What's In A Text?
There are four forms of cognitive knowledge--four and only four
KINDS of things we can “get,” know, and communicate. These are:
1. Verbal associations; e.g., facts, names, lists of
things.
2. Concepts--classes of things that have something in
common by which we identify them as “same.”
3. Rule-relationships, or propositions--connections among
classes of things; e.g., causal relationships.
4. Cognitive strategies; e.g., logical arguments,
theories, routines for getting from one “place” to another, as in solving
problems.
[You can review these here and here and here.]
No matter how long we observe, analyze, and make sense of what we see and hear;
and no matter how complex, convoluted, and wordy is whatever we read or
hear--it all boils down to those four forms. So, if you are teaching students
to comprehend a text, the only information they can get from the text is the
verbal associations, concepts, rule-relationships, and cognitive strategies
(e.g., logical arguments, theories) asserted by the author. Let’s examine each
kind of cognitive knowledge.
A. Verbal Associations
Verbal associations include:
1. Simple
facts.
“The Bill of
Rights consists of the first ten amendments.”
“George
Washington said very little during the constitutional convention.”
“
“The
2. Verbal
chains.
“The six
“The main
events leading up to the War of Independence were…”
3. Verbal
discriminations.
“Thomas Paine
was an anti-federalist. Alexander Hamilton was a federalist.”
[Examine a text and identify examples of each kind of verbal
association.]
B. Concepts
Concepts are sets of things
that have something in common that is the basis for
grouping them. The common feature is used to define the concept.
A text may use a concept
(e.g., democracy), but provide no definition. In this case, the teacher has to
provide a definition and also teach students how to determine from the context
what the author’s definition might be. Or a text may give definitions for
important concepts.
But what is a definition?
There are two general kinds of definitions of concepts: conceptual definitions
and operational definitions.
1.
Conceptual definitions are abstract. They state the general features of
a concept. Proper conceptual definitions are in the form of genus and
difference. For example,
"Aggression (the concept to be defined) is behavior (the genus of
which aggression is a part) that is intended to injure (intention to
injure is the difference between aggressive and nonaggressive behavior).
“Granite is an igneous rock (the genus in which granite is located) consisting
of the minerals mica, feldspar, and quartz (the different between granite as a
kind of igneous rock and other kinds of igneous rocks).
[Use the form genus and difference to create a conceptual definition of
suicide, democracy, and unalienable right. Use this format. “X (thing to
define) is a kind of Y (genus) that has features A, B, and C (the difference
between X and other things in the class Y).]
Conceptual
definitions may be:
a. Theoretical
definitions; i.e., embedded in a particular theory; e.g., Marx's definition of
social class is based on position in a society's "relations of
production.” It is not the only way to define social class.
b. Empirical
definitions are created on the basis of observation. For
example, "Events x, y, and z all involve one person using the
behavior of another person for his or her own ends, at the expense of the other
person. I will call this common feature 'exploitation.'"
2.
Operational definitions are concrete. Derived from conceptual
definitions, operational definitions give examples (empirical referents)
of the concept. For example, hitting, kicking, and insulting (which are
attempts to injure) might be included in the operational definition of
aggression. The
Note that operational definitions are not universal. For example,
punching someone on the nose may be part of the operational definition of
aggression, but NOT in the boxing ring.
[Create operational definitions (examples) of suicide, democratic social
organization, or unalienable rights. Are the operational definitions/examples
consistent with the conceptual definitions?]
It is important to help
students to identify main concepts and the author’s definitions of them; and to
critically evaluate definitions to see if they are clearly worded, not too
broad and not too narrow. For example, if an author used
C.
Propositions, or Rule-relationships
Propositions,
or rule-relationships, state connections among kinds of things (concepts). A text--especially an
expository text--will be loaded with propositions. One of the teacher’s jobs is
to help students to identify and to state clearly important propositions.
There are at least two
kinds of propositions, or statements of connection: categorical and
hypothetical.
1.
Categorical propositions assert relationships of inclusion and
exclusion. These relationships can be depicted with Venn diagrams. For
example,
a. “Whole language is a fad.” All things that are whole language are in the
category of fads-- along with pet rocks, Mel and Ned’s All
Bark Diet, and leisure suits.”
b. “Block
scheduling is not a good idea.” Block scheduling is in the category of things that are not good
ideas, along with using bleach to treat rashes (believe me, it’s not) and
starting fires with gasoline. Or, No thing that is block scheduling is IN the
category of things that are good ideas.
c. “Social order is
fragile.” All things in the category “social order” are also in the category
“things that are fragile.”
d. “Some authority is based on tradition.” Part of the circle that contains
“examples of authority” is in the circle of “things based on tradition.” This
implies that some authority is based on something other than tradition.
e. “No good deed goes unpunished.” Nothing in the category “good deeds” is in
the category “things that are not punished.” By implication, all things
that are in the category “good deeds” are also in the category “things that are
punished.”
[Create examples of
categorical propositions. For example, the connection between the class of cats
and the class of mammals, the class of people who eat cheese and people who are
from Wisconsin, the class of things that are good to eat and the class of Ma
Plum’s Infamous Ham Casserole.]
2.
Hypothetical (causal or functional) propositions assert that events in
one category (dependent variables, effects, consequences) are somehow
contingent upon, dependent upon, or predicted by events in another category
(independent variables, antecedent variables, predictor variables, “causes”).
3.
Independent variables might be seen as:
a. Necessary conditions; i.e., the
dependent variables cannot change unless the antecedent variable exists or
changes. Examples of propositions that assert that one variable is a necessary
condition are “If and only if there is sufficient heat will there be ignition.”
“She will go only if she has the time.
[Create examples. For example, state the connection between nutrition and
the strength of the immune system. “If……, then….”]
b. Sufficient conditions; i.e., whenever the
antecedent variable exists or changes, the dependent variables come into being
or change. Examples of propositions that assert that one variable (or set of
variables) is a sufficient condition are “If you practice one hour a day you
will increase your fluency.” “When you have the proper amounts of oxygen, heat,
and fuel, you get ignition.
Notice in “a” above, that heat is a necessary condition for ignition, but by
itself it is not sufficient. It is part of a sufficient condition
containing heat, oxygen, and fuel.
[Create examples. For instance, state a
connection between democracy and the variables that can destroy it. “Whenever….., then….”]
c. Intervening variables; i.e., a main
independent variable will have its effect only if another [intervening]
variable exists or changes. Examples of propositions that assert that one
variable (or set of variables) is an intervening variable are
“She’ll
be there at
“If
communication is logically faultless kids will get it, as long as the teacher
is enthusiastic and moves at a perky pace.”
“A
dose of rhinovirus will give you a cold, but not if your immune system is
strong.”
[Create examples. Are superior weapons in face-to-face combat sufficient to
win a battle? No. Soldiers need certain virtues. State this. When X, then Z,
but only if Y.”]
4.
Hypothetical/causal propositions may assert direct relationships (i.e.,
variables are changing in the same direction) or inverse/indirect relationships
(i.e., variables are changing in opposite directions).
For
example,
“The longer the barrel, the higher the velocity of the bullet”
(direct).
“The lower the income, the shorter the life expectancy”
(direct).
“The lower the social class, the higher the rate of infant
mortality” (indirect/inverse).
“The
more you weigh, the slower you run” (indirect/inverse).
[Create examples of direct and indirect/inverse relationships.]
5.
Hypothetical propositions may assert proximal relationships (close) or
distal relationships (distant)--in the sense of time lag and/or the number
of intervening steps (as in a sequence or a causal chain). For example, the
connection between heat and ignition is proximal, but the relationship between
factors that weaken democracy and the collapse of a democracy is probably
distal--the factors set in motion a process of many changes over much time.
[Create examples of proximal and distal relationships.]
6.
Relationships may be unilateral (one way) or bi-lateral/reciprocal
(i.e., causation is in both directions). For example, drinking a lot of hard
liquor over a long period of time may cause liver damage, but liver damage
doesn’t cause heavy drinking. So, this relationship is uni-lateral.
Correcting errors increases students’ rate of achievement. This change tells
teachers that it is well to correct errors, and it shows them which kinds of
corrections work best. The more they correct errors the right way, the faster
their students’ progress. This relationship is bi-lateral, a circle, a feedback loop.
[Create examples of uni-lateral and bi-lateral relationships.]
D. Cognitive Strategies
Propositions in a text may
be arranged to present a big picture of how things are connected. Big pictures may be:
1.
Sequences in time. For example, an author may present the phases of cell
division, or the chain of events leading up to war.
2.
Hierarchies. An author may arrange statements to show how constituents
of cells are organized into cells, cells are organized into organs and tissues,
organs and tissues are organized into systems (nervous, skeletal, muscular,
digestive), and systems are organized into the whole body.
3.
Configurations. Propositions may be arranged to depict a networks of
relationships, such as the social order of a school: the connection between
leadership and supervision; the connection between supervision and teaching
quality; the connection between teaching quality and student achievement; the
connection between student achievement and moral.
4.
Arguments are arrangements of propositions that function as explanations,
accounts, theories, cases, and declarations (e.g., of independence). For
example, the prosecuting attorney makes a case built during the trial
and summarized in a closing argument that Saddam Hussein is guilty of mass
murder. Or, the physician examines test data and builds an argument that ends
in a diagnosis. Or Thomas Jefferson makes a case for separation from
Arguments can have several forms; i.e, arrangements of
propositional statements can be deductive or inductive.
a. The
deductive form. An argument can start with a general proposition and
end with a statement of something specific (a conclusion or the implication of the
earlier statements). This is a deductive argument. For example, the
prosecutor can begin with the statement that Saddam Hussein is guilty; lay out
evidence; and end by drawing the conclusion from what the evidence says. “See,
I told you. All the evidence points to the conclusion that he
is guilty of mass murder.”
The
deductive form usually looks like this.
Statement of general rule. All human beings are
mortal.
Evidence relevant to the rule. Socrates
is a human being.
Conclusion. Socrates (being in the class of human
beings) is therefore mortal.
Here’s
another.
No civilization lasts forever. (General rule)
We have a civilization. (Specific evidence)
Our civilization will not last forever. (Conclusion)
The
above deductive arguments were built with statements of categorical
relationships, as discussed in B.1.
Here’s
another deductive argument, but it has to do with causal relationships, as
discussed in B.2.
If persons violate verbal agreements, they can’t be trusted any more. (General
rule)
Fred violated his verbal agreement with Ted. (Specific evidence)
Fred therefore can’t be trusted any more. (Conclusion).
b. The
inductive form. The inductive form begins NOT with a general rule, but
with specifics (examples of something--but we don’t know what, or we’re not
going to say what, yet). Then a general statement is made that connects or
makes sense of the specifics.
For example, you feel tired all the time. How can we account for it? The
physician asks a lot of questions (collects evidence--of what she doesn’t yet
know). She gives a lot of tests--collecting more evidence of something. She
examines the evidence--the specifics. What do the data point to? What is behind
them that could GENERATE them? “Thyroid deficiency!
That’s what you’ve got.”
The
form looks something like this…
If this….
And this….
And this…..
And this….
But not that….
Or that….
Then you’ve got a thyroid deficiency. (Conclusion--something general)
The conclusion is induced from the specifics, using inductive reasoning.
The game of Clue is also an example of an argument strategy that uses inductive
reasoning--going from specifics to a general statement that ties together the
specifics. After you eliminate Colonel Mustard, Miss Scarlet, and the other
guests; after you eliminate the library, the kitchen, and the other rooms; and
after you eliminate the lead pipe, the rope, and other weapons, you INDUCE the
conclusion. Professor Plum did it with a cream pie in the billiard room. [But,
Ha Ha, he’s long gone with Fifi the French maid.]
Sometimes a writer will MAKE a case using a deductive strategy. For example,
the writer will state a general rule (If X happens, then Y must happen); then
present evidence that the present situation is an example of X; and then draw
the conclusion that Y must happen.
Sometimes a writer will BUILD a case, from the ground up, by stating facts and
then presenting a general statement that makes sense of (ties together) the
facts. This would be an inductive argument.
Exercise
Following are excerpts that
contain (1) definitions of concepts, and (2) propositions. Identify these and
then state them in propositional and definitional form. Note that a sentence
can contain more than one proposition. Try to extract them all. Also, see if
you can determine whether a causal variable is asserted to be sufficient,
necessary, or intervening. And ask yourself if that assertion makes sense.
Here’s an example of what I
mean.
"The more a religion
makes concessions to individual judgment, the less it becomes a dominant force
in the lives of its members, the less its cohesion and then vitality."
Here’s what I get from the
above…
1.
Religions are among the things that can make greater or lesser concessions to
individual judgment.
2.
The concessions that religions make to individual judgment affect all of their
members.
3.
Among the things that make a religion a force in the lives of its members, is
the extent to which it makes concessions to individual judgment.
4.
The more a religion makes concessions to individual judgment, the less that
religion will be a dominating (strong? extensive?) force in the lives of its
members.
5.
The less a religion is a dominating (strong? extensive?) force in the lives of
its members, the less cohesion there will be among its members (who are making
individual judgments).
6.
The more a religion loses its cohesion, the less vital (seeming to have life,
existence) it will become.
Now you try it with these.
1.
...a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the
legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. [Max Weber. "Politics as a vocation." 1918]
2.
...suicides are found to be in direct proportion to the number of Protestants
and in inverse proportion to that of Catholics [Emile Durkheim, Suicide.
1897]
3.
No living being can be happy or even exist unless his needs are sufficiently
proportioned to his means. [Emile Durkheim, Suicide. 1897]
4.
If the state is to exist, the dominated must obey the authority claimed by the
powers that be. [Max Weber. "Politics as a
vocation." 1918]
5.
...the term suicide is applied to all cases of death resulting directly or
indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim himself, which he
knows will produce this result. An attempt is an act thus defined but falling
short of actual death. [Emile Durkheim, Suicide. 1897]
6.
If therefore industrial or financial crises increase suicide, this is not
because they cause poverty, since crises of prosperity have the same result; it
is because they are crises, that is, disturbances of the collective order.
[Emile Durkheim, Suicide. 1897]
7.
Where the State is the only environment in which men can live communal lives,
they inevitably lose contact, become detached, and thus society disintegrates.
[Emile Durkheim. The Division of Labor in Society.
1893]
8.
There is the authority of the extraordinary and personal gift of grace
(charisma), the absolutely personal devotion and personal confidence in
revelation, heroism, or other qualities of individual leadership. This is
charismatic domination... [Max Weber. "Politics as a
vocation." 1918]
9.
This problem--the experience of the irrationality of the world--has been the
driving force of all religious evolution... [Max Weber. "Politics
as a vocation." 1918]
10.
(H)e who lets himself in for politics, that is, for power and force as means,
contracts with diabolical powers and for his action it is not true that
good can follow only from good and evil only from evil, but that often the very
opposite is true. Anyone who fails to see this is, indeed, a political
infant... [Max Weber. "Politics as a vocation."
1918]
11.
Man seeks to learn and man kills himself because of the lack of cohesion in his
religious society; he does not kill himself because of his learning. It is
certainly not the learning he acquires that disorganizes religion; but the
desire for knowledge wakens because religion becomes disorganized. Knowledge is
not sought as a means to destroy accepted opinions but because their
destruction has commenced. [Emile Durkheim. Suicide.
1897]