Lng11118: Understanding Language in the Global Workplace Coursework 2 Q&A

Lng11118: Understanding Language in the Global Workplace Coursework 2 Q&A

Get free samples written by our Top-Notch subject experts for taking academic writing services.

Lng11118: Understanding Language in the Global Workplace Coursework 2

Question A

The text is assessed from a pragmatic viewpoint, initially, and it is showcased that Terry was polite while discussing the issue and conversing to motivate the team towards investigating the alternatives. The context, here, was to investigate which alternative will be more feasible to mitigate the risk of revised standards of the EU. Both parties met principles of communication by greeting formally instead of jumping directly to the issue. Appreciating ideas and their determination is also part of the principles of communication. The goal of the speaker was to find the solution to meet the revised standards so the flow of goods to the EU market is not disrupted or stopped forever. The presumed knowledge of the audience includes the trust that Terry has in the team. There is a low force exerted on the team by Terry as he asks them politely to discuss ideas and investigate the feasibility of both alternatives (Stevenson, Lindley, and Murlo, 2017). By applying Saussure’s Linguistic theory, we can break down the piece of text to make it more comprehensive. The text is Synchronic as it discusses the elements and issues of the present time. It is also Diachronic because the linguistic system was formed based on past conversations and shortcomings in communications. All the elements of pragmatism were achieved because of evolution in the communication process as explained by Saussure. Speech (language), here, was effectively put forward by speaking (parole) using assertive and positive words along with simple terminology as the part of Language (langue). The sentences were in English and a systematic chain of words was defined as syntagms by the theorist (Holvoet, 2020). The chain of sentences gradually inclined towards the issue of standard weight revised by the EU. The conversation highlights that Terry being the leader was responsible for communicating the issue and motivating the team without stressing them about the consequences for not meeting the standards. This highlights the approach of Terry to be solution-oriented and this must be affected by the social side and individual viewpoint that gave structure to the speech. Sapire-Whorf theory is limited to their hypothesis of linguistic relativity and breaking down the speech will not be wise here as the nationality of each party is not determined. The theory states that how one thinks is dependant on one's language which is an embedded part of one's culture but here, we see that the communication cannot be analyzed using this theory as no instance showcases a differential linguistic aspect of any of the parties. Moreover, the theory has some unignored drawbacks such as generalizing perceptions based on the language of an individual which might be true in certain cases but the era of globalization, these cases have reduced considerably. Americans, Indians, Chinese, work together and communicate according to the predetermined structure. This implies that relative linguistic theory has lost its significance in the era of concentrated integration of cultures and economies (Holvoet, 2020).

Question B

The issue raised by Terry was the absence of quality check of honey manufactured in Romania and Derek highlighted issues related to the translation of instructions about the same. The first assumption that the instructions might not have been communicated is cleared because Derek informs about a translator who was fluent in Romanian Language but not a native speaker. Now, after analysing the issue, it can be discerned that the miscommunication must be due to Qualitative or quantitative impoverishment as it is stated that the translation might have insufficiently focused on the quality check. This under-emphasis on quality check highlighted Qualitative impoverishment as the expressions lacked sonorous richness or underlying iconic richness of the original message. If we evaluate the issue from Blum-Kulka’s theory, the cohesion element of the translation was distorted. The foremost is the low level of explicitness as the translator didn't emphasize quality check as meant in the original language. And there is a possibility that he missed some important parts of the original text that distorted the meaning. So, the style and texture of the original content and concept were lost in the process (Károly, 2017). Terry stated that there was a negligible result that was derived from the efforts of the translator concerning quality check of the honey and therefore, the issue also showcased coherence problem as the reader of the text or receiver of the text were natives and the translator was just a person well-versed in the language and the difference between theory and practice of language-speaking can be considered here as an aspect affecting the outcome. This text-focused shift has led to the emergence of the issue (Károly, 2017). Derek wisely suggests sending a team of indigenous translators consisting of English-speakers and native-Romanian speakers and quality control personnel. This solution depicts a dual focus approach that includes having equal members of speakers of different languages concerned with the objective of quality check. By having native Romanians translators and English speakers along with the control team, linguistic and conceptual equivalence can be attained by the concept-driven translation. The team is well-informed about the costly affair but have determined the effect of this solution to be successful and profitable for the long run. The issue arose because there was tension regarding the inaccurate combination and formation of translated text that has waned the core objective of the original text (Baer and Witt, 2017). The elements of translation such as equivalence and functionality helped to determine the issue in the translation. Due to under-emphasises, the functionality of the text was impeded and it is assumed that the translated text was not equivalent to the concept embedded in the original text. The Eloquence of the translated text is largely determined by its ability to uphold the core idea of the source. Here, the translation completely missed its mark and therefore the issue was raised by Terry after examining the situation (Baer and Witt, 2017).

Question C

It is true that even while communicating in the same languages, differences might arise. This can be attributed to the communication styles pertinent in a specific culture. It is highlighted in the text that Americans have a low-context communication style as everything has to be explicitly communicated to them. The problem might be that the team in the USA might not have been told to discontinue the prior practice of monthly checks and only carry on the new

3-hour spot check. There is a possibility of other reasons as well such as missing on some vital information or the introduction must not be carried out effectively in the subsidiary. If we apply Voloshinov’s theory that exhorts the existence of an individual's ideology in the language spoken in a specific culture or class. This mental framework that embeds the ideology in the context of a certain text is largely attributed to social psychology. This emphasizes the need to interact with the other party by being physically present before them to comprehend the essence of the communication from their viewpoint (Lap, 2020) . Furthermore, it contradicts the validity of linguistic relativism propounded by Sapir-Whorf. It stated that the influence of language on the perception and context of the message is imperative and also rolled out a hypothesis to support his theory that language along with time and space impacts an individual's thought process.

The role of linguistic relativism is quite low as both the parties, the USA team and Terry's team communicated in the same language, however, some words are uncommon in the other culture and this might have impeded the interaction (Maras, 2017). For instance, in England, the floor at the street level is known as the ground floor, whereas in America, it is called the first floor. So linguistic issues cannot be completely ignored even after being well-informed about the homogeneity of language in both cultures. So, there are fractional possibilities of the originality of the message to get distorted due to some minor differences in language but majorly it is attributed to the socio-psychological ideology and perception that is different in both countries. The emphasis on the new criteria for checking the quality might not be perceived in the same context as communicated by Terry to the USA team. There is also a possibility that the instructions were perceived as an alternate choice and not as the ultimate decision. Therefore, the team presumed that they had a choice to follow either of the ways they have been made familiar to (Maras, 2017).

The solution proposed by Terry to physically examine the issue by travelling to the USA will help determine the true elements of the issue and ascertain the impact of language on the communication process that was insufficient to convert the message into functionality. The issue is presently analyzed based on guesswork and assumptions and there is high scope of the issue being pertained to some other aspects (Lap, 2020).

References

Baer, B.J. and Witt, S., 2017. Introduction: The Double Context of Translation. In Translation in Russian Contexts (pp. 1-16). Routledge.

Holvoet, A., 2020. The Saussurean sign and its Place in Contemporary Linguistic Theory. Semiotika, 15, pp.56-77.

Károly, K., 2017. Aspects of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Lap, N.T., 2020. VOLOSHINOV’S PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE: SIGNAL, SIGN, LANGUAGE, AND VERBAL INTERACTION. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 36(5).

Maras, S., 2017. Towards a critique of universalism in screenwriting criticism. Journal of Screenwriting, 8(2), pp.177-196.

Stevenson, J.L., Lindley, C.E. and Murlo, N., 2017. Retrospectively assessed early motor and current pragmatic language skills in autistic and neurotypical children. Perceptual and motor skills, 124(4), pp.777-794.