Learning Greek

A theory of the workings of the mind

The Meaning Triangle gives us a way to see the connection between symbols (e.g. Words) and thought. It was put on paper by Ogden and Richards¹ to give a picture that thoughts of a thing do have a connection to the words said about it, but the words are separate from the thought that comes about.

For the work we are doing, I have made small changes to the words that are used. I have done this to make clearer the discussion that comes after. A symbol is an experience. Such experience may be had by the eye, ear, touch, or may even be an experience of the mind such as a thought.

Symbols come into the the mind and the mind puts them into a structure. This structure we say is a symbolic relationship pattern². The mind takes the symbolic relationship pattern and makes an attempt to see it in the “mental universe” that had existence before the experience. When it has a match, the structure in the “mental universe” is said to be the Referent³. Through this process, the symbolic relationship pattern has been Defined.

This complex process of Definition is the process that gives “meaning” to “words.”⁴

I make use of “symbolic relationship pattern” in place of the words used by Ogden and Richards as well as Voelz because it makes clear that the relation among the symbols is the important thing. The words “Thought/Reference” (Ogden) and “Conceptual Signified” (Voelz) give the idea that this is a “thing” that has existence. But, a “thought” or “Conceptual Signified” does not have any material existence. It is only a structure; a complex of relations⁵.

Frequently we put a new symbol into the structure that makes the process of Referencing/Defining this structure simpler. This may be a label or name for the Referent so that the mind is able to see it with a smaller amount of work when it is Defining things.

You may be saying, “What is the difference between a symbolic relationship pattern and a Referent?” Even though they are complexes of symbols in relation to one another, there are two things that make them different.

First, they are different in respect to the time they came to be. The event of experience makes the division. Referents were in existence before the experience. The symbolic relationship pattern came to be with the experience. For purposes of the current discussion, it may be said that symbolic relationship patterns change and Referents do not.

A Referent, then, is a structure that has been put into the “mental universe” before the symbolic relationship pattern was made. From this we see that a Referent will generally be more complex in comparison to a symbolic relationship pattern. This is true because a Referent has relations to other Referents that may not be important in the current symbolic relationship pattern. We will see this as important when we come to the idea of Context and Communication.

The marks on the page after the word “STATEMENT” will make us ready to go forward:

STATEMENT: Larry schwinked the ronk.

When you first see these marks, you may say, “It gives no meaning!” I will now make you see that these marks give you a great amount of “meaning.”

First, you see the lines and arches on the page and your mind takes note of the relation they have. This is where the physical experience ends. Your mind is able to see that structures of lines and arches like these have been experienced before and you Define these structures as letters and words.

If you have not had much experience reading, you may to take smaller groups of lines and arches and Define them independently then put these Referents together to make a new symbolic relationship pattern in order to Define that structure. If you have had a greater amount of experience, you may be able to take a greater number of lines and arches and Define them at the level of words.

When we get to Definition at the level of words, we see that there is trouble. Two of the words are not able to be Defined (because I made them up). That is to say, you have no Referent for the words “schwinked” and “ronk.”

“Ah,” you say, “See, it does not give meaning!” Again, I say that it gives greater meaning than you may see. You have come to the belief that the lines and arches are words in a statement. With experience in the English language you have the knowledge that in an English statement, the general form is “Subject – Verb – Object.” You come to the belief, then, that “Larry” is the “subject” of this statement, “schwinked” is the verb, and “the ronk” is the “object”. Other symbols that help are the “ed” marks at the end of the second word. You have knowledge that “ed” at the end of a word at times makes the act of the verb “past-tense.” The markings making the symbol “the” frequently occur before a noun. You have a friend or relation named “Larry” and see these markings as denoting a persons name.

With all of this, you are able to come to the belief that the statement means that some person named “Larry” at some point in time before now did “schwink” a “ronk.”

You now see that you have a great amount of meaning. When you come to the knowledge that “to schwink” is like “to walk into” and “ronk” is a word for “wall” you have completed the Definition process by having Referents for all of the symbols and have a complete Relationship Pattern. But if you give some thought to it, you had meaning before you had knowledge of these two words. You were able to get that meaning because of the relation among these symbols and the symbols that you were able to Define.

We see, then, that we get meaning not from symbols but from the relation that symbols have with other symbols. To say it another way, symbols get meaning when they are in a Context.

People frequently use the word Context, but give no thought to the definition of this word. So that we have agreement, we will use the word Context to be the symbols (experience from the senses as well as in the “mental universe” of a person) that occur near a symbol that is the interest of thought⁶. Note that these may be near in time and/or space.

We will now take up the idea of Learning. Learning is the process of getting new Referents into the “mental universe” or making change to a Referent that is there currently. Learning takes place when new relations are made from Referents that are a part of the “mental universe” and/or experiences from the senses and these relations are lasting. This process frequently makes more than one new Referent.

This Theory of Learning and the earlier Theory of Definition make us able to take a look at Communication.

Communication, the it is the process of making a symbolic relationship pattern in the mind of the Receiver(s) that is the same as the structure of the Referent in the mind of the Sender. In the end, this does not ever completely occur because no two people have the same Context. The nearer the match, the greater the amount of Communication.

For the Sender, the process is the reverse of the Theory of Definition we saw earlier. The Sender has a Referent in mind and makes a symbolic relationship pattern that is not as complex. The Sender then forms symbols (e.g. markings on a page, noises, hand-signs, etc.) to give to the Receiver. From these symbols and his Context, the Receiver makes a symbolic relationship pattern and makes an attempt to see a Referent in his “mental universe” that is a match to that of the Sender.

From this, we see that the nearer the Context of the Sender and Receiver, the nearer the symbolic relationship pattern of the Receiver is going to match the Referent in the mind of the Sender.

There are a number of important things to be said about this process. Senders not make symbols for all of the Referents and relations in their “mental universe” to Communicate. They make a structure with a smaller amount of complexity to Communicate to the Receiver. The things that are not Communicated, the Receiver will get from the Context. This may be from his “mental universe” or by observation of other symbols that were not given by the Sender.

The symbolic relationship pattern made by the Receiver, because it is based on his Context will frequently have relations that were not Communicated by the Sender. This is frequent when the Sender does not give Symbols to the Receiver to not make these relations.

This is one thing that makes Communication hard. At times, the Receiver does not make connections that the Sender has in mind or the Receiver does make connections that the Sender does not have in mind. While this is able to be fixed by changing the Context (for example, by the Sender giving more Symbols), it is clear that the Receiver did not get the meaning being Communicated by the Sender⁷.

From this we are able to see how Communication that is done by writing is frequently not done well. The Sender and Receiver may be separated by time or space to such a degree that more Symbols are not able to be sent. The Receiver is then made to put Symbols in the symbolic relationship pattern from his Context with no knowledge that these Symbols are to be part of the symbolic relationship pattern that the Sender made an attempt to Communicate.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

Adler, Ronald B. and Neil Towne, Looking Out – Looking In. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2003.

Bates, Elizabeth and Judith C. Goodman, “On the Inseperability of Grammar and the Lexicon: Evidence from Acquisition Aphasia and Real-Time Processing” Language and Cognitive Processes 12(5/6), pp. 507-584. (Accessed Online 9/28/2005 at
http://crl.ucsd.edu/%7Ebates/papers/pdf/bates-goodman-1997.pdf )

Faber, Pamela, “Translation Competence and Language Awareness” Language Awareness.7:1. 1998 (Accessed Online 9/28/2005 at http://www.multilingual-matters.net/la/007/0009/la0070009.pdf )

Jiang, Nan, “Lexical Representation and Development in a Second Language” Applied Linguistics 21/1:47-77. Oxford University Press. 2000 (Accessed Online 9/28/2005 at: http://www2.gsu.edu/~eslnxj/jiang2000.pdf )

Moudraria, Olga, “Lexical Approach to Second Language Teaching” ERIC Clearinghouse EDO-FL-01-02, June 2001. (Digest available at http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0102lexical.html )

Ogden, C.K. and I.A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of The Influence of Language upon Thought and of The Science of Symbolism. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd., 1946.

Segler, Thomas M., “PhD Research Proposal: Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition and Learning Strategies in ICALL Environments.” April 2001. (Accessed Online 9/29/2005:
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/s9808690/newprop.pdf )

Stubbs, M. “Language Development, Lexical Competence and Nuclear Vocabulary” Educational Linguistics. Blackwell, 1986. pp. 98-115.(Accessed online 7/19/2005
http://www.uni-trier.de/uni/fb2/englistik/Projecte/stubbs/eng-voc..htm )

.

Voelz, James W., What Does This Mean? Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Post-Modern World, Saint Louis, MO: CPH, 1995.

Walker, Michael Pittman, “Chiseling Competence: A Connectionist Revision of Chomsky's Language Acquisition Device”, BA thesis, Emory University 1999 (Accessed online 7/23/2005 http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~mpw7t/walker99.pdf ).

Introduction

Since the beginning, God communicated with man through language¹ and in spite of the confounding of language at the Tower of Babel, God continues to communicate with us through language. He inspired the apostles and prophets to leave a written record of their teachings. In the same way that Christ condescended to come to earth to be born in the flesh, the Spirit condescended to be enfleshed in human language in the Holy Scriptures.

God has thus sanctified human language for the purpose of revealing Himself to mankind. Since God has chosen to use language to meet us, we should be diligent and careful in our interpretation of that language He has chosen to use in order that we might see Him as He intended to be seen.

It behooves us, therefore, to understand how language operates and work within the parameters of the medium itself. We should neither extend beyond the language lest we become enthusiasts, adding to God's revelation of Himself, nor should we place artificial strictures on language, lest we fail to fully understand and teach God's Word it in its completeness.

The following pages discuss recent developments in the sciences of linguistics and human cognition as they relate to language. The aim is to determine whether or not these developments can assist the theologian in his task of understanding the scriptures. The primary question to be answered is whether the use of the information gained from these sciences would deny the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture.

Science and Faith

Before using the results of scientific pursuits in the realm of theology, it is important to lay out the relationship between science and theology. As a pursuit of fallen man in investigating a fallen world, science can in no way be placed above or on par with faith. That is to say, where there is a conflict between science and faith, the rule of faith supercedes any conclusion of science².

This investigation, however, complicates this relationship since we are proposing to discuss the process of interpretation of the Scriptures which are the rule and norm for faith. We must, therefore, proceed carefully and analyze any method of interpretation proposed by science to assure that the assumptions and results of the method do not conflict with the faith.

In the present instance, we will be using research that is being done with regard to how the human mind functions in the interpretation of language. A number of things commend this research as valid. First, language is an activity of fallen man. Second, God condescended to have His Word recorded as human language and intended it to be understood by us. We believe that the plain meaning of Scripture is ascertained through the human capacity for language not some magical property of God's Word that causes it to understood apart from this human capacity. That is, we believe that it is perspicuous³. Thus we make it accessible by translating it into the vernacular and we work to understand the original languages that God chose to use.

The present investigation seeks to better understand the underlying human capacity for language and how language affects and interacts with the cognitive functions.

The primary purpose is to develop sound methodologies for proper comprehension of language. Because of his sinful nature, man will always seek to push away and hide the reality of God from himself. Because of the simul of Lutheran theology, this is no less true of the believer than the unbeliever. By developing sound hermeneutics, we protect the teachings of scripture and make it possible to “follow the pattern of sound words.”

Postmodernism and Language

In his never ending quest to hide the reality of God from himself, man has begun even to deny the validity of his own scientific pursuits. Postmodernism is a term which has become associated with this latest attempt to run away and hide from God. With the denial of both objective reality and the correspondence theory of truth⁴, mankind has consented to be held in bondage by his own delusions. In this environment, the assertion of the perspicuity of Scripture becomes a license to accept the results of any hermeneutic as a valid interpretation.

Postmodern thinking has already begun redefining the nature of language and the interpretive process so as to divorce text and meaning from the historical situation and the intent of the author.⁵ Such a divorce has serious consequences because it is built on questionable presuppositions. Allowing it to go unchallenged has consequences which are unimaginable.⁶

Christian Response

Instead of capitulating to an understanding of language which will so obviously lead us astray, it is incumbent upon us to investigate, understand and be able to articulate clearly how the language of Scripture is perspicuous and how to arrive at a correct understanding of Scripture based on sound principles of interpretation. Luther lamented what happened when the Greek language disappeared and how it impacted the faith⁷. The present situation is similar. Although it is unlikely that the languages themselves will disappear in the same manner that they once did, the principles of deriving proper meaning from language is being threatened.

As Christians, we cannot accept all of the tenets of postmodern thinking. The Christian world view posits that there is an objective reality and what is true corresponds to that reality. Thus, there is a right and a wrong; a true and a false. For Scripture, this means there is a correct and an incorrect result of the interpretive enterprise.

In the same way that we can accept some but not all postmodern thinking,⁸ we must be cautious not to be blinded by groups such as The Entrevernes Group, The Society of Biblical Literature, Center for Analysis of Religious Discourse (CADIR), and others with a radical view of how semiotics should be applied to the interpretation of Scripture.

Furthermore, simply decrying their methodologies and not providing a corrective poses serious risks for posterity.

Language as Symbolic System

The fact is, all language is symbolic. Thus any interpretative endeavor is an exercise in semiotics. Long before de Saussure promoted the idea of a science of signs, there was a recognition that language was a symbolic system and that the relationship between the mental universe and the symbols used to communicate were arbitrary.⁹ Here we must alert the reader that in saying that the symbols of language are arbitrary we are not saying that meaning is arbitrary.

A Sub-Symbolic Theory of Language

There are some semiotic views of language which take on presuppositions that are antithetical to a Christian interpretation of Scripture and they must be discarded. However, in his own work of translating the Scriptures from Greek into German, Luther did not reject all the work of Erasmus in recovering the Greek language simply because he did not share Erasmus' humanist presuppositions. Luther instead made use of what he could and discarded the rest.

Once we begin to answer the question, “how do we understand language to function?” we must constantly consider the question, “does such an understanding run contrary to the doctrines of the historical Christian faith and specifically the doctrine of inspiration?”

We have already seen that there is general acceptance that language is a system of signification. The following summarizes a description of language, which some may label as “semiotic,” that will serve as the basis for the remaining investigation¹⁰.

This model of language and communication uses a triadic model of the sign¹¹ loosely based on the Semiotic Triangle of Ogden and Richards¹². Under this model, symbols are perceived, then organized based upon their relationships to one another. This organized structure is compared against the structures which already exist in the mind of the subject. When a match is found, the sign has been “defined.” New symbols are added to the mind of the subject by establishing new intersections of relationship among existing symbols¹³.

Cognitive science and Artificial Intelligence research has developed similar “sub-symbolic”¹⁴ understandings of language which construct meaning based on the relationships among symbols. Within this “connectionist” framework, it is possible to explain the work previous cognitive and linguistic researchers such as Noam Chomsky with his Language Acquisition Device without the need to resort to innate structures in the brain to account for the grammatical construction of language¹⁵.

A Constructive Semiotic Hermeneutic

Unlike postmodern semiotic interpreters who begin at the level of “discourse,” and attempt to “deconstruct” the discourse to arrive at meaning based on preconceived “structures”¹⁶, the model under discussion begins with low level symbols in their relationship to “construct” meaning.

In the constructive approach, the relationships are defined by the text itself. This is accomplished in a number of ways. One method is through grammatical construction. For example, in a “Subject Verb Object” sentence, the “Subject” is the actor who performs the “Verb” on the “Object.” Also, the tense of a “verb” can establish a temporal relationship (past, present, future, etc.). In addition to grammatical construction, relationships can be established through words which establish relationship, for example, words such as “before” and “after” and prepositions (“inside”, “outside”, “away from”, “toward”, etc.).

As we have already described, this approach to language causes meaning to be derived from the intersection of relationships among symbols. This has the consequence of removing the distinction between “grammar” and the “lexicon.”¹⁷ In this model, the traditional “lexicon” is not the dyadic association of “meaning” with “sign” but rather the process of definition is a process of matching patterns. When patterns match, there is definition. That sign can then function as a symbol and the mind can examine what else is related to that symbol.

This provides a beginning point for considering a constructive semiotic hermeneutic. Additional work must still be done to examine the ramifications of this theory of language on the interpretive enterprise. However, we must now turn our attention to Scriptural Inspiration.

Scriptural Inspiration

Rather than threatening the concept of scriptural inspiration, a sub-symbolic theory of language actually strengthens the necessity for a strong view of inspiration. If symbols in relationship form meaning, then by changing the symbols or changing the relationship the meaning will change. This is almost axiomatic¹⁸.

If, then, God wills to reveal Himself to us through writings, it is apparent that He must choose both the symbols that will be used as well as their relationships. Since relationship is, in part, tied closely with what we term the grammar of a language, the languages themselves take on great significance to the task of communication.

Given what we have thus far said, we can echo Luther when he says, “For it was not without purpose that God caused his Scriptures to be set down in these two languages alone—the Old Testament in Hebrew, the New in Greek.,” and goes on to say, “And let us be sure of this: we will not long preserve the gospel without the languages.”¹⁹ We can boldy assert, “In short, the Holy Spirit is no fool. He does not busy himself with inconsequential or useless matters. He regarded the languages as so useful and necessary to Christianity that he ofttimes brought them down with him from heaven.^”20

Translation, Manuscripts and Reliability

We no longer posses any of the original manuscripts written by the Apostles or Prophets. However, God, in his providence, preserved copies. We know from modern textual criticism that there are variances in these copies. The question arises as to whether or not we can trust them. After all, from the discussion above, since we have changed the symbols (words) we have thus changed the meaning.

Here, again, we will return to the work of those attempting to replicate the function of language in the world of computers. The work of Risto Miikkulainen points out that a subsymbolic network is extremely resilient to the noise of these minor variations²¹.

It is interesting to note that we can extrapolate the results of Miikkulainen when we consider the issues related to translation.

Translation from one language to another can never completely replicate the pattern of symbols and relations that occur in the original language. But the “holographic property” of a subsymbolic representation allows the data carried by a translation to be sufficient to be resilient even to the “noise” introduced by translation. The redundancy of the themes of scripture, by being repeated using different symbols and relations²², provide additional resilience²³.

Conclusion

The assaults of the devil, the world, and our flesh will continue to conspire against God and His desire that all should come to a true knowledge of Him and trust in the salvation He wrought through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. One primary method is to obscure the record of His work in history, namely the Holy Scriptures. From Satan's first question to Eve, “Did God really say...?” until now, he has attempted to obfuscate, obscure and confuse God's Word to mankind. In the latest assault, that of postmodernism, one method has been by attacking how we approach the operation of language, claiming that text is divorced from the author and the intentions of the author.

In our investigation we have investigated another view of language based in part on cognitive theory and cognitive linguistics, computational sciences like Natural Language Processing, and other research into the operation of language. The goal of this investigation was to ascertain whether or not such a view of scripture was antithetical to the doctrine of Scriptural Interpretation.

The results of this inquiry were not only that such a view is not incompatible with the doctrine of Inspiration, but actually appeared to presuppose it. This clears the way for additional investigation into the appropriateness of this model of language for the interpretation of Scripture.

Works Cited

Bates, Elizabeth and Judith Goodman, “On the Inseparability of Grammar and the Lexicon,” Language and Cognitive Processes, 12:5/6 (1997) pp. 507-584
< http://crl.ucsd.edu/%7Ebates/papers/pdf/bates-goodman-1997.pdf Last Accessed:10-31-2005 >

Cangelosi A & Parisi D (Eds), Simulating the Evolution of Language. London: Springer (2002) Chapter 9 < http://cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu/rgoldsto/courses/concepts/cangelosi2002.pdf Last Accessed 10-31-2005 >

Delorme, Jean, “Orientations of a Literary Semiotics Questioned by the Bible”, Semia 81 (1998):27-61. < http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/Semeia/Semeia81/02Sem81.pdf Last Accessed10-30-2005)

Geninasca, Jacques Signs and parables: Semiotics and Gospel Texts, Gary Phillips (tr), (Pittsburgh, PA: The Pickwick Press)

Grenz, Stanley, A Primer or Postmodernism, (Grand Rapids, MI, Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company).

Luther, Martin, “To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany that They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools”, LW 45

Miikkulainen, Risto, “Natural Language Processing with Subsymbolic Neural Networks.” In A. Browne (editor), Neural Network Perspectives on Cognition and Adaptive Robotics, (Bristol, UK; Philadelphia, PA: Institute of Physics Publishing) (1997) pp. 120-139.
< http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/nn/downloads/papers/miikkulainen.perspectives.pdf Last Accessed: 10-31-2005 >

Noth, Winfred, Handbook of Semiotics, (Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990).

Ogden, C.K. and I.A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of The Influence of Language upon Thought and of The Science of Symbolism. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd., 1946.

Preus, Robert, The Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism, Vol 2. (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House) (1972)

Walker, Michael, “Chiseling Competence: A Connectionist Revision of Chomsky's Language Acquisition Device” (B.A. Thesis, Emory University, 1999)
< http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~mpw7t/walker99.pdf Last Accessed: 10-31-2005 >

To blend all metaphors together, to take off the sharp edges of the various metaphors, may be something like the following:
Imagine ordering a nine-course dinner. The green salad is cool and crisp, the soup clear and tasty. The brightly colored vegetables are steamed just right. The steak and lobster are cooked to perfection. Flakey bread, soft and warm, is served with creamy butter. A bottle of fine wine complements the entree. Sweet dessert follows with rich black coffee. What a delightful experience! With so many colors, flavors, textrues, temperatures, the meal is complete.
Then imagine asking the waiter to throw all the courses into a blender and turn the knob to puree. (pp. 36-37)