tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993864.comments2021-06-09T10:28:01.204-07:00Glimpse - For People Interested in Language and the BrainNora Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05690938219773877575noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993864.post-88105914947579957072011-06-01T09:58:05.617-07:002011-06-01T09:58:05.617-07:00Hi April. Only a year late recognizing your commen...Hi April. Only a year late recognizing your comment. Sorry about that. I'm glad you found the post of interest. I'd be interested to see your analysis of the bill, if you still have it around.Nora Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690938219773877575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993864.post-60269073226419412832011-02-16T07:05:56.378-08:002011-02-16T07:05:56.378-08:00Thank you for the post! I'm dissecting this bi...Thank you for the post! I'm dissecting this bill in a Global Environmental Issues course and your interpretation was quite the read.Aprilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10477056581460832217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993864.post-78780137996685996782011-01-18T15:50:54.867-08:002011-01-18T15:50:54.867-08:00I try to practice self-editing, and here's a c...I try to practice self-editing, and here's a case in point. I happened to be rereading my old posts on the blog for another reason, and came across this post about the controversy over teaching reading via phonics vs whole language. I went looking for the referenced article, which is, alas, gone from the original site, but I found a related article after a bit more google work. Something the author said got me to wondering, so I did some more google work to answer the simple question--do we in fact prefer phonics OR whole language? Hm?? <br /><br />Turns out, surprise, it's NOT THAT SIMPLE. I found an interesting article (http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/Reading_Wars.html) that provides a lot of background and ties whole language to constructivist theory. I still like phonics and find whole language somewhat problematic, but I see that there's more to this story than the simple either-or that the original post suggested. Sorry to mislead you...Nora Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690938219773877575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993864.post-50252725859240169782010-12-19T14:47:37.512-08:002010-12-19T14:47:37.512-08:00Nora,
Thank you for your reply. I'll keep tho...Nora,<br /><br />Thank you for your reply. I'll keep those books in mind but I am intrigued by Greymanship and plan to read it soon. <br /><br />Climb or descend, maybe it is only me who is falling.Ken E Beckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14083376938841980857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993864.post-15725487339125289332010-12-19T08:11:35.686-08:002010-12-19T08:11:35.686-08:00Ah, one more book recommendation: Graymanship, of ...Ah, one more book recommendation: Graymanship, of course! While it does not confine itself to GS, it reflects that lifelong application of GS principles to management. <br /><br />The basic ideas in the book provide great support for an E-prime sort of world view. Rather than rating an employee on some absolute scale with an "is" statement, you look for a scale on which to compare that employee with your goals or your preferred behavior. For example, instead of saying "he is incompetent", you can say "I wish he understood his duties like Joe does". <br /><br />You can buy Graymanship on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1936264005.<br /><br />Enjoy!Nora Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690938219773877575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993864.post-45771023421522276932010-12-19T08:03:23.894-08:002010-12-19T08:03:23.894-08:00Hi Brad. I apologize for not noting and approving ...Hi Brad. I apologize for not noting and approving your comment sooner. I was getting regular spam comments in Chinese around the time you posted, so I apparently missed it. <br /><br />Thanks for your comments. I share your interests and concerns about how to use GS. Reading whatever you can find will help. I hope by now you have had a chance to read Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action--very useful and readable popularization of the basic theory. Other books to look for: <br /><br />1. Levels of Knowing and Existence by Harry Weinberg<br /><br />2. Drive Yourself Sane by Susan Presby Kodish and Bruce Kodish<br /><br />3. Communication: The Transfer of Meaning by Don Fabun<br /><br />4. Language Habits in Human Affairs by Irving Lee<br /><br />5. The Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase<br /><br />You can find most of these on the website for the Institute of General Semantics (http://www.generalsemantics.org). That site also has other resources, although they tend to focus their efforts on New York City.<br /><br />As for E-Prime, that's the topic of a long conversation. I understand the difficulty of learning to use it, but would encourage you to try again, with one big change for your first attempt. Most people will take a sentence like "He is the boss" and try to get rid of the "is" by saying "he holds the position of boss" or something similar. While this technically meets the letter of the E-prime directive, I think it misses the spirit.<br /><br />To me, E-prime has more to do with reframing your thinking to reveal the who and the what of your point. I actually use an amalgam of E-prime, E-ma (English minus absolutes) and my own concoction, E-map (English minus absolutes and prescriptives--meaning I also try to avoid saying "must" and "should" and the like.) <br /><br />In the example above, you might mean "that guy runs the business" but you might instead mean "that guy tells the rest of us what to do even though he doesn't own the company". This suggests that your fix will address more than just the presence of the "is". Here's how I have come to use E-prime (which I use whenever I write, although I still don't use it in verbal communications very much): <br /><br />1. I start by writing what I would say verbally: "Well he is the boss". <br /><br />2. Then I stop and ask myself what I meant, and what I might have inadvertently obscured by using the "is". Maybe I realize that I actually mean "well, in this situation, he gives the orders and we follow them."<br /><br />3. If step 2 doesn't immediately solve the problem (as it did in this case) I try to recast the sentence so that the "is" becomes unnecessary. I might say "Well, in his position, he has the authority to set the rules." <br /><br />4. If I think that the "is" actually appears in the sentence to indicate an ongoing process (ie, "he is talking on the phone right now") I will usually leave it alone. In my view, that use of "is" actually supports the process-oriented view that many things we do occur over time and do not have a clear start and end.<br /><br />If I don't have enough time for that analysis, I use my original wording without concern. Over time, practicing these steps on anything you write will develop your editing "muscle". You will find it easier and easier to catch and repair or reword.<br /><br />Such changes may make the sentence longer (although not always!), which some people consider a negative. To me, the results justify the effort. I find that I more often write what I mean, and write it relatively clearly with less ambiguity. I think many people find my writing easy to read, which, to me, shows that a writer can use E-prime without introducing unpleasant awkwardness. And, with time, you can learn to keep more of your modified sentences tidy and succinct too.Nora Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690938219773877575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993864.post-62582257118647426132010-12-19T07:29:18.613-08:002010-12-19T07:29:18.613-08:00Hi Ken. Thanks for the comment.
Actually it'...Hi Ken. Thanks for the comment. <br /><br />Actually it's the Mandarin that have the vertical time metaphor, not the Hopi. As I recall, Whorf found through conversations with a Hopi speaker that the language appeared not to use tenses for past, present and future, and from that concluded that they do not think in terms of time. Later research has found that they do have two tenses ("manifest", ie, in existence or having already happened; and "becoming manifest", ie, nonphysical, non-sensible or having no definite origin.) While some have used this to discredit Whorf and his conjectures, more and more linguists are coming to accept the "soft" Whorf theory that language influences thought, while perhaps not to the rigid extent that Whorf speculated about.<br /><br />As for how the Mandarins see time: while I could not access the full report of the study I cited in the post, I find that Lera Boroditsky, well-known neuroscientist and one of the authors of that study, published results of a previous study in 2001 here: http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/mandarin.pdf. It gives a fairly clear explanation for the vertical time metaphor. An event in the past is above a more recent event, while future events are below the present. The usage employs the words for "climb" or "descend".<br /><br />Like most metaphors about the "real" world, these time-related metaphors appear to draw on the structure of physical experience. If you haven't had a chance to read Lakoff and Johnson's books on metaphor, I heartily recommend them. Very thought-provoking.Nora Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690938219773877575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993864.post-71645859732423545892010-12-19T06:28:25.901-08:002010-12-19T06:28:25.901-08:00Interesting post, I got here from The Monkey Cage....Interesting post, I got here from The Monkey Cage. <br /><br />In navigation we say that time zones to our east are "ahead" and zones to the west are "behind". We also speak of putting things in the past behind us. So I guess we travel though time by moving ahead. We spring ahead and fall back. So the Hopi are what, falling through time? It would be spring up, fall down?Ken E Beckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14083376938841980857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993864.post-57709816276621056202010-04-19T18:43:34.619-07:002010-04-19T18:43:34.619-07:00This is an interesting blog. Can you tell me how o...This is an interesting blog. Can you tell me how one might start integrating General Semantics into their language usage? I have known about GS for a while, and have read Science and Sanity, but many of the points were vague in my mind. I tried to employ the simplification of GS, e-prime, in my writing for a while, but I found that it was too incongruous with the natural flow of my thoughts to be functional when writing articles or quick correspondence. And certainly not easy to incorporate into speech. It's not that I need to use the "is" of identity to get my point across, but that it is just ingrained into my language patterns. I ordered the book, Language in Thought and Action, which I am really excited to read, but I don't know how actionable its ideas will be. Any advice?<br /><br />It seems like this site would have more exposure.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03489404139709890110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2993864.post-24896547815388587622009-02-26T07:44:00.000-08:002009-02-26T07:44:00.000-08:00Lance pointed me to a French film in which The Ins...Lance pointed me to a French film in which The Institute of General Semantics plays an important role.<BR/><BR/>In the film, IGS has a sleek, stylish, futuristic look. It also has an amazing staircase!<BR/><BR/>The film is titled <I>Alphaville</I> and it is directed by Jean-Luc Godard. It's on Netflix if you have that; if not, you may be able to track down the DVD. It's from 1965.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15641742524792490532noreply@blogger.com