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 grammar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grammar. Show all posts
Monday, February 11, 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
