Communication Basics: The ARWAT Method

The major tool I use to make observations in life is what I call the ARWAT method.  It is directly descended from the TEAR method largely popularized by Eugene Albert Nida. 

[Under Construction]

Sincerely,

Jon

Communication 101: Using it to Read the Bible (and every other book)

I grew up a "chapter and verse" guy, before I ever entered school.  That meant that reading was important.  In my parents' house, if you had an opinion on religion, then you had better know the chapter and verse you are getting it from.  But as one of my former college professors points out that means the rules of interpretation or the rules of communication are very important.  It comes down to method to help remove some of the differences in interpretation. 

I am currently writing a great deal about the meaning of holy.  It is a topic above the basics, but it is also built on a basic method.  The basics come first, but they also are there in the highest and most complex projects as well.  It is a good idea to start with them to handle all the complexity of communication that is going to come our way in a lifetime. 

My method is basically semantic.  It deals with meaning.  It begins with classes of meaning.  It does not begin with grammatical categories, though it certainly thinks they are valid for the average adult.  But before grammar really gets very clear to us, meaning has already gained the primary foothold. 

I learned this through my linguistics classes in college, especially when we learned about how children learn language and also when we learned about how people learn a second language.  They both really expose the importance of meaning over grammar, but not without some consideration for grammar as well. 

It is not meaning versus grammar, it is meaning followed by grammar, that is, meaning and grammar in that order.  My method of going from one language to another is as follows (from Nehemiah chapter 8):

     Translate
     Transfer
     Total
     Train
     Teach

This is my basic method in communicating from one language to another.  The total is necessary of the four other Ts.  It is that simple.  You need them all. 

I agree with those who say translating the Bible is not enough.  It is though the beginning and an important one.  Total is used in this method not as a separate step so much as the summary and reminder that the four other T's are required and not just one. 

So for basic translation workers, it is important to realize that even communication 101 has not happened, unless all four as a total are present.  Then we can talk about communication that works between languages.  Thank you for taking some time to read this entry.


Sincerely,

Jon

Communication Basics 101: Academic Freedom

Those who are teachers like to speak of academic freedom as a prized possession handed down from previous generations.   I totally agree!  The problem is that sometimes it becomes misused as a basis for sloppy thinking and sloppy communicating.  I like to define it as a freedom from broken rules. 

I believe in both rule and freedom, and that one without the other is dangerous.  In my writing, I am practicing freedom by suggesting ways to improve on the past rules of communication. 

In the past, there was a lot of focus on reading, writing, and speaking; but not enough on listening.  So I want to re-write the rules in that regard to put listening in front of reading as a critical part of communication.  After all, humility is a virtue.  When did you last take a listening course as a requirement in school? 

I also want to re-write the rules with regard to grammar.  I think it has a long and proud tradition, but there is a great complement to it in the discoveries of linguistics.  Linguistics does not provide license for overturning the learning of grammar, but it does shift its importance into its proper sphere.  So I would like to re-write the rules on that. 

See some rules we get as part of our inheritance are broken while others are just fine.  Eugene Nida, formerly with the United Bible Societies, tried to re-write the universals of language through semantic categories rather than through grammatical categories.  I like his freedom in that regard.  I think he helps, through his categories or classes, to lead people to a better understanding of the parts of speech among the grammatical categories.  John Beekman and John Callow, I think demonstrate this in their work for the Summer Institute of Linguistics.  They too show freedom, but a freedom that leads to better rules and away from broke rules. 

So you bet I believe in academic freedom!  Without it we are doomed.  We can't make many of the improvements that are needed and that I recommend.  Only make sure of one thing.  It is discarding only the broken rules and not throwing out the good rules of communication with it.  Thank you for taking time to read my entry. 

Sincerely,

Jon

Communication 101: Basics for Bible Readers

I love to outline sermons that I hear in church to see if their is an organizational pattern of some kind to what they are saying.  Recently, I outlined a sermon as it was being preached that had some great individual pieces of content, but that had nearly no organization other than an opening and a closing.  It was hard to listen to from that standpoint both for me and others, but also everyone of us agreed there was valuable content.  It is too bad that the sermon did not have both together!   I want to say something about organization of speaking or writing on a basic level. 

Now when I say basic I mean something that even children shortly before age 13 can grasp.  I also mean something that all of them can grasp assuming there is not some form of disability associated with their learning.  Some of the words that I will use today will go beyond that level, but I want to reduce those ideas to a more basic level and I want to do it with a solid form of organization.  So I want to simplify content and also outline it. 

I recently ran across a fairly great book for exegesis.  What it boils down to is the rules for reading the Bible.  Usually exegesis does not get much press outside that arena.  I say fairly, because it belongs alongside some of the best books on exegesis.  I also want to clarify that when I call it great what I mean is that:

     1) it has great content
     2) it has practical use
     3) it has simplicity in comparison to its competitors, and
     4) it is comprehensive.

The only thing that is not as strong as these areas of strength is that of its own outline or organization.  It is somewhat like the sermon that I and others heard.  It too has great content, but it lacks organization. 

The name of the book is: A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis.  The authors are: Craig L. Blomberg (he is not among my Blomberg relatives for those concerned with bias) and Jennifer Foutz Markley.  I want to repeat that there is a great deal of good in this book. 

This is how they outlined their book:

     Acknowledgements   ix
     Introduction     xi
     Abbreviations     xix

     1. Textual Criticism     1
     2. Translation and Translations     37
     3.  Historical - Cultural Context     63
     4.  Literary Context     93
     5.  Word Studies     117
     6.  Grammar     143
     7.  Interpretive Problems     167
     8.  Outlining     195
     9.  Theology     219
     10. Application     239

     Summary     269
     Appendix: Checklist for Doing Biblical Exegesis     273
     Select Bibliography     277
     Scripture Index     285
     Subject Index     291

From the start they make an error in starting with textual criticism.  This is typical since many evangelical scholars consider themselves to be part of the grammatical-historical tradition of interpretation.  The key word is "historical".  Due to the battles over the bible and due to the historical critical tradition, history tends to get the front seat.  I disagree with that tendency, because it puts history in the wrong organizational position. 

To re-organize the book, I will use five universal classes of things to determine the best organization for the book.  Those five classifications are the following (notice the italics in the examples):

     Amounts (ex. the big kitty)
     Relationships (ex. mom and dad are here)
     Wholes (ex. the tail of the doggy is wagging)
     Actions (ex. run Spot run)
     Things (ex. the car is gone)

Let me give you some of the support for this system of classification.  Eugene Nida of the United Bible Societies, the Summer Institute of Linguistics and Wycliffe Bible translators have used these universal categories with slightly different names (Things, Events, Attributes, and Relations) and lacking one category (wholes) for a long time in the field as translators.  It has been field tested in many languages and  many cultures.  I have never seen one person who is skeptical of this method produce one language or one culture where it does not work.  It is universal unless there is an example of failure among the data available in translation.  This is the empirical proof for its universal use. 

There is also another source of support.  All of these are included a longer list of what are called semantic universals.  So if the l longer list is universal (it is more debatable), then certainly the shorter list is universal as well.  You can find that longer list in: Semantic and Lexical Universals: Theory and Empirical Findings.   That will have to suffice for the evidence at this point.

Let me now reorganize their list in two steps.  The first step is to classify each section according to its primary category and the second step is to then create a new outline.  I am also going to clarify each class a little further with what I call the ten universal questions in English. 

Here is step one (listed in order that they are found in the book under each classification):

     Amount [Am]  (How many?  How much?)
          1.  Translation and Translations  [R] of {Am}

     Relationship [R]  (Where?  When?)
          1.  Textual Criticism  [T] of [R]
          2.  Historical-Cultural Context [R] of [R]
          3.  Literary Context  [T] of [Ac] of [R]
          4.  Select Bibliography [Am] of [R]
          5.  Scripture Index [T] of [Am] of  [R]

     Whole [W]  (Who?  Whole?)
          1.  Acknowledgements  [W] of [R] 
          2.  Introduction [W] of [W]
          3.  Grammar [T] of [W]
          4.  Outlining [R] of [W]
          5.  Summary [Am] of [W]

     Action [Ac]  (How?  Why?)
          1.  Application  [R] of [Ac]
          2.  Appendix: Checklist for Doing Exegesis [Ac] of [Ac]

     Thing [T] (What?  Which?)
          1.  Abbreviations  [Am] of [T]
          2.  Word Studies [T] of [T]
          3.  Interpretive Problems  [Am] of [R] of [T] of [T]
          4.  Theology  [R] of [W] of [T] of [T]

Now you might argue that this is not simple!  That is absolutely correct.  If there is more than one (the simplest), then the argument can be made that these words are not simple.  I warned earlier about this issue.  Sometimes to make things simple, you also have to expose actual complexity.  Bot writers of this book assume that what they are saying is quite simple.  We can all see that is not quite true though I do not question their motives.  What is simple still is the primary or core classes that each one of these complex words can be simplified into by using the basic classes of meaning from Eugene A. Nida and other translators. 

The way that I have classified each category is where the basics can be discussed.  You and I may disagree on some of these classifications, but at least we now have a simple way to discuss the issues.  We also have our basic ideas fully out in the open.  We cannot hide behind unnecessary complexity any more.  I now have revealed to you what I am thinking at the most basic and universal level.   The work of discussion now will be easier than it was before, without denying any complexity where it honestly exists.  Try this, you will like it!  It does take time to acquire this skill, but it is not difficult after a little practice. 

Here is step two (my re-organization of the book):

     Whole
          Acknowledgments  (Who?)
          Introduction  (Whole?)
         
     Amount
          Translations  (How many?)
          Translation   (How much?)
          Clear and Meaningful (How many?)  (How much?)

     Relationship
         Literary Context  (Where?) [internal] (When?) 
         Historical-cultural Context (Where?)  [external] (When?)
         Textual Criticism (Where?)  (When?) (Which?)
   
     Whole
         Grammar (Who?)  (Whole?)
         Outlining (Who?)  (Whole?)  (Where?)  (When?)

     Action
          The Motive Behind Exegesis  (Why?)
         Checklist for Doing Exegesis  (How?)
          Application from Text to Today   (How?)  (Why?)  (Where?)  (When?)

     Thing
         Interpretive Problems (What?)  (Which?)  (How many?)  (How much?)
         Word Studies (What?)  (Which?)
         Theology (What?)  (Which?)  (Where?)  (When?)  (Whole?)

     Whole
     Summary (Who?) (Whole?)  (How many?)  (How much?)

     Select Bibliography  (Where?)  (When?)  (How many?)  (How much?)
     Scripture Index  (Where?)  (When?)  (How much?)
     Subject Index  (What?)  (Which?)  (Where?)
     Abbreviations (What?)  (Which?)  (How much?)
    
    
In this section, you will notice that I used questions to help classify things rather than the class labels themselves.  I did this to test which method of classification is more effective.  I think a combination of both together words the best, especially since the questions break out the two major aspects of each class.  I also have yet one other way to test where a word should be classified, but that is dealt with elsewhere (ex. Culture and Revolution, etc.).

I did split a title into both "Translations" and "Translation" to answer both questions individually.  I also added a chapter on motivation for exegesis since I think motive is always critical to providing an incentive for "why" anyone should use exegesis over another method. 

I should make one other note.  I do think there is an awareness in their book of the contribution of linguistics and semantics (a sub-set of linguistics), but I also think it could use a little additional discussion of the modern study of languages and its terminology.  That would demonstrate more the contributions of people like Nida, Black, Silva, Barr, and others.   I would have to read with a closer eye on this issue to give a better evaluation of this topic.  I plan on adding this book to my library, so maybe I will have more time to evaluate this then,

So back to the issue of basics.  Their book is much simpler than many that I have examined.  It is also highly practical.  But I think simplicity gets overused.  There are 4 personality types for the Myer-Briggs approach to personality differences.  That is pretty basic.  But it is also a bit more complicated, when you produce 16 types by taking into consideration combinations of these 4 basics.  It can also go beyond just 16 types to even more complexity, since personality can vary widely beyond just 16.  Just look at how many different temperaments there are in the world!  The same holds true here. 

The 5 basic classes of definition or meaning are basic.  But that does not mean that no words refer to a combination of more than one of these.  That is where things can get more and more complex as needed to fit with reality.  Just look at the complexity of technology in the 21st Century and the technical terminology that has developed with it.  I'm for simplicity where it applies and for complexity where it applies.  We can use more simplicity, when it comes to reading and studying the Bible or any book.  The book A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis moves exegesis in that direction.  We need to keep working on simplicity and organization so that there is both great content and great organization.  Both will make the reading more enjoyable!


Sincerely,

Jon

Communication Basics 101: Why Grammar isn't the Place to Begin

Alan Greenspan once said: "To succeed, you will soon learn, as I did, the importance of a solid foundation in the basics of education - literacy, both verbal and numerical, and communication skills".  One of the main purposes of this blog is to point the way back to the basics.  Grammar is one of the most hated topics of private or public education.  Just ask junior highers and senior highers.  Why is that?  I think it has to do with the idea that grammar is supposed to be basic, but it doesn't look basic.  

Here is what I mean.  When each of us begins to learn language at home, there might be hardly a hint of instruction in the topic called "grammar".  We might have never heard the notion of "the parts of speech" as one part of grammar and yet we might be quite capable speakers before our junior high teacher begins to teach us the parts of speech.  So the question arises as to how they then can be basic?  I agree with the question.  How can the parts of speech (as one part of grammar) then be called basic?  

If something is basic, then you would think that even a child might begin to grasp the ideas.  A child might not be able yet to handle solid food, but they certainly can handle baby food.  I think the parts of speech should be handled as the beginning of adult speech, not the beginning of immature speech.  In other words, it has to be taught by the mature to those who are becoming or already are mature.  In other words, while it is not so basic as to be grasped by a very young child, an adult is able to grasp it.  So what should be taught before the parts of speech or grammar/letters (as a whole) that is basic?  

I believe there is something that all adults make known to their children from the earliest stages of learning to use language.  It is the universal classes of meaning.  They precede the parts of speech, but they are also followed by the parts of speech.  They are referred to as meaning classes or meaning categories.  They consist of:

Parts and Wholes (ex. the tail of the kitty)
    Amounts (ex. the doggy has four legs)
    Relationships (ex. mommy and daddy)
    Actions (ex. go)
    Things (ex. stick)

A child is taught by an adult to distinguish between things and nothings, etc. The examples abound (ex. this is a dog, that is a cat [so that is not a dog])!  The child's sentences may not be grammatically correct, but they are early on able to communicate the basics to those who are adults and even other children.  

What is also favorable toward calling these meaning classes basic is that they also have proven through practice by translators all over the world to be universal classes of meaning.  Trying to prove that there is a universal grammar is much more controversial.  Many have tried to prove this idea and have failed.  That includes specialists in language called linguists (the formal studiers of language).  Not even all the Indo-European languages have 8 parts of speech that are the same as those found in English.  

So for me a good user of language can be a child.  They may be immature, but they can use language in a good way or they can use it well.  A good and mature user of language is an adult that can first grasp the meaning classes of language that the child can handle: 1) parts and wholes, 2) amounts, 3) relationships, 4) actions, and 5) things; and also the major parts of speech (as a part of grammar) that vary from language to language.  In English grammar, this means: 1) nouns, 2) verbs, 3) pronouns, 4) adjectives, 5) adverbs, 6) interjections, 7) prepositions, and 8) articles.  Two things need to be specifically addressed to clarify my point further.  

The first is that only the classes of meaning are universally basic (though the names in each language may vary).  The second is that while grammar is not basic, it is mature.  In other words, if you want to sound like an adult and not a child in your speech, then that part of grammar called the parts of speech will be seen by mature adults as a adult or mature thing.  Very young children can rightly object that it is not basic.  But maybe it will be easier to swallow, if we adults tell the children that learning the parts of speech is like moving from being immature (a child) to being mature (an adult).  No more jamming the mature down the throat of the immature, but also no more immature children telling adults that maturity is optional when they are coming of age either!  That sounds far more real to children, parents and teachers!