A Book Report Of Robinson Crus :: essays research papers

A Book Report of Robinson Crusoe By Daniel Defoe The Book Robinson Crusoe is an adventure story about a man named Robinson Crusoe who’s bad luck puts him alone on a desolate island. He has to survive through very tough conditions and keep his sanity. Throughout the book Crusoe question’s himself and his faith time and time again, "Why did god put me on this island all alone." His faith in god fluctuates all through the story. At one point he becomes ill and his faith in god becomes so great he starts to read the bible every morning and night. This book is one that keeps the reader attached to find out "what is going to happen next". The story begins when against his parents he sets out to sea. After being told by many he was not a sea worthy he kept moving on. Soon he finds himself a slave on a ship, but against the odds he escapes and starts a sugar plantation in Brazil. He sets out to sea once again but this time he is going to Africa to get slaves for his plantation. On his way he meets some bad luck and his ship gets wrecked. Crusoe, being the only survivor swims, to a island and is stuck there for 15 years before he finds other human life. During the 15 years he builds a home and tries to survive as best as he can. He keeps track of the days by writing in his journal. He also wonders why he was chosen by god to be the only survivor of the wreck and why he was put on this island alone. He soon finds other humans but with more bad luck he also finds out they are cannibals. He rescues some savages who were held captive by the cannibals and makes plans to leave the island by means of a man made boat. This is when he spots a ship offshore. The go out to the ship and find out there is a mutiny on board. They soon take control of the ship. The caption is so happy that takes Crusoe and his men back to England where he sells his plantain which since grew and becomes wealthy and marries. He went on one final voyage to the islands where he spent half of his life where there is promises of new adventures.

Classical Economists :: essays research papers

As a coherent economic theory, classical economics start with Smith, continues with the British Economists Thomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo. Although differences of opinion were numerous among the classical economists in the time span between Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776) and Ricardo’s Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), they all mainly agreed on major principles. All believed in private property, free markets, and, in Smith’s words, â€Å" The individual pursuit of private gain to increase the public good.† They shared Smith’s strong suspicion of government and his enthusiastic confidence in the power of self-interest represented by his famous â€Å"invisible hand,† which reconciled public benefit with personal quest of private gain. From Ricardo, classicists derived the notion of diminishing returns, which held that as more labor and capital were applied to land yields after a certain and not very advanced stage in the progress of agriculture steadily diminished. The central thesis of The Wealth of Nations is that capital is best employed for the production and distribution of wealth under conditions of governmental noninterference, or laissez-faire, and free trade. In Smith’s view, the production and exchange of goods can be stimulated, and a consequent rise in the general standard of living attained, only through the efficient operations of private industrial and commercial entrepreneurs acting with a minimum of regulation and control by the governments. To explain this concept of government maintaining laissez-faire attitude toward the commercial endeavors, Smith proclaimed the principle of the â€Å"invisible hand†: Every individual in pursuing his or her own good is led, as if by an invisible hand, to achieve the best good for all. Therefore any interference with free competition by government is almost certain to be injurious. Although this view has undergone considerable modification by economists in the light of historical developments since Smith’s time, many sections of The Wealth of Nations notably those relating to the sources of income and the nature of capital, have continued to form the basis of theoretical study of the field of political economy. The Wealth of Nations has also served as a guide to the formulation of governmental economic policies. Malthus, on the other hand, in his book An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) imparted a tone of dreariness. Malthus’s main contribution to economics was his theory that a population tends to increase faster than the supply of food available for its needs.

‘I shall obey, my lord’ Essay

‘Where be his quiddities now, his qualities, his cases, his tenures, and his tricks? †¦ †¦ Is this the fine of his fines and the recovery of his recoveries, to have his fine plate full of fine dirt? Will his vouchers vouch him no more of his purchases, and double ones too, than the length and breadth a pair of indentures? The very con- veyances of his lands scarcely lie in this box, and must th’inheritor himself have no more, ha? ‘ (Act:V Scene:i Lines:97-98,103-110) This particular scene would have provokes fierce controversy among the Elizabethan audience because it challenged the fundamental aspects of Christianity. Hamlet claims that no matter how fastidious and kind a person you are during your time on earth God can not shield you from all the evil in the world. Hamlet may have been written by Shakespeare as a controversial this is probably unlikely as in the period he lived in he would have been severely punished by the government if his play had been deemed to be an attack upon the religion of the day. In terms of making the play seem rotten and disorderly, poison and disease played an important role in the play. Old Hamlet’s cause of death of course, was poison that was poured into his ear by his brother. ‘Thus was I, sleeping, by a brother’s hand of life, of crown, of queen at once dispatch’d, Cut off even in the blossoms of my sin,’ (Act:I Scene: v Line:74-76) Claudius had managed to get rid of allot of his problems but such behaviour would have been considered blasphemous by an Elizabethan audience for a man to kill his brother and lust after his sister-in-law. The religious beliefs of the audience would have made them hate the character of Claudius and consider him an evil villain. To an Elizabethan audience women would have been considered the misfortune of all the male characters, which caused many conflicts within the play. If Claudius had not lusted after Gertrude there would have been one less reason for old Hamlet to die. Ophelia was Hamlet’s love but was unable to stay faithful to it but instead chose to fulfil her duties to her father. She told all her secrets regarding Hamlet to her father. To an Elizabethan audience it would seem that Polonius has Ophelia under his control ‘I would not, in plain terms, from this time forth Have you so slander any moment leisure As to give words or talk with the Lord Hamlet. Look to’t, I charge you. Come your ways. ‘ He commands and she obeys. ‘I shall obey, my lord’ (Act:I Scene: iv Lines: 132-136) He commands her to keep Hamlet at a distance and Ophelia trying to be the good Elizabethan daughter does as he commands. But in doing so she looses Hamlet’s trust and his love for her. This results in a love hate relationship which drives Ophelia to commit suicide and her brother being faced with some unfortunate circumstances which leads to him killing Hamlet. Alongside Hamlet’s very eccentric relationship with Ophelia, it is also argued by a modern audience that Hamlet may have had an Oedipus complex. Oedipus was a man in ancient mythology who was cursed to kill his father and marry his mother. Shakespeare knew that most of the people of the time would have known about the story and so added an extra twist to his play. The story he told was a familiar one at the time. All Shakespeare had done was adapt an old fashioned folk story and re-constructed it to feed a common interest among his Elizabethan audience. A modern day audience would have a completely different response to the play having been a part of a modern audience it was a general feeling among the audience that many lives, including Hamlet’s own could have been saved if he had just killed his uncle earlier. A modern audience has been hardened by a lack of religion and constant exposure to scenes of death. A modern audience has more scientific and factual knowledge about their surroundings. Seeing how when a modern day person needs a question answered he/she looks for a reason or deeper understanding to resolve the issue instead of religion hence religion is not really practised as much in modern society. Hamlet’s hesitance to kill his uncle would not have been met with sympathy by a modern audience. To a modern audience Claudius is considered a villain and it really is not of any concern how a villain died. A modern audience would believe that Hamlet should have made the best of his chance to kill Claudius. A modern audience would care less about Hamlet’s reasoning for not killing Claudius because it had much to do with Claudius’s after life as a modern audience has little belief in that we would find it hard to understand the delay Claudius’s death. ‘A villain kills my father, and for that I, his sole son, do this same villain send To heaven. Why, this is hire and salary, not revenge. ‘ (Act:III Scene: iii Lines: 76-79) A modern audience would rather have Hamlet kill Claudius quickly and not dwell on the matter for days on end, it is moral for Claudius to die because the audience knows it is a just act of revenge and the only way for old Hamlet to go to heaven. So when a modern audience looks at Hamlet they see the negative effects of his hesitation. The political themes high-lighted in the play would not have a downbeat impact on a modern audience because we live a democratic society with law and order orchestrated by diplomatic governments and there is democratic control on the way of life and how people conduct them s elves. The exploitation and suffering of women in the play is one of the few things that would disturb a modern audience. The fact that women are treated as property raises concern about the ill treatment of women at the time Hamlet was written. Ophelia is suppressed by her father and brother and Gertrude is stuck between supporting her son or husband. A modern audience to Hamlet will have little idea of the controversy that raged in the Elizabethan period, this is mainly due to the lack of religious zeal among modern society although it is quite interesting to see how important a responsibility religion had in the play, however to the Elizabethan audience the play would have taken on a different and deeper meaning as the repeated religious references would have struck a deep chord in the audience of the day. Consequently it is observable that an Elizabethan audience would have a completely different response to Hamlet than that of a modern audience for the above reasons.

Moments of life Essay

Basically, people have a different memorable socializing moment in their life. Every single minute of their life are valuable so that memorable situation might be happened anytime. Firstly, everybody likes to go to the party. There are different kinds of party which can make a nice moment such as graduation party or birthday party. To illustrate, when you are 18 years old you will have a big party from your people around you. They will create a surprising party for you. Particularly, the gifts will be amazing. Therefore, this event will be one of the best memorable socializing moments in your life. Secondly, some festivals might impress you which you will have a good experience. For instance, Christmas festival, it’s apparently everyone favorable holiday which everyone can do several things on that day namely enjoying a delicious meal or opening a secret gift which is a main tradition of Christmas Day. Hence, many people are going to memorize things they do on this day because it’s a spectacular day for everyone. Eventually, everyone has many friends such as high school friends, neighbors or even upcountry friends. Unfortunately, they are not with you all the time. They live separately from you. Reunion always makes memorable time for them. For example, you have not seen your friends long time ago, and one day they all come to meet you as a reunion party. Certainly, you are definitely going to remember this event forever. Thus, this is not difficult to see that reunion is a wonderful memorable socializing moment. Conclusively, memorable moment is able to happen in every situation. It is depend on you whether you satisfy it or not.

George Washington and Benjamin Franklin Essay

George Washington is a revered figure in history. He was the first President of the United States and one of its beloved Founding Fathers. He was â€Å"Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army upon whose victory the thirteen colonies depended to secure their separate and equal station among the powers of the earth† (Rediscovering George Washington, 2002, Introduction, para. 2). The usual facts aside, George Washington is a study of contrasting character traits, modesty and pride. Washington lived up to his legendary self with an immense awareness of who he was. In the book, Portrait of America (Oates & Errico, 2003), Gordon S. Wood points that Washington’s greatest asset is his character; that he was representative of the 18th-century iconic image of a great man of virtue (Essay #10, II, para. 7 & 8). The eighteenth century was a very different era in many respects from the present that his personal concerns then may sound preposterous now. For example, Wood (2003) detailed that Washington was notoriously aloof in keeping with the image of a classical hero (III, para. 5), something that is bane nowadays for someone who occupies or dreams of coveting the highest office of the land. Wood (2003) exposed that Washington was very meticulous of himself especially in the company of others constantly cultivating the ideals of being a proper gentleman from his physical bearings to his personal manners(II, para. 15). He certainly considered his reputation his treasure and he protected it all his life (III, para. 6). There lies his enigma, the possession of two contrasting traits, modesty and pride. Wood (2003) further emphasized that it was his moral character that set him off from other men (II, para. 7). This moral steadfastness has served him well in tempting moments. It is worthy to know that Washington acknowledged but was quite insecure about his lack of formal education compared to his learned peers. Self-criticism impeded his actions like his refusal to travel to France finding to have a conversation through an interpreter indignant to a man of his stature, as Wood (2003, II, para. 16) pointed out. This shortcoming produced a very modest man who had the humility to surrender his powers and retreat from public life, an unprecedented act in the Western world (Wood, 2003, III, para. 2) and which only enhanced his image of greatness. Throughout history, the intoxication of power has often cultivated greed out of its possessors. Coming out of retirement and leading the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, Washington’s untarnished reputation was crucial to the ratification of the proposed Constitution. His reputation then at stake, he worked hard to have it ratified (Wood, 2003, IV, para. 1). This was the typical Washington work ethic: a concern for validation of his deliberate act in the eyes of his peers then and for the future generation. Being the President of a young nation, Wood (2003) pointed that â€Å"Washington was keenly aware that everything he did would set precedents for the future† (V, para. 1). His political contributions are still pervasive today, a testament to his leadership endurance. Wood (2003) concluded that Washington was responsible for establishing the president’s independent role and for making him a dominant figure in the government. He also set the Senate’s limited advisory role to the president in the making of treaties and the appointment of officials. Most importantly, he single-handedly institutionalized the two-term limit of the presidency that it was included in the 22nd amendment to the Constitution in 1951 (V, para. 2, 3, & 7). Another outstanding Founding Father who is best known for his scientific pursuits than his understated political contribution is Benjamin Franklin. In Portrait of America (Oates & Errico, 2003), Richard B. Morris (Essay #6) described Franklin at the beginning of his essay as â€Å"deceptively simple and disarmingly candid, but in reality a man of enormous complexity†. Like George Washington, Franklin was also concerned about living a virtuous life although he was a much more relaxed character than the famous general. Franklin is one who â€Å"seems made of flesh rather than of marble† (Isaacson, 2003). Both bettered themselves through purposeful self-improvement to make up for their lack of formal education. Franklin was blessed with a myriad of talents he used wisely: he was a writer, printer, entrepreneur, skilled negotiator, diplomat, scientist. He espoused such virtues of diligence, frugality, self-discipline, honesty. He loved making lists and the most significant of such is â€Å"as a young man, he made a list of personal virtues that he determined should define his life† (Isaacson, 2006). Franklin used his pen for his causes proving the commonly known expression, the pen is mightier than the sword. As a prolific writer Franklin wrote under the pseudonyms Mrs. Silence Dogood, a character that showed â€Å"the quintessential genre of American folksy humor† (Isaacson, 2006) then later showed more of his humorous side as Poor Richard Saunders for his annual almanac. Satirical writing is still in practice today especially in the criticism of public figures. His affable nature enabled him to successfully temper dissension during the heated deliberations of the proposed Constitution. He was against tyranny especially slavery despite him having black slaves in 1757. He never hesitated to promote his advocacy for freedom of the press and expression, still very much one of the prevalent rights issues in society today. References Isaacson, W. (2003, June 29). Citizen Ben’s Great Virtues. Time Magazine Online. Retrieved October 16, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.time. com/time/2003/franklin/bffranklin. html. Morris, R. B. (2003). Meet Dr. Franklin. In Oates, S. B. , & Errico, C. J. (Eds. ), Portrait of America: Volume One: To 1877 8th Edition (Essay # 6). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Rediscovering George Washington (2002). PBS. Retrieved October 16, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www. pbs. org/georgewashington/father/index. html. Wood, G. S. (2003). The Greatness of George Washington. In Oates, S. B. , & Errico, C. J. (Eds. ), Portrait of America: Volume One: To 1877 8th Edition (Essay # 10). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Politeness and Culture Essay

1.1 What is politeness? Politeness is a kind of socio-cultural phenomenon in human communication. It has been defined in diverse ways. For Kochman (1984), politeness has a protective mission exercised in putting things in such a way as to take account of the feelings of others: Polite conversation is†¦ a way of showing consideration for other people’s  feelings, that is, not saying or doing anything that might unduly excite or arouse. The ‘gentleman’s agreement’ (though, hardly just confined to adult males) is and was ‘ you don’t do or say anything that might arouse my feelings, and I won’t do or say anything that might arouse yours’†¦ (1984:204) Watts (1992) defines polite behaviour as â€Å"socio-culturally determined behavior directed towards the goal of establishing and/or maintaining in a state of equilibrium the personal relationships between the individuals of a social group, whether open or closed, during the ongoing process of interaction† (1992:50) Therefore, the term â€Å"politeness† may be generally defined as adequate social conduct and tactful consideration of others aiming to avoid interactional conflicts. Politeness can be realized in a number of ways, among which the use of language concerns us most in the present discussion. Politeness is then taken to be the various forms of language structure and usage which allow the members of a socio-cultural group to achieve their conflict-avoiding goals. If politeness is seen as the adequacy of linguistic behavior, then all speakers of different languages are equally polite, since they all have linguistic means at their disposal, which according to their rules of application are adequate in different situations. The concept of politeness, therefore, is universally valid. 1.2 Motives of Being Polite Why do people apologize when they have done something wrong? Why do they compliment on their friend’s hairstyle? In one word, why do people behave appropriately, hence politely? The explanation of such diverse communicative behaviors lies in the consideration of â€Å"face†. Face is thus viewed as a positive public self-image that is maintaining in society. That is, in newly formed contacts the individual engages in establishing a public image for himself. In continued contacts he engages in sustaining and improving the face he has encouraged the others to develop for him. A fundamental preoccupation of people around the world is maintaining or protecting face. Threats to face, whether intended, accidental, or only imagined, are the basis of most interpersonal conflicts. They arise when people feel that their right to a positive self-image being ignored. One conventional way of avioding threats to face in all cultures is to be linguistically polite. To secure this public self-image, people engage in what Goffman calls â€Å"face work†, performing action â€Å"to make whatever they are doing consistent with face†(1967:12), while trying to save their own face as well as the other’s. Goffman (1967) specifies two kinds of face-work: the avoidance process (avoiding potentially face-threatening) acts and the corrective process (performing a variety of redressive acts). However, he says little about how face can be maintained linguistically while damage is occuring. As implied above, face wants are reciprocal, i.e. if one wants his face cared for, he should care for other people’s face. The reason is that, while the individual is absorbed in developing and maintaining his face, the others also have similar considerations for themselves. It is clear that one way of ensuring the maintenance of their own face is to keep everybody’s face undamaged. Normally, the participants during interaction work on the understanding that one will respect the other’s face as long as the other respects his. This point is best expressed by the concise rule in Scripture: Do unto all men as you would they should do unto you. Since face wants are reciprocal, politeness naturally concerns a relationship between two rational participants or interlocutors, whom we may call self and other. In a conversation, self may be identified with speaker or addresser, and other with hearer or addressee. Also it is possible that  speakers show politeness to a third party that is related to interlocutor’s face. 2.0 Language and Culture 2.1 Defining Culture Culture is a large and evasive concept. Sapir (1921) holds that culture may be defined as what a society does and thinks, and language is a particular way of thought. Language, in this way, is part of culture. Culture is also interpreted in the sense of Goodenough’s definition: As I see it, a society’s culture consists of whatever it is one had to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members†¦ Culture, being what people have to learn as distinct from their biological heritage, must consist of the end-product of learning: knowledge, in a most geneal†¦ sense of the term (Goodenough,1954:167). Culture is thus whatever a person must know in order to function in a particular society, including language and conventional behavioral norms that a person must follow or that other people in the society expect you to follow, to get through the task of daily living. When we study a culture, it is not enough to merely learn the knowledge of a language and behavioral norms, as Steinmetz, Bush and Joseph-Goldfare (1994) point out: Studying culture does not mean looking only at customs, insititution, and artifacts†¦, but also studying people’s values, beliefs, and attitudes and how they influence or are influenced by interaction among people. Culture should be studied as a process as well as a product (1994:12). As a combination of these views, culture consists of not only language, behavioural norms, which can be observed, but also values and beliefs underlying them. The famous metaphor of the â€Å"culture iceberg† (Hall & Hall,  1990) indicates that many aspects of culture, such as certain beliefs, world views, and values, are below the surface of consciousness ( in the submerged part of the iceberg). Other aspects of culture, like language, eating habits, customs, are in the conscious area ( above the waterline). It is often the less conscious cultural aspects that influenced the way people communicate with each other. 2.2 Language and Culture We are now in a position to see language and culture in a dialectical relationship. Every language is part of a culture. As such, it cannot but serve and reflect cultural needs. This does not necessarily go against Saussure’s thesis that the signified of a language are arbitrary and hence derive their exact identity from systems of relationships. What needs to be added, however, is that this arbitrariness is not as absolute as he suggested, but is limited by the particular cultural setting from which a language extracts its signified. Within the broad limits set by the specific needs of a culture, a language is free to make arbitrary selections of signifieds. This element of arbitrariness is brone out by the fact that there is of a speech community and its linguistic resources. Thus neither linguistic determinism nor cultural determinism can adequately explain why a language should select its unique system of signs, for these selections are made partly in response to cultural needs and partly owing to the inherent ( limited ) arbitrariness of the process. There is yet another sense in which language is not a passive reflector of culture. Even assuming that culture is in many cases the first cause in the language-culture relationship, language as the effect in the first link of the casual chain will in turn be the cause in the next link, reinforcing and preserving beliefs and customs and conditioning their future course. 3.0 Politeness and Culture 3.1 The Concept of Face In Chinese and English The central to B & L’s politeness theory is the concept of face, and its two concimitant desires—– negative face and positive face, which are defined from the perspective of individual’s wants. B & L maintain that notion of face constituted by these two basic desire is universal (1987:13). This section thus aims to examine whether their notion of face is applicable in Chinese culture. Since they acknowledge deriving their formulation of face from Goffman’s classic account of face and from the English folk notion of face (1987:61), these two sources will be dealt with first. 3.1.1 The Source of B & L’s † Face† The first source is Goffman’s account of face. Goffman characterizes face as â€Å"the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact†. He sees face not as a private or an internalized flow of events, supported by other people’s judgments, and enclosed by â€Å"impersonal agencies in the situation† (1967:7). Seen in this light, face becomes a public image that is on loan to individuals from society, and that will be withdrawn from them if they prove unworthy of it (1967:10). B & L say that their other sources is the English folk concept of face, which is linked to notions like â€Å"being embarrassed of humiliated, or ‘losing face'† (1987:61). But in fact, such notions of face seem to be Chinese in origin. The word â€Å"face† is a literal translation of the two Chinese characters and ( Hu,1944;Ho,1975). Presumably informed of these two sources, B & L characterize face as image that intrinsically belongs to the individual, to the self. This seems to part with their first source considerably. Here, the public characteristic that is essential to Goffman’s analysis of face seems to become an external modifier rather than an intrinsic constituent of this image. 3.1.2 Chinese â€Å"Face† As pointed out above, two Chinese characters and are used to convey the denotative meaning of the word â€Å"face† ( that is, † the front of the head†); they also encode connotative meanings, which have to do with reputable, respectable images that individuals can claim for themselves from communities in which they interact, or to which they belong (Ho,1957). More specifically, stands for prestige or reputation, which is either achieved through getting on in life (Hu, 1944:45), or ascribed by other members of one’s own community. refers to † the respect of the group for a man with a good moral reputation†; it embodies † the confidence of society in the integrity of ego’s moral character†, and it is † both a social sanction for enforcing moral standards and internalized sanction† (Hu, 1944:45). Chinese speakers, therefore, will be seen as being polite if they know how to attend to each other’s and and to enact speech acts appropriate to and worthy of such an image. 3.2 Difference Between Chinese â€Å"Face† and B & L’s â€Å"Face† The first difference is concerned with their overall conceptualization of face—-a difference that has been briefly alluded to above. B & L focus their notion of face primarily upon the individual—-rather than the communal-aspect of face; that is, the self is the principal constituent that contextualizes the concept of face. The self is â€Å"public† only to the extent that it depends on other’s face being manifested (B & L, 1987:61). The self depends on the public only to preserve its own interests. In short, the overall composition of this self-image, with its negative and positive aspects, only concerns the individual’s wants and desires. In contrast, Chinese face encodes a reputable image that individuals can claim for themselves as they interact with others in a given community; it is intimately linked to the views of the community and to the community’s judgment and perception of the individual’s character and behaviour. Chinese face emphasizes not the accommodation of individual â€Å"wants† or â€Å"desires† but the harmony of individual conduct with the views and judgment of the community. Chinese face, to quote Goffman again, is â€Å"on loan†¦from society† (1967:10); it belongs to the individual or to the self only to the extent  that the individual acts in full compliance with that face. The second difference is related to the content of face. B & L conceive of face as consisting of negative face and positive face. Their negative face refers to, and values, an individual’s need to be free of external impositions, a desire to be left alone to enjoy a sense of one’s â€Å"territorial integrity†. â€Å"Privacy† is a particular term used to describe this typical value, which is much more treasured in English culture than in Chinese; whereas Chinese face emphasizes one’s dependence on society’s recognition of one’s social standing and of one’s â€Å"reputable†existence, and subsequently, on society’s endorsement of one’s attending to it. Relatively speaking, Chinese â€Å"face† does not comprise the element of what B & L term â€Å"negative face†. 3.3 Cultural Assumption In this section, the differences of politeness in English and Chinese will be elaborated in terms of the different historicity that the concept of politeness can be traced back to, and of the fundamental cultural assumptions underlying the two different notions of English and Chinese â€Å"face†. 3.3.1 A Historical Review As we have known, privacy is a value derived from B & L’s notion of face. It is a notion embracing at once the freedom, rights, and the independence of action of man. Such a value is closely associated with the emancipation of man from the yokes of the church on the European continent, and with the opening up of the New World on the other side of the Atlantic—-North America. Consequently, showing respct to an individual’s liberty, his rights, his independence in Anglo-American culture, will be considered polite; lack of it will be improper, hence impolite. On the contrary, Chinese culture has had a 2000-year-long history of feudalism. Chinese civilization has been established on agriculture, and †Ã‚  Generations of peasants were tied to the land on which they lives and worked. Except in times of war and famine, there was little mobility, either socially and geographically† (Hu & Grove,1991:1). From this historicity resulted the collective (group-oriented) nature of Chinese value, which was reinforced ideologically in the Confucian tradition, a tradition that advocates subordinating the individual to the group or the community, and maintains that the ultimate goal of human behavior is to achieve harmony, which leads the Chinese to pursue a conflict-free and group-oriented system of an ever-expanding circle of human-relatedness (Chen, 1993). Namely, an individual is presumed not to satisfy the desire for freedom, but to gain self-esteem in harmony with group. Just as English culture values privacy, Chinese culture values harm ony. In modern Chinese, the equivalent of politeness is believed to have evolved in history from the notion of Li . The ancient philosopher and thinker Confucius (551—479 B.C.), in order to restore the harmony of society when there were constant wars between feudal states, advocated restoring Li. Derived from this book are four basic elements of politeness, or what count as polite behaviors: respectfulness, modesty, attitudinal warmth, and refinement. â€Å"Respectfulness† is the self’s positive appreciation of admiration of the other concerning the latter’s face, largely identical with the need to maintain the hearer’s positive face. â€Å"Modesty† can be seen as another way of saying â€Å"self-denigration†; though â€Å"modesty† varies in the importance attached to it in different cultures, it is to a large extent universal, her to interpret it as self-denigration is uniquely Chinese. â€Å"Attitudinal warmth† is the self’s demonstration of kindness, consideration, and hospitality, the speaker runs the risk of infringing on the hearer’s personal freedom, viz. privacy, thus threatening his negative face. Finally, â€Å"refinement† refers to the self’s behavior to the other which meets certain moral standards laid by society; it represents the normative character of politeness in addition to the instrumental aspect. These four essential elements of politeness are believed to manifest themselves in many Chinese speech events. 3.3.2 Two Construals of the Self: Interdependent and Independent If we examine the â€Å"deep structure† from which the two different notions of English and Chinese â€Å"face† can possibly be derived, them they can be said to have been informed metarphorically by two divergent underlying forces (Mao,1994): the centripetal force, which leads Chinese â€Å"face† to gravitate toward social recognition and hierarchical interdependence, and the centrifugal force, which enables English â€Å"face† to spiral outward from individual desires or wants with the self as the initiating agent. The centripetal force and centrifugal force represent two different face orientations, which correspond to two distinct construals of the self: an interdependent construal of the self and an independent construal of the self respectively(Markus and Kitayama, 1991). The independent construal of the self, endorsed by English culture and most Western countries, builds on † a faith in the inherent separateness of distinct persons â€Å". The normative imperative of this culture is to become independent of others and to discover and express one’s unique attributes (Miller, 1988). Thus achieving the cultural goal of independent requires construing oneself as an individual whose behavior is made meaningful primarily by reference to one’s own internal thoughts, feelings, and actions, rather than by reference to those of others; whereas the interdependent construal of the self, favoured by Chinese culture and most East Asian countries, insists on † the fundamental connectedness of human beings to each other†(Markus and Kitayama, 1991:227). A normative imperative of this culture is to maintain this interdependence, therefore, entails seeing oneself as part of an encompassing social relationship and recongnizing that one’s behavior is organized by what the self perceives to be the thoughts, feeling, and actions of others in the relationship, so that the self within such a construal becomes most meaningful and complete. BIBLIOGRAPHY Blum-Kulka, S. et al. 1984. Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech acts realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5(3):192-212 Brown, R. & S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:CUP. Chen, Guoming. 1993. A Chinese perspective of communication competence. Paper presented at the annual convention of the speech communication association, Miami Beach, FL. Goffman, E. 1967. Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books. Goffman, E. 1972. Interactional Ritual. London:Penguin. Goffman, E. 1971. Relations in Public: Macrostudies of the Public Order. Harmondsworth:Penguin Goodenough, W. H. 1957. Cultural anthropologh and linguistics. In Garvin, P.L.(ed.) Report of the 7th Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Study. Washington: Georgetown University Press Hall, E. & M. Hall. 1990. Understanding Cultural Differences. Yarmouth, ME: International Press. Ho, D.1975. On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology 81(4):867-84 Hu, Wenzhong & C. L. Grove. 1991. Encountering the Chinese: A Guide for Americans Yarmouth, ME: International Press. Mao, L. R. 1994. Beyond politeness theory: â€Å"face† revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics 21:451-86 Markus & Kitayama. 1991. Culture and self. Pshchological Review 98(2):224-53 Miller, J.G. 1988. Bridging the context-structure dichotomy: culture and the self. In M.H. Bond (ed.) The cross-cultural Challenge to Social Psychology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 266-81

American Culture

Every person has his/her own way of surviving life. We have our own beliefs that keep us alive. We have a set of rules that are set by the perspectives we kept even when we are still young. With this, we have ideas that differ from others. Religion is a part of our being that can define the person that we are in a lot of circumstances before our religions have its own set of moral and ethical values. Christianity for example is a widespread religion that was also used to conquer a number of countries around the world.However, Christianity has this certain belief about the life after someone’s death. This is patterned with the life of Jesus Christ who serves to be the Savior of the World from God’s punishments for being sinners. Religion has developed as time passed by having a number of trials and oppressors. In America, religion has also changed the way leaders and its people look into life. An example is that, people who believe in their religion depend on it at times of cruelties. They face difficult times in different ways such that there are those who call for Buddha and for God.Moreover, American life changed in having slaves by which, they have abolished the notion of having slaves that would cater their needs like some household chores and farm works. Reports show that slavery in America can be seen widely among its places especially in the northernmost colonies. Since for Christianity, the Bible say that the story of men also has some slaves, punished people, it is allowable that 40% of the families there own a slave. But Mennonites in the year 1688 tried to raise that slavery must be opposed and from that time, there had been arguments of removing this set – up.Even if there were â€Å"good slaveries†, they argued that being a slave itself is very degrading. It may lower the self – esteem of a person and might give them a perspective that their life are a little worthless than their bosses. Revolution was done to end this cruel set – up. There are also movements against the Christians who pursued doing bad things with other people with lower status than they have. It was with the revolts of these oppressed that they realized that the worth of other people be treated with significance.American until now might be enslaved by the thought of being superior if there are no other forces who tried to oppose them and make their spirits be awakened. In the sermons of Jonathan Edwards, he stated that God was with him the time he was all alone. For that matter, I think that with this very strong belief, Americans are able to be living with the likeness of spreading goodness especially when they are being sinners themselves for a long time. Religion has become the moving force of America that draws them close to civilization and developments.Moreover, it can move them to a life that is more productive and meaningful. Religion caused a lot of change in America that should be well taken in the minds o f its students as Educations has also been the priority of the government. Immigrants American has been termed to become the salad bowl by which many people from other countries settle. With that, there are many cultures that are being inside it for a long time. There is an argument though that American is not a salad bowl but a melting pot of people. Salad bowl is a set up by which all its ingredients are mixed together but not altering its shape and composition.This is what we call in science a heterogeneous mixture that apparently still has the characteristics of it components detectible. On the other hand, melting pot defines a homogeneous mixture that makes its constituents one. For instance, America being a melting pot described that the culture of the people who migrated there might have forgotten their own culture and had been accustomed with living like the true Americans. But can there be real Americans given that there are already many circumstances that they have been mi xed with other cultures years ago?Generally speaking, the immigration of people will more likely be causing the American a confusion of culture that will show that there is no specific culture in the country. Moreover, the risk of having immigrants will take them to a situation that will really reduce their privileges of expressing their own as they may want to have a good relationship with others. It may be noted though that the effects of the immigrant vary from time to time. When America has not yet settled its forces that will protect it from oppressors, it is very open with the people and countries that have bad and greedy motives over the country.It is only during the last 2 centuries that America has established a force that will prohibit other country to terrorize them and eventually, conquer it again. Luckily, America as of the moment stands tall with the ideology of being superior among the others. It was on the survey that there is only a very few percentage of Native Ame ricans in the State today. Approximately 1% of them are those with the pure blood of Americans. There were very little accounts that clearly state the original occupants of America.In what I have heard for a long time, America has been occupied by the red Indians which were also told to become the true native occupants of America. It was only when some White Americans tried to colonize the Indians that they were put on a situation not to oppose but to leave. Having a lot of settlers in America is both good and bad for some reasons. Good because the country is giving a number of opportunities to other people regarding careers and jobs. On the other hand, it is somehow a negative thing since immigration might be opening the country again to an occurrence of colonization.It may open the avenues of the terrorist to populate the country and soon become conquered by other nations. References Thomas Paine. (1776). The Crisis. Retrieved 19 May 2008 from http://www. ushistory. org/paine/cris is/c-01. htm John Edwards. (2008). Personnal Narrative. Retrieved 19 May 2008 from http://www. apuritansmind. com/JonathanEdwards/JonathanEdwards-Biographical- EdwardsPersonalNarrative. htm J. Hector St. John Crevecoeur. Letters from an American Farme. Retrieved 19 May 2008 from http://xroads. virginia. edu/~hyper/CREV/letter03. html