A Study Of Semantics and Pragmatics Interface Essay

A Study Of Semantics and Pragmatics Interface Essay Grice suggests that there is an apparent division of labour between semantics and pragmatics in terms of saying and implicating. For every linguistically acceptable sentence of a language, a semantic theory delivers truth-conditions that have been transplanted onto a Gricean view of the semantics-pragmatics divide. As a result, many people conceive that truth-conditions can be put in a way that they are necessarily free from pragmatic considerations. Some argue by challenging the view for pragmatic intrusion into truth-conditional content while others insist preserving a pragmatically clean conception of semantics. Different proposals appear in supporting these controversial arguments. In this paper, I will focus on studying the boundary between semantics and pragmatics, and examining their interface. LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND Semantics and pragmatics are both involving sophisticated methods of studying meaning with different focuses where semantics focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata while pragmatics studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. The key issue is whether their objects to be analyzed can be separated from each other or if each sub-discipline can give one individual object called meaning. Semantics was conventionally responsible for compositionally deduced sentence meaning, in which there is a combination of the meanings of lexical items and the structure involved. Unquestionably, the truth-conditional semantics is the best developed approach to sentence meaning. It appears that such formal methods allow the translation of vague and ambiguous sentences of natural language into a precise metalanguage of predicate logic with the provision of sense-making logical forms. Pragmatics was recognized as a study of utterance intended meaning, and so it is the meaning in context, and was hence undertaking with a different aspect of field to be studied. It was also regarded as a separate enterprise with different object of study. Yet, the so-called semantic under-determination view was created as the boundary between semantics and pragmatics began to be blurred. This view was a revolutionary idea for the theory of language meaning in response to generative semantics that was prevalent in 1960s and 1970s where attempts of syntactic meaning were given to primarily pragmatic situations. The importance of the Oxford ordinary language philosophers should be noted to show the way to the study of pragmatic inference and its supplement to truth-conditional representation, now known as Gricean intended meaning with inherent truth-conditions. SEMANTICS / PRAGMATICS INTERFACE Semantics / Pragmatics Distinction By convention, we spoke of the distinction between semantics and pragmatics as differentiation between the meaning of words (semantics) on the one hand and how the speaker made use of words (pragmatics) on the other. This characterization is however loose and ineffective. For instance, the study of indexical expressions such as I and yesterday shows that different occasion of use can have different denotations in the word concerned. Notwithstanding, a definite traditional meaning is found from each indexical word type, that is, there is no variation in a meaning from context to context. In fact, more precision is required. According to Richard Heck (2001), some terms such as the number determiners two and three, or proper names such as Bill Clinton and George Bush are deemed as having a stable standing meaning in such a way that they are referring to the same object or property. Other terms like I, here, or this and so on have unstable standing meanings in the sense that, in different contexts, they can be used to refer to different objects. For example, the traditional meaning of I in English does not have variation across contexts; standard meaning is used in every context in agreement with the meaning of I which is (roughly) the same as the speaker in the context. In a context, however, George Bush uses I to refer to himself, when I is in agreement with its standing meaning. In contrast, Gray Davis uses I in agreement with its standing meaning to refer to himself as well, that is, Gray Davis. According to Perry (2001), however, we prefer applying the concept of referential content which has a wider usage to just using referential expressions in contexts. In other words, standing meaning of a term is context-constant while referential content of a term is the object, property, or function that it has as its content in a context which is conceivably distinct from its standing meaning. Semantics / Pragmatics Boundary Rajman (2007) points out that the boundary between semantics and pragmatics is very critical in view of the constraint of linguistic processes. Traditionally, semantics is in charge of conventional or lexical, i.e. unvoidable meanings, as entailment and meaning are supposed to have (for example, Paul killed Peter Æ’Â   Peter is dead). And, pragmatics has taken charge of meaning in context in relation to conversational implicatures, which is presumably nonconventional. Metaphors and irony are two of the typical examples of nonconventional meaning (conversational implicatures) (Rajman, 2007). The Gricean view has challenged the classical view that the semantics-pragmatics boundary is not connected to the difference between conventional meaning and meaning in context. Actually, Grice has defined form and meaning of words as conventional implicatures. In (1.1)-(1.3) below, words like even, therefore, but are responsible for specific meanings (Ivan is not expected to like Iris, there is a semantic entailment between being an American and being outspoken, and there is a semantic contrast between having children and being a lawyer): Even Ivan likes Iris. (1.1) Joe is an American; he is, therefore, outspoken. (1.2) Stephanie has five children, but she is a lawyer. (1.3) The difference between truth-functional meaning (what is said) and non-truth-functional meaning (what is communicated) earmarks the boundary between semantics and pragmatics. Pragmatics is therefore defined meaning minus truth-conditions. The domain of pragmatics is therefore confined to two types of implicatures in Grices perspective, namely, conventional implicatures and conversational implicatures. Specific expressions may initiate the entailment of conventional implicatures which, as Rajman (2007) suggests, they have separable (the implicature is attached to a specific word), non-deletable (a conventional implicature cannot be negated) and non-truth-functional (the content of the implicature does not involve in the truth-conditions of the sentence) meanings. In (1.1), even initiates at least two conventional implicatures, given in (1.4) and (1.5): Even Ivan likes Iris. (1.1) People other than Ivan like Iris. (1.4) Among these people, Ivan is the less expected to like Iris. (1.5) Obviously, these meanings do not provide the truth-conditions for what is mentioned, that is the proposition (1.6): Ivan likes Iris. (1.6) Conversational implicatures resulting from a linguistic expression initiates in the use of one conversational maxim (generalized conversational implicature) or not (particularized conversational implicature). The conversational implicatures are non-conventional (resulting from conversational maxims), non-separable (the implicature is attached to a meaning), deletable (implicatures can be canceled) and as conventional implicatures, non-truth-functional. A conventional generalized conversational implicature have a temporal meaning of and (and then), as in (1.7): Michael pushed Daniel and Daniel fell. (1.7) PRAGMATIC INTRUSION AT THE SEMANTICS / PRAGMATICS INTERFACE Grice (1978) noted that there is a need to take into consideration of pragmatic processes of disambiguation and reference assignment to indexical expressions before assessing the sentences truth conditions. In addition, Kempson (1975, 1979, 1986) and Atlas (1977, 1979, 1989) believe that negation in English should not be recognized as ambiguous between narrow-scope and wide-scope, yet, it was semantically underdetermined instead. That means, on the basis of the recovery of the speakers intentions, the widely known example (2.1) is not semantically ambiguous between (2.2) and (2.3) but the range of negation is applied pragmatically in each particular utterance instead. (2.1) The queen of England is not bald. (2.2) à ¢Ã‹â€ Ã†â€™x (QoE(x) à ¢Ã‹â€  à ¢Ã‹â€ Ã¢â€š ¬y (QoE(y) à ¢Ã¢â‚¬  Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ y = x) à ¢Ã‹â€   ¬Bald (x)) (2.3)  ¬Ãƒ ¢Ã‹â€ Ã†â€™x (QoE(x) à ¢Ã‹â€  à ¢Ã‹â€ Ã¢â€š ¬y (QoE(y) à ¢Ã¢â‚¬  Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ y = x) à ¢Ã‹â€  Bald (x)) (2.2) is a presupposing reading: the person who fulfils as the property of the queen of England contains only one person and whoever satisfies this requirement is not bald. The reading in (2.3) is non-presupposing: the queen of England is not bald as no such person ever exists. It is because (2.2) entails (2.3) that the semantic underdetermination (sense-generality) view has both formal and cognitive support in which the boundary has become more and more unclear. According to this view, semantic analysis uncovers only part of the utterance meaning which pragmatic enrichment may complete this process. For instance, sentence (3.1) is naturally developed with the outcome sense before being put under the test of the truth-conditional analysis as in (3.2). (3.1) Timothy dropped the camera and it broke. (3.2) Timothy dropped the camera and as a result it broke. Major concern goes to delimitation of the scope of such an enhanced, truth-conditional representation, called what is said (Recanati, 1989) or explicature (Sperber Wilson, 1986; Carston, 1988) opposite to implicatures. Carston (1988) reasons that as long as the enhanced meaning has reached an optimal relevance level under the Relevance Theory of Sperber and Wilson (1986), such enhancement process can be stopped accordingly. Another post-Gricean boundary dispute provides with a so-called middle level of meaning. For Bach (1994, 2001) and Horn (2006), both what is said and what is implicated count. People often speak blurredly and non-literally; and it is more quickly to do so since inference is fast, while utterance is relatively inefficient. For instance, (4.1) may be spoken by a father comforting his little son who cut his finger (Bach, 1994). But what the father meant was not the content of the sentence alone (the minimal proposition in (4.2)) but instead an extension in (4.3). (4.1) You are not going to die, George. (4.2) There is no future date at which you will die, George. (4.3) You are not going to die from this cut, George. Under the same condition, spoken sentences which are incomplete semantically, although they correspond to complete syntactic forms, like (5.1), are further completed to show the utterance meaning, as from the example in (5.2). (5.1) Tom is not good enough. (5.2) Tom is not a good enough singer to be a star in Hong Kong. They are implicitures as they are implicit in what is uttered, under such extension and completions, which are neither what is said nor implicatures as perceived. The middle level of meaning is formed, while the label what is said is designated for what is explicitly said. Default semantics (Jaszczolt, 2005) represents an opposite view, in which a representation of spoken meaning is created as a combination of various output linguistic and non-linguistic sources. The combined representation comprises word meaning and sentence structure, cognitive assumptions, social-cultural assumptions, and conscious pragmatic inference, which is the mere level of meaning and its construction, does not give preference to any of the sources mentioned above. If that implicit proposition is the fundamental intended meaning, the logical form of the spoken sentence may uncommonly be replaced by an implicit form, for example, (4.4). (4.4) There is nothing to worry about, George. According to the principles of pragmatic compositionality (Recanati, 2004), the formation of meaning is continuing even if the explicit/implicit distinction may cause many theoretical disputes and much experimental research to be conducted. The field was mainly divided into those who accepted the default semantics (e.g., Levinson, 2000; Horn, 2004; Recanati, 2004, 2007; Jaszczolt, 2005), and those in whom pragmatic additions are always inferential (Sperber Wilson, 1995; Carston, 2002, 2007). Up to that time period, post-Griceans more or less followed contextualism in a way that pragmatic processes might affect the truth conditions of the spoken meaning. COMMUNICATION AT THE SEMANTICS / PRAGMATICS INTERFACE In pragmatics, a speaker can express a thought without really putting it into words. He can say one thing but may mean something else. For communicating something to someone, the speaker has to make clear the utterance even if it does not convey what he intends to express. The hearer has a task of understanding the speaker to the extent that he has to recognize the communicative intention of the speaker in producing the utterance and in particular, to identify the meaning of speaker. The hearer also needs to figure out what has happened in the given situation that the speaker spoke that sentence with that meaning. An utterance Mary has beautiful handwriting and her English is grammatical may be used as an evaluation of Marys philosophical ability to implicate that Mary is no good at philosophy (Grice, 1961). Moore (1942) gives a pragmatic contradiction of an utterance Snow is white, but I dont believe it, which may mean you are denying what you have just maintained (snow is white). A capable hearer grasps the semantic contents of a sentence by understanding that the language acts as a function of its constituents in relation to syntactic structure. Bach (2010) suggests that there should not be any intermediate level of meaning existed between the semantic contents of a sentence and the speakers communicative intention in uttering it. Rather, the speakers act of uttering that sentence may invoke additional information to help hearer understand its contents. Bach (2010) further remarks that it is utterances rather than sentences that contain the primary linguistic items with truth-conditional contents. Utterances are the only available subject matter for truth-conditional semantics as what Recanati (2004) prefers as truth-conditional pragmatics. In communication, as Bach (2010) points out, the job for pragmatics is not to offer a representative for semantics but to explain how incomplete sentences in semantics can be used to convey complete meaning. TEACHING PRAGMATICS There are three major questions requiring further exploration: 1) what chances are given in language classroom for developing L2 pragmatic ability; 2) can pragmatic ability be developed in a classroom setting without teaching pragmatically; and 3) what effects do different instructional approaches have on the development of pragmatics. Classroom research can be called upon to address the first and third questions, including the resources, processes, and limitations of classroom learning, with exploration be done through data-based studies in classroom settings. Those who are beginners to the field can draw relevance from the sea of literature on educational research in general and second language classroom research in specific. Hence, we can gain insight acquired for the research of classroom-based interlanguage pragmatics (e.g., Chaudron, 1988; Allwright Bailey, 1991). Literature search on question one and question three shows the deficiency as to the provision of direct teaching s trategies in pragmatics that uncovers at least two limitations, for example, teacher-fronted teaching and potentials for pragmatic development over time (Kasper, 2006). As for the answers to the second question, it is related to whether pragmatic ability can be developed without classroom instruction where such relevance can be drawn from the pragmatics and interlanguage pragmatics literature. It is free of charge for the adult learners to get a certain amount of L2 pragmatic knowledge because of the universal property of some pragmatic knowledge (e.g., Blum-Kulka, 1991; Ochs, 1996), and other aspects of pragmatic knowledge may be learnt from L1 users. Theories and research studies in recent years provide plenty of universal features in discourse and pragmatics. Through taking turns and sequencing of contributions, conversational organization is a universal property of spoken interactive discourse, which may vary in cultural and contextual implementations, among others. Making use of cues in the utterance, context information and different kinds of knowledge origins, speakers and listeners are able to transport indirect pragmatic intent and implicit meaning to each other (Gumperz, 1996). DISCUSSION The use of semantic underdetermination and the recognition of pragmatic inference about the speakers intentions have become more and more popular. The same applies to the conversion of some of the context-bound information into the semantic content. As a result, two disciplines which are originally separate in nature, namely, the formal study of sentence meaning and the informal study of speech acts have become indistinguishable. The centre of attention has thus been focused on the utterance rather than the sentences. Throughout the past three decades, however, the direction of change has not been consistent. There are a number of suggestions that maintain semantics and pragmatics as two separate disciplines where one school of thought suggests keeping the objectives of semantics and pragmatics distinguishable. Regarding pragmatics learning, Kasper (2006) appeals for more classroom research on pragmatics teaching that could relate learning outcomes to classroom processes. It may include longitudinal observation of classroom discourse as well as explorations of students and teachers subjective theories about L2 pragmatics; and how pragmatics competence could best be developed in pedagogical context (e.g., target-based teaching on complimenting, conversational closings and so on), thus enabling ongoing exploration of substantive and methodological issues. CONCLUSION The study of semantics / pragmatics interface can tell the difference between what is said and what is communicated within the context in question, which can be supplemented by pragmatic intrusion at their interface to achieve the purpose of disambiguation and reference making to indexical expressions. Hence, the job of pragmatics is intended to convey near-complete meaning in communication. Learning of pragmatics definitely can help learners to understand the utterance intended meaning that goes beyond what is given by the language form. More classroom research can be done on pragmatics teaching to address the questions of learning opportunities for the development of L2 pragmatic ability in language classroom, and effects of different instructional approaches that can help develop such pragmatic ability.

Feminist Reading Of Aunt Jennifers Tigers English Literature Essay

Feminist Reading Of Aunt Jennifers Tigers English Literature Essay Short poem by Adrienne Rich called Aunt Jennifers Tigers consists only of three stanzas but it tells the entire story of aunt Jennifers life. Hard life of women in male-oriented society is the main theme of the poem. The author does not express her ideas directly but makes the readers to understand her through allusions and symbols. Bright images and deep symbolism help readers to get the authors message. The author creates a picture of life of aunt Jennifer. There are several places in the poem which give allusion that aunt Jennifer is unhappily married and that she is oppressed by her husband. In the end of the second stanza Rich writes: The massive weight of Uncles wedding band Sits heavily upon Aunt Jennifers hand (Rich). These words show that wedding ring is a heavy burden which makes aunt Jennifer unhappy. This woman is not satisfied with her life and her husband but she has no power to change it. In the society governed by men women have little freedom and independence. The author does not show all circumstances of Aunt Jennifers life but she very vividly illustrates that this women is unhappy in her family life and she can not change it by her death. In the beginning of the third stanza Rich writes: When Aunt is dead, her terrified hands will lie Still ringed with ordeals she was mastered by. And this is another allusion on hard family life she can not escape. The image of ring, which becomes a symbol of oppression and torture of women is vivid. The author speaks about the wedding ring as about the kind of shackles which make women totally controlled by men. The author shows that marriage is one of many ways men use to oppress women. The image of tigers is more complicated for the interpretation. From the one side it symbolizes hidden aggression. Aunt Jennifer has to suppress her negative feelings in order not to make anger her husband. Like many women aunt Jennifer probably has to stand many humiliations from her husband. Bad attitude of her husband and unhappy family life result in negative feelings aunt Jennifer can not express feely. She expresses these feelings in her works. The line They do not fear the men beneath the tree may be interpreted as hidden fear of her husband. Tigers, which are mighty and strong animals are described by the author as way poor woman uses to express her true feelings and attitudes. In her dreams she possesses the power and ability to confront humiliation and oppression she experiences from men. The motif of hidden aggression is very transparent. The contrast between such peaceful occupation as knitting and the image which is knitted is stunning. The author contrasts a typical female occupation to the image which symbolizes strength and protest. Tigers symbolize not only suppressed feelings, but also become the symbol of great power and protest. They know no fear and they are totally free. They are not afraid of man behind the tree and They pace in sleek chivalric certainty. From these lines it becomes evident that tigers possess qualities aunt Jennifer desperately lacks in her own life. She can not manifest these qualities in her everyday life and they become objects of her art. The author of the poem gives her readers an opportunity to enter inner world of ordinary wom en. This life may seem happy and easy at the first glance but the author shows the truth to her readers. Aunt Jenifer has no way to express her temper and her desires in her everyday life. Her strong characters and personal characteristics are suppressed in male-oriented society. In this society women are give definite roles and they can not break the rules and play any other roles. Aunt Jennifer is trapped by social norms and regulations and has not way to express her inner world. Prescribed social role limit womens abilities to express themselves. Passion and desires are expressed in knitting. Aunt Jennifer shows her true feelings, needs and desires in her knitting. The poem is based on the contrast. The first stanza shows free and mighty animals, who know no fear and doubts. The tigers are free in their choices and they are not afraid of anything. In the second and third stanzas the author shows how the world of dreams may differ from reality. The image created by aunt Jennifer s ignificantly differs from her own life. aunt Jennifer is oppressed by her life and she has no way to realize herself as personality. She does not feel free to express her feelings and desires. The author vividly illustrates that not only hard house work and burden of everyday responsibilities may limit female life. She shows that aunt Jenifer has free time for knitting but still she does not feel satisfied with her life and with her family relations. In reality she can not control her life and her free time and she has to limit herself by social roles defined by the society, which is controlled by men.

comming from mississippi Essay -- essays research papers

While reading this book, I came across issues that I had already learned about in school over the years. I knew that for a least the past sixty years there has been some sort of conflict between the perceived to be white race and the perceived to be black race. No one really remembers how it all stared but the snowball effect had taken shape and it very rapidly spun out of control. Coming of Age in Mississippi written by Anne Moody was different however because it gave us an inside look as to how the black people in the heart of it all were directly affected. I have always read a unbiased version of this story and have never been able to relate to what I was reading simply because there was no emotion on the page but I found that this time around I had no problem feeling sorry and hurting for Anne Moody and her family. This book looks at all aspects of the Civil Rights era and gives examples to almost every sub topic but the subject that struck a cord for me was appearance. I am a w oman of mixed decent and I have heard in life time people call me yellow and I never thought anything of it until I read in the book that they used that same term to describe a black person with a lighter complexion. This played a huge role in the black community back during that time and it is still relevant today. It caused a black vs. black hatred and it divided the community at a time when they needed to come together the most. This idea that the lighter young skin is, the better you are still plays a role in the black communities around the nation today. This book has many examples of when it first started the turning point for light skinned blacks.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The first time that I came across the term yellow or â€Å"high yellow† in the book was when Essie Mae was describing Florence. She was Essie father’s best friends widow who he ending up leaving her mother for. â€Å"Florence was a mulatto, high yellow with straight hair. She was the envy of all the women on the plantation† (Moody, 18) This is a perfect example of the appearance issue. Just because this woman had lighter skin and straight hair, she became the envy of all the other woman. It was a way for the other men and woman around to make her stand out from the rest and make her feel even more different then she already did. In the book it makes it sound as though â€Å"dark† black people thought that being a m... ...ples of the Civil Rights movement and we are able to see first hand that everyone in the deep South was effected by it. We see how it changes Anne Moody from a young innocent child to a person who hates whites then to a person who works for the betterment of the black race. We see that no good came from the hate that was inflicted on so many people in Mississippi and that there were so many points in time that it all could have been stopped. We see the nice white people who help people in need and we also hear about people who have no problem burning people alive in their homes because they are black. It we had stopped this back in the 1960’s we wouldn’t have the problems that we struggle with today. People like me wouldn’t have to worry about dating a man darker then me in fear that someone will disapprove of it. We wouldn’t have the white vs. black and the black vs. black problems that are worldwide today. If we could have stopped it at the root, it wouldn’t have grown out of control. We have a problem today; we are all racist.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  

The Never Ending Drug War Essay -- Drugs Narcotics Politics Essays

Narcotics, guns and violence, the powerful elements of the never ending war. All these elements are part of the campaign to rid the world of the disaster that drugs so ferociously have inflicted upon America. The war, created by The United States’ demand and government circumstances, has been fighting drug lords and opportunists. The United States has for the past three decades declared that it is in a full fledged attack against drugs and the violence it fosters. For decades billions and billons of dollars have been justified through the infamous War on Drugs. The drug problem has not stopped. The money and military activity have not been enough, and the â€Å"urban problem,† has not been solved. It is that our governments do not have the strategic smarts to solve the problem? The United States has the largest demand of drugs in the world. While other countries also face the drug problem, The United States has spent the most and its effectiveness is questionable. Tod ay’s â€Å"War on Drugs,† is merely the justification to the apprehension of many U.S. interest enemies and has been a loop hole to exploit many developing countries in South and Central America. The commerce that the narcotics create transcends the social, economic, political and cultural aspects. The corruption that the United States is trying to fight will not end as long as the organized corruption and demand in the United States is in existence. The demand for narcotics in the United States has remained very strong, and even increased, since the War on Drugs was declared. The United States continually points to the suppliers of the narcotics and foreign mafia bosses who run organizations as the primary causes of the difficulty of the War. It is portrayed by the media... ... Department of Health and Human Resources. 29 May 2014 . PBS Online. Frontline: drug wars. 04 Feb 2000. PBS Online, wgbh/Frontline. 27 May 2014 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/ochoajorge.html. Robinson, Matthew B. Major Source of Data on Drug Use. JusticeBlind. 20 May 2014 . Stossel, John. Is it Time to End the War on Drugs? 30 Jul. 2004. ABCNews. 05 May 2014 Walters, John P. Drug Use Trends – Factsheet. 10 Dec. 2003 Executive Office of the President: Office of National Drug Control Policy. 27 May 2014 . Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. Monroe: Common Courage Press, 1980.

The Struggles Facing LD Students Essay -- Learning Disabilities Educat

The Struggles Facing LD Students Students with learning disabilities are a part of the educational system and they always will be. These students have a single goal in mind, but their disability and social barriers keep them from it. On the other hand, educators have pledged to teach all students, but some fail to teach LD students. This represents an ethical, moral, and legal breakdown of their responsibilities. Educators need to be properly trained and aware of how to meet the needs of these students. The lack of such leads to failure. Students fail because they are afflicted by a disability that forces them to learn in unconventional ways. Teachers fail because they do not embrace the challenge brought about by the diversity of the situation. Students, all over the world, enter into a classroom environment all with a common purpose. The purpose is to learn and excel in all subject areas. This purpose is the same whether the student is in kindergarten or at the university level. The same is true for male and female students, and it is also the case for students who have a learning disability. For these students, the goal is the same, but they can not effectively learn without the help of educators. Learning disabilities alter how these students learn; therefore, the outcome changes. It becomes one of failure and frustration. The student with the disability fails, and educators become frustrated and discouraged. Learning Disabilities (LD) are hidden (obscure) disabilities that affect many people. These people usually have average or above average intelligence, but they are not able to achieve their full potential. The Learning Disability Institute estimates that 5 to 20% of the school-age population has a Specific Le... ... unified purpose. The purpose for the student is to learn while the teacher's purpose is to help that student learn. Learning Disabilities stand in the way of this unified purpose of learning/teaching. Students with a learning disability encounter untrained, unwilling educators who are not prepared to teach them. Students fail because educators fail to live up to their moral and legal obligation to make accommodations to meet their needs. This outcome makes educators also a failure because their goal (to teach all students) is not met. Works Cited "About Learning Disabilities." http://www.ldaca.org/ld.htm (7 Oct. 2001). "Learning Disabilities - Reading Initiatives." http://www.ldinstitute.org/readgrade3.htm/ (7 Oct. 2001). Rose, Mike. "Lives on the Boundary." The Presence of Others. ED> Andrea A. Lunsford. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin's, 2000. 105-118.

Plato’s Republic

Thrasymachus takes the cynical but honest view, that there is more benefit in plainly appearing just than there is in actual being just. He does not necessarily refer to hypocritical villains, those who deliberately nurture a veneer of a socially just man in order to reap personal benefit. He could also be referring to those who have convinced themselves that they are good, apart from society recognizing them as good. As an example of the first we could take Moliere’s Tartuffe. He has entered the household of Orgon with deliberate intent to appropriate for himself the property of his landlord. He takes note of the superficial natures of Orgon and his mother, both of them who are fond of shows of piety and uttering platitudes. He tailors his conduct exactly to please these two. He makes sure that religion is always pouring from his lips. His conduct is always immaculate in the presence of them, and he is never short of advice to the others, who hold him is various degrees of suspicion, regarding the pious and just life. Tartuffe is not only a hypocrite but also a calculating villain. He is the sort that works his way to social standing and privilege by express knowledge that the larger part of society is weak to such charms. It is easy to see that anyone in Tartuffe’s position would lose out by trying to be really just to those he encounters. The counter argument to this is that villains like Tartuffe are usually found out in the end, and therefore suffer in the long run, at the hands of the same society. For example, Tartuffe overreaches himself when he tries to seduce the wife of Orgon, while at the same time courting their daughter. When he is found out he loses the favor of Orgon, after which point he resorts to outright villainy. But when Thrasymachus argues for the appearance of virtue he also has the example of Orgon in mind. For Orgon, and even more so for his mother, the appearance of virtue is the most important thing. So important is it to them that they do not realize that they a dealing with appearances. They believe themselves to be virtuous because they abide by the rules of conventional virtue and piety. Orgon is a wealthy man, and it is clear that his wealth is derived through his ability to adapt. He has no concern whether justice is really done, but only that it should appear to be done. He is so blinded by the show of virtue of Tartuffe that he does not even suspect ulterior motives in his lodger wanting to wed his daughter. When the daughter complains he signs away his property to the lodger in a show of defiance. Of course, his blindness is the cause of his ruin in the end, which is shown for dramatic purposes. But the general argument remains, which is that the likes of Orgon prosper is society. He does enquire into true justice, and any effort in this direction would disrupt his social standing from the root. The likes of Orgon happily give charity to murderers. The vanity of giving blinds them to all other considerations. The mistake of Thrasymachus is that he considers contingent benefits and fails to arrive at a comprehensive account. To provide such an account is extremely difficult, and part of the difficulty is that the listener must have an open and enquiring mind to be able to grasp the subtleties of it. This is why Socrates (Plato) provides three different explanations of why the just life is preferable to the unjust one, and the three responses are suited to the three different attitudes of the questioners. The rich Cephalus is smug in his righteousness that he repays his debts, and that he gives to charity. He is confrontational, and therefore it is only possible to contradict his smug assertions bluntly. This is why Socrates merely asks him to consider whether the returning of a weapon to its rightful owner, a murderer, is justice. Thrasymachus is more constructive. He claims that justice is merely what the powerful impose on the weak. To this Socrates argues that all constructive activity has the powerful acting in favor of the weak, not the other way round, as Thrasymachus contends. If justice be admitted to be constructive then Thrasymachus’ is plainly wrong. The more subtle argument concerning harmony is reserved for the honest enquiries of Adeimantus and Glaucon. Justice is introduced now as a harmony in a body, where the ruling part subdues and controls the rest of the body, so that no part is in discord with another. The final notion is not easy to grasp, for it seems to imply that rulers must have complete wisdom in order to rule, for only with complete wisdom will they be infused with the sense of harmony that is required to effect justice. As a first example we take a football team. The manager of the team is the ruling part of this body. If he can effect harmony here, between all the players, and each of them with himself, then the team will win consistently. But this very success is bound to bring problems. If the team is so good that it never loses, then after a point the players lose motivation, they become complacent. Only after a few bad losses are they able to regain their efficient level again. Complacency, however, is the least evil. Success brings in its train a plethora of evils, all capable of disrupting the harmony. The players begin to nurture big egos and there are personality clashes. In dire circumstances they had all stuck together; but with success even the manager is not beyond reproach anymore. Faced with all these problems the manager becomes more and more dictatorial rather than wise, and this in itself is a cause for disruption. The same is true of any organization. A company starting from scratch is fired with a zeal that is conducive to harmony amongst its employees. But we cannot call such a company absolutely harmonious before it begins to reap enormous profits, because harmony must be equated with success. We are applying the word â€Å"harmony† in the strict sense here, meaning that something in harmony cannot have discordant parts. A company that in unprofitable is not in harmony. Only when it has reached the very top of the field can we begin to harbor such notions as perfect harmony. Then again, the higher is aspires the less and less is management able to maintain harmony. Managers themselves start to look after their own instead of the interests of the business. And so we observe in real life that managers award themselves huge pay packets even when the business is floundering. The arguments of Socrates are always in favor of universals and opposed to particulars. Particular justice, or particular virtue, will not always make sense, but this is only because the all-encompassing or universal picture evades us. Socrates confesses that he does not know what justice is, or what virtue is, or what truth is. To know these would mean having a universal idea in the mind, which is not possible. If the arguments of Socrates mean anything, they are means by which one comes to believe in the universal ideal, becomes convinced that it exists. And so one must not despair if injustice or untruth appears to have the upper hand. Skeptics may easily cast doubt on the existence of universals. They might argue along the lines that we have no experience of universals. That all experience is particular and contingent, and that it is pedantic to introduce the notion of universals. They might say that all justice is merely a point of view. Different cultures evolve with different notions of justice, and this is the principle reason why nations go to war with each other, to fight for a particular notion of justice, or for certain ideas about beauty. The skeptics might argue that if there was a universal idea of justice then it would have been discovered by now and nations would live in peace. In response to such arguments Plato would emphasize existence. For example, people use the word â€Å"table† in everyday discourse. It doesn’t seem to spread confusion, but instead facilitates understanding. But this is strange, because there is no standard table in the world. All tables are different from each other. This difference is a source of confusion. And yet people from diverse cultures and diverse walks of life get away by simply mentioning the word â€Å"table†, and things are immediately clear to all parties as to what is being said. Such fluent communication would be impossible if not every mention of â€Å"table† was referring to a standard. And if this standard does not exist in the material world, then it surely exists transcendentally, something which Plato calls the world of ideals. We could not imagine the ideal table, for every effort in this direction would spring up a particular table. But it is an overwhelming certainty that we have language and communication, in the place of confusion and chaos. This is how Plato confirms the existence of universals. What is true of the word â€Å"table† is also true of the notions of justice, virtue and beauty. People hold relative notions of these, not only between cultures, but also between individuals of the same culture. The skeptics point to a cacophony in such matters, but they can never identify chaos. If difference was the norm, and no standard had ever prevailed, we must judge that there has been time enough for all structure to break down. But what we see in human society is miraculous as it is. The most miraculous structure of them all is the Republic. People can always find fault in the way the state is run. But if they could see things plainly, free from every sort of bias, they could not help marvel at the very existence of the Republic. It is a place where individuals meet with common notions of justice, virtue and beauty. So the existence of the state is a testimony that universal justice exists, as do universal virtue and universal beauty. Plato uses the existence of the Republic to prove that universal justice exists, and that the just life is preferable to the unjust one. Plato’s Republic Thrasymachus takes the cynical but honest view, that there is more benefit in plainly appearing just than there is in actual being just. He does not necessarily refer to hypocritical villains, those who deliberately nurture a veneer of a socially just man in order to reap personal benefit. He could also be referring to those who have convinced themselves that they are good, apart from society recognizing them as good. As an example of the first we could take Moliere’s Tartuffe. He has entered the household of Orgon with deliberate intent to appropriate for himself the property of his landlord. He takes note of the superficial natures of Orgon and his mother, both of them who are fond of shows of piety and uttering platitudes. He tailors his conduct exactly to please these two. He makes sure that religion is always pouring from his lips. His conduct is always immaculate in the presence of them, and he is never short of advice to the others, who hold him is various degrees of suspicion, regarding the pious and just life. Tartuffe is not only a hypocrite but also a calculating villain. He is the sort that works his way to social standing and privilege by express knowledge that the larger part of society is weak to such charms. It is easy to see that anyone in Tartuffe’s position would lose out by trying to be really just to those he encounters. The counter argument to this is that villains like Tartuffe are usually found out in the end, and therefore suffer in the long run, at the hands of the same society. For example, Tartuffe overreaches himself when he tries to seduce the wife of Orgon, while at the same time courting their daughter. When he is found out he loses the favor of Orgon, after which point he resorts to outright villainy. But when Thrasymachus argues for the appearance of virtue he also has the example of Orgon in mind. For Orgon, and even more so for his mother, the appearance of virtue is the most important thing. So important is it to them that they do not realize that they a dealing with appearances. They believe themselves to be virtuous because they abide by the rules of conventional virtue and piety. Orgon is a wealthy man, and it is clear that his wealth is derived through his ability to adapt. He has no concern whether justice is really done, but only that it should appear to be done. He is so blinded by the show of virtue of Tartuffe that he does not even suspect ulterior motives in his lodger wanting to wed his daughter. When the daughter complains he signs away his property to the lodger in a show of defiance. Of course, his blindness is the cause of his ruin in the end, which is shown for dramatic purposes. But the general argument remains, which is that the likes of Orgon prosper is society. He does enquire into true justice, and any effort in this direction would disrupt his social standing from the root. The likes of Orgon happily give charity to murderers. The vanity of giving blinds them to all other considerations. The mistake of Thrasymachus is that he considers contingent benefits and fails to arrive at a comprehensive account. To provide such an account is extremely difficult, and part of the difficulty is that the listener must have an open and enquiring mind to be able to grasp the subtleties of it. This is why Socrates (Plato) provides three different explanations of why the just life is preferable to the unjust one, and the three responses are suited to the three different attitudes of the questioners. The rich Cephalus is smug in his righteousness that he repays his debts, and that he gives to charity. He is confrontational, and therefore it is only possible to contradict his smug assertions bluntly. This is why Socrates merely asks him to consider whether the returning of a weapon to its rightful owner, a murderer, is justice. Thrasymachus is more constructive. He claims that justice is merely what the powerful impose on the weak. To this Socrates argues that all constructive activity has the powerful acting in favor of the weak, not the other way round, as Thrasymachus contends. If justice be admitted to be constructive then Thrasymachus’ is plainly wrong. The more subtle argument concerning harmony is reserved for the honest enquiries of Adeimantus and Glaucon. Justice is introduced now as a harmony in a body, where the ruling part subdues and controls the rest of the body, so that no part is in discord with another. The final notion is not easy to grasp, for it seems to imply that rulers must have complete wisdom in order to rule, for only with complete wisdom will they be infused with the sense of harmony that is required to effect justice. As a first example we take a football team. The manager of the team is the ruling part of this body. If he can effect harmony here, between all the players, and each of them with himself, then the team will win consistently. But this very success is bound to bring problems. If the team is so good that it never loses, then after a point the players lose motivation, they become complacent. Only after a few bad losses are they able to regain their efficient level again. Complacency, however, is the least evil. Success brings in its train a plethora of evils, all capable of disrupting the harmony. The players begin to nurture big egos and there are personality clashes. In dire circumstances they had all stuck together; but with success even the manager is not beyond reproach anymore. Faced with all these problems the manager becomes more and more dictatorial rather than wise, and this in itself is a cause for disruption. The same is true of any organization. A company starting from scratch is fired with a zeal that is conducive to harmony amongst its employees. But we cannot call such a company absolutely harmonious before it begins to reap enormous profits, because harmony must be equated with success. We are applying the word â€Å"harmony† in the strict sense here, meaning that something in harmony cannot have discordant parts. A company that in unprofitable is not in harmony. Only when it has reached the very top of the field can we begin to harbor such notions as perfect harmony. Then again, the higher is aspires the less and less is management able to maintain harmony. Managers themselves start to look after their own instead of the interests of the business. And so we observe in real life that managers award themselves huge pay packets even when the business is floundering. The arguments of Socrates are always in favor of universals and opposed to particulars. Particular justice, or particular virtue, will not always make sense, but this is only because the all-encompassing or universal picture evades us. Socrates confesses that he does not know what justice is, or what virtue is, or what truth is. To know these would mean having a universal idea in the mind, which is not possible. If the arguments of Socrates mean anything, they are means by which one comes to believe in the universal ideal, becomes convinced that it exists. And so one must not despair if injustice or untruth appears to have the upper hand. Skeptics may easily cast doubt on the existence of universals. They might argue along the lines that we have no experience of universals. That all experience is particular and contingent, and that it is pedantic to introduce the notion of universals. They might say that all justice is merely a point of view. Different cultures evolve with different notions of justice, and this is the principle reason why nations go to war with each other, to fight for a particular notion of justice, or for certain ideas about beauty. The skeptics might argue that if there was a universal idea of justice then it would have been discovered by now and nations would live in peace. In response to such arguments Plato would emphasize existence. For example, people use the word â€Å"table† in everyday discourse. It doesn’t seem to spread confusion, but instead facilitates understanding. But this is strange, because there is no standard table in the world. All tables are different from each other. This difference is a source of confusion. And yet people from diverse cultures and diverse walks of life get away by simply mentioning the word â€Å"table†, and things are immediately clear to all parties as to what is being said. Such fluent communication would be impossible if not every mention of â€Å"table† was referring to a standard. And if this standard does not exist in the material world, then it surely exists transcendentally, something which Plato calls the world of ideals. We could not imagine the ideal table, for every effort in this direction would spring up a particular table. But it is an overwhelming certainty that we have language and communication, in the place of confusion and chaos. This is how Plato confirms the existence of universals. What is true of the word â€Å"table† is also true of the notions of justice, virtue and beauty. People hold relative notions of these, not only between cultures, but also between individuals of the same culture. The skeptics point to a cacophony in such matters, but they can never identify chaos. If difference was the norm, and no standard had ever prevailed, we must judge that there has been time enough for all structure to break down. But what we see in human society is miraculous as it is. The most miraculous structure of them all is the Republic. People can always find fault in the way the state is run. But if they could see things plainly, free from every sort of bias, they could not help marvel at the very existence of the Republic. It is a place where individuals meet with common notions of justice, virtue and beauty. So the existence of the state is a testimony that universal justice exists, as do universal virtue and universal beauty. Plato uses the existence of the Republic to prove that universal justice exists, and that the just life is preferable to the unjust one.

Understanding the Statistics of Visual Learners

FACT: Approximately 65 percent of the population is visual learners. FACT: The brain processes visual information 60,000 faster than text. FACT: 90 percent of information that comes to the brain is visual. FACT: 40 percent of all nerve fibers connected to the brain are linked to the retina. FACT: Visual Literacy is the ability to encode (create a visual language) & decode (understand a visual language).FACT: Visual aids in the classroom improve learning by up to 400 percent. FACT: Students who are twice exceptional (2e) are often visual learners. 1. It is a lot less time consuming to watch a movie than it is to read a book plus you can do it all at once. When reading a book you have to keep stopping and starting where you left off. 2. In a movie you can see exactly what is going on (i. e. action, drama, romance); whereas in a book you really have to use your imagination.Time is of the essence – I read a lot and I read fast but if I were to spend my entire weekend doing not hing but reading I’d be pushing to finish three novels (admittedly I read fantasy and they tend to be huge but still). If I spend the entire weekend watching movies (unless I’m watching Lord of the Rings or something equally epic) I can probably knock over about twelve movies. Movies skip out a lot of detail that appears in books, plus they don’t need to describe scenes to you, they just flash a picture and move on.They are quicker in conveying the story. Special Effects – Now it has been pointed out that our imagination has no limitations and special effects do so things that sound really good in books sometimes look quite ridiculous in movies. However, my imagination is limited by my sense of reality and so when a book has a car crash I see a little ding and a bit of broken glass, where as a movie will usually just blow the car up in a spectacular show of carnage.Logically I know the car probably wouldn’t blow up but watching it on the screen I c an go with it. Reading about it, I will usually tone it down. Action sequences – yes you can read action sequences but I find them quite dull. Particularly sword fights. Please do not describe everything single thrust and parry to me if you expect me to still be reading by the time the battle is over. However, in movies†¦ they define the show don’t tell theory. It is a lot more exciting to watch a sword fight than to read a blow by blow commentary on a sword fight.