I was taught the K.I.S.S. principle long ago in coaching. It is also important for communication and in particular in teaching people how to define words by other words.
My favorite example of this recently is the relationship between the Golden Rule and the 2nd Greatest Commandment from the Bible. One reads: "Do for others what you would have them do for you." The second reads: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
I think you can go along way toward defining the words of the second from the first set of the first. It would look like this:
"Love" means "do for" (at its least)
"Your" means "you" (at its least)
"neighbor" means "other" (at its least)
"as" means "what you would have them (others) do for you (in contrast to others)"
"yourself" means "you" (at its least)
Sometimes in teaching communication we need to remember the rule that it is good to keep things simple initially and only later move people up to a higher level. I hope this example demonstrates to you the rule of K.I.S.S.
Sincerely,
Jon
Friday, May 28, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Communication: The Distinctives
When it comes to communication ideas, it is important to understand what the key things that are behind an approach to communication. This is especially true in my case, where I point out to people that I do a few things differently from what they might be accustomed to seeing.
It may be good to begin by saying that my approach is not meant to replace or undercut the generally effective ways of teaching communication. What it does do is strengthen more what is already effective. So my approach does not so much replace, for example, grammar's use as much as shift it's use to where it is more effective.
So let me deal with each of the key things in my approach one by one. They are: 1)an integrated approach to language, 2)a surface structure approach to language, 3)a communication as relationship approach, 4)a cycle of communication process and 5)a thing-based approach to language. These are the positive components of what I teach about communication.
Let me say something about what I don't do. First, I don't do these things because they are at higher levels in the developmental process and they are not basic. When you get to a higher level, then they do have value. So I don't avoid them as though they are purely negative. It is just that I do not find them to be basic as too many teachers insist they are, when they are teaching in the classroom. I don't teach 1)just one particular approach to language like generative grammar, 2)the deep structure approach to language as more valuable than the surface structure, 3)communication for its own sake outside of relationship building, 4)a chaotic process of communication that leaves out the author or audience and so misses out on the cyclical part of the communcation process and 5)a word-based approach to language that relies on an expansion of vocabulary approach for learners to get smarter.
So back to my list of 5 positives. I will list them in the same order as above.
First, I approach language from an integrated perspective. I think you need to see the whole as you grapple with different views of language. You could call it a multi-dimensional approach. In contrast, I think the phonics versus whole-language debate is way too narrow in its scope. Each side misses the point. It is like a golfer who uses one club for every shot.
Second, I approach language from the surface. I think that the surface structure is actually right there in the speaker's mind. On a basic level, not on a deep level, they know what they are trying to say and in one sense it is all clear. In contrast, I find the generative grammar approach or sentence diagramming to be backwards from what we actually are after. It is like a fisherman fishing in deep water, when the walleyes are feeding close to shore.
Third, I approach language from the standpoint that something relational is happening or there is little sense to trying to communicate. The point is that you have to understand fundamentally whether the communication is attempting to form a connection or not. In contrast, I find some of the analysis of language has lost sight of the basic purpose of communication in trying to connect or not connect people. It is like forgetting what you went to the garage to get.
Fourth, I approach language as a process that begins with an author and leads to an audience and as a cycle in which the audience may then ask the author questions to see if the cycle of communication was completed successfully. In contrast, some books start with a text and then lead to a speech or another book without consideration for the author or the audience. It is like leaving off the beginning steps, like getting together the ingredients, in baking a cake and jumping right to putting the only part of the ingredients in the oven.
Fifth, I approach language as thing-based rather than word-based in its earliest development. Children do not learn vocabulary initially from dictionary definitions. Instead they learn words that point to things. This remains fundamental throughout the process, even after the dictionary becomes a helpful tool. In contrast, many teach language as though it began with definitions of words from other simpler words without any inclusion of things in the beginning. It is like giving a fishing pole to someone who doesn't know what a fish is.
These are the five most basic keys to my approach to communication and to language. For me, these five things or principles have revolutionized my comprehension of communicaiton. It has also enhanced my ability to communicate. Remember these are basic, so there may be those who can communicate better than I, but I think I can stand toe to toe with them on the basics. I know where to begin, even if others have already reached the finish line. Before this point in my life, I could not even find the starting line to begin the race and my communication was chaotic at best. So at least I can help a lot of people get started on the race of communication and give them a fair chance of finishing too rather than a few people finishing, while others haven't even found the starting line.
Sincerely,
Jon
It may be good to begin by saying that my approach is not meant to replace or undercut the generally effective ways of teaching communication. What it does do is strengthen more what is already effective. So my approach does not so much replace, for example, grammar's use as much as shift it's use to where it is more effective.
So let me deal with each of the key things in my approach one by one. They are: 1)an integrated approach to language, 2)a surface structure approach to language, 3)a communication as relationship approach, 4)a cycle of communication process and 5)a thing-based approach to language. These are the positive components of what I teach about communication.
Let me say something about what I don't do. First, I don't do these things because they are at higher levels in the developmental process and they are not basic. When you get to a higher level, then they do have value. So I don't avoid them as though they are purely negative. It is just that I do not find them to be basic as too many teachers insist they are, when they are teaching in the classroom. I don't teach 1)just one particular approach to language like generative grammar, 2)the deep structure approach to language as more valuable than the surface structure, 3)communication for its own sake outside of relationship building, 4)a chaotic process of communication that leaves out the author or audience and so misses out on the cyclical part of the communcation process and 5)a word-based approach to language that relies on an expansion of vocabulary approach for learners to get smarter.
So back to my list of 5 positives. I will list them in the same order as above.
First, I approach language from an integrated perspective. I think you need to see the whole as you grapple with different views of language. You could call it a multi-dimensional approach. In contrast, I think the phonics versus whole-language debate is way too narrow in its scope. Each side misses the point. It is like a golfer who uses one club for every shot.
Second, I approach language from the surface. I think that the surface structure is actually right there in the speaker's mind. On a basic level, not on a deep level, they know what they are trying to say and in one sense it is all clear. In contrast, I find the generative grammar approach or sentence diagramming to be backwards from what we actually are after. It is like a fisherman fishing in deep water, when the walleyes are feeding close to shore.
Third, I approach language from the standpoint that something relational is happening or there is little sense to trying to communicate. The point is that you have to understand fundamentally whether the communication is attempting to form a connection or not. In contrast, I find some of the analysis of language has lost sight of the basic purpose of communication in trying to connect or not connect people. It is like forgetting what you went to the garage to get.
Fourth, I approach language as a process that begins with an author and leads to an audience and as a cycle in which the audience may then ask the author questions to see if the cycle of communication was completed successfully. In contrast, some books start with a text and then lead to a speech or another book without consideration for the author or the audience. It is like leaving off the beginning steps, like getting together the ingredients, in baking a cake and jumping right to putting the only part of the ingredients in the oven.
Fifth, I approach language as thing-based rather than word-based in its earliest development. Children do not learn vocabulary initially from dictionary definitions. Instead they learn words that point to things. This remains fundamental throughout the process, even after the dictionary becomes a helpful tool. In contrast, many teach language as though it began with definitions of words from other simpler words without any inclusion of things in the beginning. It is like giving a fishing pole to someone who doesn't know what a fish is.
These are the five most basic keys to my approach to communication and to language. For me, these five things or principles have revolutionized my comprehension of communicaiton. It has also enhanced my ability to communicate. Remember these are basic, so there may be those who can communicate better than I, but I think I can stand toe to toe with them on the basics. I know where to begin, even if others have already reached the finish line. Before this point in my life, I could not even find the starting line to begin the race and my communication was chaotic at best. So at least I can help a lot of people get started on the race of communication and give them a fair chance of finishing too rather than a few people finishing, while others haven't even found the starting line.
Sincerely,
Jon
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Communication is Hidden in Plain View
Hidden (from me) in Plain View (of others)
In the game of hide and seek it is difficult to hide yourself in plain view of the person doing the seeking. The goal, after all is said and done, is to hide and not be found. Yet in the game of communication, where we want people to discover our meaning and we want to be plain, it is too often the case that our meaning is hidden from the person seeking the meaning. The goal, after all is said and done, is for our plain meaning to be found. Our meaning is not to be hidden. It is not to be a game of hide and seek. If it becomes that, then people get tired of communicating, just like they would get tired of a prolonged game of hide and seek. Sometimes in hide and seek, you just tell the person hiding to come out and that it is safe, rather than continue to try to find them. I think too often in the teaching of communicating, our method has hidden things in plain view.
Let me explain. Some things are hidden from me that are in plain view of others, or vice versa. The question for communication is: What makes things plain and what makes things hidden? Or more to the point: Why are so many things hidden from us in communication? Or in the Christian context, why so many interpretations of the same text in the Bible?
I think there is an explanation, one at least hinted at by my professor in college, Dr. Don Larson. He used to say he was mad. What was he mad about? He was upset about the stark contrast between learning at home and studying in school. He called the first learning and the second studying. He wasn’t against either one, but he felt the balance of the two had been lost in schools. He saw the dominance of studying over learning as harmful and he was trying hard to bring back a balance by re-inserting learning into schools with a focus on studying.
I want to take this a step further. I want you to do an experiment for me following in the tradition of the studying you have done in school. I want you to find a few things for me in the place you are right now within 2 seconds. The rule is that you cannot find words, but only things. If you do find words, then you are cheating and in school that means a zero for your score. Find for me a noun. Your two seconds are up. The result, if you followed my rules strictly, is that you found none.
If you want, you can go a little further. I want you to find an adjective. Next, I want you to find a conjunction. Finally, find a verb. Your next 6 seconds are up. The result, if you followed my rules strictly, is that you still found none of them. Don’t feel silly, if you thought you found one. I know now that you will never try to find these things again, unless you are allowed to look for words.
Now I want you to do another experiment for me following the same set of rules and you must find them within 2 seconds. Again, the rule is that you cannot find words, but only things. Again, please do not cheat. Find for me a thing. Your two seconds are up. The result, if you followed my rules strictly, is that you found at least one thing. If you are in your office, it might be a light or obviously your computer.
If you want, you can go a little further. I want you to find an amount. Next, I want you to find a relationship. Finally, find an action. Your six seconds are up. I would imagine you got 2-3 more right. If you are in your office, you could have found one phone, a cord connected to your computer and the light shining in your window. Don’t feel silly, if you didn’t get them all. I know on the next try you would get all four without breaking a sweat.
These two experiments are meant to demonstrate one main thing. The most important thing is to notice that in the first experiment, the words I used hid from you things. They did not take you directly to them. These are categories of words, not things. Also noticeable is that in the second experiment, the words I used were plain to you, when it came to things. Well, at least now that I gave you some examples. These are categories for things and not just classifications for words.
The problem is seen at its height, when we try to teach language in school whether it is native or foreign to us. The typical approach in the United States is that in about the 5th or 6th grade, we teach a thing called grammar through the parts of speech. This is meant to help us with at least two elements of communication, reading and writing. The one problem I am trying to point out here, is that the method is about words and studying, not things and learning.
In total, I think there are at least five weaknesses in our grammatical method in the United States: (1) it follows a one-dimensional approach to language versus a multi (five)-dimensional approach to language, (2) it has too great of an information load for our brains with eight parts of speech versus having an information load of only four to five things in a set, (3) it deals with later development of language skill rather than earlier development of language skill, (4) it focuses on words and study, a grammar of words, rather than on learning and things, a classification of things and words or word uses and (5) it makes things hidden rather than plain. We need to bring the things we need out in the open. It is this last problem that I am dealing with here.
The problem is that words have become more important than things as education has expanded into universal education in places like the United States. We need instead to keep words and things side by side. We need to teach and study alongside of know and learn. In our earliest development as children, we were concerned with needs related to the things that would satisfy our basic needs. We also though needed to relate to parents for what we needed. So we used some rather simple ways to get what we needed like food for our stomach. I’ve seen crying work effectively. Later we studied words with our parents, who also taught us those words, in the context of things we needed.
In the approach I take to communication, one of the great advantages it has is that it is plain, because it applies to things and words. It ties together both learning and studying. In a chart form of categories , it appears like this:
Communication (Whole)
1. Amount (Part)
2. Relationship (Part)
3. Action (Part)
4. Thing (Part)
When I first studied this method of learning communication, there was a problem with it. It was that a few items were not plain on the thing level. In place of amount, they had the concept of attribute, which I think is harder to find in the world of things. In place of action, they had the concept of event, which I think is also harder to find in the world of things because of its limitations in the realm of things. They both seem to apply better in the realm of words.
Because these words apply better to things than the words of grammar, I think they enhance our ability to make things plain. I know for me personally, this has been a major benefit. Recently, I took an online course and I aced the final exam. If I remember correctly, this may be the first time I didn’t get a single answer wrong on a final. The reason, I recall, for not getting every answer right on a final exam previously is, that I would typically misread at least one question. What this method has done for me is to make things plain or clear. If I get stumped, then I can go back to basic things to put words into a plain context.
Let’s go back to the earlier questions and look at some answers. The first question for communication was: What makes things plain and what makes things hidden? An answer is that grammar hides things, because it is only about word categories and not about thing categories. Or more to the point of the first question: Why are so many things hidden from us in communication? An answer is that it is because we rely on a method that favors words over things, rather than joining them together like two sides of a coin. Or applying the second question in the Christian context: Why so many interpretations of the same text in the Bible? An answer is that too often our method is limited to language, words and their rules and does not look enough at the things in the context. Again, because the questions asked are often only about language and not about things, things are hidden that otherwise could be plain.
So using categories of things and words has helped make things hidden from me in plain view of the communicator, to become plain also for me. I want the same thing to be available to others, including yourself. We need to work from categories of things, not just categories of words. Remember our earlier experiment. We need to change education in the direction that my linguistics professor, Dr. Donald Larson, wanted to take it. Things are in plain view, if only we will change our basic approach to communication and talk about things and not just words. Is the thing I'm saying plain and not just my words?
Sincerely,
Jon
In the game of hide and seek it is difficult to hide yourself in plain view of the person doing the seeking. The goal, after all is said and done, is to hide and not be found. Yet in the game of communication, where we want people to discover our meaning and we want to be plain, it is too often the case that our meaning is hidden from the person seeking the meaning. The goal, after all is said and done, is for our plain meaning to be found. Our meaning is not to be hidden. It is not to be a game of hide and seek. If it becomes that, then people get tired of communicating, just like they would get tired of a prolonged game of hide and seek. Sometimes in hide and seek, you just tell the person hiding to come out and that it is safe, rather than continue to try to find them. I think too often in the teaching of communicating, our method has hidden things in plain view.
Let me explain. Some things are hidden from me that are in plain view of others, or vice versa. The question for communication is: What makes things plain and what makes things hidden? Or more to the point: Why are so many things hidden from us in communication? Or in the Christian context, why so many interpretations of the same text in the Bible?
I think there is an explanation, one at least hinted at by my professor in college, Dr. Don Larson. He used to say he was mad. What was he mad about? He was upset about the stark contrast between learning at home and studying in school. He called the first learning and the second studying. He wasn’t against either one, but he felt the balance of the two had been lost in schools. He saw the dominance of studying over learning as harmful and he was trying hard to bring back a balance by re-inserting learning into schools with a focus on studying.
I want to take this a step further. I want you to do an experiment for me following in the tradition of the studying you have done in school. I want you to find a few things for me in the place you are right now within 2 seconds. The rule is that you cannot find words, but only things. If you do find words, then you are cheating and in school that means a zero for your score. Find for me a noun. Your two seconds are up. The result, if you followed my rules strictly, is that you found none.
If you want, you can go a little further. I want you to find an adjective. Next, I want you to find a conjunction. Finally, find a verb. Your next 6 seconds are up. The result, if you followed my rules strictly, is that you still found none of them. Don’t feel silly, if you thought you found one. I know now that you will never try to find these things again, unless you are allowed to look for words.
Now I want you to do another experiment for me following the same set of rules and you must find them within 2 seconds. Again, the rule is that you cannot find words, but only things. Again, please do not cheat. Find for me a thing. Your two seconds are up. The result, if you followed my rules strictly, is that you found at least one thing. If you are in your office, it might be a light or obviously your computer.
If you want, you can go a little further. I want you to find an amount. Next, I want you to find a relationship. Finally, find an action. Your six seconds are up. I would imagine you got 2-3 more right. If you are in your office, you could have found one phone, a cord connected to your computer and the light shining in your window. Don’t feel silly, if you didn’t get them all. I know on the next try you would get all four without breaking a sweat.
These two experiments are meant to demonstrate one main thing. The most important thing is to notice that in the first experiment, the words I used hid from you things. They did not take you directly to them. These are categories of words, not things. Also noticeable is that in the second experiment, the words I used were plain to you, when it came to things. Well, at least now that I gave you some examples. These are categories for things and not just classifications for words.
The problem is seen at its height, when we try to teach language in school whether it is native or foreign to us. The typical approach in the United States is that in about the 5th or 6th grade, we teach a thing called grammar through the parts of speech. This is meant to help us with at least two elements of communication, reading and writing. The one problem I am trying to point out here, is that the method is about words and studying, not things and learning.
In total, I think there are at least five weaknesses in our grammatical method in the United States: (1) it follows a one-dimensional approach to language versus a multi (five)-dimensional approach to language, (2) it has too great of an information load for our brains with eight parts of speech versus having an information load of only four to five things in a set, (3) it deals with later development of language skill rather than earlier development of language skill, (4) it focuses on words and study, a grammar of words, rather than on learning and things, a classification of things and words or word uses and (5) it makes things hidden rather than plain. We need to bring the things we need out in the open. It is this last problem that I am dealing with here.
The problem is that words have become more important than things as education has expanded into universal education in places like the United States. We need instead to keep words and things side by side. We need to teach and study alongside of know and learn. In our earliest development as children, we were concerned with needs related to the things that would satisfy our basic needs. We also though needed to relate to parents for what we needed. So we used some rather simple ways to get what we needed like food for our stomach. I’ve seen crying work effectively. Later we studied words with our parents, who also taught us those words, in the context of things we needed.
In the approach I take to communication, one of the great advantages it has is that it is plain, because it applies to things and words. It ties together both learning and studying. In a chart form of categories , it appears like this:
Communication (Whole)
1. Amount (Part)
2. Relationship (Part)
3. Action (Part)
4. Thing (Part)
When I first studied this method of learning communication, there was a problem with it. It was that a few items were not plain on the thing level. In place of amount, they had the concept of attribute, which I think is harder to find in the world of things. In place of action, they had the concept of event, which I think is also harder to find in the world of things because of its limitations in the realm of things. They both seem to apply better in the realm of words.
Because these words apply better to things than the words of grammar, I think they enhance our ability to make things plain. I know for me personally, this has been a major benefit. Recently, I took an online course and I aced the final exam. If I remember correctly, this may be the first time I didn’t get a single answer wrong on a final. The reason, I recall, for not getting every answer right on a final exam previously is, that I would typically misread at least one question. What this method has done for me is to make things plain or clear. If I get stumped, then I can go back to basic things to put words into a plain context.
Let’s go back to the earlier questions and look at some answers. The first question for communication was: What makes things plain and what makes things hidden? An answer is that grammar hides things, because it is only about word categories and not about thing categories. Or more to the point of the first question: Why are so many things hidden from us in communication? An answer is that it is because we rely on a method that favors words over things, rather than joining them together like two sides of a coin. Or applying the second question in the Christian context: Why so many interpretations of the same text in the Bible? An answer is that too often our method is limited to language, words and their rules and does not look enough at the things in the context. Again, because the questions asked are often only about language and not about things, things are hidden that otherwise could be plain.
So using categories of things and words has helped make things hidden from me in plain view of the communicator, to become plain also for me. I want the same thing to be available to others, including yourself. We need to work from categories of things, not just categories of words. Remember our earlier experiment. We need to change education in the direction that my linguistics professor, Dr. Donald Larson, wanted to take it. Things are in plain view, if only we will change our basic approach to communication and talk about things and not just words. Is the thing I'm saying plain and not just my words?
Sincerely,
Jon
Friday, February 26, 2010
Communication Basics: The Education Gap
You know how it is. There are some who achieve educationally and there are those who don't. There are also those who no longer care. In the end, there must be an explanation for this achievement gap in education.
For me, the secret to success in the traditional educational system in the United States is to realize the importance that words play in the system. It is modelled after the Greek system of education more than any other model. This system focuses on words over things.
This is both a strength and a weakness. This means that we can through our system of education, become experts in words. This is its strength. This also means that we can through our system of education, become failures at real life. This is its weakness. This is because we lose a sense of balance between words and reality. The secret is to maximize the strength while minimizing the weakness at the same time. Those who no longer care usually gave up trying to do this a long time ago.
My writing on this blog will focus on the basics of communication as found in using words. It doesn't mean that we won't ever talk about things, but dealing with things is better done through another means than words alone, even concrete ones.
I will be introducing a way of communication that I think is basic to meaning and talking about the things we all need. I will do my best to add something every month. So please stop back and check in every once in while. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jon
For me, the secret to success in the traditional educational system in the United States is to realize the importance that words play in the system. It is modelled after the Greek system of education more than any other model. This system focuses on words over things.
This is both a strength and a weakness. This means that we can through our system of education, become experts in words. This is its strength. This also means that we can through our system of education, become failures at real life. This is its weakness. This is because we lose a sense of balance between words and reality. The secret is to maximize the strength while minimizing the weakness at the same time. Those who no longer care usually gave up trying to do this a long time ago.
My writing on this blog will focus on the basics of communication as found in using words. It doesn't mean that we won't ever talk about things, but dealing with things is better done through another means than words alone, even concrete ones.
I will be introducing a way of communication that I think is basic to meaning and talking about the things we all need. I will do my best to add something every month. So please stop back and check in every once in while. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
