What you say about yourself
I love listening to people talk, especially when they do not realise what they are really saying. I noticed that if you allow people to talk, regardless of what they actually do by talking: the actual speech acts, you will learn things about them that they would never intentionally reveal. You may even be able to see into the fortress they call selves.
One great tool to use to do this is General Semantics, particularly the third law of General Semantics which states that what you say about something say as much, or more, about you as the thing you are talking about. It is a great premise to keep in mind because it forces you to listen intently to what people say to you and analyse the minute details of the things they say to you. I had an interesting reminder of this phenomenon this very morning.
I was in a meeting with several educators not from my institution. Among the things we did was go through some marking schemes for some examination papers. There was this educator who has a reputation of having a relatively over active oral faculty. He looked at the marking scheme for a certain paper and noted that the marking scheme detailed the conceptual answers for the questions but did not give samples of the examples expected from the students. He quickly surmised that the person who did the marking scheme was inexperienced. Incidentally, I did the piece in question. I thought I should have felt slighted by his comment but instead his comment took me back nearly two decades to a meeting in the meeting room of the old language center building in UKM. I was a young tutor attending a similar meeting with members of the English linguistics department and at one point we went through some marking schemes that members of the committee had prepared for a recent examination. At one point in that meeting I noticed that the professor who had done the marking scheme had left out the samples of the examples he expected the students to give. So I mentioned it. In return the professor asked, “you need to be reminded what an imperative looks like?”
There was an underlying expectation here. These questions, then and the one in question this morning, were asking the student to give examples of a basic linguistic concept: something that anyone teaching linguistics would be expected to know. The professor, back then, added, ‘if you need to be reminded what an imperative looks like, perhaps you need to reconsider teaching linguistics?” Of course he said it with a smile. It turned out that it was a basic practice that we did not need to remind our teaching staff in the specific areas what examples of the basic concepts looked like. I admit that there were times that I looked up the references to refresh my memory. This was just a matter of fact.
So coming back to the educator I met this morning, I think he was right, I was indeed inexperienced. My teaching experience was in contexts where we were expected to know what we taught and when we forgot, it was our responsibility to look it up because to not know the basics simply meant that we may not have the needed knowledge and skill to teach the subject. I was not experienced in being spoonfed with even the most basic things nor was I experienced in spoonfeeding basic things to people who are expected to know them already. So, he was right. I was inexperienced.
As for what the statement says about this fellow educator of mine, my late father often said, "if you can't find something nice to say about someone, it may be best that you don't say anything". I think this is one of those times when I will take my father's advice.
One great tool to use to do this is General Semantics, particularly the third law of General Semantics which states that what you say about something say as much, or more, about you as the thing you are talking about. It is a great premise to keep in mind because it forces you to listen intently to what people say to you and analyse the minute details of the things they say to you. I had an interesting reminder of this phenomenon this very morning.
I was in a meeting with several educators not from my institution. Among the things we did was go through some marking schemes for some examination papers. There was this educator who has a reputation of having a relatively over active oral faculty. He looked at the marking scheme for a certain paper and noted that the marking scheme detailed the conceptual answers for the questions but did not give samples of the examples expected from the students. He quickly surmised that the person who did the marking scheme was inexperienced. Incidentally, I did the piece in question. I thought I should have felt slighted by his comment but instead his comment took me back nearly two decades to a meeting in the meeting room of the old language center building in UKM. I was a young tutor attending a similar meeting with members of the English linguistics department and at one point we went through some marking schemes that members of the committee had prepared for a recent examination. At one point in that meeting I noticed that the professor who had done the marking scheme had left out the samples of the examples he expected the students to give. So I mentioned it. In return the professor asked, “you need to be reminded what an imperative looks like?”
There was an underlying expectation here. These questions, then and the one in question this morning, were asking the student to give examples of a basic linguistic concept: something that anyone teaching linguistics would be expected to know. The professor, back then, added, ‘if you need to be reminded what an imperative looks like, perhaps you need to reconsider teaching linguistics?” Of course he said it with a smile. It turned out that it was a basic practice that we did not need to remind our teaching staff in the specific areas what examples of the basic concepts looked like. I admit that there were times that I looked up the references to refresh my memory. This was just a matter of fact.
So coming back to the educator I met this morning, I think he was right, I was indeed inexperienced. My teaching experience was in contexts where we were expected to know what we taught and when we forgot, it was our responsibility to look it up because to not know the basics simply meant that we may not have the needed knowledge and skill to teach the subject. I was not experienced in being spoonfed with even the most basic things nor was I experienced in spoonfeeding basic things to people who are expected to know them already. So, he was right. I was inexperienced.
As for what the statement says about this fellow educator of mine, my late father often said, "if you can't find something nice to say about someone, it may be best that you don't say anything". I think this is one of those times when I will take my father's advice.
Comments
But I did a lot of reading so much so i use to feel naked if i do not read in a single day. Maybe that helped. I cannot decipher semantics, nor do I care to.
But I know one thing. When writing, keep the language simple. I would not want to tick off my readers, having to spend time studying the dictionary more than my article itself. I do not want to make the "kempen membaca" hancus...he..he..he..