I am NOT opposed to people having a good technical sense. The race to get to the moon using the heightened abilities of electronic invention was a great thing. It helped give birth to the microprocessor that drives so many technologies today like the cell phone. As a result, most of us have heard of an Intel microprocessor. But I think there is an invention that could eclipse this improvement of electronic devices. I think it lies not in the direction of an external electronic device, but in the direction of improving our ability to use the minds each of us are equipped with as standard equipment.
The human mind is still a wonder. It has incredible capacities. But lately, I am noticing that technical sense does not mean common sense. Many people have high technical abilities, but their minds have little common sense. Here lies the tragedy, because the mind is capable of both.
I think common sense is greater than the lesser ability of technical sense, but it is when the two are combined together that the greatest ideal is achieved. We seem to have come out of the 20th century with lots of the latter and few of the former. We need now common sense to match our technical achievements.
This is what I believe the majority of people yearn for, when it comes to even technology. I like to call my under-developed smart phone a "dumb phone". More times than not it fails to demonstrate smarts. Rather it shows a great lack of common sense features. It can make a pocket call right after I shut it down. It can start up by simply bumping another object in my pocket. It has immense capabilities, but few of which follow even the most basic common sense.
My goal on this blog in this year will be to lay out what I consider to be a common sense approach to communication based on the very common words that we use to communicate every single day. I hate to state the overly obvious, but the common is found among the very common, and not among the unique or exceptional.
I saw this in a commercial: "Great minds think alike" followed by "Great minds think differently". These slogans in the commercial were meant to be mutually exclusive of one another. But I think they are not. The ideal is common sense, where great minds think alike, and technical sense, where great minds think differently.
I recently realized that my communication basic method of "ARWAT" is not common sense enough. The categories of: 1)Amount, 2) Relationships, 3) Wholes, 4) Actions, and 5) Things are not on a list of most frequent words in English. They are closer than the word categories that I had previously used called "TEAR" with the categories of !)Thing, 2Event, 3)Attribute, and 4) Relation. Recently, I took the final step toward "very common". That is where I found common sense! It is alive and well once you know where to find it.
[Sorry, I have to come back and finish this later. You can contact me if you like to learn more sooner. Thank you.]
Sincerely,
Jon
Showing posts with label meaning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label meaning. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Monday, February 11, 2013
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
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
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
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Communication Basics: From 5 Questions to 10 Questions
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!
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, 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, 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
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Communication Basics: Combining the Strengths of Rhetoric, Grammar and Logic
There are many angles from which to explain the strength of my idea on communication basics. One of the angles is from that of classic rhetoric, grammar and logic. From this angle the strength of the method I use is that it combines the strengths of rhetoric, grammar and logic; rather than depending on primarily grammar.
Contemporary schooling has turned the basics of classic education into the 3 R's of reading, writing and arithmetic. In classic education the big 3 were rhetoric, grammar and logic. When I studied linguistics in college I now realize that the greatest gain I experienced came from combing rhetoric, grammar and logic. Yet it is the renewed use of rhetoric that was the real source of greatest insight.
Classic rhetoric recognized four classes of meaning plus the whole that unites them. I have simplified those four classes or categories down to amount, relationship, action and thing. This is not discovered in reading or writing classes that rely mainly on grammar. Likewise, logic is no longer taught as essentially logic, but is now mathematical logic and so is taught indirectly through mathematics.
So what all of this boils down to is using a method that does not set aside the insights of classic rhetoric, that does not exalt grammar too much and that does not ignore the logic of mathematics. That is what my linguistics professors in college handed on to me as a legacy. I thank them very deeply for their insights and for the experience of excitement rather than boredom as I approach language.
Sincerely,
Jon
Contemporary schooling has turned the basics of classic education into the 3 R's of reading, writing and arithmetic. In classic education the big 3 were rhetoric, grammar and logic. When I studied linguistics in college I now realize that the greatest gain I experienced came from combing rhetoric, grammar and logic. Yet it is the renewed use of rhetoric that was the real source of greatest insight.
Classic rhetoric recognized four classes of meaning plus the whole that unites them. I have simplified those four classes or categories down to amount, relationship, action and thing. This is not discovered in reading or writing classes that rely mainly on grammar. Likewise, logic is no longer taught as essentially logic, but is now mathematical logic and so is taught indirectly through mathematics.
So what all of this boils down to is using a method that does not set aside the insights of classic rhetoric, that does not exalt grammar too much and that does not ignore the logic of mathematics. That is what my linguistics professors in college handed on to me as a legacy. I thank them very deeply for their insights and for the experience of excitement rather than boredom as I approach language.
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)
