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