While I have completed a book and then had it published too, it does not mean my communication is over. In one sense it is, the fundamentals in it really are done. What remains is more of each of those fundamentals - their development. My book is titled, Mental Health for Everyone,
One of the chapters describing schooling is the key to making a major dent in the problem of manic-depression and the other extreme of putting people to sleep. My sample or example in that chapter comes from the sport of track.
Since writing the book, I think the key point using track is solid, but I should have developed my approach in contrast two approaches. There are essentially three approaches to the mind's handling of relationships. They are:
fast and steady
fast and variable
slow and steady.
I should have used the story of what I will call my reformed school one mile race. In high school, I ran a race against two runners from a reformed school. One was fast and steady and the other was slow and steady. I was the one who was fast and variable.
The fast and steady runner took off in the race like it was a 400 meter or 440 yard race. He collapsed after a couple of laps. I mean he literally collapsed onto the track.
His teammate on the other hand ran steadily slow until he realized it was the last lap. Then he at the last moment took off in an effort to catch me.
Personally, I was lulled into running too slow myself by his approach to the race and by his activities leading up to the race. I call it the zombie effect. Until he took off after his procrastination in the race I had been running a too relaxed pace myself. Fortunately, a teammate let me know I should get going since the guy was coming up on my fast.
I took off harder myself with 300 meters or 330 yards to go. I in the end held him off since I had run fast, but variably based on my distance.
In this race, I knew I had to vary my pace from what I would do for 400 meters. That way I did not collapse. But I also knew to run fast still, since too slow of a pace could also lose the race. That is what happened to the second runner.
In the United States we have young people especially who are trapped by a world that is only fast and steady and eventually collapses - too often in the form of suicide or some form of breakdown. We also have many who procrastinate until the race is lost and it is too late to win the prize.
I could further the ideas in my book by developing this story. So I am doing it now. This will likely go into a second edition, if I am fast enough to get that opportunity.
The good thing is that I finished my book - I did not collapse and not finish. Likewise, I didn't drag it out until the last gasp and end up getting it out too late - I still have things left over to improve next time. I didn't engage in fruitless procrastination.
My book titled, Mental Health for Everyone, is available through Amazon and through Barnes and Noble. To get to my book simply type in my full name or the full title or both. You will find it.
If you want a bit of a preview beyond that found at Amazon.com, then you can go to youtube and watch the following (you might have to copy and paste this to your browser):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC5XDFly3GA
Have fun! Remember, it is fast and variable wins the race. Go get 'em and let's win this race!
Sincerely,
Jon Westlund
Showing posts with label fundamentals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fundamentals. Show all posts
Thursday, November 19, 2015
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
Friday, April 30, 2010
Communication: The Distinctives
When it comes to communication ideas, it is important to understand what the key things that are behind an approach to communication. This is especially true in my case, where I point out to people that I do a few things differently from what they might be accustomed to seeing.
It may be good to begin by saying that my approach is not meant to replace or undercut the generally effective ways of teaching communication. What it does do is strengthen more what is already effective. So my approach does not so much replace, for example, grammar's use as much as shift it's use to where it is more effective.
So let me deal with each of the key things in my approach one by one. They are: 1)an integrated approach to language, 2)a surface structure approach to language, 3)a communication as relationship approach, 4)a cycle of communication process and 5)a thing-based approach to language. These are the positive components of what I teach about communication.
Let me say something about what I don't do. First, I don't do these things because they are at higher levels in the developmental process and they are not basic. When you get to a higher level, then they do have value. So I don't avoid them as though they are purely negative. It is just that I do not find them to be basic as too many teachers insist they are, when they are teaching in the classroom. I don't teach 1)just one particular approach to language like generative grammar, 2)the deep structure approach to language as more valuable than the surface structure, 3)communication for its own sake outside of relationship building, 4)a chaotic process of communication that leaves out the author or audience and so misses out on the cyclical part of the communcation process and 5)a word-based approach to language that relies on an expansion of vocabulary approach for learners to get smarter.
So back to my list of 5 positives. I will list them in the same order as above.
First, I approach language from an integrated perspective. I think you need to see the whole as you grapple with different views of language. You could call it a multi-dimensional approach. In contrast, I think the phonics versus whole-language debate is way too narrow in its scope. Each side misses the point. It is like a golfer who uses one club for every shot.
Second, I approach language from the surface. I think that the surface structure is actually right there in the speaker's mind. On a basic level, not on a deep level, they know what they are trying to say and in one sense it is all clear. In contrast, I find the generative grammar approach or sentence diagramming to be backwards from what we actually are after. It is like a fisherman fishing in deep water, when the walleyes are feeding close to shore.
Third, I approach language from the standpoint that something relational is happening or there is little sense to trying to communicate. The point is that you have to understand fundamentally whether the communication is attempting to form a connection or not. In contrast, I find some of the analysis of language has lost sight of the basic purpose of communication in trying to connect or not connect people. It is like forgetting what you went to the garage to get.
Fourth, I approach language as a process that begins with an author and leads to an audience and as a cycle in which the audience may then ask the author questions to see if the cycle of communication was completed successfully. In contrast, some books start with a text and then lead to a speech or another book without consideration for the author or the audience. It is like leaving off the beginning steps, like getting together the ingredients, in baking a cake and jumping right to putting the only part of the ingredients in the oven.
Fifth, I approach language as thing-based rather than word-based in its earliest development. Children do not learn vocabulary initially from dictionary definitions. Instead they learn words that point to things. This remains fundamental throughout the process, even after the dictionary becomes a helpful tool. In contrast, many teach language as though it began with definitions of words from other simpler words without any inclusion of things in the beginning. It is like giving a fishing pole to someone who doesn't know what a fish is.
These are the five most basic keys to my approach to communication and to language. For me, these five things or principles have revolutionized my comprehension of communicaiton. It has also enhanced my ability to communicate. Remember these are basic, so there may be those who can communicate better than I, but I think I can stand toe to toe with them on the basics. I know where to begin, even if others have already reached the finish line. Before this point in my life, I could not even find the starting line to begin the race and my communication was chaotic at best. So at least I can help a lot of people get started on the race of communication and give them a fair chance of finishing too rather than a few people finishing, while others haven't even found the starting line.
Sincerely,
Jon
It may be good to begin by saying that my approach is not meant to replace or undercut the generally effective ways of teaching communication. What it does do is strengthen more what is already effective. So my approach does not so much replace, for example, grammar's use as much as shift it's use to where it is more effective.
So let me deal with each of the key things in my approach one by one. They are: 1)an integrated approach to language, 2)a surface structure approach to language, 3)a communication as relationship approach, 4)a cycle of communication process and 5)a thing-based approach to language. These are the positive components of what I teach about communication.
Let me say something about what I don't do. First, I don't do these things because they are at higher levels in the developmental process and they are not basic. When you get to a higher level, then they do have value. So I don't avoid them as though they are purely negative. It is just that I do not find them to be basic as too many teachers insist they are, when they are teaching in the classroom. I don't teach 1)just one particular approach to language like generative grammar, 2)the deep structure approach to language as more valuable than the surface structure, 3)communication for its own sake outside of relationship building, 4)a chaotic process of communication that leaves out the author or audience and so misses out on the cyclical part of the communcation process and 5)a word-based approach to language that relies on an expansion of vocabulary approach for learners to get smarter.
So back to my list of 5 positives. I will list them in the same order as above.
First, I approach language from an integrated perspective. I think you need to see the whole as you grapple with different views of language. You could call it a multi-dimensional approach. In contrast, I think the phonics versus whole-language debate is way too narrow in its scope. Each side misses the point. It is like a golfer who uses one club for every shot.
Second, I approach language from the surface. I think that the surface structure is actually right there in the speaker's mind. On a basic level, not on a deep level, they know what they are trying to say and in one sense it is all clear. In contrast, I find the generative grammar approach or sentence diagramming to be backwards from what we actually are after. It is like a fisherman fishing in deep water, when the walleyes are feeding close to shore.
Third, I approach language from the standpoint that something relational is happening or there is little sense to trying to communicate. The point is that you have to understand fundamentally whether the communication is attempting to form a connection or not. In contrast, I find some of the analysis of language has lost sight of the basic purpose of communication in trying to connect or not connect people. It is like forgetting what you went to the garage to get.
Fourth, I approach language as a process that begins with an author and leads to an audience and as a cycle in which the audience may then ask the author questions to see if the cycle of communication was completed successfully. In contrast, some books start with a text and then lead to a speech or another book without consideration for the author or the audience. It is like leaving off the beginning steps, like getting together the ingredients, in baking a cake and jumping right to putting the only part of the ingredients in the oven.
Fifth, I approach language as thing-based rather than word-based in its earliest development. Children do not learn vocabulary initially from dictionary definitions. Instead they learn words that point to things. This remains fundamental throughout the process, even after the dictionary becomes a helpful tool. In contrast, many teach language as though it began with definitions of words from other simpler words without any inclusion of things in the beginning. It is like giving a fishing pole to someone who doesn't know what a fish is.
These are the five most basic keys to my approach to communication and to language. For me, these five things or principles have revolutionized my comprehension of communicaiton. It has also enhanced my ability to communicate. Remember these are basic, so there may be those who can communicate better than I, but I think I can stand toe to toe with them on the basics. I know where to begin, even if others have already reached the finish line. Before this point in my life, I could not even find the starting line to begin the race and my communication was chaotic at best. So at least I can help a lot of people get started on the race of communication and give them a fair chance of finishing too rather than a few people finishing, while others haven't even found the starting line.
Sincerely,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
