Example 3 EDC494_A2_Investigation - Copy
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Curtin University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
494
Subject
Communications
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
12
Uploaded by HighnessRookPerson2989
[Type here]
EDC 494 –
Language and Diversity
Assessment
2:
Investigation
Curtin University
Unit Coordinator:
Bich Nguyen
SP 4 – 2019
I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Wiradjuri peoples, the traditional custodians of the land on which I
live, and pay my respects to their Elders, past and present. I recognise and respect their cultural
heritage, beliefs and relationship with the land. I acknowledge all First Nations people as the
traditional custodians of Australia.
Question 1.
[Type here]
Communication across differing cultures can occasionally cause confusion, not only because
of language barriers, but also due to differing cultural norms and the pragmatic transfer from
each speaker’s language knowledge. One element in which communication can differ across
cultures is directness and indirectness. Direct communication involves using clear and
straightforward sentences and language to express a point or request (Good therapy, 2018).
Indirect language and communication employs hints and implications to make a request or
statement, rather than stating the point directly (Joyce, 2012). Directness and indirectness is
often the biggest factor in language and communication breakdowns between two culturally
or linguistically differing groups (Grainger & Mills, 2016). Grainger and Mills (2016) explain
that in English, directness can often be seen as abrupt and brash, and indirectness is a form
of informal politeness. However, the level of directness or indirectness, and whether it is
viewed as polite or impolite, can depend on the cultures of the speakers, their values
towards directness and indirectness, and the relationship of the speakers. Two cultures that differ in their use and interpretation of directness/indirectness is
Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians. Within non-Indigenous Australian
culture and communication, directness is commonly used in place of diplomacy, being direct
in expressing requests or point of views (Government of Canada, 2018). This could be
viewed as a ‘get to the point’ means of communication. This is in contrast to Australia’s
Indigenous population who, when speaking English as a first or additional language, take an
indirect stance when communicating (Maybin & Mercer, 2005). Queensland Health (2015)
outlines that indirect questions and comments are the preferred means of communicating
with Indigenous Australians, especially when engaging with individuals who uses non-
standard English such as Aboriginal English, Kirol, or Torres Strait Creole.
Queensland Health (2015) encourages non-Indigenous Australians to use statements rather
than questions, to elicit a response from Indigenous Australians to avoid misinterpretation or
confusion from direct questioning. Examples of direct and indirect requests between non-
Indigenous Australians, and Indigenous Australians are outlined below;
[Type here]
Non-Indigenous Australian to Non-Indigenous Australian – direct question: “Do you want to
go to the cinema to see a film at 4pm?” (Grainger & Mills, 2016).
Non-Indigenous Australian to Indigenous Australian – statements used to form indirect
request: “I am going to the cinema to see a film at 4pm today.” Pause, wait for
acknowledgment. “You are welcome to come too” (Queensland Health, 2015).
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
[Type here]
Question 2.
Although English is a widely used and studied language across the world, communication
rules and norms differ from culture to culture, and Australian language culture is no different.
Language barriers have been an ongoing obstacle within engaging Indigenous Australians
who use English as an additional language (EALD) for decades, especially in the school
setting. However, the use of direct and indirect language can mean the difference between
an Indigenous individual actively listening and engaging in effective conversation, and those
being left behind due to communication misunderstandings. In the 2016 book Directness and Indirectness across cultures, Grainger and Mills outline
theoretical perspectives on directness and indirectness, and the differences across English
speaking cultures, from both bilingual and monolingual perspectives. Grainger and Mills
(2016) suggest that native English speakers are commonly indirect in their communication
as a form of politeness. However, they continue by explaining that this can be subjective
depending on the relationship of the speakers, and the formality of the setting. Grainger and
Mills (2016) highlight that by being direct can come across as brash and impolite, however in
certain social settings such as a boss speaking to an employee, or two close friends
conversing, speaking indirectly can appear ambiguous or indecisive in their requests or
statements. This sentiment is backed by Joyce (2012), who outlines that direct speakers can
find indirect communicators to be manipulative, passive aggressive and even deceptive
(Joyce, 2012, p. 2; Griffith, 2011 as cited in Joyce, 2012, p. 2). Joyce’s 2012 paper The
impact of direct and indirect communication highlights the importance of acknowledging
directness and indirectness as a barrier in communicating effectively with new people. It is
an informative piece, outlining the differentiation of directness and indirectness within
communication and how to explain this to newer members of the University of Iowa, in order
to avoid conflict due to communication barriers across both national and international
visitors. Across the paper Joyce references linguist Debora Tannen, who claims that
‘indirectness is a fundamental element in human communication’, however she continues
[Type here]
that it is also an element that varies the greatest from culture to culture, causing the most
confusion in communication (Tannen, 1994, p. 79 as cited in Joyce, 2012). Although Joyce’s
paper was written based on an American perspective, its content is relevant and appropriate
when looking at the directness of non-Indigenous Australians and the communication
barriers with EALD Indigenous Australians who typically engage in indirect communication
(Queensland Health, 2015).
While researching the differences and barriers in communication styles when working with
Australia’s Aboriginal community there are various government sources, and advice pages
available. Queensland Health’s Communicating effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander People was selected for this review due to its frank and clear information and
guidelines regarding effective communication with Aboriginal people. It is an information
sheet that provides a guide for non-Indigenous health workers, and others, to communicate
effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. As outlined in question one,
Queensland Health (2015) claims indirect communication is common among Indigenous
Australians, especially those who do not speak standard Australian English as their first
language or dialect. The information sheet suggests to use indirect statements when making
requests, this is to avoid misunderstanding or direct questioning causing the individual to
become overwhelmed and avoid participation within the conversation (Queensland Health,
2015). This information is backed by Maybin and Mercer (2005) who explain that when
eliciting information from others, Aboriginal Australians will use questions such as “you been
to town?” rather than a direct question such as “where have you been?”, using a round-
about way of asking where someone has been, without using direct language (p. 28).
Maybin and Mercer’s book Using English: from conversations to canon focuses on the
evolving and varied use of English across the world and how it is used among different
cultures. Within the book they include a chapter focusing on the strategies Indigenous
Australians use when engaging in Aboriginal English. In addition to their comments
regarding making indirect questions and requests, Maybin and Mercer explain that opinions
[Type here]
are also expressed in an indirect manner to avoid overstepping personal boundaries or
engaging a sense of ‘shame’ (2005, p. 29-30). Von Sturmer (1981 as cited in Maybin &
Mercer, 2005) explains that by using disclaimers and indirect statements, individuals are
able to use caution and to not come across too forceful with their opinions.
Another form of indirect communication used by Indigenous Australians is the casual use of
the word ‘Yes’ when engaged in conversation. Queensland Health (2015) explains that many
Aboriginal Australians use ‘yes’ as an answer while engaged in conversation even if they do
not agree or understand what the other person is saying. The Commissioner for Children
and Young People, Western Australia [CCYPWA] (2018) reiterates this notion in their 70
page document titled Engaging with Aboriginal children and young people toolkit
.
Throughout the toolkit, CCYPWA outlines relevant issues and complications various services
have when engaging with Aboriginal children and young people. It provides information and
examples of ways to communicate effectively with Aboriginal children and young people.
CCYPWA (2018) explain that the word ‘yes’ is often used to avoid conflict or disagreement
(p. 27). This can be viewed as a means of indirect communication, due to its lack of
engagement or acknowledgement in what the other speaker is saying. Rather than using
directness in offering their opinion or explaining they do not understand the question or
statement, Indigenous individuals reply with ‘yes’ because they think that is what the other
person wants to hear, or because they want the conversation to end but do not want to be
rude in cutting the conversation short (CCYPWA, 2018; Queensland Health, 2015). The use
of the word yes as an indirect answer causes confusion and miscommunication implications,
especially in situations where the other speaker is being direct. Maybin and Mercer (2005)
provides examples of this, such as settings where a non-Indigenous speaker is using direct
questioning such as police interviews, court, medical examinations or even the school
classroom. If an Aboriginal person is feeling intimidated or confused by the direct statements
or questions, responding with ‘yes’ is a way of ending the uncomfortable situation, however it
may not be the answer they want to get across.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
[Type here]
Throughout these documents, it is evident that there are many forms in which directness and
indirectness can cause communication barriers between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Australians. By considering directness and indirectness when speaking with EALD
Indigenous people, language barriers may be broken and result in effective engagement in
conversation and learning.
[Type here]
Question 3.
Profile of students:
The students are a year 7 history class at a school in remote New South Wales. The class is
made up mostly of EALD Indigenous Australian students who speak English as a second or
third language or dialect, as well as a small percentage of non-Indigenous students who
speak English as their only language. Most of the local Indigenous population speak their
traditional language as their L1, with Standard Australian English (SAE), and in some cases
Aboriginal English as their L2. Many of the Indigenous students appear to struggle when
they are singled out to answer a question out loud when the educator has called on them.
This becomes more apparent when the educator asks multiple questions in a row, for
example; ‘Tell me what you think might have happened next, and why do you think this?’. Implications in the classroom:
Working with students who have varying ability in speaking SAE or Aboriginal English may
present as challenging, especially in ensuring all students have the same opportunities to
learn and engage within the one classroom. Harrison (2011) states that until recently, SAE
was often the only form of English used within classrooms with high Indigenous population.
However, he explains that by incorporating Aboriginal English into the classroom has a
higher success rate for effective engagement and learning (2011). Harrison (2011, p. 122)
claims research has proven that by incorporating Aboriginal English as a bridge to learning
SAE will enhance the student’s grasp of SAE, not only in oral form but also in written
language. Steele and Wigglesworth (2018, p. 72) back this theory with their claim that it is
essential for teachers working with Indigenous students to incorporate culture and literacy in
their first language to improve educational outcomes.
As outlined in Questions 1 and 2, it is not only a language barrier that prevents students from
engaging effectively. Direct forms of communication can be intimidating to Indigenous
students, and the implications for teachers within the classroom extend further than just
[Type here]
breaking through the language barrier. In addition to incorporating Aboriginal English into the
learning environment, allowing opportunities for students to feel comfortable in engaging in
discussion is equally important. CCYPWA (2018) suggests using open ended questions to
evoke an explanation to the question, rather than a yes or no answer. However, it is
important to avoid compounding questions that may intimidate or confuse the student
(Queensland Health, 2015). Example of strategies in the classroom:
Teaching students who generally communicate indirectly, to be direct would be a daunting
experience for most students involved. Aboriginal Australians often feel a deep sense of
shame when they are put in uncomfortable position, and this can result in them disengaging
and not participating at all (Harris, 2011). A strategy to assist students in learning to
communicate directly in SAE could be to provide a statement for open debate, students are
then given the opportunity to come up with a direct response over the course of a lesson,
allowing for opportunity for assistance from the teacher, before they put forward their
arguments for or against the statement. In doing this, students are able to use the teacher
for reassurance to ensure they are on the right track, avoiding opportunities to feel shame,
and are able to create a direct rebuttal for debate. Another strategy that can be used to encourage direct communication is the use of Yarning
circles. CCYPWA (2018) encourage educators to implement Yarning circles, or side-by-side
group time, as a tool to get students to engage in group discussion. Yarning circles allows
students to sit together on the same level, and answer questions as a group (CCYPWA,
2018). This strategy may reduce the risk of shame, encouraging direct communication
between students and educator.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
[Type here]
References
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different? Journal of
Pragmatics 11
(2), 131-146. https://www-sciencedirect-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/science/article/pii/
0378216687901925
Commissioner for Children and Young People WA. (2018). Engaging with Aboriginal children
and young people toolkit.
Retrieved from https://www.ccyp.wa.gov.au/media/2919/engaging-with-aboriginal-children-and-
young-people-toolkit-complete.pdf
Global affairs Canada, Government of Canada. (2018). Australia. Retrieved from https://www.international.gc.ca/cil-cai/country_insights-apercus_pays/ci-ic_au.aspx?
lang=eng#cn-1
Good Therapy (2018). Direct communication. Retrieved from https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/direct-communication
Grainger, K. and Mills, S. (2016). Directness and indirectness across cultures.
Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/content/pdf/10.1057%2F9781137340
399.pdf
Harrison, N. (2011). Teaching and learning in Aboriginal Australia. South Melbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press.
Joyce, C. (2012). The impact of direct and indirect communication. The newsletter of the International Ombudsman Association. Retrieved from https://uiowa.edu/conflictmanagement/sites/uiowa.edu.conflictmanagement/files/
Direct%20and%20Indirect%20Communication.pdf
[Type here]
Le Couteur, A. (1996). Indirectness and politeness in requesting: an analysis in sociolinguistic and pragmatic aspects in an Australian context. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Katie/Downloads/02whole%20(1).pdf
Maybin, J. and Mercer, N. (2005). Using English from conversation to canon.
Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=tDKJPUv23hMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA28&dq=directness+and+indirectness+i
n+aboriginal+australians&ots=ZUOrT6iB5Y&sig=dVqE8Y9FDCh6jEADUITigaVhqro#
v=onepage&q&f=false
Meng, N. (2008). Making requests: A pragmatic study of Chinese mother-child dyads. In Chan, M. K. M. and Kang, H. (Eds),
Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-20)
(1011-1022)
. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University. Retrieved from https://naccl.osu.edu/sites/naccl.osu.edu/files/67_meng-n.pdf
Oxfam Australia. (2015). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural protocols.
Retrieved from https://www.oxfam.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-74-atsi-cultural-
protocols-update_web.pdf
Queensland Health. (2015). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural capability. Retrieved from https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/151923/communicating.pd
f
Rendle-Short, J. and Moses, K. (2010). Taking an interactional perspective: examining children’s talk in the Aboriginal Australian community of Yakanarra. Australian Journal of Linguistics 30
(4), 397-421. doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1080/07268602.2010.518553
[Type here]
Steele, C. and Wigglesworth, G. (2018). Teaching English as an additional language or dialect to young learners in Indigenous contexts. In R. Oliver and B. Nguyen (Eds.). Teaching young second language learners. New York: Routledge
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help