genes are "more free" than human beings because they encoded us. The human genome pro gram thus helps us to understand what kind of structures human beings are dependent upon. The main question that we address in this paper concerns the entire human genome project and all its implications including the functions and effects of each gene, the possibility of technological manipulation, what kind of freedom, history, and "human being" will eventually "survive." Recent developments in molecular biology and genetic engineering are going to change our human being concept and a whole series of other philosophical and common notions, such as "knowledge", "subject", "self", "history", "past", "science", "ethics", etc. The traditional idea of "subject" won't be any more the only final reference of philosophical thinking, si... ...philosophy ? a higher speed mutant of ancient type philosophy ? should prevail with a main task to investigate and understand the consequences of these new technologies and to represent it in scientific, social and ethical debates. Similar to when Kant urged philosophers in the eighteenth century to turn towards humans, now there is a need to turn towards genes. In continuous dialogs and partnerships with life scientists and politicians, philosophers have to develop new merits of freedom, person and evolution and to investigate the possible ways of improving human life on earth. We have to remember on the pragmatic adage, if philosophy and science lack social fruits in the long run, then it does not deserve the attention of the society. On the other hand, if the science and society do not open up for philosophical deliberations, it can have monstrous consequences.

Discuss Research Into Effects of Workplace Stress Essay

A research for workplace stress was conducted by both Marmot and Johnson and Hall. Marmot researched effects for low control and whether it was linked to more stress. Johnson and Hall researched high workload to stress. Marmot conducted an investigation with participants from London – based government civil servants, and the studies are therefore referred to as the Whitehall studies. Civil employees in London were asked to volunteer to take part in the study. High grade employees were compared to Low grade civil servants. Marmot found that workers with less control were four times likely to die of heart attack than their colleagues with more control. In addition they were more likely to suffer from other stress related illnesses such as cancers, ulcers, stomach disorders and strokes. The conclusion was obvious, that lack of control seemed to be associated with illness and they recommended that employers gave their staff more autonomy and control. The study showed to be correlational. This is because it can only be said that there appears to be an association with low control and stress-related illness. It cannot be assumed that law control is causing illness. It could be that workers with poor health are likely to achieve the higher grade jobs with more control. For all the more reasons to weaken the findings. Also the research is said to be self-reported. This is because workers filled in their own questionnaire which is inaccurate and eligible for participant reactivity. Also if the workers found out what the researchers are looking to find then the results would be biased and so they may answer the questions accordingly. For this reason the findings of the research may be inaccurate and so will not be reliable. The investigation that Johnson and Hall did was done on a large scale and they investigated with 14000 male and female Swedish workers. They used self-report questionnaires. They compared sawmill workers high job demand and low control with maintenance workers who had low job demand and high control. Sawyers in Swedish sawmill had more illnesses and higher levels of adrenaline in urine than lower risks groups. This shows that high demand and workload is associated with stress related illness. The study relies heavily on self-report techniques making them less reliable. A person perception of their workload may not be entirely accurate or unbiased. Also cause and effect is hard to establish and high demand/low control jobs may be linked to social class. Furthermore the study doesn’t take into account of individual differences. Lazarus, another psychologist, claims that it is the perception of work overload that is the important factor rather than the number of hours/the actual amount of work. In this sense, work overload is a perception held by a worker that they are required to work too long and/or too hard. Those who have high hardiness may see demand as a challenge rather than a threat; this therefore weakens Johnsons’ overall assumption of workplace stress affecting individuals in the same way. The research on workplace stress has a good significance on its stressors as it affects productivity, motivation and time off work with health problems. Therefore occupational psychologists are brought into the workplace to reduce the workplace stress. The study also has practical applications and so many employers now take stress in the workplace very seriously. Stress is bad for business as it is seen to cause ill health, absenteeism, high staff turnover and low job performance all of which costs the company money. The research also has extraneous variables. This is because despite the link between lack of job control and stress related illness found in many studies.

Satire in Jane Austen’s Pride in Prejudice

Jane Austen’s Satirical Writing: Analyzing the Satire of Social Class Within Pride and Prejudice Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice delves into the issue of why social standing in a society based solely on class should not be the most important thing when evaluating the worth of a person. Through several different literary techniques – such as letters and abundant focalizers – Austen conveys important information about key issues she has with the significance placed on social standing. The theme of class and social standing is echoed constantly throughout Austen’s novel in numerous ways, highlighting several aspects of the gentry that she distrusts. The entirety of the novel focuses mainly on the distances placed between characters due to their social standing in a class based society. Regardless of how fit a person may be in either mind or capabilities, if a high sum of money is not contained within their personhood (or their estate), they are considered menial. Jane Austen uses the social relationships between her characters to satirize the importance placed on the hierarchy of class in society. Austen wrote the novel in order to define and satirize the problems that she saw in the hierarchy of class in the society of her time. Throughout the entire novel â€Å"there isn’t a character†¦who’s introduced without his income being mentioned in the next sentence† (Selznick 92). The ridiculousness of the value placed upon money – of which the middle class has very little – is evident as Austen progresses the story and the relationships between her characters – namely between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth. The fact that, in Austen’s time, the society revolved around the gentry – whose entire idea of class and power involved money – makes it easier for the audience reading Pride and Prejudice to understand why she has satirized this issue. She does this quite flawlessly throughout the novel, relying on her knowledge of the increasing adamancy of the middle class to gain social status and power through more than just land, money and relations. The significance of social standing and the desire of the characters aspire to it can be seen in different instances throughout the novel. However, there are a few characters for which the idea of wealth and power mean very little, who strive to better themselves through their own wit and charm, rather than through the advantages of money. Elizabeth Bennet, the protagonist of the novel, is one such character. It is difficult for her to adjust to the sense of reality in which the novel exists due to the fact that the society has been permanently established and there is very little she can do to earn the credit she deserves. Yet it is due to Elizabeth’s unique personality that the audience is able to understand why her interest for the things at Pemberley and the positive change in heart she has for Mr. Darcy’s character show the dual nature of how Austen thought of the personal attainment of identity and morality balanced with her begrudged acknowledgement of a limited and restrained society (Hamilton). There are several other characters that believe the importance placed on monetary gain to be superfluous and still others that also come to realize this. It is through both the understanding and ignorance of these characters that it becomes evident just how deeply Austen distrusted the idea of an individual requiring social power in order to be recognized as an accomplished individual. Austen paid especially close attention to economic and social standing when it came to her characters for the express purpose of satirizing why their superior class was not necessarily more agreeable or accomplished than those in the lower classes. She wrote her novels with the idea that â€Å"the quality of humanity is to be judged by moral and human standards†¦not by social status; but like her own temporary snobs†¦she pays full attention to their social status first† (Copeland 121). As seen with Austen’s character Mr. Darcy, she concentrates fully on his attachments to his reputation before she delves into who he becomes and how much better off he is when he realizes the error in his way of thinking. In assessing the weight that social standing has on the progression of the story in Pride and Prejudice, one can attain a great bit of insight into why specific characters act the way they do throughout the novel. The infamous Bingley sisters, for instance, are so attached to the idea of material wealth that they fail to realize when their comments are unacceptable. Ms. Bingley herself, who is so attached to the idea that she is superior to Elizabeth in every way, cannot understand why Mr. Darcy could possibly find Elizabeth attractive in any sort of manner. It is her status-hungry and conceited personality that allows the audience to see the sheer difference between her and her brother, Mr. Charles Bingley. Unlike his sisters, he is not trying to climb up the social hierarchy to gain status and power; instead, he shows a gentler, more levelheaded side to the gentry as he falls in love with Elizabeth’s older sister, Jane. It is characters with personalities and ideals like Mr. Bingley’s that Austen revered and trusted above all others. Curiously enough, however, the hardheaded Mr. Darcy, who is very aware of his social standing, is the one character in the novel who goes through the most drastic personality change. Though Elizabeth Bennet had the positive, clever and levelheaded personality that Austen herself may have had when dealing with the social mobility of her time, it is instead the incredible change of heart that Mr. Darcy undergoes that shows how someone who is socially superior can realize the importance of wit, charm and beauty of those around him instead of being concerned only with their social status. This is how Austen is able to satirize these problems so efficiently that a modern audience does not realize that she is poking fun at the societal importance of class in her time and instead sees nothing but a charming romance. Yet Austen was doing much more than writing a simple love story. The novel was written in a transitional period when peoples’ way of thinking was shifting from a romantic look at life to a more enlightened view of living. The ideals of the eighteenth century – where people saw society as organized and divinely structured – were quickly lost to the thinkers of the more modernistic views of society in the nineteenth century, in which there was a significant loss of faith in any spiritualistic based society. Instead, nineteenth century thought turned towards the idea of the individual as the only path towards order. This new idea of placing emphasis on the self was especially important to Austen, yet she realized that the tendency of an organized and structured society was to value a person by their material wealth, rather than who the individual really was. She was able to take both ideas and mold them into her ideal situation, which can be seen in the last few lines of the novel when Elizabeth is at last accepted into Pemberley and its heritage. It is here that the individual â€Å"remains exactly where Austen would have it, in the center of a stable eighteenth-century world† (Hamilton 36). Class and social standing is a very evident and important issue for Austen and she satirizes it with the utmost diligence throughout the novel using intricate, yet simplistic designs for her characters’ relationships. For instance, instead of being forced to marry Mr. Collins for the express purpose of making a new connection on their own, Elizabeth refuses to be controlled by society’s standards and defies Mrs. Bennet’s wishes in order to â€Å"demonstrate that it is still possible for individuals to make new connections in defiance of society† (Austen 395). Tony Tanner, a British literary critic, who wrote the original introduction to Pride and Prejudice conveyed that Austen wrote about â€Å"a society which stresses social control over individual ecstasy, formality over informality, sartorial neatness over bodily abandon, and alert consciousnesses over the more Romantic states of revery and trance† and yet it is also â€Å"a society in which the individual can experience freedom as well as commitment† (Austen 395). The unfathomable amount of thought that Jane Austen put into writing Pride and Prejudice show how deeply she cared for the freedom of the individual and the ability to stand proudly in a society that overlooked individual assets for material ones. Tanner also credited Austen with the ability to create a character around the central idea of attempting to prove their individual worth within a society bound entirely by the ordinance of class. He is able to demonstrate the importance Austen placed on her characters – especially Elizabeth and Jane Bennet – finding themselves in a gentry-based society by drawing on William Blake’s In the Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Tanner argues – with Blake’s ideals in mind – that Austen takes two completely different aspects of life, energy and reason, and instead of reconciling these opposite attractions, there is a mutual coming together of complementary characteristics. He puts it plainly when he states that â€Å"she makes it seem as if it is possible for playfulness and regulation – energy and boundaries – to be united in fruitful harmony, without the one being sacrificed to the other† (Austen 106). This ability to take two unlike ideas and mesh them together without either losing its significance is exactly how Austen takes society’s emphasis on social standing and class and reverses it into something that now benefits a character where before it could only hinder (i. e. Elizabeth’s transformation from a meager middle-class girl, to the Mistress of Pemberley). However, not all critics have been kind to the way in which Austen portrays this transformational miracle of a young girl suddenly coming into great sums of money, merely by the tact and wit she shows in the way she lives. These critics find Austen’s dealing with social standing and class to be abhorrent. In fact, one such critic happens to be a famous authoress who, in writing a letter to G. H. Lewes in 1848, stated that she disliked the novel due to its frivolous dealings with the common life of both the upper and the middle-class. In her writing to the British literary and theatre critic, the authoress stated that she â€Å"should hardly like to live with her ladies and gentlemen, in their elegant but confined houses† (Austen 368). It was, in fact, Currer Bell – more widely known as Charlotte Bronte – who wrote this letter, in which the reader can clearly sense the contempt she had for Austen’s writing and the way she portrayed her characters. Though perhaps more of an criticism towards the way Austen wrote in general, Bronte was still very serious with her concern about the way in which Austen depicted her characters and their lives. She had, in Bronte’s view, â€Å"no sense of the outward world – either scenery or personal appearance† (Mazzeno 558). It is obvious that Austen’s portrayal of social standing, class, romance, money, marriage and many other themes throughout Pride and Prejudice were not held in high regard with Bronte. Though the majority of critical analyses both praising and condemning the way in which Austen depicts social standing in her novel have been done by literary thinkers, there have been other mediums through which the novel has been adapted, such that even criticism of someone as famous as Charlotte Bronte is outshined. For example, in their book Authority, State and National Character, professors Kuzmics of the University of Graz and Axtmann of the University of Wales, when addressing the problems that both Britain and Austria have seen in relation to social class when examining the issues that arose in several literary novels and dramas of the time, state that when they first studied Pride and Prejudice, they thought it had very little to do with such issues. They believed that â€Å"the fate of the Bennet sisters in rural gentry-based England just after the turn of the century revolved around such harmless matters as a ball at Netherfield† (Kuzmics 223). It is apparent that both professors believe – at least upon their first reading of it – that Austen’s novel had very little to do with the very real problems that are satirized throughout the story. Their criticism of the novel, however, in relation to how both Austrian and English society has evolved during the civilizing process is perhaps accurate without an in depth reading of Pride and Prejudice, as it seems to merely have a â€Å"relaxed air of cheerfulness and ironic, detached art of people watching† (Kuzmics 223). Conversely, after one looks past all the pleasantries that the story has to offer, one realizes that, as the professors correctly stated, it only appears to have nothing to do with issues of class. This is why the novel must be read carefully, to push past the obvious romance of the story and dig into the satirical tone in which Austen addresses such important matters. As the professors continue their research into the heart of the novel, they revealed very important aspects of Austen’s writing about social class and how it is a perfect example of English society, even to this day. She defined so clearly how England was a â€Å"face-to-face† or â€Å"shame society† in which â€Å"the opposite of social respectability is social disgrace† which was â€Å"to be avoided at all costs† (Kuzmics 227). This meant that for those families that were unable to depend on an inheritance or their relations in order to live comfortably in society, they could only rely upon prospective marriage partners for a comfortable life. It is because of this importance placed upon society’s standards of what makes a family valuable that â€Å"the social value and respectability of the potential future spouse is ascertained and made visible† (Southam 113). This, in turn, makes it difficult for someone such as Elizabeth – who is very accomplished in her wit and charm – unable to stoop so low as to accept a marriage proposal from someone she has no tender feelings toward. The idea of marrying only for money, power or social stability is part of the reason why Elizabeth Bennet is thought of as impertinent by other characters in the novel such as Mr. Collins, Lady Catherine, and at times even her own mother. Yet it is because of Elizabeth’s character and the audacity she is capable of showing to such renowned individuals that proves Austen meant her novel to be much more than a romantic story between two characters. She wanted a stab at the problems of the gentry, to affirm her belief that basing the worth of an individual merely by their material wealth was hardly the best way of assessing someone’s value (Wilhelm). She was able to do a fantastic job of satirizing the gentry throughout her novel by using several different aspects of what made a renowned person so important: money, connections and property. In the general notes of the Penguin Classic version of Pride and Prejudice, David Spring, author of Interpreters of Jane Austen’s Social World, used historian Alan Everitt’s coined term ‘pseudo-gentry’ to describe a group of individuals that were comprised mostly of those involved with the trade, who aspired to attain the lifestyle of the landed gentry. It is because of this idea that in order to be worth something, a person must own land, that several of the characters from Austen’s novel seek ‘land-based wealth,’ which is an obvious sign of â€Å"a class intensely interested in income as means to, and a sign of, status† (Austen 413). This shows that Austen’s novel is written from a point of view that sees upward mobility as a bleak, corrupt hierarchy and is much more interested in the professional middle class – the class which, in Pride and Prejudice is represented quite adeptly by the Gardiners. This idea of attempting to identify oneself in a strict society based on social class has taken on numerous different forms: books, critical essays, movies and television series. Innumerable amounts of professional critics have delved deeply into Austen’s novel’s representation of class, manners and even the social status of women in British society. In the incredibly faithful six hour long A&E/BBC adaptation of the book, Sue Britwistle – the program’s producer – wanted to include â€Å"many clear illustrations of the way that class and gender are governed by proper British manners†¦and highlight the importance of economic status in Regency England† (Selznick 92). The fact that women could only gain social standing through marriage is very apparent through all of Austen’s writing, not just Pride and Prejudice. It is incredible to think that a woman was worth nothing unless she had a substantial inheritance, as seen with Georgiana and Mr. Wickham. He cared nothing for her abilities, her looks, her personality – the only thing he desired was the hefty sum of money she would receive through inheritance. The type of relationship is seen numerous times throughout the novel and only contravened when Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy marry the two Bennet sisters. It is, as professors Kuzmics and Axtmann so rightly called it, a marriage market. The worth of an individual could only be seen through the instance of marriage, when a person’s monetary value was ascertained and brought into light. There are several different instances throughout the novel in which social standing and class are satirized, though none so much as the motif of carriages. Austen placed importance upon how many and of what kind carriage a person owned; it signaled wealth, status and power – which, to Austen, was not a feasible way to judge the worth of a person. The aspect of carriages even flows into the marriage market, where the prospective bride (because the groom always seemed to be worthy regardless) is critiqued and either approved or denied. Part of this process is inquiry into how many and what kind of carriages the bride owns – if any. Their chances of finding a suitable match dwindles if they do not own an acceptable carriage (Walder). This is seen when Lady Catherine tracks down Elizabeth at Longbourn, wondering how her nephew could have possibly proposed to one such as her – someone who walks places without the aide of a carriage to take her anywhere. One of the most noteworthy characters that Austen uses to satirize social standing in her novel is Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Austen utilizes Lady Catherine for the primary function of criticizing the aristocratic society in which she places her character, as Lady Catherine is one of the most prideful and overbearing personalities in the novel. Jane Austen mercilessly ridicules the hierarchal society she was raised in by using Catherine as a means to convey how prominent figures (who were only important because of their wealth) thought themselves to be experts on almost every topic, even if they had no prior knowledge of the subject of which they were speaking on. For example, when Elizabeth visits Lady Catherine at Rosings, she is not only terribly inquisitive about how the girl had been raised, but when she asks Elizabeth if she plays the piano, Catherine admits that she herself could not. Though, as she states soon afterward, if she had practiced, there was no doubt that she would have been incredible. Ironically enough, it is due to Lady Catherine’s sudden visitation with Elizabeth near the end of the novel that Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth are married. By telling her nephew of the interview that she had with Elizabeth, Catherine allows the seed of hope to appear in Mr. Darcy. Lady Catherine’s attempt at interference between her nephew and Elizabeth is ultimately the reason that the two marry – not to mention that it is a means by which Austen can convey the strong personality she bequeathed upon Elizabeth to show that one’s social station should not limit her, but help her to hold her own in what most people saw as polite-society. Through many instances of dark humor, tragedy and even comedic aspects, Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice takes a critical look at the issue of social standing in society and severely reprimands its ideals. Austen distrusted several aspects of the society in which she lived and tried to right its wrongs by satirizing the importance that the gentry placed on social standing and class. Though this may not have worked quite as well as she would have hoped – as most people view Pride and Prejudice as a mere romance story – with her cut and dry, black and white views of what a person should be judged by, Austen clearly wanted her society to realize that a person could only be considered accomplished if they truly had the talents to be – not whether or not they could afford to buy their name. Works Cited Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. London: Penguin, 2003. Print. Copeland, Edward, and Juliet McMaster. The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. Print. Hamilton, Sylvia N. Constructing Mr. Darcy: Tradition, Gender, and Silent Spaces in Jane Austen. Thesis. University of Central Oklahoma, 2007. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest, 2008. Print. Kuzmics, Helmut, and Roland Axtmann. Authority, State and National Character: the Civilizing Process in Austria and England, 1700-1900. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2007. Print. Mazzeno, Laurence W. Jane Austen: Two Centuries of Criticism. Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2011. Print. Selznick, Barbara J. Global Television Co-producing Culture. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2008. Print. Southam, B. C. Jane Austen: the Critical Heritage. London: Routledge, 1999. Print. Walder, Dennis. The Realist Novel. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print. Wilhelm, Julia. Appropriations of Jane Austen's â€Å"Pride and Prejudice† in Contemporary British Fiction. Thesis. Johannes Gutenberg University, 2007. Mainz, Germany: Grin Verlag, 2008. Print.