The other day I was enraged. It was a hellhole of a day where nothing I set out to do was done without problem, conflict, delay or momentary failure. It was so compelling that I almost felt like there was a god, and that god was, The God of Mischief, who it seemed to have taken a personal interest in toying with me!

I overslept by several hours; not a good thing on a "Brewday." I was hung over so my mood was surly and flashpoint was low; Tolerance is an aspiration that significantly suffers the morning after any heavy night before. The day before I'd taken possession of new brewhouse furniture and the old furniture was still stacked up in the middle of the room ready to be relocated down stairs.

Timewise, my wife was heading out to go to a Spring Fair with the boy and some friends. the Next day we needed to bring in some garden furniture and prepare the place for an afternoon bbq. I moved an old bamboo table down into the yard and shifted a box of empty bottles underneath it - my wife did not accept this solution and I'd yet had time to organize the pickup of the bottles from by the supplier.

This disagreement on the use of the outdoor space popped my cork, I went off; picked up the table and hauled it outside the gate to the refuse collection point. All the while my wife was saying no, not to throw it out. Our visitors had arrived just in time for the ugly scene, indeed I had to side step around them to reach the refuse collection point, AND my son started crying at the uproar.

Something inside me twinged as he began to cry but most of me was so wrapped up in the anger of the moment that I didn't give a flying fuck about anything or anyone.I stormed inside and proceeded to get the next batch of furniture from the brewery. I knew that my missus had brought the table in from outside the gate and left with my son and the visitors. I needed the time to cool off a little and the physical activity helped to diminish the angry twitching in my arms.

I stacked three bamboo stools on top of the table in the middle of the yard, picked up the bottles and moved them to a corner of the garden, near the gate, ready for pickup and called the shop to organize their pickup the next morning. I looked at the table and stools and thought long about burning the bastards on the spot.

Instead, I went back to the brewery, sat down for a moment and collected my thoughts. It was after 1:30 pm and I still didn't have grain in water. I needed to crush some grain. I ran the grain through the mill - nothing. Three times nothing and enraged again I proclaimed, "I don't want to brew today!" Almost believing it, I adjusted the grain mill, tried again only to jam it and flip the whole thing over. In abject despair and frustration I sunk my boot into the side of the grain bucket, kicking grain all over the brand new brewhouse and the room. Coat off, boots off and I stormed out of the brewery.

I needed to work, to get away, anything to take my mind of this tortured and tormenting day. I met some neighbors who asked about my day, that was when I declared the machinations of The God of Mischief. The phrase just seemed to work itself over and over like a broken record: here is the truth, here is the reason why, speak it again, and again, and it will be true.

As the clear air and distance from the moment took its effect I realized that was just having a bit of Floor Time; thrashing around and bellowing like some disgruntled kid that didn't get his/her way; having a temper tantrum; but not solving the problem. Soon realization came that the first thing I needed to do was to control my emotions when confronted with a challenge. I had fallen a long, long way. Is this what mid-life crisis is all about? Confronting the resurgence of one's inner child and making a choice?

With renewed calm I visited my friend and borrowed his mill. crushed the grain and got my brewday moving forward. Yet half an hour into the final boil, I ran out of gas. I walked around and around and around the brewroom, pacing, thinking, trying to remain calmer than was earlier in the day. I need gas, Where? Kitchen? BBQ? Order another now? It was 6pm and I was hungry. OK, get the bbq bottle, bring it up, got to my mates place for dinner, talk with the family, come back and continue - "Keep Moving Forward." Tomorrow I can order a new bottle for the bbq, there is enough time.

I head towards my mate's place and get within two hundred meters of his door; stop; turn around walk a few steps; turn around and repeat - I'd forgotten the mill, it there no end to this? my anger has long since left to be replaced with a desultory acceptance of what ever is, is. "What you haven't got in the head, you've got in the legs." I go back to get the mill.

Earlier in the day I'd also borrowed his daughter's stroller, at his prompting to bring the heavy mill back to my place. True to the day's form, the stroller was no longer there. Now what? Ok, use my son's stroller and then my son can use it to come back home later in the evening.

At dinner, I ruefully relate the days continuing events. Such a comedy of errors could not be written. After dinner, I come back with the wife and son, explain the bottle pickup, and had organized with my mate to collect the garden furniture the next morning.

Mood:  chatty

I don’t know how many Australian’s there are, here in a vibrant, ever changing city like Hanoi, nor do I know how pat & expat Australians might feel about Anzac Day, but for me it always reminds me about my family back home.

Now, Australian’s as far as I can tell, don’t have all that many rituals, and the few there are tend mostly to revolve around horses or sport. (Melbourne Cup, Grand Final Day, The Ashes, etc.) One of the few that’s just a little bit different is the Anzac Tradition.

Nowadays, there are no original ANZAC’s still alive, and most of the families that lost someone at the time, have moved two or more generations on. On top of this most Australian’s both at home and abroad have never served in the Armed Forces, so how does such a tradition remain relevant to us in this day and age.

For me, although I did some time with the Reserves, and even joined the RSL at one stage, Anzac Day is not a day for remembering the sacrifices of soldiers long past, but a day for considering the qualities and spirit they embodied and that we still value.

Also, we have all had someone close to us, or meaningful to us pass away. So Anzac Day, so it seems to me, is a good day to remember them.

One person for me is my grandfather. He was not born in Australia, but he made it his, his wife’s and daughters, and my home. His whole life was about personal, self-sacrifice in the name of freedom, so that his family and loved ones could live a better life. This is the embodiment of a key Anzac quality.

When we remember “those brave Anzac soldiers” it is often said that they gave their lives to preserve our way of life, so that we might live free.

Another person is my first step-father. He taught me that you don’t have to be great all the time, just steadfast at what you do. That, when something is truly important, then you have to make a choice rather than sit on the fence, stand up to be counted AND then hold steadfast to what you claim to believe, in-spite of the opposition.

Being steadfast to their duty and their sense of honor is at the very heart of what is often termed the “Anzac Legend”. It is a quality we still value, even today.

Each of us has some one who we can remember: a family member, a teacher, a colleague, a friend. Can I ask you to take a minute, in silence, next Anzac Day, to think of them?

Originally titled, "Discussion Paper - Expressing Opinions in Public (long post)"

Executive Summary

What are the rules for expressing public opinion? The following document establishes that public debate is the discussion of opinions as expressed by individuals in public forums. That these opinions are predominantly arguments designed to sway people to accept a certain statement and as such the rules governing the expression on opinions follows those of formulating an argument. It also establishes some guidelines for the writing of responses to expressed opinions when such responses involve the putting of an opposing or dissenting view.

Expressing Opinions in Public.

According to the Tetroidian World View, our identities as individuals are formed and shaped by interacting with other people. Through their eyes, facial and body gestures, towards and in response to us, we come to know ourselves.

It can be said that through our public interactions our personal reputations are formed and confirmed. There are many ways to interact with others socially and publicly. One primary way is via public discourse. Through this, our public or social identities are forged. The following document examines the rules of public discussion and puts forward some recommendations on how to provide criticism in a public forum.

In ‘The Virtual Republic’ 1997, Mackenzie Walk remarks that a republic is
created when people actively engage in public discussion. He further comments that unlike the republics of old, where the village square or city market place was the gathering place for all and sundry which allowed for public discourse to occur, in modern times public discourse takes place via the media and to some extent via the internet.

It is not surprising then that societies have sought to establish and develop
rules for public debate and discourse even as the nature of public debate has
become less embodied. These can be summarised broadly as follows:

A: oratory
B: forum
C: meetings procedure
D: debate
E: letter writing
F: bulletin boards
G: online discussion groups.

This list is neither meant to be descriptive nor complete. Rather, it is a
finger painted trail towards our current means of public discourse.

Each of the above forms of public debate has their rules and recent times many have come to say that the ‘Art of letter writing’ is being lost especially as we engage more and more in online discussion. To be more specific, the skill in writing a well informed argument and responding to it, in kind is being lost. A search of the World Wide Web generates many responses on this topic, but few online sources discuss or develop strategies for a response to this concern.

Looking deeper into the issue what appears to be the issue, is not so much the loss of letter writing itself, this has largely been supplanted by email and
electronic text exchanges, but the lack of skill in developing a well informed
argument i.e. thinking clearly, and presenting that in a public forum. That is,
the skills involved in debating and arguing are progressively being lost and it
is this that is the principle cause of concern to many.

These rules of public debate are an essential part of our social etiquette
insofar as they provide a framework for engaging in discussion. Both for the
presentation of a point of view, opinion or argument and for the presentation of counter opinions, arguments and rebuttal.

Galvin, Prescott and Huseman, in ‘Business Communication strategies and skills’ 1992, state that clear thinking is essential in the course of our daily lives and define it as the ability to see the difference between logical and illogical arguments.

They also give a useful working definition for an argument stating, ‘…it is a
piece of … writing which not only makes statements we are expected to believe but uses these statements as reasons for other statements (which we are also expected to believe).’

From this we can see that expressing an opinion in public via some means of
discourse transmission is in effect the presentation of an argument. As such
there are specific rules that allow us to best present that opinion.

With regard to public discourse and the expression of opinions there are two
principle types of argument that we come across that being Inductive and
Deductive argument.

Typical forms of Inductive argument, or reasoning, involve arguing from a
particular point to a more general conclusion. It is probably the most common for of Examples of this are:

generalisation, e.g. in my experience this happened… thus it’s the same
everywhere else;

cause and effect, e.g. (where the cause is known) I fell over and broke my leg therefore I need medical treatment and time off work; (where the effect is known) I felt vomitus and had a lot of pain in my stomach half an hour after eating at street cart therefore street cart food is not safe to eat;

analogy: e.g. (a personal experience statement) ‘When I was in Changsha we had a very successful English Salon which met regularly in a bar and conducted many outside activities. It had a Chinese organisational group and a foreign host.’  (a general situation perceived as a problem) ‘In looking at how English salons should be run so that they are successful this model should be followed.’

Deductive arguments, or reasoning, involve arguing from a general case to a
specific conclusion. It involves a three step process of classifying things into
groups.

For example,
(universal statement) Foreign teachers of English are native speakers
(individual case) Debbie is a foreigner and speaks English
(Conclusion) She must be an English Teacher

This kind of argument is very popular particularly when it comes to pigeonholing individuals or giving advice, e.g. ‘Every time I go to the market place the shop keepers try to rip me off, Why? Many foreigners have a lot of money. You are a foreigner; therefore you can afford to pay more than the local people.’

People love to classify others according some type or criteria. As a result this
type of reasoning is easily abused. Because of this a number of guidelines have developed over time to assist with the development of an argument. While there are no hard and fast rules, the following could be considered as the rules for public debate in a general sense.

1. When making a generalisation, don’t argue from a sample that is too small. This could result in stupid or dangerous statements, e.g. Chinese women are demure and respectful than their western counterparts therefore they make much better wives; An allergy to certain types of alcohol is no excuse to refuse to ganbei white spirits with the bride and groom at a wedding.
2. Make sure that the sample from which you draw your generalisation is
reasonably representative. Popular opinion might hold that good foreign
teachers of English have excellent oral fluency in their native tongue, but does it necessarily follow that all foreign speakers are good teachers?
3. Be careful about the use of words like, all, no, some, few, and most. It only takes one exception to pull apart arguments based on these.
4. When dealing with causal arguments three questions need to be addressed:
a. What is the possibility or probability that the cause was solely responsible
for the effect?
b. What is the likelihood of multiple causes operating at the same time in a
synergistic manner?
c. Is it possible, that a specific condition existed at the time, which may have
produced this effect where in its absence; a different outcome would normally result?
5. When looking at causal arguments we need to also consider whether the cause is ‘sufficient’ for bringing about an effect or ‘necessary’ in order to produce the effect.
6. When making an analogy ask if the two situations are sufficiently similar to draw an valid conclusion based on the analogy.
7. A deduction is only as good as the premise it is based on and the validity of
the link arguments.

There are many common problems with putting forward an opinion in a public forum. Most have their source in common fallacies that plague arguments. Some of these are:

Trying to discredit the person rather than the augment i.e. playing the man not the ball, to use a sporting analogy ;-)

Misusing or misrepresenting authority regarding the topic, i.e. ‘An elderly
minister I know has been living and working in China for 20 years. He told me how it really is here, so I know what I’m talking about.’

Appealing to commonsense i.e. the ‘everybody knows this’ argument.

A dishonest trick is to forestall criticism by words or phrases designed to make it difficult to offer fair criticism, e.g. ‘Foreign teachers apartments should be located on the ground floor and provided with western style toilets – Elderly white haired gent.’

Emotive language is one of the key triggers for explosive response to publicly
aired opinions. Everyone has their own inbuilt prejudices which can be easily
triggered by emotion laden words which are otherwise irrelevant to the argument, e.g. ‘It is our moral obligation to not only teach English but to raise local standards. We would be failing in our duty of care if we did not ensure our belief systems, values and ethics were fully appreciated by the people of this region.’

Absolute terms like, always, never, hopeless, countless, infinite, etc. are
often used to try and sway an argument in an illegitimate manner.

False classification results frequently in ‘black and white’ situations. This
creates problems by failing to allow for the full gamut of possibilities .e.g.
‘If you are not white and from Australia, New Zealand, America, Canada, or
Britain, you just can’t get work as a foreign teacher of English.’

Misuse of statistics, in the case of public opinion, involve the quoting of
statistics ‘off the top of one’s head’ in order to give greater credibility to
the opinion, e.g. ‘1 in 7 foreign teachers in this country date their students
or other persons of student age. 33% of these teachers are female.’

In this ESL community, the medium for the forums for public discussion, are the email lists to which we subscribe. This medium relies on the written word. Very few caveats on what can be opined exist which creates a relatively free discussion space. However, there are some accepted norms of behaviours that also shape how opinions may be presented.

First and foremost is the issue of friendliness. This is the underlying
principle and relate directly to the principle fallacy of presenting arguments,
that of attacking the person. The second is the restriction on directly
attacking the reputation of individuals and institutions by naming them and any associated complaints in public.

Of the accepted norms these can be summarized by the statement, ‘Be firm, friendly, fair and frank.’ This is where the art of letter writing is indeed an art. Email is electronic mail – that is, writing an email is in fact the writing of an electronic letter.

The trouble is that email communication is very ephemeral, and very fast. It is so easy to tap out a response and send it off that the usual process of
re-reading what was written before posting is often circumvented. This results in ill-conceived responses that may impinge on the accepted norms or the established rules for interacting in such a forum.

What follows are some guidelines for engaging in public debate and for writing letters of criticism.
1. After you’ve read an opinion, climb down off the soapbox, take a deep breath, grab a cup of your favourite beverage and examine exactly what is narking you off.
2. Ask the question, ‘Does the opinion presented contain particular fallacies in
order to support it?’ ‘How do those fallacies contribute to your current state?’
3. In writing your response, quote the offending material first – be specific,
then present your criticism, again be specific. If someone presents an argument peppered with fallacies it defeats the purpose to respond in kind.
4. Wit is always preferable to sarcasm. Sarcasm is in many ways is a mechanism to put down or attack an individual as such it may not be perceived by people of differing cultural backgrounds as being particularly friendly. Wit however, is the clever use of words often in a humorous manner and can often be found in the riposte or retort involved in verbal duelling.
5. Brevity and choice of words are hallmarks of Plain English and clear
thinking. Be direct (firm), be honest (friendly), be specific (fair), be brief
(frank).

Barnett and Morell wrote in a section dealing with hints on composition,
‘English Grammar & Analysis with exercises’ 1893, ‘Words are materials: be
careful in the choice of them. A house, however well planned, cannot give
satisfaction if the bricks and mortar and timber are bad. The same remark
applies to composition.’

They go onto suggest never using a word unless you are sure of its usage and meaning; to use shorter words where possible; and if a word has more than one meaning make sure your usage leave no doubt as to the meaning you intend.

The same applies for statements, make sure the your intended meaning is clear, ambiguous statements can lead to misunderstanding or misconstrued criticism. This is probably the principle cause of flame wars and heated debate laden with personally directed invective.

6. If you are wrong, or have misunderstood the argument, apologize. There is no shame in admitting an error. Having said that, there is also no margin in making a pantomime of one’s humbled self.
7. Intellectual arrogance has no place in public debate, nor do strongly held
religious or philosophical beliefs. Most people are not party to all the information you may think you know.

Brandishing such knowledge like a truncheon serves no purpose but to stifle
debate and stimulate animosity. However, careful and judicious use of such to support and expand one’s argument is a legitimate use.

Opinions are like ear holes, most people have a couple. As such the presenting of opinions in public forums is a common practice in society. It is essential for any society or social group from time to time analyze and evaluate its modes and conventions particularly with respect to public debate.

In a culturally diverse group the means by which we formulate, present and
debate opinions will from time to time change. Thus, our reputation within a
particular social group is built around the opinions we hold and how well we
communicate them.


References:

Wark, McKenzie. ‘The Virtual Republic, Australia’s culture wars of the 1990’s.’
Allen and Unwin. 1997

Galvin, M. Prescott, D. Husemane, R. ‘Business Communications, strategies and
skills.’ 4th Ed. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.1992

Barnett, P.A. Morell, J.D. ‘The New Morell being a Grammar of the English
Language together with an exposition of The analysis of sentences.’ Aberdeen University Press. Allman & Son. 1893

__________________________

Tsc Tempest

__________________________
People's Republic of China
Hohhot, Inner Mongolia

First published Sun Mar 27, 2005 on TEFLChinaLife

I was with a colleague. We were inspecting some ruins. It was a large complex of stone buildings, Mayan in design and decoration. People had mapped out the extent of the complex and cleared away most of the vegetation, but the work was incomplete. The whole eastern seaboard side was missing, literally, all the way across to a sinuous and snaky, stone lined ridge.

Elements of the size of this city sized complex were hinted at in drawings and wall illustrations but essential details still needed to be sketched in. We were part of a multinational working group, invited to survey the remaining vacant areas and to document our findings.

We started at the north east entrance to the complex and walked towards the southernmost part of the ridge, which wound its way along the western shoreline and up towards a solitary peak in the north-eastern corner. It took us several hours of hard walking just to get to the start of the ridge.

Looking west from this place revealed nothing, just small Spartan expanses of darkly coloured sandy beach that hugged the ridge and an eroding cliff face. We began to trace the ridge and soon noticed that the path became more “Great Wall” like with each passing foot fall.

With the sun riding high we trudged onwards along this narrow stony path lined in places by steeply receding, constructed, stone walls as it ducked and weaved sharply around on itself. It was clear from the condition of the stone that wheels were not welcome here. Everything must have been carried in, for the pathway was so steep, in places, narrow and windy, that small foot-sized steps had been cut into the rock, accompanied by hand sized grip holes on either side. So we climbed, even as the sun had begun to sink into the west, and climbed until we reached the peak. What a sight to greet us!

Longitudinally oriented, a moderately decorated step pyramid stood prominent at the east end of a narrow, low building flanked court, facing a large north-south wall at the western end The wall covered in glyphs and carvings which hinted at music, dance and distant communications via magical messages passed through the air; for some reason we felt that there was something behind that wall, behind what seemed like a door, but would not yield to open.

We traced ourselves under and away from the wall, moving along and down the steep Cliffside until we found a smallish gap in the almost sheer wall. After much hacking, pulling and cursing at gashed knuckles we discovered in this creeper filled abyss some steep ladder-like steps which exited onto a jagged platform. A stone spit jutted out towards the sea from the centre of an incredibly smooth, carved stone wall, at the end of this spit a shallow, gently concaved basin of white rock, big enough to hold several people.

Sitting in the basin we marvelled at the wall, the sound of sea birds in the distance was pure and smooth, and we looked out to the sea. I spilt my water bottle, even as the sun began to pale into redder tones, and the sounds became even more distinct. Incredible! The basin was somehow focussing the sound, somehow able to fine tune it with the addition of water.

We walked back to the wall and on closer inspection discovered a small door, half broken, at its base. Peering through, we could see a low tunnel running back into the wall. We began to crawl through and soon found ourselves in a strangely shaped room. On the west side the backside of the curved wall that faced the sea, on the east separated by several meters ran the opposite wall, like some kind of  north-south tangent to a stone parabola, and covered in pictogram and carvings – great cities of the past? There were three of them, one at zero degrees, the other two, on either side at approximately thirty degrees. Lines traced a carved channel towards the curved wall, intersecting at a guess at the white stone basin, outside. Surrounding the cities, carvings hinted of people sitting at this focal point and singing. In my mind, I could hear the polyphonic, tonal song of healers chants.

Suddenly, tremors shook the wall, rocks began to fall, a great and terrible rending and screeching of stone on stone, tore through the air and the great curved wall peeled away from the side of the cliff. Stunned and with our backs to the eastern wall, we watched as this mighty dish tumbled and crashed into the rocks and sea below. Our position was precarious, and now with the rapidly fading, dusky light we needed to find a way off this retched spot. Soon we found a lever and the door that was noticed in the wall, earlier in the day swung open leading us back into the complex.

It was a communications complex! A Mayan Radio shack; A place for meditation and healing with sound. Imagine! If you will, two parabolic dishes perfectly aligned to hear each other over a distance. Would they truly roach out, across the sea, or just to another place on the eastern edge? An edge swallowed by the sea. The answer to this we may never know. The sea in its ravenous hunger, had begun to devour the sun and the cold to rapidly rise. We pitched our tents and made a small fire against the night and watched the cold red glow die in the west.

To most people the Language Exchange is an implied activity that suggests swapping language practice in one language for language practice in another and on the surface that is what is implied and meant. It also suggests that there is an equal exchange of value.

However simple though this may seem, most ex-pats who have experienced such transactions can attest to the fact that such exchanges are mostly single language dominated and are of one-way benefit causing the ex-pat, usually, much disillusionment.

Why is it so?

Firstly, both parties entering into such an exchange rarely define the expectations of each party and the outcomes necessary to complete the exchange – call this a “needs analysis” or a ‘terms and conditions” statement.

Secondly, the value of the exchange is highly misunderstood and unequal right from the start. To explain this further, consider the following inequalities:

Inequality 1 - One person usually initiates a request for Language exchange. This person’s need for the exchange is usually higher and more personally driven and motivated than the person who finally agrees to the exchange.

Inequality 2 – The person who agrees to the exchange, in most cases is a native speaker AND (usually a qualified instructor or) teacher of their native language. The person making the request is usually a student of a second language and in most cases not a teacher of their own language or even teacher qualified.

Inequality 3 – Usually, both parties do not share the same level of language development in their chosen L2, thus the amount of time spent on the exchange is dominated mostly by the common language to both parties.

Inequality 4 – payment is usually negotiated as something  “in kind” whoever the value of such a payment, it is usually grossly undervalued when each party’s skills, knowledge, effort, time and input is taken into account. Any attempt at readjusting the imbalance usually results in the initiator moving on.

Thirdly, such language exchanges often take advantage of good will, connections, obligation, or implied (sometimes overt) offers of sexual favour. The taking of advantage is the issue here – utilising various ways and means for one party to greatly benefit at the other’s expense, be it time, energy, money, or desire.

In the face of such a situation then one could be quite justified in saying, “Hmmmm, you offer an interesting proposal…. Let me consider it and I’ll see what can be done…” as a way of saying, “no thanks I really like you but I’ve been taken for a ride too many times before, so I’m just not interested.” However, sometimes, be it politically, culturally, or socially incorrect, you have to bluntly state “The 3 P’s” right up front.

The 3 P’s, what on earth are those? Like any exchange, transaction, deal, agreement there are some fundamentally basic rules. These can be simplified to payment and exit options. In the case of Cross-cultural Language Exchange, the 3 P’s are:

Pay Up, Put Out, or Piss Off!

Now before you jump up and down, excited by your own sense of controversy, let me qualify these.

Firstly the order of the phrase is important. Change the first two parts and you completely change the exchange dynamic: some would argue that in “real life” such a change would reflect the reality of what actually goes on in language exchange – the contention here is Language Exchange involves both ex-pat women and men, with parties of the same and/or opposite sex, hence the order as stated above.

Secondly, Language Exchange IS a transaction. It is unequally balanced with the ex-pat party being the main provider of services within the exchange. Therefore payment of suitable and agreeably value is in order. This could involve cash, gifts, covering of expenses or some other payment of agreed value. To give examples of this, consider a professional mentor, discourse partner, corporate companion, or coach.

Thirdly, most persons seeking language exchange are either not in a position to pay, in a monetary sense for the exchange so they bring to the table their own skills, abilities and experiences. Sometimes, the person seeking the exchange has nothing else to offer beyond providing personal services which could range from translation duties, purchasing and house keeping, social escort, right through to intimate sexual liaison. To give examples of this, consider the “live in” (long-haired/bedroom) dictionary, the corporate consort, professional escort, the part time/casual girlfriend or boyfriend, or potential spouse.

Fourthly, one of the major conflicts that exist in Language Exchange is the unwillingness of the person seeking language exchange to complete the exchange. In other words once they get what they want they disappear, leaving the provider at a loose end either not having satisfactorily received anything in return, or receiving something not to their expectation or sense of equivalent value.

Language Exchange has existed in a variety of forms long before today’s problems and concerns. So too have strategies for managing such a transaction. The main one that concerns us, based on modern thinking, relates to obtaining fair and equitable value from the exchange.

Unfortunately, in most cases the person seeking a language exchange is a native of a country where an ex-pat is temporarily domiciled and the ex-pat is usually a teacher of their own native tongue as a second language. Thus the onus must fall on the ex-pat to manage the initial discussions that eventually allow for such an exchange to occur.

To this point the ex-pat needs to do the following:

1. They must clearly establish the needs of each party. These needs must be clearly understood by each party.
2. They must clearly establish the skill/expertise offered by each party. Where there is a clear imbalance in skills this must be considered in the discussions.
3. They must clearly establish the language levels of each party and identify the common language. Having done so, this needs to be factored into the discussion.
4. They must develop a clear and simple program that outlines specifically how much time will be devoted to each party’s language learning needs.
5. If an imbalance clearly exists additionally payment over and above the swap must be established and the form that payment may take.
6. They must be aware that some language exchange seekers are not willing to provide mutually agreeable exchange therefore they may need to say goodbye to the person, no matter how enthusiastic or attractive that person may appear to be.

Language Exchange can be a valuable way of improving cross-cultural relationships and interactions. It allows for experiencing and developing greater understanding of different cultures based on first hand experience. It has often been complicated by misunderstanding of the situation by both parties, as well as exploitation of one party by another. Keeping a careful eye on the 3 P’s: “Pay Up, Put Out or Piss Off!” can allow for persons to enter into a language exchange transaction in a more enlightened and informed manner. Thus, reducing the imbalances that are inherent in what is a seemingly simple exchange.

__________ 

Professional Development: Functioning in an Alien Society 101

*Originally posted on the TEFLChina Forum.