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
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
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!
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!
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, August 21, 2012
Communication: Its Link to Two Kinds of Education
One of my professors in college (who I never had a course with, but for whom I analyzed a project he was working on) had a brilliant mind, when it came to understanding schools and education. He was a linguist (a studier of language), but he was also more than that, because he analyzed the effectiveness of schools and found them lacking. I agree with him that most educational programs can be found lacking
One of the key differences in my approach to language is that of having a different approach to learning than many programs do. My approach consists of a combination of two kinds of education. The first is the knower-learner axis that is also more primary. We begin doing this kind of education at the earliest age possible for communication. The second is the teaacher-studier (student) axis that we begin in greater earnest the day we enter school and study communication there. Dr. Larson said the ideal was a combination of both approaches.
My analogy for it is a vertical plumb line for the axis of knower-learner and a horizontal level line for the axis of teacher-studier (student). Most people experience an excess of the second in terms of the way they have been educated. This is unfortunate, since the best learning occurs when the knower-learner comes first and the teacher-studier comes second. When they are working together in a balance and with the right prioritization, then people become the most educated and most successful at using their education effectively.
This approach is not the same as the practical or pragmatic approach. That view is simply replacing things with actions. It is radical in its criticism of the school system. It is short-sighted, because it takes one part of who we are as whole persons and focuses on another part of who we are rather than strengthening our smarts and minds about things and words. The approach I take (and Dr. Larson took) strengthens education and makes people smarter rather than just making them more practiced.
My educational approach does not change the goal nor the focus of education. It rather strengthens education through a better balance and through the right prioritzation. It makes people smarter.
My best communication example for this comes out of my junior high years of learning French. Our teacher, who was a zealot for the French language if ever there was one, was able to take a trip to France and use the skills she was teaching us in the classroom. Unfortunatley for her, while she was a great teacher of French, she was not a great knower of French. The French treated her badly for this and she was not at all happy about her experience. It was a real disappointment for her, because she had such high expectations for this trip that today we would say was part of her "bucket list".
If she had one native French speaker (a knower of French) she could speak with regularly before leaving the United States, her bad experience could have been avoided. She could have been a learner learning from a knower. In the model I suggesting, the point is not that she was a bad teacher (that she was not practical). No, she was a great teaacher, but just not a great knower.
So my approach to communication says to take this balanced approach seriously or you can easily end up unbalanced, embarassed, unhappy, and not just a little frustrated after all your study. Make sure you learn first and study second together! Then your communication skills or language skills will surpass those of many others.
Sincerely,
Jon
P.S. At some later time, if possible, I will try to add a Smart Art picture of what I am saying for greater clarity.
One of the key differences in my approach to language is that of having a different approach to learning than many programs do. My approach consists of a combination of two kinds of education. The first is the knower-learner axis that is also more primary. We begin doing this kind of education at the earliest age possible for communication. The second is the teaacher-studier (student) axis that we begin in greater earnest the day we enter school and study communication there. Dr. Larson said the ideal was a combination of both approaches.
My analogy for it is a vertical plumb line for the axis of knower-learner and a horizontal level line for the axis of teacher-studier (student). Most people experience an excess of the second in terms of the way they have been educated. This is unfortunate, since the best learning occurs when the knower-learner comes first and the teacher-studier comes second. When they are working together in a balance and with the right prioritization, then people become the most educated and most successful at using their education effectively.
This approach is not the same as the practical or pragmatic approach. That view is simply replacing things with actions. It is radical in its criticism of the school system. It is short-sighted, because it takes one part of who we are as whole persons and focuses on another part of who we are rather than strengthening our smarts and minds about things and words. The approach I take (and Dr. Larson took) strengthens education and makes people smarter rather than just making them more practiced.
My educational approach does not change the goal nor the focus of education. It rather strengthens education through a better balance and through the right prioritzation. It makes people smarter.
My best communication example for this comes out of my junior high years of learning French. Our teacher, who was a zealot for the French language if ever there was one, was able to take a trip to France and use the skills she was teaching us in the classroom. Unfortunatley for her, while she was a great teacher of French, she was not a great knower of French. The French treated her badly for this and she was not at all happy about her experience. It was a real disappointment for her, because she had such high expectations for this trip that today we would say was part of her "bucket list".
If she had one native French speaker (a knower of French) she could speak with regularly before leaving the United States, her bad experience could have been avoided. She could have been a learner learning from a knower. In the model I suggesting, the point is not that she was a bad teacher (that she was not practical). No, she was a great teaacher, but just not a great knower.
So my approach to communication says to take this balanced approach seriously or you can easily end up unbalanced, embarassed, unhappy, and not just a little frustrated after all your study. Make sure you learn first and study second together! Then your communication skills or language skills will surpass those of many others.
Sincerely,
Jon
P.S. At some later time, if possible, I will try to add a Smart Art picture of what I am saying for greater clarity.
Communication: Its Importance as an Action
I ran across a quote recently that I could not pass up as a post on this blog. It is from Stephen R. Covey. It reads: "Communication (human and divine) is the most important single activity of man". This quote is an important one to ponder.
The quote is found in Covey's early book titled The Spiritual Roots of Human Relations. It is a fascinating read from the standpoint of understanding Covey's own roots for his later 7 Habits and The 8th Habit.
I am not endorsing all aspects of this book, but simply putting forward ideas from him that I do agree with. His idea that communication as an activity that is very important has exciting implications, if true and if it can be proven. For myself, I choose to ponder his idea and keep my eyes open for evidence of this idea.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
