Sunday, November 29, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Level of Givens
Just another post script to givens.
Givens often assume givens. So speaker will make assumptions about listener and select the appropriate level of given.
So in my example "I have an animal" would be appropriate in some circumstances e.g. if the listener is a non-english speaker or in a game of 20 questions (where the whole rationale of the game is to narrow down wide givens to a specific case example).
Conversely I might say "I have a basset fauve de bretagne". This would make no sense to the vast majority of people, even most dog owners. However to a small subset of dog owners it would provide a wealth of information, not only about my dog but how he behaves and, because its so rare, who else I am likely to know.
Givens often assume givens. So speaker will make assumptions about listener and select the appropriate level of given.
So in my example "I have an animal" would be appropriate in some circumstances e.g. if the listener is a non-english speaker or in a game of 20 questions (where the whole rationale of the game is to narrow down wide givens to a specific case example).
Conversely I might say "I have a basset fauve de bretagne". This would make no sense to the vast majority of people, even most dog owners. However to a small subset of dog owners it would provide a wealth of information, not only about my dog but how he behaves and, because its so rare, who else I am likely to know.
No givens - why contracts are so unreadable
As a post script to the initial thoughts on "givens" its interesting to observe that contracts, laws, treaties etc are so difficult to read precisely because they cannot assume "givens".
So they have to go to tedious lengths to be very precise about every concept they address. E.g. from a document in front of me its necessary to say things like:
"Words importing the singular number only shall include the plural and vice-versa"
"Words importing only the masculine gender include the feminine gender."
This goes to show how essential the concept of "givens" are to our usual life. Paradoxically whenever you need to exclude them and make very clear what you are talking about the effect is to make you unintelligible.
So they have to go to tedious lengths to be very precise about every concept they address. E.g. from a document in front of me its necessary to say things like:
"Words importing the singular number only shall include the plural and vice-versa"
"Words importing only the masculine gender include the feminine gender."
This goes to show how essential the concept of "givens" are to our usual life. Paradoxically whenever you need to exclude them and make very clear what you are talking about the effect is to make you unintelligible.
Givens
Givens: a half remembered idea from psychology course, more specifically linguistics.
Normal communication is very dependent on the idea that we share a set of common assumptions about the world. This allows us to keep our conversations short and succinct.
Examples can be concrete and fairly trivial, e.g. I can say "I've got a dog" and any English listener will immediately know what I am talking about without me having to explain what a dog actually is. Further they will anticipate what further information will be coming, e.g. it may be about going for a walk, barking, picking up poo etc.
Even with such a trivial example "givens" need to be at the right level. E.g. if I say "I've got an animal" the listener is most likely to be confused. They will probably assume that because I've not used a common given example that I dont have a normal pet. So they will start to think what sort of animal I have, excluding the usual domestic choices. So if I follow up by telling them it causes problems with the neighbours because it barks too much I will just confuse them because I have broken an unwritten "given" rule that you will use a "given" whenever you can.
Things get more complicated once you move from the concrete to the abstract. A phrase like "It's the right thing to do" has an implicit "given" within the word "right". There is an assumption that speaker and listener share a common understanding of what "right" means. Of course this can be far from the case and a shared misunderstanding of "givens" is one frequent cause of conflict.
Because of this I intend restricting "givens" to as few specific concrete cases as possible.
Normal communication is very dependent on the idea that we share a set of common assumptions about the world. This allows us to keep our conversations short and succinct.
Examples can be concrete and fairly trivial, e.g. I can say "I've got a dog" and any English listener will immediately know what I am talking about without me having to explain what a dog actually is. Further they will anticipate what further information will be coming, e.g. it may be about going for a walk, barking, picking up poo etc.
Even with such a trivial example "givens" need to be at the right level. E.g. if I say "I've got an animal" the listener is most likely to be confused. They will probably assume that because I've not used a common given example that I dont have a normal pet. So they will start to think what sort of animal I have, excluding the usual domestic choices. So if I follow up by telling them it causes problems with the neighbours because it barks too much I will just confuse them because I have broken an unwritten "given" rule that you will use a "given" whenever you can.
Things get more complicated once you move from the concrete to the abstract. A phrase like "It's the right thing to do" has an implicit "given" within the word "right". There is an assumption that speaker and listener share a common understanding of what "right" means. Of course this can be far from the case and a shared misunderstanding of "givens" is one frequent cause of conflict.
Because of this I intend restricting "givens" to as few specific concrete cases as possible.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Framework
Just another precursor note.
Framework I intend to follow will divide posts into the following rough categories.
General Comments - Like this.
Givens - this will cover things which will just have to be taken at face value as being there. An e.g. is the big bang. Way beyond scope and my knowledge to say why this happened so will just assume it did.
Paradoxes - one of the things that interests me is how trying to understand things can lead to paradoxes which, a sort of paradox in itself, can help further understanding.
Prime causes - the fundamentals that underpin the whole question of understanding why?
Level x implications - the fundamentals give rise to a number of implications, which in turn can give rise to further implications etc. I'll try to tag these to indicate how far down the chain they c0me. Level 1 implication will stem direct from prime cause, level 2 implication from a level 1 etc. As with all systems may break down, will just have to see.
Worlds - as I will address one of the most important things to consider when asking "Why?" is "Where?". We inhabit a number of worlds simultaneously, each with their own complications.
That's it for now. No doubt will add some more as I continue..
Framework I intend to follow will divide posts into the following rough categories.
General Comments - Like this.
Givens - this will cover things which will just have to be taken at face value as being there. An e.g. is the big bang. Way beyond scope and my knowledge to say why this happened so will just assume it did.
Paradoxes - one of the things that interests me is how trying to understand things can lead to paradoxes which, a sort of paradox in itself, can help further understanding.
Prime causes - the fundamentals that underpin the whole question of understanding why?
Level x implications - the fundamentals give rise to a number of implications, which in turn can give rise to further implications etc. I'll try to tag these to indicate how far down the chain they c0me. Level 1 implication will stem direct from prime cause, level 2 implication from a level 1 etc. As with all systems may break down, will just have to see.
Worlds - as I will address one of the most important things to consider when asking "Why?" is "Where?". We inhabit a number of worlds simultaneously, each with their own complications.
That's it for now. No doubt will add some more as I continue..
Monday, March 30, 2009
Why the Ultimate Why?
First post onto my new blog. And to cut to the chase....why the ultimate why?
Partly a reaction, partly a drive. For as long as I can remember I have been interested in the whys and hows of existence and nature. Now I find myself at the start of a new stage in the journey of life I find myself with the time, inclination and experience to ponder a bit on the questions of "why are we here?" and "what does it all mean?"
I've come to some conclusions of my own on these subjects, contained within an overall framework that I think has some internal consistency and is relatively straight forward. So in coming posts I will elaborate on this a bit more, for fun and for my own satisfaction.
Partly a reaction, partly a drive. For as long as I can remember I have been interested in the whys and hows of existence and nature. Now I find myself at the start of a new stage in the journey of life I find myself with the time, inclination and experience to ponder a bit on the questions of "why are we here?" and "what does it all mean?"
I've come to some conclusions of my own on these subjects, contained within an overall framework that I think has some internal consistency and is relatively straight forward. So in coming posts I will elaborate on this a bit more, for fun and for my own satisfaction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
