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
Showing posts with label classes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label classes. Show all posts
Monday, February 11, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Communication 101: Basics for Bible Readers
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
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, 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!
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
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Communication is Hidden in Plain View
Hidden (from me) in Plain View (of others)
In the game of hide and seek it is difficult to hide yourself in plain view of the person doing the seeking. The goal, after all is said and done, is to hide and not be found. Yet in the game of communication, where we want people to discover our meaning and we want to be plain, it is too often the case that our meaning is hidden from the person seeking the meaning. The goal, after all is said and done, is for our plain meaning to be found. Our meaning is not to be hidden. It is not to be a game of hide and seek. If it becomes that, then people get tired of communicating, just like they would get tired of a prolonged game of hide and seek. Sometimes in hide and seek, you just tell the person hiding to come out and that it is safe, rather than continue to try to find them. I think too often in the teaching of communicating, our method has hidden things in plain view.
Let me explain. Some things are hidden from me that are in plain view of others, or vice versa. The question for communication is: What makes things plain and what makes things hidden? Or more to the point: Why are so many things hidden from us in communication? Or in the Christian context, why so many interpretations of the same text in the Bible?
I think there is an explanation, one at least hinted at by my professor in college, Dr. Don Larson. He used to say he was mad. What was he mad about? He was upset about the stark contrast between learning at home and studying in school. He called the first learning and the second studying. He wasn’t against either one, but he felt the balance of the two had been lost in schools. He saw the dominance of studying over learning as harmful and he was trying hard to bring back a balance by re-inserting learning into schools with a focus on studying.
I want to take this a step further. I want you to do an experiment for me following in the tradition of the studying you have done in school. I want you to find a few things for me in the place you are right now within 2 seconds. The rule is that you cannot find words, but only things. If you do find words, then you are cheating and in school that means a zero for your score. Find for me a noun. Your two seconds are up. The result, if you followed my rules strictly, is that you found none.
If you want, you can go a little further. I want you to find an adjective. Next, I want you to find a conjunction. Finally, find a verb. Your next 6 seconds are up. The result, if you followed my rules strictly, is that you still found none of them. Don’t feel silly, if you thought you found one. I know now that you will never try to find these things again, unless you are allowed to look for words.
Now I want you to do another experiment for me following the same set of rules and you must find them within 2 seconds. Again, the rule is that you cannot find words, but only things. Again, please do not cheat. Find for me a thing. Your two seconds are up. The result, if you followed my rules strictly, is that you found at least one thing. If you are in your office, it might be a light or obviously your computer.
If you want, you can go a little further. I want you to find an amount. Next, I want you to find a relationship. Finally, find an action. Your six seconds are up. I would imagine you got 2-3 more right. If you are in your office, you could have found one phone, a cord connected to your computer and the light shining in your window. Don’t feel silly, if you didn’t get them all. I know on the next try you would get all four without breaking a sweat.
These two experiments are meant to demonstrate one main thing. The most important thing is to notice that in the first experiment, the words I used hid from you things. They did not take you directly to them. These are categories of words, not things. Also noticeable is that in the second experiment, the words I used were plain to you, when it came to things. Well, at least now that I gave you some examples. These are categories for things and not just classifications for words.
The problem is seen at its height, when we try to teach language in school whether it is native or foreign to us. The typical approach in the United States is that in about the 5th or 6th grade, we teach a thing called grammar through the parts of speech. This is meant to help us with at least two elements of communication, reading and writing. The one problem I am trying to point out here, is that the method is about words and studying, not things and learning.
In total, I think there are at least five weaknesses in our grammatical method in the United States: (1) it follows a one-dimensional approach to language versus a multi (five)-dimensional approach to language, (2) it has too great of an information load for our brains with eight parts of speech versus having an information load of only four to five things in a set, (3) it deals with later development of language skill rather than earlier development of language skill, (4) it focuses on words and study, a grammar of words, rather than on learning and things, a classification of things and words or word uses and (5) it makes things hidden rather than plain. We need to bring the things we need out in the open. It is this last problem that I am dealing with here.
The problem is that words have become more important than things as education has expanded into universal education in places like the United States. We need instead to keep words and things side by side. We need to teach and study alongside of know and learn. In our earliest development as children, we were concerned with needs related to the things that would satisfy our basic needs. We also though needed to relate to parents for what we needed. So we used some rather simple ways to get what we needed like food for our stomach. I’ve seen crying work effectively. Later we studied words with our parents, who also taught us those words, in the context of things we needed.
In the approach I take to communication, one of the great advantages it has is that it is plain, because it applies to things and words. It ties together both learning and studying. In a chart form of categories , it appears like this:
Communication (Whole)
1. Amount (Part)
2. Relationship (Part)
3. Action (Part)
4. Thing (Part)
When I first studied this method of learning communication, there was a problem with it. It was that a few items were not plain on the thing level. In place of amount, they had the concept of attribute, which I think is harder to find in the world of things. In place of action, they had the concept of event, which I think is also harder to find in the world of things because of its limitations in the realm of things. They both seem to apply better in the realm of words.
Because these words apply better to things than the words of grammar, I think they enhance our ability to make things plain. I know for me personally, this has been a major benefit. Recently, I took an online course and I aced the final exam. If I remember correctly, this may be the first time I didn’t get a single answer wrong on a final. The reason, I recall, for not getting every answer right on a final exam previously is, that I would typically misread at least one question. What this method has done for me is to make things plain or clear. If I get stumped, then I can go back to basic things to put words into a plain context.
Let’s go back to the earlier questions and look at some answers. The first question for communication was: What makes things plain and what makes things hidden? An answer is that grammar hides things, because it is only about word categories and not about thing categories. Or more to the point of the first question: Why are so many things hidden from us in communication? An answer is that it is because we rely on a method that favors words over things, rather than joining them together like two sides of a coin. Or applying the second question in the Christian context: Why so many interpretations of the same text in the Bible? An answer is that too often our method is limited to language, words and their rules and does not look enough at the things in the context. Again, because the questions asked are often only about language and not about things, things are hidden that otherwise could be plain.
So using categories of things and words has helped make things hidden from me in plain view of the communicator, to become plain also for me. I want the same thing to be available to others, including yourself. We need to work from categories of things, not just categories of words. Remember our earlier experiment. We need to change education in the direction that my linguistics professor, Dr. Donald Larson, wanted to take it. Things are in plain view, if only we will change our basic approach to communication and talk about things and not just words. Is the thing I'm saying plain and not just my words?
Sincerely,
Jon
In the game of hide and seek it is difficult to hide yourself in plain view of the person doing the seeking. The goal, after all is said and done, is to hide and not be found. Yet in the game of communication, where we want people to discover our meaning and we want to be plain, it is too often the case that our meaning is hidden from the person seeking the meaning. The goal, after all is said and done, is for our plain meaning to be found. Our meaning is not to be hidden. It is not to be a game of hide and seek. If it becomes that, then people get tired of communicating, just like they would get tired of a prolonged game of hide and seek. Sometimes in hide and seek, you just tell the person hiding to come out and that it is safe, rather than continue to try to find them. I think too often in the teaching of communicating, our method has hidden things in plain view.
Let me explain. Some things are hidden from me that are in plain view of others, or vice versa. The question for communication is: What makes things plain and what makes things hidden? Or more to the point: Why are so many things hidden from us in communication? Or in the Christian context, why so many interpretations of the same text in the Bible?
I think there is an explanation, one at least hinted at by my professor in college, Dr. Don Larson. He used to say he was mad. What was he mad about? He was upset about the stark contrast between learning at home and studying in school. He called the first learning and the second studying. He wasn’t against either one, but he felt the balance of the two had been lost in schools. He saw the dominance of studying over learning as harmful and he was trying hard to bring back a balance by re-inserting learning into schools with a focus on studying.
I want to take this a step further. I want you to do an experiment for me following in the tradition of the studying you have done in school. I want you to find a few things for me in the place you are right now within 2 seconds. The rule is that you cannot find words, but only things. If you do find words, then you are cheating and in school that means a zero for your score. Find for me a noun. Your two seconds are up. The result, if you followed my rules strictly, is that you found none.
If you want, you can go a little further. I want you to find an adjective. Next, I want you to find a conjunction. Finally, find a verb. Your next 6 seconds are up. The result, if you followed my rules strictly, is that you still found none of them. Don’t feel silly, if you thought you found one. I know now that you will never try to find these things again, unless you are allowed to look for words.
Now I want you to do another experiment for me following the same set of rules and you must find them within 2 seconds. Again, the rule is that you cannot find words, but only things. Again, please do not cheat. Find for me a thing. Your two seconds are up. The result, if you followed my rules strictly, is that you found at least one thing. If you are in your office, it might be a light or obviously your computer.
If you want, you can go a little further. I want you to find an amount. Next, I want you to find a relationship. Finally, find an action. Your six seconds are up. I would imagine you got 2-3 more right. If you are in your office, you could have found one phone, a cord connected to your computer and the light shining in your window. Don’t feel silly, if you didn’t get them all. I know on the next try you would get all four without breaking a sweat.
These two experiments are meant to demonstrate one main thing. The most important thing is to notice that in the first experiment, the words I used hid from you things. They did not take you directly to them. These are categories of words, not things. Also noticeable is that in the second experiment, the words I used were plain to you, when it came to things. Well, at least now that I gave you some examples. These are categories for things and not just classifications for words.
The problem is seen at its height, when we try to teach language in school whether it is native or foreign to us. The typical approach in the United States is that in about the 5th or 6th grade, we teach a thing called grammar through the parts of speech. This is meant to help us with at least two elements of communication, reading and writing. The one problem I am trying to point out here, is that the method is about words and studying, not things and learning.
In total, I think there are at least five weaknesses in our grammatical method in the United States: (1) it follows a one-dimensional approach to language versus a multi (five)-dimensional approach to language, (2) it has too great of an information load for our brains with eight parts of speech versus having an information load of only four to five things in a set, (3) it deals with later development of language skill rather than earlier development of language skill, (4) it focuses on words and study, a grammar of words, rather than on learning and things, a classification of things and words or word uses and (5) it makes things hidden rather than plain. We need to bring the things we need out in the open. It is this last problem that I am dealing with here.
The problem is that words have become more important than things as education has expanded into universal education in places like the United States. We need instead to keep words and things side by side. We need to teach and study alongside of know and learn. In our earliest development as children, we were concerned with needs related to the things that would satisfy our basic needs. We also though needed to relate to parents for what we needed. So we used some rather simple ways to get what we needed like food for our stomach. I’ve seen crying work effectively. Later we studied words with our parents, who also taught us those words, in the context of things we needed.
In the approach I take to communication, one of the great advantages it has is that it is plain, because it applies to things and words. It ties together both learning and studying. In a chart form of categories , it appears like this:
Communication (Whole)
1. Amount (Part)
2. Relationship (Part)
3. Action (Part)
4. Thing (Part)
When I first studied this method of learning communication, there was a problem with it. It was that a few items were not plain on the thing level. In place of amount, they had the concept of attribute, which I think is harder to find in the world of things. In place of action, they had the concept of event, which I think is also harder to find in the world of things because of its limitations in the realm of things. They both seem to apply better in the realm of words.
Because these words apply better to things than the words of grammar, I think they enhance our ability to make things plain. I know for me personally, this has been a major benefit. Recently, I took an online course and I aced the final exam. If I remember correctly, this may be the first time I didn’t get a single answer wrong on a final. The reason, I recall, for not getting every answer right on a final exam previously is, that I would typically misread at least one question. What this method has done for me is to make things plain or clear. If I get stumped, then I can go back to basic things to put words into a plain context.
Let’s go back to the earlier questions and look at some answers. The first question for communication was: What makes things plain and what makes things hidden? An answer is that grammar hides things, because it is only about word categories and not about thing categories. Or more to the point of the first question: Why are so many things hidden from us in communication? An answer is that it is because we rely on a method that favors words over things, rather than joining them together like two sides of a coin. Or applying the second question in the Christian context: Why so many interpretations of the same text in the Bible? An answer is that too often our method is limited to language, words and their rules and does not look enough at the things in the context. Again, because the questions asked are often only about language and not about things, things are hidden that otherwise could be plain.
So using categories of things and words has helped make things hidden from me in plain view of the communicator, to become plain also for me. I want the same thing to be available to others, including yourself. We need to work from categories of things, not just categories of words. Remember our earlier experiment. We need to change education in the direction that my linguistics professor, Dr. Donald Larson, wanted to take it. Things are in plain view, if only we will change our basic approach to communication and talk about things and not just words. Is the thing I'm saying plain and not just my words?
Sincerely,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
