This week 6, Semantic learning objectives are:
“The ability to connect communicative elements to underlying purposes, goals, objectives, theories or meaning, denotation, reference, truth and understanding. Including new ways of interpreting information and evaluating media, through aggregation and filtering for instance. “
Following this, I would like to reflect about the exchange between John, Ulop, Stephen and Ruth on Suifaijohnmak’s Weblog. That is because I find a group treatment of different contents (their messages or comments posted) of their thoughts. This experience is complex and that the group communication problems are different possibilities of expression, interpretation, perception or reception to interpret the meaning or the semantic dimension of the messages. So, this is the point in which this experience is connected with the challenge suggested on this week.
- Which is the reference or extension the object or set of objects to which their expressions applies?
- Is there any truth and falsity of their declarative sentences?
- Which is the intention of their expressions?
- What as competent users of their expressions must know?
It is interesting how they equate the meaning of the ideas in the interaction and the different contents of greatest concern to each concern or not, membership, rejection, afinity. This sense of “connectivity“ may be formed in the instance of contact meanings in mediation.
Mediation(technological or social) would lead to active involvement or omniscient participation . With regard to active participation, there is an interaction between participants from the negotiation of meanings. The same would be determined by the values, beliefs, personal history, the experiences of the content, and characteristics of the connotations of each of us give it the same. In addition, the roles assumed in the interaction, the affectivity of the participants among themselves, attitudes, prejudices, projections, the intellectual level of the group at the service.
With regard to the omniscient participation , there would be an area as if it was a”blind” connectivity, which we do not know the meanings emerged from reading the contents and exchanges of other participants. In this instance, but are put on cultural and experiential aspects of the person, no one could speak of negotiation of meaning because the same person would interpret the contents exposed to reading. The obvious possibility of revealing a process of insight or interpretation, it would from verbal or written, produced significant by the subject.
Whith regards to Curtis Brown ´s topics of semantics and the way we can recognize semantics from the debate we can see:
- there is a set of objects to which their expressions applies: “Connectivism”, “knowledge” (I think are central objects).
- there question of any truth and falsity remains, for example when John refers to “true beliefs” and wonders: – how we would come to be able to make such statements in a connectivist envrionment?. How connectivism moves beyond being a ‘mere’ forming of associations, and allows for a having, and articulation, of reasons?.
- The intention of their expressions? I think they debate intending to make part of a process of interpretation and negotiation of meaning. Below this there is the pretense of objectivity, in search of validating hypotheses. Each one provides an understanding of the topic and seeks to provide arguments to be credible or acceptable in the community of CritLit2010. And here the semantic dimension comes into play.
- As competent users of their expressions they must know that there is some linguistic relativity in their expressions which comes from the culture, linguistic and extralinguistic conditions. This point is complex because there is a scientific worldview of sharing meanings.
For most users of a computer language, the understanding of Semantic treatment of Model Theory is useful for to be aware of the process computers do “entailment”.
I would like to end with this questions:
If the process of interpretation means the understanding,
to what extent interpretation is independent of the of intentions? Because the interpretation is not a description by a neutral observer, but a dialogue between the social event.
In which way semantic “entailment” (computer language) is determined by the design to some intentions can make true or false interpretations of statements under any possible interpretation of the words? .