ENG_105 PURPOSIVE COMMUNICATION

Your final requirement for ENG_105 is comprised of two articles and one
question. The papers written based on these articles/ question should be encoded in a
short bond paper and submitted to chanteltolibas@gmail.com on or before June 30,
2020.

If you are unable to meet the deadline, I will wait for the compliance of these
requirement until the faculty’s deadline for grades (which I presume is on December).
Thus, it means that if you are unable to submit the papers by then, you will not be
given a grade of INC, NG, 4.0, or 5.0. This consideration ought not be taken
advantage of though; if you have the necessary resources (such as good internet
connection/ laptop/ abundant free time), I encourage you to take advantage of the
learning opportunities you have and do these tasks. 😊

 The articles are to be read thoroughly. After which, you will provide a short
summary (1 paragraph) and a reflection essay (3-5 paragraphs) for each.

 “How will good communication help human beings in the times of pandemic?”
(4-6 paragraphs)

If you still have questions regarding the instructions here, please do not
hesitate to reach me thru a private message in fb messenger (fb name: Mary Chantel
A. Tolibas) or a text message (0955-137-2037). Thank you for your cooperation. Stay
healthy, safe and at home! 😊

ARTICLE 1- IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION

The Flight from Conversation

By SHERRY TURKLE

WE live in a technological universe in which we are always communicating. And yet we

have sacrificed conversation for mere connection.

At home, families sit together, texting and reading e-mail. At work executives text during
board meetings. We text (and shop and go on Facebook) during classes and when we’re on
dates. My students tell me about an important new skill: it involves maintaining eye
contact with someone while you text someone else; it’s hard, but it can be done.
Over the past 15 years, I’ve studied technologies of mobile connection and talked to
hundreds of people of all ages and circumstances about their plugged-in lives. I’ve learned
that the little devices most of us carry around are so powerful that they change not only
what we do, but also who we are.

We’ve become accustomed to a new way of being “alone together.” Technology-enabled,

we are able to be with one another, and also elsewhere, connected to wherever we want to
be. We want to customize our lives. We want to move in and out of where we are because
the thing we value most is control over where we focus our attention. We have gotten used
to the idea of being in a tribe of one, loyal to our own party.

Our colleagues want to go to that board meeting but pay attention only to what interests
them. To some this seems like a good idea, but we can end up hiding from one another,
even as we are constantly connected to one another.

A businessman laments that he no longer has colleagues at work. He doesn’t stop by to

talk; he doesn’t call. He says that he doesn’t want to interrupt them. He says they’re “too
busy on their e-mail.” But then he pauses and corrects himself. “I’m not telling the truth.
I’m the one who doesn’t want to be interrupted. I think I should. But I’d rather just do
things on my BlackBerry.”

A 16-year-old boy who relies on texting for almost everything says almost wistfully,
“Someday, someday, but certainly not now, I’d like to learn how to have a conversation.”

In today’s workplace, young people who have grown up fearing conversation show up on
the job wearing earphones. Walking through a college library or the campus of a high-tech
start-up, one sees the same thing: we are together, but each of us is in our own bubble,
furiously connected to keyboards and tiny touch screens. A senior partner at a Boston law
firm describes a scene in his office. Young associates lay out their suite of technologies:
laptops, iPods and multiple phones. And then they put their earphones on. “Big ones. Like
pilots. They turn their desks into cockpits.” With the young lawyers in their cockpits, the
office is quiet, a quiet that does not ask to be broken.

In the silence of connection, people are comforted by being in touch with a lot of people
— carefully kept at bay. We can’t get enough of one another if we can use technology to
keep one another at distances we can control: not too close, not too far, just right. I think of
it as a Goldilocks effect.

Texting and e-mail and posting let us present the self we want to be. This means we can
edit. And if we wish to, we can delete. Or retouch: the voice, the flesh, the face, the body.
Not too much, not too little — just right.

Human relationships are rich; they’re messy and demanding. We have learned the habit of
cleaning them up with technology. And the move from conversation to connection is part
of this. But it’s a process in which we shortchange ourselves. Worse, it seems that over
time we stop caring, we forget that there is a difference.
We are tempted to think that our little “sips” of online connection add up to a big gulp of
real conversation. But they don’t. E-mail, Twitter, Facebook, all of these have their places
— in politics, commerce, romance and friendship. But no matter how valuable, they do not
substitute for conversation.

Connecting in sips may work for gathering discrete bits of information or for saying, “I am
thinking about you.” Or even for saying, “I love you.” But connecting in sips doesn’t work
as well when it comes to understanding and knowing one another. In conversation we tend
to one another. (The word itself is kinetic; it’s derived from words that mean to move,
together.) We can attend to tone and nuance. In conversation, we are called upon to see
things from another’s point of view.

FACE-TO-FACE conversation unfolds slowly. It teaches patience. When we communicate

on our digital devices, we learn different habits. As we ramp up the volume and velocity of
online connections, we start to expect faster answers. To get these, we ask one another
simpler questions; we dumb down our communications, even on the most important
matters. It is as though we have all put ourselves on cable news. Shakespeare might have
said, “We are consum’d with that which we were nourish’d by.”

And we use conversation with others to learn to converse with ourselves. So our flight
from conversation can mean diminished chances to learn skills of self-reflection. These
days, social media continually asks us what’s “on our mind,” but we have little motivation
to say something truly self-reflective. Self-reflection in conversation requires trust. It’s
hard to do anything with 3,000 Facebook friends except connect.

As we get used to being shortchanged on conversation and to getting by with less, we

seem almost willing to dispense with people altogether. Serious people muse about the
future of computer programs as psychiatrists. A high school sophomore confides to me
that he wishes he could talk to an artificial intelligence program instead of his dad about
dating; he says the A.I. would have so much more in its database. Indeed, many people tell
me they hope that as Siri, the digital assistant on Apple’s iPhone, becomes more advanced,
“she” will be more and more like a best friend — one who will listen when others won’t.

During the years I have spent researching people and their relationships with technology, I
have often heard the sentiment “No one is listening to me.” I believe this feeling helps
explain why it is so appealing to have a Facebook page or a Twitter feed — each provides
so many automatic listeners. And it helps explain why — against all reason — so many of
us are willing to talk to machines that seem to care about us. Researchers around the world
are busy inventing sociable robots, designed to be companions to the elderly, to children,
to all of us.

One of the most haunting experiences during my research came when I brought one of
these robots, designed in the shape of a baby seal, to an elder-care facility, and an older
woman began to talk to it about the loss of her child. The robot seemed to be looking into
her eyes. It seemed to be following the conversation. The woman was comforted.
 And so many people found this amazing. Like the sophomore who wants advice about
dating from artificial intelligence and those who look forward to computer psychiatry, this
enthusiasm speaks to how much we have confused conversation with connection and
collectively seem to have embraced a new kind of delusion that accepts the simulation of
compassion as sufficient unto the day. And why would we want to talk about love and loss
with a machine that has no experience of the arc of human life? Have we so lost
confidence that we will be there for one another?

ARTICLE 2- VARIETIES OF ENGLISH

In defense of English in the Philippines

The point isn't what your accent is, but whether you are saying something substantial and using
the language elegantly

Sylvia Estrada Claudio

Published 11:00 AM, March 21, 2016
Updated 7:24 AM, April 18, 2016

There is a tale my father would tell me about a wealthy uncle of mine who would visit our home
when I was a child with a stack of American-made chocolate bars. Growing up in a world of
protectionist trade barriers, foreign chocolates were a major treat.

But before I or my siblings could have those chocolates, my uncle would close his eyes and have
us speak to him in English. And then, with great delight he would chuckle and say, “sounds like
an American.”

Looking back over the years, I wonder what all that was about. Because when I started visiting
the US, the natives there would often play a guessing game about where I was from, based on my
accent. They couldn't quite place me. Nowadays, for the sake of convenience, I twist my accent
when I am abroad towards what I think sounds like Philippine English accent and intonation. It
works apparently, or maybe people in the US are just more aware of Filipinos and the different
ways we speak English.

Trying to explain my uncle's behavior, I think he was hearing a mixture of my parent's accents,
the accent taught me in school, and the accent picked up watching Popeye the Sailor Man and
Casper the Friendly Ghost. He must have been hearing the cartoons.

Spanish English
My uncle is from a very old wealthy family. I can't remember his accent now and he has passed
on. But like many families of old wealth in the Philippines his parents spoke Spanish and he
spoke Spanish. I suspect his English accent must have been nuanced by Castellano.

I tread very lightly here, knowing how politically loaded and regulated the usages are, but I will
refer to it only in terms of how my uncle and local old wealth see the distinction. Philippine
wealth is “old” if it traces its beginnings to the Spanish colonial period. In short, citing Victor
Hugo, the great crime that started their wealth was committed when we were a colony of Spain –
likely necessitating collaboration with the colonizers. This explains why old wealth in
Philippines insists on speaking the language of the groups that dominated Spain during the
centuries of European colonialism. They certainly did not want to sound like the equally
downtrodden Latin Americans speaking Español.

I thought these were matters of the past until I got snubbed by old wealth recently at a Spanish
restaurant. I was ordering in Español, and was told that my pronunciation was declasse. Not
wanting to get into an argument, I kept my peace. Given my socialist leanings, I chose to speak
Español when I was asked by the online Spanish course I took, which option I preferred.

American accent

The point I am making is accents are very much an elitist issue in the Philippines, as it is in other
parts of the world. I am particularly enamored by the theory put forward by some scholars that in
our daily life, the biggest indicator of being part of the Philippine elite is whether you come from
one of the top universities. Often enough, one doesn't have to proclaim one's alma mater. It's just
that when people speak, others can often tell whether their accents were drilled into them by
expensive private school teachers or poorly paid public school teachers.

Recently deejays on radio are all into showing off their “Amurrican” accents, in the hopes, I
suppose, that I will mistake them for FilAms. What do I know? Frankly I find the exploding “t”
painful to my ears. And they don't sound like my friends from the East Coast. More California, I
think, where Filams are most numerous. Or, something more in my experience, they also sound
like call center agents.

But what irritates the hell out of me is when deejays and broadcast journalists mispronounce
Filipino terms in order to sound American such as when the “Philippine peso” gets mangled to
sound like the “Philippine paysow.” It is the height of colonial mentality that those who certainly
know how to pronounce a Filipino term the way Filipinos pronounce it, should mispronounce it
for the sake of sounding like a non-native. In fact, it is also a misguided form of elitism because
real language snobs attempt to pronounce French words like the French, Scottish terms like the
Scots, Filipino words like the Filipinos, and so on. It seems to me the height of irony that those
who are being snobbish about their English, are actually using English badly.
So when these media people speak this way, I cannot distinguish them from call center agents
because they are obviously speaking for a US audience rather than a Filipino one. Talk about
looking down on your own public! As for speaking in English in a way understood by the
average American consumer, I am reminded of the line in the Broadway play, “My Fair Lady”
where the very British Professor Higgins notes that in the US, “they haven't been speaking
English for years.”

Stop the nonsense

So let's just stop all the nonsense. As our linguists and language teachers will tell you there is no
single group that owns the proper pronunciations. In short, an accent is merely an accent. Your
accent is your accent. Take for example the way the Batangueño has a very different accent from
the Bulakeño when they speak Tagalog. This is an endless source of delight for me, a Quezon
City girl. But I think none of our accents are superior.

The same is true of English. We have various accents when we speak English but all of it is
Philippine English and none of it is classier than the other except to those fools who play this
undemocratic and pretentious game of verbal class politics.

And that kind of elitism is unacceptable. It leads to students in a not-so-upper-class university

teasing another student who is even poorer than they are that her accent is cheap just because
most of them spoke with Tagalog lilts instead of her Ilonggo one.

It leads to UP Tacloban students, transferred to Diliman after Typhoon Haiyan, who dared not
take the opportunity of improving their conversational English with one of our professors from
the English Department because they were afraid their accents were wrong.

So let a thousand English accents flourish. I swear there is not yet a Philippine English accent I
have come across that I didn't understand. It matters very little to me that a foreigner may need
translation from English to..er.. English. (I once visited the southern US and completely failed to
understand that the server was offering me a piece of pie. “Wahnt sum pah?” is what I heard her
say.)

All English spoken in the Philippines is merely Philippine English. A different way of speaking
English from that in the US, or Great Britain or India or Africa. The point isn't what your accent
is, but whether you are saying something substantial and using the language elegantly.

So I say, “Mabuhay, Pinoy English!” – Rappler.com

Rubrics

Content (20 points)

 Content indicates synthesis of ideas, in depth analysis and evidences original thought and support
for the topic/ question.
 Main points well developed with high quality and quantity support. Reveals high degree of
critical thinking.
Structure/Organization (15 points)
 Writing shows high degree of attention to logic and reasoning of points. Unity clearly leads the
reader to the conclusion and stirs thought regarding the topic/ question.
Grammar/Conventions (10 points)
 Essay is free of distracting spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors; absent of fragments,
comma splices, and run-ons
 Word choice and usage
 Sentence structure and variety

Attention to Directions (5 points)

 Essay follows the paragraph length
 Essay is typed, double spaced, has 1-inch margins, and is in Century Gothic (12 pt.) font