Quintilian, a Roman rhetorician, organized rhetoric into its classical five parts. Later rhetoricians like Campbell tried to also organize words into similar categories like those of the larger aspects of a public address. Some have speculated that this is the source for the semantic domains of Eugene A. Nida called TEAR. But I rather think that his semantic domains may have risen out of the success of computers and their technical language.
Computers and their wild success are based on approximately 6 major themes, logics, or categories. Computers are critical to understanding both the logic and the history behind my ARWAT approach to basic communication. Nida could have derived his four categories from the language of computers.
He chose to speak of four primary semantic domains (as seen in the acronym TEAR):
Things
Events
Relations
Attributes
Things of course is not really much of a clue either way, but events, relations, and attributes all have the ring of computer relations or basic categories. If you were to read the technical discussions in the computer field on relations, you would see some of this language.
It is no big stretch to expand Nida's TEAR to include the relations between parts and wholes. And in the recent articles dealing with object-related relations in a computer context, there is some evidence that the sixth category could fit into one of the other five. This is no place for that technical discussion.
Let it suffice to say that the language of computers with its six categories and the language of rhetoric with its five categories show a great deal of overlap. While rhetoric speaks more to the macro level and computer language more to a micro level there is no reason not to see the parallels between them.
In any case, a pretty good case can be made for Nida's TEAR idea whether you argue for a classical origin in rhetoric or a cutting edge origin in computers. I favor the latter, but I think there is further support from classical rhetoric that is helpful as well..
I think lending further support to their method is the core course labels of undergraduate level linguistics classes while I was a student at Bethel University (St. Paul, MN). They were:
Continuity and change (this I believe parallels "Attributes", ex. old or new, etc.)
Bond and Barrier (this I believe parallels "Relations", ex. connected or disconnected, etc.)
Models and Theories (wholes - not listed by Nida, ex. these are each comprehensive competing options)
Rule and Freedom (this I believe parallels "Events", ex. the rules and freedoms in the game of Monopoly)
Sense and Nonsense (this I believe parallels "Things", ex. a thing is something you can sense, nothing is not the same thing, etc.)
So perhaps Nida's idea of semantic domains, which I consider his best idea, may have the most lasting legacy because of its ties to computers and to the classics. This blend would be a sales marketers dream.
Sincerely,
Jon
Showing posts with label things. Show all posts
Showing posts with label things. Show all posts
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Friday, April 30, 2010
Communication: The Distinctives
When it comes to communication ideas, it is important to understand what the key things that are behind an approach to communication. This is especially true in my case, where I point out to people that I do a few things differently from what they might be accustomed to seeing.
It may be good to begin by saying that my approach is not meant to replace or undercut the generally effective ways of teaching communication. What it does do is strengthen more what is already effective. So my approach does not so much replace, for example, grammar's use as much as shift it's use to where it is more effective.
So let me deal with each of the key things in my approach one by one. They are: 1)an integrated approach to language, 2)a surface structure approach to language, 3)a communication as relationship approach, 4)a cycle of communication process and 5)a thing-based approach to language. These are the positive components of what I teach about communication.
Let me say something about what I don't do. First, I don't do these things because they are at higher levels in the developmental process and they are not basic. When you get to a higher level, then they do have value. So I don't avoid them as though they are purely negative. It is just that I do not find them to be basic as too many teachers insist they are, when they are teaching in the classroom. I don't teach 1)just one particular approach to language like generative grammar, 2)the deep structure approach to language as more valuable than the surface structure, 3)communication for its own sake outside of relationship building, 4)a chaotic process of communication that leaves out the author or audience and so misses out on the cyclical part of the communcation process and 5)a word-based approach to language that relies on an expansion of vocabulary approach for learners to get smarter.
So back to my list of 5 positives. I will list them in the same order as above.
First, I approach language from an integrated perspective. I think you need to see the whole as you grapple with different views of language. You could call it a multi-dimensional approach. In contrast, I think the phonics versus whole-language debate is way too narrow in its scope. Each side misses the point. It is like a golfer who uses one club for every shot.
Second, I approach language from the surface. I think that the surface structure is actually right there in the speaker's mind. On a basic level, not on a deep level, they know what they are trying to say and in one sense it is all clear. In contrast, I find the generative grammar approach or sentence diagramming to be backwards from what we actually are after. It is like a fisherman fishing in deep water, when the walleyes are feeding close to shore.
Third, I approach language from the standpoint that something relational is happening or there is little sense to trying to communicate. The point is that you have to understand fundamentally whether the communication is attempting to form a connection or not. In contrast, I find some of the analysis of language has lost sight of the basic purpose of communication in trying to connect or not connect people. It is like forgetting what you went to the garage to get.
Fourth, I approach language as a process that begins with an author and leads to an audience and as a cycle in which the audience may then ask the author questions to see if the cycle of communication was completed successfully. In contrast, some books start with a text and then lead to a speech or another book without consideration for the author or the audience. It is like leaving off the beginning steps, like getting together the ingredients, in baking a cake and jumping right to putting the only part of the ingredients in the oven.
Fifth, I approach language as thing-based rather than word-based in its earliest development. Children do not learn vocabulary initially from dictionary definitions. Instead they learn words that point to things. This remains fundamental throughout the process, even after the dictionary becomes a helpful tool. In contrast, many teach language as though it began with definitions of words from other simpler words without any inclusion of things in the beginning. It is like giving a fishing pole to someone who doesn't know what a fish is.
These are the five most basic keys to my approach to communication and to language. For me, these five things or principles have revolutionized my comprehension of communicaiton. It has also enhanced my ability to communicate. Remember these are basic, so there may be those who can communicate better than I, but I think I can stand toe to toe with them on the basics. I know where to begin, even if others have already reached the finish line. Before this point in my life, I could not even find the starting line to begin the race and my communication was chaotic at best. So at least I can help a lot of people get started on the race of communication and give them a fair chance of finishing too rather than a few people finishing, while others haven't even found the starting line.
Sincerely,
Jon
It may be good to begin by saying that my approach is not meant to replace or undercut the generally effective ways of teaching communication. What it does do is strengthen more what is already effective. So my approach does not so much replace, for example, grammar's use as much as shift it's use to where it is more effective.
So let me deal with each of the key things in my approach one by one. They are: 1)an integrated approach to language, 2)a surface structure approach to language, 3)a communication as relationship approach, 4)a cycle of communication process and 5)a thing-based approach to language. These are the positive components of what I teach about communication.
Let me say something about what I don't do. First, I don't do these things because they are at higher levels in the developmental process and they are not basic. When you get to a higher level, then they do have value. So I don't avoid them as though they are purely negative. It is just that I do not find them to be basic as too many teachers insist they are, when they are teaching in the classroom. I don't teach 1)just one particular approach to language like generative grammar, 2)the deep structure approach to language as more valuable than the surface structure, 3)communication for its own sake outside of relationship building, 4)a chaotic process of communication that leaves out the author or audience and so misses out on the cyclical part of the communcation process and 5)a word-based approach to language that relies on an expansion of vocabulary approach for learners to get smarter.
So back to my list of 5 positives. I will list them in the same order as above.
First, I approach language from an integrated perspective. I think you need to see the whole as you grapple with different views of language. You could call it a multi-dimensional approach. In contrast, I think the phonics versus whole-language debate is way too narrow in its scope. Each side misses the point. It is like a golfer who uses one club for every shot.
Second, I approach language from the surface. I think that the surface structure is actually right there in the speaker's mind. On a basic level, not on a deep level, they know what they are trying to say and in one sense it is all clear. In contrast, I find the generative grammar approach or sentence diagramming to be backwards from what we actually are after. It is like a fisherman fishing in deep water, when the walleyes are feeding close to shore.
Third, I approach language from the standpoint that something relational is happening or there is little sense to trying to communicate. The point is that you have to understand fundamentally whether the communication is attempting to form a connection or not. In contrast, I find some of the analysis of language has lost sight of the basic purpose of communication in trying to connect or not connect people. It is like forgetting what you went to the garage to get.
Fourth, I approach language as a process that begins with an author and leads to an audience and as a cycle in which the audience may then ask the author questions to see if the cycle of communication was completed successfully. In contrast, some books start with a text and then lead to a speech or another book without consideration for the author or the audience. It is like leaving off the beginning steps, like getting together the ingredients, in baking a cake and jumping right to putting the only part of the ingredients in the oven.
Fifth, I approach language as thing-based rather than word-based in its earliest development. Children do not learn vocabulary initially from dictionary definitions. Instead they learn words that point to things. This remains fundamental throughout the process, even after the dictionary becomes a helpful tool. In contrast, many teach language as though it began with definitions of words from other simpler words without any inclusion of things in the beginning. It is like giving a fishing pole to someone who doesn't know what a fish is.
These are the five most basic keys to my approach to communication and to language. For me, these five things or principles have revolutionized my comprehension of communicaiton. It has also enhanced my ability to communicate. Remember these are basic, so there may be those who can communicate better than I, but I think I can stand toe to toe with them on the basics. I know where to begin, even if others have already reached the finish line. Before this point in my life, I could not even find the starting line to begin the race and my communication was chaotic at best. So at least I can help a lot of people get started on the race of communication and give them a fair chance of finishing too rather than a few people finishing, while others haven't even found the starting line.
Sincerely,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
