My paper is about examining the communication doctors and their patients, and how to improve this relationship. The most common perception shared by doctors is to "dumbdown" to the patients level, because no patients, not having any history in medicine, will be understand the doctors at all. My father is an endocrinologist and he claims that he speaks very differently to his patients that he does with his patients. Every little word and tone its given in affects the patients behavior and how his feelings. Abel says that if a doctor were to increase the frequency of sounds associated with lightness and fastness, the patient seemed to be able to cope with their illness and handle it well because it does not seem bad. And if doctors were to use smaller medical terms than long ones, patients would feel more comfortable and not as worried that they are about to die.
Other doctors believe that grad students should take more humanities classes in order to be able to talk to patients easier, and being able to get the point across. Bibliotherapy has come up alot through my research. It basically means therapy through books. This deals with people just reading to help out so they talk more fluidly so other people (like their patients) can understand them better. Dysart believes that bibliotherapy is believed to negotiate the space between medicine and the patient's lifeworld. Several editorials give evidence by showing the patients view of the doctor and vice versa. Charles believe that patients feel overriden and overpowered many times by doctor, which obviously makes the patient feel insecure and worried. Doctors need only to find a middle ground with the patients so that everyone feels good. My father claims that the patient should have trust in their doctors and everything handles better.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Final paper #2
Words and its definitions have been constantly changing since the beginning of the English Language. Some jump back and forth between definitions over time and many have dual meaning that are still debated or misunderstood to this day. I believe that people are the cause for the misperception of certain words causing them to change meanings. Most debated words are ones that can be offensive if taken in the negative connotation. I believe that these changes or misperceptions of the definition certain word indicates negative things about our language and our culture as a whole. ‘Gay’ is a word that I find to be misperceived in a bad way. I, however, do not find it offensive at all. It goes by what the definition says it is in the dictionary and if people can not handle that then that is their problem.
The word ‘gay’ has two common definitions ever since it was introduced in the English Language. It first appeared around 1425 used as an adjective meaning: of persons, their attributes and actions, full of or dispersed to joy and mirth, manifesting or characterized by joyous mirth, light-hearted, exuberantly cheerful, sportive, and merry: “A lay Of love..made hire herte fressh and gay” (OED). Clearly at first there was no derogatory use of this word in anyway. The first rather negative definition of the word occurred around the 1930s when it meant a homosexual. I believe that this definition originated from the first, because gay men are viewed as being more lively and cheerful than straight men. Still, this definition is just a noun and I think it is the same as saying a whale is a mammal. It is just another term for the word and not as specific.
Gay began to be used as a verb around 1950 and it meant to make gay, to give a bright and pleasant look to, or to embellish. Again, nothing came to my attention that this word should be debated or misunderstood as anything negative. The first real bad use of this word occurred around 1978 when it meant foolish, stupid, socially disapproving like “That is gay.” However, this was used in slang English. Nowadays, it has become very popular and used in everyday conversation. The two main definitions people apply with the word gay these days are foolish, stupid and homosexual. Personally, I believe that this word should stick to its original two meanings and leave the slang one out, because the newest definition is what I believe started the word being used in a nugatory way.
In order for me to have found out what people thought whether this word was derogatory or not was to survey several of my friends. Out of the 25 I questioned, 13 thought it was always used as a derogatory term, 7 did not believe so, and only 5 believed that it depended upon the context of the word. The 5 believed that it was not negative when it meant something of a homosexual-like nature; however, they did believe it was derogatory when it meant that someone was stupid or socially disapproving. From these surveys, I firmly believe that it depends upon the individual and how he approaches the meaning of the word. In my case, I do not find it offensive in anyway. When people tell me that I am gay, I do not mind it at all because I find it a foolish thing to call someone. Whenever any of my friends use it, it usually is a joke and never hurts anyone at all. People tend to just brush it to the side and forget it ever happened.
I believe that this word started to be offensive because of the media, including movies and TV shows. Even though I see the word used as a joke, it still offends people in certain ways.
However, several people that are gay do take this in a derogatory sense. I find that those that are comfortable with their sexuality do not mind being called gay; however, those who are not as comfortable with their sexuality take this offensively, because they feel as if they are being looked down upon from society. People that have low self-esteems, homosexual or not, can take the word as being demeaning as well. No one likes to be called dumb or stupid to their face, so it is not hard to believe that certain individuals take offense to this word.
Though I believe that this is not a derogatory term, I think that it gives a negative view about our language and culture. First of all, gay has no definitive derogatory term in the Websters dictionary so why should it be taken in that way, however many words in the dictionary have been altered to mean something offensive; therefore, I still believe it depends on the individual’s status or view in life on how one approaches the word to be offensive or not. But many native English speaking people nowadays have made this out to be hurtful to other people. I still can not comprehend how the definition of the word started out to mean lively, cheerful, and exuberant to being foolish and idiotic. Language is known as the foundation of culture, and with people turning words from its original meaning to a more condescending meaning, it is not hard to believe why people view our culture as being demeaning and violent in the eyes of foreign and domestic people.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
English Paper 2
Words and its definitions have been constantly changing since the beginning of the English Language. Some jump back and forth between definitions over time and many have dual meaning that are still debated or misunderstood till this day. I believe that people are the cause for the misperception of certain words and their definitions. Most debated words are ones that can be offensive if taken in the negative connotation. I believe that these changes or misperceptions of the definition certain word indicates negative things about our language and our culture as a whole. ‘Gay’ is a word that I find to be misperceived in a bad way. I, however, do not find it offensive at all. It goes by what the definition says it is in the dictionary and if people can not handle that then that is their problem.
The word ‘gay’ has two common definitions ever since it was introduced in the English Language. It first appeared around 1310 used as an adjective meaning: of persons, their attributes and actions, full of or dispersed to joy and mirth, manifesting or characterized by joyous mirth, light-hearted, exuberantly cheerful, sportive, and merry. Clearly at first there was no derogatory use of this word in anyway. The first rather negative definition of the word occurred around the 1930s when it meant a homosexual. Still, this definition is just a noun and I think it is the same as saying a whale is a mammal. It is just another term for the word and not as specific. Gay began to be used as a verb around 1950 and it meant to make gay, to give a bright and pleasant look to, or to embellish. Again, nothing came to my attention that this word should be debated or misunderstood as anything negative. The first real bad use of this word occurred around 1978 when it meant foolish, stupid, socially disapproving. However, this was used in slang English. Nowadays, it has become very popular and used in everyday conversation. The two main definitions people apply with the word gay these days are foolish, stupid and homosexual. Personally, I believe that this word should stick to its original two meanings and leave the slang one out, because that is what I believe started the misconception of the word to begin with.
In order for me to have found out what people thought whether this word was derogatory or not was to survey several of my friends. Out of the 25 I questioned, 13 thought it was always used as a derogatory term, 7 did not believe so, and only 5 believed that it depended upon the context of the word. The 5 believed that it was not negative when it meant something of a homosexual-like nature; however, they did believe it was derogatory when it meant that someone was stupid or socially disapproving. Because of these numbers and surveys, I firmly believe that it depends upon the individual and how he approaches the meaning of the word. In my case, I do not find it offensive in anyway. When people tell me that I am gay, I do not mind it at all because I find it a foolish thing to call someone. Whenever any of my friends use it, it usually is a joke and never hurts anyone at all. People tend to just brush it to the side and forget it ever happened.
Though I believe that this is not a derogatory term, I think that it gives a negative view about our language and culture. First of all, gay has no definitive derogatory term in the Websters dictionary so why should it be taken in that way. But many native English speaking people nowadays have made this out to be hurtful to other people. I still can not comprehend how the definition of the word started out to mean lively, cheerful, and exuberant to being foolish and idiotic. This change in definition over time proves to me that our culture can be seen as debasing and demeaning to people. Our culture has always been viewed as angry and violent by others, and I believe that it all began with our diction and that this one word is one bit of evidence to prove it.
The word ‘gay’ has two common definitions ever since it was introduced in the English Language. It first appeared around 1310 used as an adjective meaning: of persons, their attributes and actions, full of or dispersed to joy and mirth, manifesting or characterized by joyous mirth, light-hearted, exuberantly cheerful, sportive, and merry. Clearly at first there was no derogatory use of this word in anyway. The first rather negative definition of the word occurred around the 1930s when it meant a homosexual. Still, this definition is just a noun and I think it is the same as saying a whale is a mammal. It is just another term for the word and not as specific. Gay began to be used as a verb around 1950 and it meant to make gay, to give a bright and pleasant look to, or to embellish. Again, nothing came to my attention that this word should be debated or misunderstood as anything negative. The first real bad use of this word occurred around 1978 when it meant foolish, stupid, socially disapproving. However, this was used in slang English. Nowadays, it has become very popular and used in everyday conversation. The two main definitions people apply with the word gay these days are foolish, stupid and homosexual. Personally, I believe that this word should stick to its original two meanings and leave the slang one out, because that is what I believe started the misconception of the word to begin with.
In order for me to have found out what people thought whether this word was derogatory or not was to survey several of my friends. Out of the 25 I questioned, 13 thought it was always used as a derogatory term, 7 did not believe so, and only 5 believed that it depended upon the context of the word. The 5 believed that it was not negative when it meant something of a homosexual-like nature; however, they did believe it was derogatory when it meant that someone was stupid or socially disapproving. Because of these numbers and surveys, I firmly believe that it depends upon the individual and how he approaches the meaning of the word. In my case, I do not find it offensive in anyway. When people tell me that I am gay, I do not mind it at all because I find it a foolish thing to call someone. Whenever any of my friends use it, it usually is a joke and never hurts anyone at all. People tend to just brush it to the side and forget it ever happened.
Though I believe that this is not a derogatory term, I think that it gives a negative view about our language and culture. First of all, gay has no definitive derogatory term in the Websters dictionary so why should it be taken in that way. But many native English speaking people nowadays have made this out to be hurtful to other people. I still can not comprehend how the definition of the word started out to mean lively, cheerful, and exuberant to being foolish and idiotic. This change in definition over time proves to me that our culture can be seen as debasing and demeaning to people. Our culture has always been viewed as angry and violent by others, and I believe that it all began with our diction and that this one word is one bit of evidence to prove it.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
"Macho"
I am surprised to have read another article in About Language that I completely disagree with in back to back weeks. Castillo Guilbault's "Americanization is Tough on 'Macho'" indicates that macho in Spanish means admiration and respect for another person. However, Americans apparently have distorted the word to the point that it means something completely different. I wish I knew when this was written, because in these present days I have not met one person, American or foreign, who believes that macho means something else that big, physical brute strength. Of all my time in France and other countries, they always express the word by shrugging their shoulders up high acting really big and tough. I also have Spanish friends. Therefore, that is also why I have trouble agreeing with how she viewed the Spanish definition of macho.
When I think of the word macho, I think of the world's strongest man competitions or just a really big, jacked guy. I do not think of it describing someone's work ethic or their personality unlike Guilbault does. Macho is defined in the dictionary as assertive or aggressive manliness, having or characterized by qualities considered manly, or an assertively virile, dominating, or domineering male. All of these definitions are about a man and nothing about being hard-working or responsible. I looked up macho in a Spanish dictionary and it also contradicts Guilbault's view on the word. In Spanish it seems more demeaning to men because one of the examples is a man is macho if he beats his wife and daughters. It also says that it means a tough guy. This is why i can not agree with Guilbault in anyway. Most people in the United States believe macho means a very tough guy and according to the Spanish Dictionary it means the same thing. Personally, I find it neutral and not offensive at all.
When I think of the word macho, I think of the world's strongest man competitions or just a really big, jacked guy. I do not think of it describing someone's work ethic or their personality unlike Guilbault does. Macho is defined in the dictionary as assertive or aggressive manliness, having or characterized by qualities considered manly, or an assertively virile, dominating, or domineering male. All of these definitions are about a man and nothing about being hard-working or responsible. I looked up macho in a Spanish dictionary and it also contradicts Guilbault's view on the word. In Spanish it seems more demeaning to men because one of the examples is a man is macho if he beats his wife and daughters. It also says that it means a tough guy. This is why i can not agree with Guilbault in anyway. Most people in the United States believe macho means a very tough guy and according to the Spanish Dictionary it means the same thing. Personally, I find it neutral and not offensive at all.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Dumbest article ever
Robert Klose's A Rarity: Grammar Lessons from Dad is probably the dumbest article i have ever heard. Klose is basically completely saying that schools are making children dumb and not teaching them proper English. As if he knew everything about English, he is a biology teacher for Gods sake. He might be able to point out the obvious that everyone learns when they are in middle school and thats it. I guarantee if he were to try to compose an essay on anything he wanted to write and turned it in to a high school English teacher, he would fail it or not get as good a grade as he expects. First of all, I really do not believe that the only thing his ex-student said to him was " It was, like, whoa," and never said anything else after that unless that student were retarded. Even in that case, I am sure a retarded person would try to elaborate and explain the cool monuments he or she saw. I think Klose should try to imagine how his child was to talk if his child would not have gone to school at all to learn English. I am sure he would have gone crazy when hearing his children talk after that scenario. Honestly who congratulates their son after saying a correct sentence? "Good adjective use their son, I am very proud of you," if my dad were to talk to me like that I would probably just stare at him as if he were (not was because it is subjunctive, woah) a fool. And if his son does not know what a sentence is comprised of then I think Klose should probably get his son out of that school and move him somehwere where people actually teach. Klose is an ignoramus and I really despise his writing. When I finished this reading, I was, like, woah!
Thursday, February 21, 2008
English 102 2/21/2008
Paul Roberts A Brief History of English seemed to be more of a history lesson than and English reading. He claims that Modern English has been derived from many other languages like Latin, Proto-Indo European, and the Anglo Saxon languages. He indicates that English language started to appear around 600 BC. Only small words came up from other languages and started in England. Beowulf is the most known epic poem of Old English Literature in England. Later on in the article, he keeps going on and on about how Modern English arrived around 1700 AD. Roberts at the very beginning of his article claims that no one can understand the English languages very well until they know how it derived and came to be Modern English that we speak today. I believe that this is not necessary at all because even if you do not know the history of English does not mean that you can not speak it any worse than somebody else who actually knows the past. No one speaks in that tongue at all so why does one need to learn it. It would be like learning Latin the dead language.
Another reason why I do not like this article is because as i stated earlier, it is more of a history lesson than inquiry to language. And more important its a history lesson that really pertains to nothing about the significance of learning the language. One would not be able to speak better English just because he knows how it came about.
Another reason why I do not like this article is because as i stated earlier, it is more of a history lesson than inquiry to language. And more important its a history lesson that really pertains to nothing about the significance of learning the language. One would not be able to speak better English just because he knows how it came about.
Friday, February 8, 2008
linguistic profiling
Patricia Rice's article "Linguistic Profiling" is the most interesting piece i have read in this course so far, because I find everything that was said to be very true. No one can honestly say that they do not judge the person that picks up the phone for the very first time not knowing who they are. I honestly do sometimes change up my diction once I hear the ethnicity, because I feel like they would accept me more and I feel as if I would be able to communicate with them better. Though this does show a little prejudice towards non-Caucasian people, but mostly everyone does it which shows that there is still a problem with out social world.
I can connect closely with this article because I have two parents with thick accents who are judged at first. They do not only get judged through phone calls but in everyday life, especially my mom. At cashier lines, people always act a little different and ask me what she is saying with a weird face. Even when we have gotten stopped by police officers, they have taken a different tone with her just cause of her accent. I believe that the prejudice acts that occur daily are absurd. I am biased just because of my family and the discrimination they have had towards them while I was present. Considering that I can talk English with no accent gives me an upper edge on reality. I can honestly say that Baugh's test for linguistic profiling is true, because my mother and I once tested out this certain situation before. When she called, people seemed to be very short with her and abrupt. However, when I called they seemed to respond to me in a better manner that rather upset me, because it was showing racist acts toward my parents.
I absolutely am in complete agreement with Baugh’s theory about linguistic profiling. It is a problem that needs to be resolved soon enough, because by now we should be able to communicate with each other no matter what race without any discrimination.
I can connect closely with this article because I have two parents with thick accents who are judged at first. They do not only get judged through phone calls but in everyday life, especially my mom. At cashier lines, people always act a little different and ask me what she is saying with a weird face. Even when we have gotten stopped by police officers, they have taken a different tone with her just cause of her accent. I believe that the prejudice acts that occur daily are absurd. I am biased just because of my family and the discrimination they have had towards them while I was present. Considering that I can talk English with no accent gives me an upper edge on reality. I can honestly say that Baugh's test for linguistic profiling is true, because my mother and I once tested out this certain situation before. When she called, people seemed to be very short with her and abrupt. However, when I called they seemed to respond to me in a better manner that rather upset me, because it was showing racist acts toward my parents.
I absolutely am in complete agreement with Baugh’s theory about linguistic profiling. It is a problem that needs to be resolved soon enough, because by now we should be able to communicate with each other no matter what race without any discrimination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)