LOGIC AND EDUCATIONAL
LANGUAGE
(Abstract)
The
distinct separation between logics and application – that L. J. E. Brouwer, the founder of logical mathematical intuitionism
was pleading for in the beginning of the 50's – should be seen with reserve
today. Nowadays logic is more and more linked to the context of applicatory
researches, leaving at least, for a while the undesirable status of
"wandering son" that it was sometimes associated to and returning to
the noble destiny the Greek antiquity had invested it: that of organon, i.e. instrument of knowledge. This attempt is an
applying of the logical instrument to the analysis of education and educational
language. There is no doubt that educational language has certain
characteristics that ensure its own way of manifestation among the multitude of
discourse types. What should be these characteristics, what semiotic, logical or
rhetoric mechanisms, what effects of such a language upon the audience should be
and how they should diversify in discursive educational practice are some
questions we are trying to find an answer.
The
analysis of the connection between logic and education is trying to elaborate
some operational practical criteria scientifically proved for the delimitation
of the different categories of educational acts. We give a special significance
to the concept of educative intervention which is based on a semio-logical interpretation of the educative act.
Educative intervention is considered to be a communicative structure,
discursive or not, that its message being understood by the audience, produces
modifications in human personality, in form and with different intensities.
Defining this concept that projects the praxiological
dimension of education gives way to another attempt that seems to be unique in
this field: the systematization of the types of educative intervention. The
basic criterion for this systematization begins with the analysis of the
communication relation essential in any educative intervention.
Educative
intervention typology has a logical foundation. A scientific statement can be
sustained and proved only when it has a rational support. This support is
concrete in three types of logic of educative interventions: logic of
affectivity (which is fundamental for self-educative intervention), logic of
authority (which sustains educative intervention) and social logic (basis of
educative intervention through "community mentalities"). The
systematization of types of educative logic also is useful for another purpose:
the structuring of metaeducational discourse using
the criterion of educative logic. Thus a link is established between
affectivity logic and the doctrine of ''new education'', between authority
logic and what is usually known as ''traditionalist vision'' on education,
between social logic and some tendencies such as ''axiological education'' and
''social education".
The
restriction of the analysis educative interventions to the facts achieved by
using educational language leads to a three-dimensional model of language by
revaluation of semiotical logical and rhetorical
perspective. We have tried to give an answer to the following questions that
are essential for denoting the specificity of this type of language: which is
the communicative support of the educative intervention? (i.e.
the sign system and the communicative ability of the ''actors'' of the
education relation), which is the logical-rational support of the
interventions? (i.e. logical operation and their
combinatory and structural modalities in educational discourse) and which is
the performative support of the intervention? (rhetorical operations and proceedings that may occur during
such a discourse).
The
semiotical considerations on educational language
lead to the following conclusions : a) the concept of educational language may
be sustained as distinctive form of natural language by using a proper definition
from the actionalist semiotics area where the stress
is on the influentional relation between the sign
system and the personality of the receiver; b) from the semiotical
model perspective suggested at the level of the discourse units so-called phrastics (small units at the sentence level) the
educational language is not different from the other types of languages
(scientific, political, metaphysical) and thus the common trunk of the natural
language it is obvious; c) differences may appear on the level of transphrastic ascriptors and they
find their explanation in the combination between dominant signs (that give the
tonality of a discourse) and the dominate signs (that are subordinate to the
former ones and contribute to the fulfillment of their purpose); d) in the area
of educational language the prescriptors are the main
signs, or more precisely, the educational language is predominantly
prescriptive from the perspective point of view and predominantly appreciative
from the perspective of the modalities of ''putting into shape''.
This
investigation of the educational language as a system of discursive segments is
to be followed by another one that should discuss the same language as segments
of knowledge acts. This point of view is taken into account by the logical
analysis of educational language that regards the problem of logical inner
structures, their logical characteristics that ensure the performative
character of educative discursive interventions. The problem here is that of
the alethic value of the discursive segments that are
components of educational language, values from a "logic of nuances'' with
proper linguistic expression ("very true", "true enough'',
"more or less true''). The gradation of the truth values in such a
language will have some effects on the deductive processes, making a
syllogistics with distinctive characteristics in the discursive area. Logical
exigency of such a discourse does not agree with the presence of contradictory
enunciation, ambiguity manifestations and message distortions in communicative
act.
The
third point of the analysis of the educational discourse is that of the level
of rhetorical dimension. There are two aspects we should take into account:
rhetorical perlocutive proceedings in a discursive
intervention and the role of the metaphorical language in educational
discourse. Among the rhetorical proceedings we name the discursive slogan,
comic intervention and ironic intervention. The analysis of these proceeding is
well-come as there aren't pertinent and comprehensive analyses about their performative role in the discourse. On the other hand, the
rhetorical environment where the educational discourse is placing the audience
gives it a certain distinction, gets it out of platitude and banality and puts
it in the area of Nietzschean discourse where ''to
say'' means ''to do''.
Educational
discourse can cover various forms. We try to make an investigation of the educational
language hypostases using the three-dimensional model (semiotical,
logical, and rhetorical). We should consider three hypostases significant from
our point of view: argumentative discourse, demonstrative discourse and
explicative discourse. Although these discursive forms have got common characteristics
(underlying the concept of educational language in which everybody takes part)
they are different in the dominant discursive tonality and this ensures their
part in discursive act.
Considering
the argumentative discourse hypostasis we suggest a semiological
model of argumentative intervention that should take in account the three
levels of analysis and interpretation of the educational discourse: logical
level (i.e. the internal logic of an argumentative discourse), semiotical level (i.e. the semantic dimension of an
argumentative intervention, meaning the role and functions of the topic
reference of the discourse) and rhetorical level (i.e. the performative
mechanisms of argumentative intervention and efficiency of these rules in
discursive poetics). Methodologically and epistemologically dissociated, these
three plans of analysis manifest themselves in close interrelation and
contribute to the "creation'' of intentionality of any argumentative
discourse: conviction and persuasion of the audience.
The
considerations on the internal logic of the argumentative discourse have the
starting point in G. Vignaux's pertinent analyses
concerning the concept of "discursive logic". ''Argumentative
logic" as discursive logic comprises two categories of operations: discursive
operations (which are more related to the discourse area and are characterized
by rules of correct rationality) and metadiscursive
operations (that are linked by subject and are entirely new among the logical
analyses). Semantic analysis of argumentative discourse has in view two
concepts: discursive schematizing and argumentative schematizing, either of
them concerning the brief but essential image of topic reference of a discourse
in general or of an argumentative discourse in particular. The new element of
the rhetoric analysis included in context of argumentative discourse
investigation refers to the discovering, analyzing and exemplifying of some
pragmatic rules of argumentative performance.
The
second hypostasis of educational language is the demonstrative discourse. It is
reported to the same matrix of interpretation, thus delimitating the logical
structure of the demonstrative intervention and the functionality of discursive
schematizing of demonstrative type and its manifestations in rhetoric area.
Starting from Aristotle's observations in Second Analytics we notice their
actuality and continuity in the most important realizations of the last
century: axiomatic and formalized systems of logic and mathematics. The
conclusion of these analyses is that the logic structure of demonstrative
intervention are deductive i.e. they always reach the necessary conclusions.
The aspect is not only in the area of rigorous constructions such as axiomatic
systems, but in ordinary demonstrations in the area of didactic activities at
different subjects.
Demonstrative
schematizing is different from argumentative one because they do not associate
to the image on discourse theme but on logical assumption used for passing from
a demonstrative segment to the other. The developments in the area of rhetoric
dimension of the demonstrative discourse are made with some precautions. The
first one materialized in fundamenting of two types
of rhetoric: a cognitive and a rhetoric one. This classification is due to the kantian distinction between conviction and persuasion. The
second precaution makes us think of the determinant role of cognitive rhetoric
i.e. rationality mechanisms. The mechanisms of aesthetic rhetoric when they
manifest themselves have in view the preparation of a special audience to whom
a demonstrative intervention is addressing.
The
final stop in the area of the educational language forms is taking into account
the explicative discourse. There are two attempts concerning the logical
structure of explanation: E. Meyerson's based on the
identification relation and C. Hempel's known as the
deductive-nomological model based in
sufficient-necessary conditioning relation between explanans
and explanandum. The analysis of scientific explanation
structure is necessary for our proposition concerning our scientific research:
i.e. the imposing of the concept of educational explanation as the only type of
explanation that acts as cognitive intervention on the listener. The
investigation of the semantic dimension of the educational explanation tries to
find an answer to the following question: What are the
discursivity mechanisms used as a link between
scientific explanation to the educational one? The answer analyses the way of
structuring the explicative discursive schematizings
and their impact to the audience. The final attempt concerning metaexplicative discourse stresses on the obtained
performances. They are achieved both in cognitive rhetoric and aesthetic
rhetoric area for the fulfillment of the same aim: the understanding of the
given fact.
Our
attempt whose results are to be put to critical judgment is bound to a
deductive order. It goes in an extensional decrescendo from the analysis of
educative intervention (a concept with a large area) to the "destructuring of discursive educative interventions (i.e.
species of the former ones materialized in the interventions through
educational language) and delimitation of the forms of educative discursive
interventions (i.e., "species of species" such as argumentations,
demonstrations and explanations). It concerns a cognitive equilibrium between
the directly involved domains, logic and education, one with methodological-applicative
vocation, the other one being a perfect area for revaluating this vocation.
Back
|