| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Xkoiwsn0jk","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ43Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ43Ӻ/supӶ1Ӻ/aӶ1Ӻ","endOffset":3°Ӻ,"quote":"The models of another’s conceptual operating that one can build on the basis of observable behavior, thus, are and remain hypothetical; and what, one might ask, is the use of such models if they are linked to the reality of the child’s thinking, not by hard facts, but by inferences that may be countermanded at any moment? The constructivist answer is simple and perhaps disconcerting: the experiential world we live in (including other persons) is always a collection of such conjectural models based on one’s own interpretation of what one sees, hears, and ‘understands’. Linguistic communication is no exception to this rule. There, too, one deals with fit, not with match. Language does not transport pieces of one person’s reality into another’s – it merely prods and prompts the other to build up conceptual structures which, to this other, seem compatible with the words and actions the speaker or writer has used.Ӷ8Ӻ","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321092216922283496662":^°°,^"jQuery321092216922283496662":^°°,^"jQuery321092216922283496662":^°°,^"jQuery321092216922283496662":^°°,^"jQuery321092216922283496662":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1573157396821°
|
