#CritLit2010 reflections – Semantics on debate | sixth week

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.

Regarding this,  we can attend what Curtis Brown on Philosophy of Language explained about the way we make use of semantics. This led me to make some questions:

  • 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 ofconnectivity 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.

Active participation, negotiating meanings as John, Ulop, Stephen and Ruth did on the blog are ways to develop the semantic level of the terms on debate.

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 doentailment”.

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? .

This entry was posted in SEMANTICS and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to #CritLit2010 reflections – Semantics on debate | sixth week

  1. ulop says:

    I think there is no such thing as an independent observer. We all bring our subjectivities into play in our discussions. These subjectivities can be self-revealed at the beginning or otherwise during the discussion, or must be sought out by the readers/participants by observations. The phrase ‘actions speak louder than words’ comes to mind.

    • Ulop, I think that we all bring our subjectivities into play in our discussions and that we take position on discussions.

      What did you mean by “I think there is no such thing as an independent observer”? If it is possible, I would like if you could amplify this.

      Good to recieving your comments. You have a critic ability to make me think on your posts.
      : – D

  2. Ulop says:

    Thanks Maria! I really like to kick ideas around, John says I like to ‘shake the trees’.

    >I think there is no such thing as an independent observer…

    I’m getting this idea from what I understand to be the school of the interpretivist paradigm, a qualitative inquiry side of the house that suggests that the ‘observer’ impacts on the observations, such that the reported results bear some part of the observer’s subjectivities in them, and there is some subjectivity in what the observer chooses to observe and to report. Henri Poincare argues in his ‘Science and Method’ that the number of facts observable in a situation outstrips science’s ability to deal with them all, thus the scientist must make a selection from amongst the available facts, and he suggests selecting the simplest, most repeatedly observed ones.

    It is this kind of thinking that makes me suggest there is no such thing as an independent observer. Humans are always impacting their environment, and being impacted by it. We are part of the action around us, and it is part of us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s