Citation:
Berthoff, A. E. (1999). Green glasses, the figured bass, and the brakeshoe. In A. E. Berthoff (Author), The mysterious barricades: Language and its limits (pp. 159-165). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Summary:
Berthoff uses the metaphore of the breakshoe to explain that ambiguity leads to "breaking" in order to categorize knowledge and place it in terms that seem more easily accessable. Break limits speed but it also allows us to move faster because we have the break. Controls ambiguity but also allows for ambiguity (rhetorical chances and creativity) because the speaker is able to rephrase the utterance. If you accept the limit that we can't clearly communicate our thoughts, it lets us value the communicative process for its own sake. Being involved in this movement of language will eventually get us to a communicative position where our communication will be better.
Response:
The idea that language enables meaning makes a lot of sense to me. When I'm writing, the structure of my writing often helps me develop my ideas. When I freewrite, the structure of the sentence helps me develop what I'm thinking about because it forces me to determine what does the acting in the sentence and what the action is. The idea is similar to Langer's idea of the relationship between form and meaning. In fact, it does seem like the same idea. The constraints implicit in the form shape the meaning, but they also enable the development of the meaning.
Connections/Questions:
What is the triadic conception of language? It seems very similar to Vygotsky's idea of inner speech. Berthoff says, like Vyotsky, that we all have the desire to make meaning of our experiences through speech. Thus thought and language are interconnected. She says the relationship between thought and meaning is triadic, not dynamic. I think what she means is that people use language to bridge the gap between the person doing the referring and the thing refered to, and that this process of construction creates meaning. I still fail to see this idea as triadic. Triadic implies three, which makes me try to understand how the message fits into the relationship between speaker and audience, and I'm still failing.
Berthoff, A. E. (1999). Green glasses, the figured bass, and the brakeshoe. In A. E. Berthoff (Author), The mysterious barricades: Language and its limits (pp. 159-165). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Summary:
Berthoff uses the metaphore of the breakshoe to explain that ambiguity leads to "breaking" in order to categorize knowledge and place it in terms that seem more easily accessable. Break limits speed but it also allows us to move faster because we have the break. Controls ambiguity but also allows for ambiguity (rhetorical chances and creativity) because the speaker is able to rephrase the utterance. If you accept the limit that we can't clearly communicate our thoughts, it lets us value the communicative process for its own sake. Being involved in this movement of language will eventually get us to a communicative position where our communication will be better.
Response:
The idea that language enables meaning makes a lot of sense to me. When I'm writing, the structure of my writing often helps me develop my ideas. When I freewrite, the structure of the sentence helps me develop what I'm thinking about because it forces me to determine what does the acting in the sentence and what the action is. The idea is similar to Langer's idea of the relationship between form and meaning. In fact, it does seem like the same idea. The constraints implicit in the form shape the meaning, but they also enable the development of the meaning.
Connections/Questions:
What is the triadic conception of language? It seems very similar to Vygotsky's idea of inner speech. Berthoff says, like Vyotsky, that we all have the desire to make meaning of our experiences through speech. Thus thought and language are interconnected. She says the relationship between thought and meaning is triadic, not dynamic. I think what she means is that people use language to bridge the gap between the person doing the referring and the thing refered to, and that this process of construction creates meaning. I still fail to see this idea as triadic. Triadic implies three, which makes me try to understand how the message fits into the relationship between speaker and audience, and I'm still failing.
