Communication Basics: Revising the Class Names of Dr. William A. Smalley and Dr. Donald N. Larson

When I was an undergrad, I sat under two geniuses.  They both were very brilliant in their own respective ways.  They both had their strengths.  Dr. Smalley was able to mediate differing parties.  Dr. Larson was able to make was seemed complex, simple.  That is what their teaching colleagues at least said about them.  I want to share a part of their genius again, but this time I want to make some improvements and make explicit why I think their genius was better than realized.

So let's begin with how I would organize their class names based on my ARWAT method (pronounced "Are what?")


Amounts
          Continuity and Change

Relationships
          Bond and Barrier

Wholes
          Models and Theories

Actions
          Rule and Freedom

Things
         Sense and Nonsense


These classes in this type of arrangement were the core classes of their curriculum minus introductory classes and specialty classes.  In my view, since no one who knew these gentlemen, who unfortunately are no longer available to question, can explain their class organization, I think the best guess is that they used the TEAR method.

TEAR is the technical precursor for my ARWAT organizational method.  That is why I think my layout of their courses works really well.

I also think they got some of their ideas for these class names from anthropological materials.  I think they may have especially relied upon Spradley and McCurdy's writings in anthropology.
 
So why do I think there needs to be some improvement?   In American culture there are certain culture values that receive a great deal of positive press.  Those words that have a positive connotation in our culture are: change, theories (since Thomas Kuhn), and freedom.  There is a problem with two other second members of their grouping.  Those do not fall into the category of positive values.  They are: barrier and nonsense.  So what I want to do is replace these two negatives with two positives to fit with the other three sets as far as establishing complete consistency.  So here it goes.  My attempt to improve on their brilliant work.

When it comes to bond and barrier, I think the American value or virtue that should replace barrier (not a virtue) is independence.  You might even have heard of the Declaration of Independence.  Independence is certainly a positive break from the negative of a barrier.  Independence and liberty are both pretty well written in granite as positive values that Americans treasure.  So in line with that value, I would like to change things to read, "bond and break".   One of the reasons for my choice of break over independence is the same first letter of "b" pattern as a memory tool.  But let's face it, break is a good synonym for independence.

When it comes to sense and nonsense, I cannot think of an American who would say that they value nonsense.  In fact, they probably would say that they would prefer some common sense in place of nonsense.  Did I just hear an "Amen" to that?   I thought so.  Education is a great value in the United States that is supposed to stamp out nonsense.  We all know that it doesn't always do that.  But its intention is certainly to give sight through knowledge to the blind through ignorance.  So in line with education as a value, I would like to change things to read, "sense and school".  I like school over educate again because of the agreement of first letters in each word.  It gives it a more pleasant and memorable ring.

So let me re-chart all of their core classes:


Amounts
          Continuity and Change

Relationships
          Bond and Break

Wholes
          Models and Theories

Actions
          Rule and Freedom

Things
         Sense and School


This is just another demonstration of how ARWAT can be used as one tool to make a lot of improvements. The other thing is perseverance.  It took me a long time to realize the genius of Smalley and Larson's class names.  Please ponder these ideas in your heart, if initially it does not make sense to you.  Enough patience and its genius will finally show itself.  It did for me.  I owe both of those teachers more than I could ever repay.  I hope I can sufficiently honor their legacies, if that is even possible. Take care.


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