Teachers, especially writing teachers and journalism teachers are supposed to teach their students the basic questions every reporter or writer should ask: "Who? What? Why? Where? and How?" I would like to re-work this list and chang it up some. I want to say that some of the most important questions are left out.
My first clue came from my higher level of educaiton in theology where I ran across Martin Luther's original question of "How much?" behind the answer of "the righteousness of Jesus Christ". See often people think too much about answers and not enough about questions. I know John Calvin's answer was "humility. humility, humility", but what was his question? I have asked teachers in the Reformed tradtion and they still have not gotten back to me on the question. I think it might be a "when" question (that is my best guess).
So without further ado, let me show you my re-working of the 5 questions into 5 groups of questions. They are:
1) How many? How much?
2) Where? When"
3) Who? Whole?
4) How? Why?
5) What? Which?
I have found these immensely helpful to avoid the pitfalls of not asking a critical basic question. How many times do we zoom to teaching a "how" (method) without a "why" (motivation)? Do others sometimes tell us "what" (ice cream) they want, but they forget to tell us "which (kind)" (chocolate) they want? Do we dare get in trouble for bringing them plain vanilla? We need to ask "which (kind)?"
So when I teach or tutor a student or when I am a good listening mode, I ask all these kinds of questions. They are all valuable. Do you (who?) have any (of the whole of?) questions? If you do, then please choose one of the questions above and ask through your comments! Thank you.
Take care,
Jon
P. S. Happy teaching and learning!
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Communication Basics: Word Meanings of Knowers and Teachers
When I was in junior high, I saw first hand a very important lesson. We had a very enthusiastic French teacher who unexpectedly found herself explaining to her class her frustrations, following her visit to France. For all of her study of French, the native speakers of France were able to identify that she herself was not a native speaker of French. She had learned the hard way the difference between being a teacher of French and a knower of French. Keep this distincion in mind, as I explain some of the language that is written about the basic meanings found in languages from around the world.
The lesson from my story is not that there is something wrong with being a good teacher of French, as some do mistakenly interpret the story. This was my own mistken interpreation in the past. In their minds, there are only two alternatives: going technical or going native. Instead the lesson is that the ideal would be to first be a knower of French, like the common citizens of France, as well as a teacher of French, like my junior high school teacher.
Some pieces of my writing are aimed mainly at knowers, others mainly at teachers and others for those who are the ideal combination of both knowers and teachers. This entry is mainly designed for those who are both. But it is also to give more confidence to knowers, who understand the basic terminology I have used elsewhere, while maybe not grasping some of the technical language in this entry. My main point in this entry is to show that there is successful and technical scholarship behind the knower's basic five classes of meaning.
I have referred before to the following classes of meaning:
Wholes (the Total of all its Constituent Parts)
Amounts
Relationships
Actions
Things
I have just begun to read a volume titled: Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testatment: A Supplemnet to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testatment Based on Semantic Domains. In it, I discovered this technical terminology:
Words as Signs (for Speakers)
Characteristics
Relations
Activities
Entities
This language does not surprise me, because Eugene Nida is one of the two authors along with J. P. Louw to write this volume, as they were together the authors of the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. I would guess, without the opportunity to interview both or them or one of them, that this is an updated scholarly vocabulary for Nida's earlier words.
His terminology was usually simplified to the following classes and usually referred to by the acronym of TEAR. It is made of the following technical terminology used by translators and their teachers:
Classes of Language (The Total of Four Constituents)
Attributes (Abstracts)
Relations
Events
Things
This new terminology added to this older terminology that Nida used might not be that convincing for the knower of English or any other language, but the new terminology says to me that they are trying to appeal to other teachers of language (in linguistics and in biblical scholars in this case) among the scholarly community to acknowledge these basic categories of meaning.
Where in the literature they pulled this terminology from or why they went to this terminology other than my general observation is hard to determine. But I do regard both Eugene Albert Nida (his more technical full name) and J. P. Louw as important scholars behind my own knowing and studying.
It is gratifying to see them still working with the TEAR classes as recently as 1992, even while using different words to say much the same thing that Nida said much earlier (at least as early as 1964 in Toward a Science of Translating). It would be very gratifying for me to be a person that popularizes Nida's idea of these four classes by my basic language approach, while the basic TEAR method continues to prove itself over and over in its practice among the many languages of the world by Wyclifffe Bible Translators, SIL and other translation organizations. An added benefit from this technical terminology is that more teachers and scholars would acknowledge the same method as valid not only amoung knowers, but also among teachers.
If more teachers would be begin from meaning rather than grammar, then I think we would see a revolution in the classrooms worldwide. Perhaps letting teachers know about the technical vocabulary, that is behind the basics of my popular words for knowers, will help more of teachers to acknowledge meaning and grammar as very important to basic language teaching.
This would take things full circle and would show once again that the ideal for all French teachers and teachers of other languages is a person who is both a knower and teacher of a language. I hope this helps all my readers whether knowers, teachers or equally both knowers and teachers. Go learn and study these basic meaning classes, so you can be both a knower and teacher!
Sincerely,
Jon
The lesson from my story is not that there is something wrong with being a good teacher of French, as some do mistakenly interpret the story. This was my own mistken interpreation in the past. In their minds, there are only two alternatives: going technical or going native. Instead the lesson is that the ideal would be to first be a knower of French, like the common citizens of France, as well as a teacher of French, like my junior high school teacher.
Some pieces of my writing are aimed mainly at knowers, others mainly at teachers and others for those who are the ideal combination of both knowers and teachers. This entry is mainly designed for those who are both. But it is also to give more confidence to knowers, who understand the basic terminology I have used elsewhere, while maybe not grasping some of the technical language in this entry. My main point in this entry is to show that there is successful and technical scholarship behind the knower's basic five classes of meaning.
I have referred before to the following classes of meaning:
Wholes (the Total of all its Constituent Parts)
Amounts
Relationships
Actions
Things
I have just begun to read a volume titled: Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testatment: A Supplemnet to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testatment Based on Semantic Domains. In it, I discovered this technical terminology:
Words as Signs (for Speakers)
Characteristics
Relations
Activities
Entities
This language does not surprise me, because Eugene Nida is one of the two authors along with J. P. Louw to write this volume, as they were together the authors of the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. I would guess, without the opportunity to interview both or them or one of them, that this is an updated scholarly vocabulary for Nida's earlier words.
His terminology was usually simplified to the following classes and usually referred to by the acronym of TEAR. It is made of the following technical terminology used by translators and their teachers:
Classes of Language (The Total of Four Constituents)
Attributes (Abstracts)
Relations
Events
Things
This new terminology added to this older terminology that Nida used might not be that convincing for the knower of English or any other language, but the new terminology says to me that they are trying to appeal to other teachers of language (in linguistics and in biblical scholars in this case) among the scholarly community to acknowledge these basic categories of meaning.
Where in the literature they pulled this terminology from or why they went to this terminology other than my general observation is hard to determine. But I do regard both Eugene Albert Nida (his more technical full name) and J. P. Louw as important scholars behind my own knowing and studying.
It is gratifying to see them still working with the TEAR classes as recently as 1992, even while using different words to say much the same thing that Nida said much earlier (at least as early as 1964 in Toward a Science of Translating). It would be very gratifying for me to be a person that popularizes Nida's idea of these four classes by my basic language approach, while the basic TEAR method continues to prove itself over and over in its practice among the many languages of the world by Wyclifffe Bible Translators, SIL and other translation organizations. An added benefit from this technical terminology is that more teachers and scholars would acknowledge the same method as valid not only amoung knowers, but also among teachers.
If more teachers would be begin from meaning rather than grammar, then I think we would see a revolution in the classrooms worldwide. Perhaps letting teachers know about the technical vocabulary, that is behind the basics of my popular words for knowers, will help more of teachers to acknowledge meaning and grammar as very important to basic language teaching.
This would take things full circle and would show once again that the ideal for all French teachers and teachers of other languages is a person who is both a knower and teacher of a language. I hope this helps all my readers whether knowers, teachers or equally both knowers and teachers. Go learn and study these basic meaning classes, so you can be both a knower and teacher!
Sincerely,
Jon
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Communication: Its Link to Two Kinds of Education
One of my professors in college (who I never had a course with, but for whom I analyzed a project he was working on) had a brilliant mind, when it came to understanding schools and education. He was a linguist (a studier of language), but he was also more than that, because he analyzed the effectiveness of schools and found them lacking. I agree with him that most educational programs can be found lacking
One of the key differences in my approach to language is that of having a different approach to learning than many programs do. My approach consists of a combination of two kinds of education. The first is the knower-learner axis that is also more primary. We begin doing this kind of education at the earliest age possible for communication. The second is the teaacher-studier (student) axis that we begin in greater earnest the day we enter school and study communication there. Dr. Larson said the ideal was a combination of both approaches.
My analogy for it is a vertical plumb line for the axis of knower-learner and a horizontal level line for the axis of teacher-studier (student). Most people experience an excess of the second in terms of the way they have been educated. This is unfortunate, since the best learning occurs when the knower-learner comes first and the teacher-studier comes second. When they are working together in a balance and with the right prioritization, then people become the most educated and most successful at using their education effectively.
This approach is not the same as the practical or pragmatic approach. That view is simply replacing things with actions. It is radical in its criticism of the school system. It is short-sighted, because it takes one part of who we are as whole persons and focuses on another part of who we are rather than strengthening our smarts and minds about things and words. The approach I take (and Dr. Larson took) strengthens education and makes people smarter rather than just making them more practiced.
My educational approach does not change the goal nor the focus of education. It rather strengthens education through a better balance and through the right prioritzation. It makes people smarter.
My best communication example for this comes out of my junior high years of learning French. Our teacher, who was a zealot for the French language if ever there was one, was able to take a trip to France and use the skills she was teaching us in the classroom. Unfortunatley for her, while she was a great teacher of French, she was not a great knower of French. The French treated her badly for this and she was not at all happy about her experience. It was a real disappointment for her, because she had such high expectations for this trip that today we would say was part of her "bucket list".
If she had one native French speaker (a knower of French) she could speak with regularly before leaving the United States, her bad experience could have been avoided. She could have been a learner learning from a knower. In the model I suggesting, the point is not that she was a bad teacher (that she was not practical). No, she was a great teaacher, but just not a great knower.
So my approach to communication says to take this balanced approach seriously or you can easily end up unbalanced, embarassed, unhappy, and not just a little frustrated after all your study. Make sure you learn first and study second together! Then your communication skills or language skills will surpass those of many others.
Sincerely,
Jon
P.S. At some later time, if possible, I will try to add a Smart Art picture of what I am saying for greater clarity.
One of the key differences in my approach to language is that of having a different approach to learning than many programs do. My approach consists of a combination of two kinds of education. The first is the knower-learner axis that is also more primary. We begin doing this kind of education at the earliest age possible for communication. The second is the teaacher-studier (student) axis that we begin in greater earnest the day we enter school and study communication there. Dr. Larson said the ideal was a combination of both approaches.
My analogy for it is a vertical plumb line for the axis of knower-learner and a horizontal level line for the axis of teacher-studier (student). Most people experience an excess of the second in terms of the way they have been educated. This is unfortunate, since the best learning occurs when the knower-learner comes first and the teacher-studier comes second. When they are working together in a balance and with the right prioritization, then people become the most educated and most successful at using their education effectively.
This approach is not the same as the practical or pragmatic approach. That view is simply replacing things with actions. It is radical in its criticism of the school system. It is short-sighted, because it takes one part of who we are as whole persons and focuses on another part of who we are rather than strengthening our smarts and minds about things and words. The approach I take (and Dr. Larson took) strengthens education and makes people smarter rather than just making them more practiced.
My educational approach does not change the goal nor the focus of education. It rather strengthens education through a better balance and through the right prioritzation. It makes people smarter.
My best communication example for this comes out of my junior high years of learning French. Our teacher, who was a zealot for the French language if ever there was one, was able to take a trip to France and use the skills she was teaching us in the classroom. Unfortunatley for her, while she was a great teacher of French, she was not a great knower of French. The French treated her badly for this and she was not at all happy about her experience. It was a real disappointment for her, because she had such high expectations for this trip that today we would say was part of her "bucket list".
If she had one native French speaker (a knower of French) she could speak with regularly before leaving the United States, her bad experience could have been avoided. She could have been a learner learning from a knower. In the model I suggesting, the point is not that she was a bad teacher (that she was not practical). No, she was a great teaacher, but just not a great knower.
So my approach to communication says to take this balanced approach seriously or you can easily end up unbalanced, embarassed, unhappy, and not just a little frustrated after all your study. Make sure you learn first and study second together! Then your communication skills or language skills will surpass those of many others.
Sincerely,
Jon
P.S. At some later time, if possible, I will try to add a Smart Art picture of what I am saying for greater clarity.
Communication: Its Importance as an Action
I ran across a quote recently that I could not pass up as a post on this blog. It is from Stephen R. Covey. It reads: "Communication (human and divine) is the most important single activity of man". This quote is an important one to ponder.
The quote is found in Covey's early book titled The Spiritual Roots of Human Relations. It is a fascinating read from the standpoint of understanding Covey's own roots for his later 7 Habits and The 8th Habit.
I am not endorsing all aspects of this book, but simply putting forward ideas from him that I do agree with. His idea that communication as an activity that is very important has exciting implications, if true and if it can be proven. For myself, I choose to ponder his idea and keep my eyes open for evidence of this idea.
Sincerely,
Jon
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Communication Basics: A Synergy of Methods
There is a very helpful book written by Steven Covey called The Third Alternative. That is a great way to describe the alternative that I am suggesting for communication basics. Most of what is written about listening, speaking, reading and writing is based either on the classic view of grammar or on a contemporary advance in some part of the field of linguistics (the scientific study of language). Very rarely is a third alternative proposed, where the strengths of each is equally combined together. The path I am proposing combines the best of classical grammar with the recent insights from linguistics.
My experience is primarily, yet not exlusively, in the field of biblical study and interpretation. What I say can be applied anywhere, but my examples come mainly from the context of a Christian college and later three different Christian seminaries. An example of how I was given only two alternatives is that a semiary professor in the historical-grammatical tradition of biblical scholarship refused to show interest in the linguistic developments used by Wycliffe Bible Translators. In a very recent class experirence, I noticed that the professor was still not aware of some valuable insights from linguistics that could have been very helpful. He had no idea about the basic semantic classes of meaning: Whole, Amount, Relationship, Action, and Thing (Whole is my own addition based on classical grammar). These two streams for the most part flow apart from one another seldom combining their strengths into one stream. As an avid trout fisherman, I have seen how the power of two streams coming together can vastly increase their force, when they combine. I believe that is what is missing in the broad field of communications!
To have a break through, you must break from the currient views that are held. This does not mean that you are breaking from the classic past or the promising future. It only means you are breaking from the present. I believe we need a break through in the current field of communication basics.
On the classical grammatical side it is important to realize that within its banks is not just the Greek tradition, but also the traditions of Hebrew, Sanskrit, and Arabic. On the side of present day advances, there are many specialities including the advances in the field of semantics (a meaning focused approach within lingusitcs). Both provide insights into communication. Neither has the corner on the market, despite what advocates of either stream may say.
I was fortunate enough to study under professors at my college and seminary levels of education, who placed each of these two alternatives in their best light. I found the insights of inductive bible study to be very valuable for reading and interpreting, even while contemporary linguistic insights were overlooked. My primary professors following a classical alternative were Dr. John S. Piper and Tom Stellar. Later at the seminary level, I followed up on their teaching with studying under their mentor, Dr. Daniel P. Fuller. Most recently I was able to study this tradition under Dr. Garwood Anderson, Dr. Walter C. Kaiser and Dr. Allen P. Ross. This teaching and experience are invaluable to me, because they represented this tradtion in its best light and provided me with a number of new tools for reading and interpretation that I did not previously possess. The other alternative that provided me a great deal of value was that of courses in the field of linguistics. I was extremely fortunate to study the ideas and insights of many great linguists and to even meet some of the more famous and some of the more humble. I studied primarily under Dr. William A. Smalley and did a project on behalf of Dr. Donald A. Larson. I also was taught by Lois Malcolm, who is now is a seminary professor. Later I was fortunate to study linguistics for a short time at UW-Madison and got to talk to Dr. Noam Chomsky. Besides meeting him I was earlier introduced to Dr. Kenneth Pike, a one-time President of Wycliffe. But also I cannot leave out Dr. R. Daniel Shaw.
Each of these names I have tried to list with some detail like their middle initials in case that some people like yourself may wish to examine the credential of each of them. I owe each of them a great deal, because at one time I was by all my scores in the classroom very poor in reading and writing. Through them I have become much stronger, though I still have a good distance to go. The greatest witness I can give to their legacy is that they have each made school much easier for me by giving me superior tools to work with rather than leaving me with inferior tools to work with in trying to reach lofty goals. I used to just work hard to compensate for poor tools. Now I work hard with great tools.
What I could not say as clearly before, as I can now because of Covey, is that I have synergized these two traditions into one higher powered tool for understanding basic communication. Each alternative has allowed me to make improvements to what I was taught by the other. For example, historical-grammatical exegesis provides sentence diagramming as one of their tools. Quite honestly, I really struggled with this tool in the beginning. It overwhelmed me and a number of my classmates. It also can be very time consuming. I think that is why too many of my fellow classmates likely no longer use this tool. The only reason I am still using it is that I learned the tool of a semantic structure analysis (S.S.A.) from the alternative of linguistics and it helped me greatly simplify the tool of sentence diagramming.
This combined tool also saves me a great deal of time. I can now prepare my structure analysis in a short enough period of time that I can do a complete one from scratch for every sermon I preach. The first key opening the door to ease was to focus on action words, as I analyzed a text into its parts. The second key opening the door to ease was understanding the primary meaning classes of words, so that I could quickly identify any of them in the original text or in a translation. The structure analysis is also more technology friendly, because of its straight line layout versus the arcing method of sentence diagramming which uses curved lines . It is easy to do in Excel without any fancy extra enhancements or technical training!
So fundamentally I want you to know that I am synergizing two alternatives that are greater than using either of the other two alternatives all by themselves. I am offering the two alternatives together that form a much stronger third alternative to either of them alone. It is like the streams of water in your state, county or country. As they merge together like the tributaries of the Mississippi, they form together the mighty Misssissippi.
Sincerely,
Jon
My experience is primarily, yet not exlusively, in the field of biblical study and interpretation. What I say can be applied anywhere, but my examples come mainly from the context of a Christian college and later three different Christian seminaries. An example of how I was given only two alternatives is that a semiary professor in the historical-grammatical tradition of biblical scholarship refused to show interest in the linguistic developments used by Wycliffe Bible Translators. In a very recent class experirence, I noticed that the professor was still not aware of some valuable insights from linguistics that could have been very helpful. He had no idea about the basic semantic classes of meaning: Whole, Amount, Relationship, Action, and Thing (Whole is my own addition based on classical grammar). These two streams for the most part flow apart from one another seldom combining their strengths into one stream. As an avid trout fisherman, I have seen how the power of two streams coming together can vastly increase their force, when they combine. I believe that is what is missing in the broad field of communications!
To have a break through, you must break from the currient views that are held. This does not mean that you are breaking from the classic past or the promising future. It only means you are breaking from the present. I believe we need a break through in the current field of communication basics.
On the classical grammatical side it is important to realize that within its banks is not just the Greek tradition, but also the traditions of Hebrew, Sanskrit, and Arabic. On the side of present day advances, there are many specialities including the advances in the field of semantics (a meaning focused approach within lingusitcs). Both provide insights into communication. Neither has the corner on the market, despite what advocates of either stream may say.
I was fortunate enough to study under professors at my college and seminary levels of education, who placed each of these two alternatives in their best light. I found the insights of inductive bible study to be very valuable for reading and interpreting, even while contemporary linguistic insights were overlooked. My primary professors following a classical alternative were Dr. John S. Piper and Tom Stellar. Later at the seminary level, I followed up on their teaching with studying under their mentor, Dr. Daniel P. Fuller. Most recently I was able to study this tradition under Dr. Garwood Anderson, Dr. Walter C. Kaiser and Dr. Allen P. Ross. This teaching and experience are invaluable to me, because they represented this tradtion in its best light and provided me with a number of new tools for reading and interpretation that I did not previously possess. The other alternative that provided me a great deal of value was that of courses in the field of linguistics. I was extremely fortunate to study the ideas and insights of many great linguists and to even meet some of the more famous and some of the more humble. I studied primarily under Dr. William A. Smalley and did a project on behalf of Dr. Donald A. Larson. I also was taught by Lois Malcolm, who is now is a seminary professor. Later I was fortunate to study linguistics for a short time at UW-Madison and got to talk to Dr. Noam Chomsky. Besides meeting him I was earlier introduced to Dr. Kenneth Pike, a one-time President of Wycliffe. But also I cannot leave out Dr. R. Daniel Shaw.
Each of these names I have tried to list with some detail like their middle initials in case that some people like yourself may wish to examine the credential of each of them. I owe each of them a great deal, because at one time I was by all my scores in the classroom very poor in reading and writing. Through them I have become much stronger, though I still have a good distance to go. The greatest witness I can give to their legacy is that they have each made school much easier for me by giving me superior tools to work with rather than leaving me with inferior tools to work with in trying to reach lofty goals. I used to just work hard to compensate for poor tools. Now I work hard with great tools.
What I could not say as clearly before, as I can now because of Covey, is that I have synergized these two traditions into one higher powered tool for understanding basic communication. Each alternative has allowed me to make improvements to what I was taught by the other. For example, historical-grammatical exegesis provides sentence diagramming as one of their tools. Quite honestly, I really struggled with this tool in the beginning. It overwhelmed me and a number of my classmates. It also can be very time consuming. I think that is why too many of my fellow classmates likely no longer use this tool. The only reason I am still using it is that I learned the tool of a semantic structure analysis (S.S.A.) from the alternative of linguistics and it helped me greatly simplify the tool of sentence diagramming.
This combined tool also saves me a great deal of time. I can now prepare my structure analysis in a short enough period of time that I can do a complete one from scratch for every sermon I preach. The first key opening the door to ease was to focus on action words, as I analyzed a text into its parts. The second key opening the door to ease was understanding the primary meaning classes of words, so that I could quickly identify any of them in the original text or in a translation. The structure analysis is also more technology friendly, because of its straight line layout versus the arcing method of sentence diagramming which uses curved lines . It is easy to do in Excel without any fancy extra enhancements or technical training!
So fundamentally I want you to know that I am synergizing two alternatives that are greater than using either of the other two alternatives all by themselves. I am offering the two alternatives together that form a much stronger third alternative to either of them alone. It is like the streams of water in your state, county or country. As they merge together like the tributaries of the Mississippi, they form together the mighty Misssissippi.
Sincerely,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
