Editing Annotation:Text:The Constructivist View of Communication/Fftzlk6yjg

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

This page supports semantic in-text annotations (e.g. "[[Is specified as::World Heritage Site]]") to build structured and queryable content provided by Semantic MediaWiki. For a comprehensive description on how to use annotations or the #ask parser function, please have a look at the getting started, in-text annotation, or inline queries help pages.

Latest revision Your text
Line 2: Line 2:
 
{{TextAnnotation
 
{{TextAnnotation
 
|AnnotationOf=Text:The_Constructivist_View_of_Communication
 
|AnnotationOf=Text:The_Constructivist_View_of_Communication
|LastModificationDate=2019-07-24T15:23:58.159Z
+
|AnnotationComment=As Tomasello and a few before him noticed, Children do not produce their utterances with the help of grammatical rules
 +
. Even adults rarely rely on abstract syntactic rules to guide their speech. They know how they
 +
have segmented their experience and the praxis of living has shown them useful ways of linking the segments.
 +
|LastModificationDate=2019-06-19T12:02:41.183Z
 
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
 
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler
|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Fftzlk6yjg","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ27Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ29Ӻ","endOffset":1033°Ӻ,"quote":"Linguists have only fairly recently used more descriptive terms such as “agent” and “patient”. The entities these terms designate were included in the large grammatical categories of subject and object. In linguistics, these terms refer to parts of a sentence and in no way to parts of anyone’s experience. Subject, verb, and object are syntactic terms and refer to the structure of sentences, not to the links we have created among the things we perceive and live with. It was a long-standing tradition in linguistics to separate syntax from semantics, as though the two domains had nothing to do with each other. In my view, it was this rigid separation that made it very difficult for linguists to develop a viable theory of language acquisition. \nAs Tomasello and a few before him noticed, Children do not produce their utterances with the help of grammatical rules. Even adults rarely rely on abstract syntactic rules to guide their speech. They know how they have segmented their experience and the praxis of living has shown them useful ways of linking the segments. \nIn many cases it is simply the way the connection between experiential elements has actually been made that determines the kind of link between them. Let us assume that your attention is caught by the color red. As such the redness is not confined, has not yet a specific shape in your visual field, and is not a discrete thing. But as you focus on it, you are able to fit the color into the pattern you have learned to call “house”. If you were asked to describe what you see, you would most likely say: “there is a red house”. You choose the adjectival connection because the color and the thing were produced in a continuous application of attention. If, on the other hand, you recognize in your visual field a pattern that fits your concept of “house” and only then, scanning it more closely, you focus attention on its color, you would most likely say: “the house is red”. This syntactic structure clearly expresses that the concept of “house” was brought forth independently of the color that was subsequently attributed to it.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210249553238207366632":^°°,^"jQuery3210249553238207366632":^°,"sizzle1563974462788":^"undefined":^"parentNode":Ӷ17404,31,trueӺ°°°,^"jQuery3210249553238207366632":^°°,^"jQuery3210249553238207366632":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1560938249633°
+
|AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Fftzlk6yjg","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ27Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ29Ӻ","endOffset":1033°Ӻ,"quote":"Linguists have only fairly recently used more descriptive terms such as “agent” and “patient”. The entities these terms designate were included in the large grammatical categories of subject and object. In linguistics, these terms refer to parts of a sentence and in no way to parts of anyone’s experience. Subject, verb, and object are syntactic terms and refer to the structure of sentences, not to the links we have created among the things we perceive and live with. It was a long-standing tradition in linguistics to separate syntax from semantics, as though the two domains had nothing to do with each other. In my view, it was this rigid separation that made it very difficult for linguists to develop a viable theory of language acquisition. \nAs Tomasello and a few before him noticed, Children do not produce their utterances with the help of grammatical rules. Even adults rarely rely on abstract syntactic rules to guide their speech. They know how they have segmented their experience and the praxis of living has shown them useful ways of linking the segments. \nIn many cases it is simply the way the connection between experiential elements has actually been made that determines the kind of link between them. Let us assume that your attention is caught by the color red. As such the redness is not confined, has not yet a specific shape in your visual field, and is not a discrete thing. But as you focus on it, you are able to fit the color into the pattern you have learned to call “house”. If you were asked to describe what you see, you would most likely say: “there is a red house”. You choose the adjectival connection because the color and the thing were produced in a continuous application of attention. If, on the other hand, you recognize in your visual field a pattern that fits your concept of “house” and only then, scanning it more closely, you focus attention on its color, you would most likely say: “the house is red”. This syntactic structure clearly expresses that the concept of “house” was brought forth independently of the color that was subsequently attributed to it.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery32105683181876824992":^°°,^"jQuery32105683181876824992":^°°,^"jQuery32105683181876824992":^°°,^"jQuery32105683181876824992":^°°,^"jQuery32105683181876824992":^°°,^"jQuery32105683181876824992":^°°,^"jQuery32105683181876824992":^°°,^"jQuery32105683181876824992":^°°Ӻ,"text":"As Tomasello and a few before him noticed, Children do not produce their utterances with the help of grammatical rules\n. Even adults rarely rely on abstract syntactic rules to guide their speech. They know how they\nhave segmented their experience and the praxis of living has shown them useful ways of linking the segments. ","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1560938249633°
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Thema
 
{{Thema
 
|field_text_autocomplete=Sprache
 
|field_text_autocomplete=Sprache
 
}}
 
}}

Please note that all contributions to DigiVis are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (see DigiVis:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)