Communication 101: Using it to Read the Bible (and every other book)

I grew up a "chapter and verse" guy, before I ever entered school.  That meant that reading was important.  In my parents' house, if you had an opinion on religion, then you had better know the chapter and verse you are getting it from.  But as one of my former college professors points out that means the rules of interpretation or the rules of communication are very important.  It comes down to method to help remove some of the differences in interpretation. 

I am currently writing a great deal about the meaning of holy.  It is a topic above the basics, but it is also built on a basic method.  The basics come first, but they also are there in the highest and most complex projects as well.  It is a good idea to start with them to handle all the complexity of communication that is going to come our way in a lifetime. 

My method is basically semantic.  It deals with meaning.  It begins with classes of meaning.  It does not begin with grammatical categories, though it certainly thinks they are valid for the average adult.  But before grammar really gets very clear to us, meaning has already gained the primary foothold. 

I learned this through my linguistics classes in college, especially when we learned about how children learn language and also when we learned about how people learn a second language.  They both really expose the importance of meaning over grammar, but not without some consideration for grammar as well. 

It is not meaning versus grammar, it is meaning followed by grammar, that is, meaning and grammar in that order.  My method of going from one language to another is as follows (from Nehemiah chapter 8):

     Translate
     Transfer
     Total
     Train
     Teach

This is my basic method in communicating from one language to another.  The total is necessary of the four other Ts.  It is that simple.  You need them all. 

I agree with those who say translating the Bible is not enough.  It is though the beginning and an important one.  Total is used in this method not as a separate step so much as the summary and reminder that the four other T's are required and not just one. 

So for basic translation workers, it is important to realize that even communication 101 has not happened, unless all four as a total are present.  Then we can talk about communication that works between languages.  Thank you for taking some time to read this entry.


Sincerely,

Jon

Communication Basics 101: Academic Freedom

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

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!