Leonard Hoy's List: CC Inference

• Readers read ideas more than words, and infer, rather than find, meaning.

  • Readers do, indeed INFER rather than CONSTRUCT meaning. However, this necessity and practice means that writers have a tremendous advantage in this gray area of comprehension because 1) they generate the text (and imply the subtext) and 2) they have a knowledge of techniques with which to manipulate the unwqary reader.
• assertions:

  • Many of these ASSERTIONS trigger ASSUMPTIONS in a reader trying to be critical in his analysis.
• On a more subtle level, we recognize that a public figure confronts involvement in a major crime. Our understanding need not stop there. We infer that the gun (or at least a bullet) has probably been recovered and identified as the murder weapon—or the notion of an admission would make little sense.

  • We move into INFERENCE now . . .
• We also recognize the danger of unwarranted inferences. We recognize that we do not necessarily know if the Senator's admission is true. We do not really know whether the Senator is in any way responsible for his wife's death, nor do we know that she died of gun shot wounds (she could have been hit over the head with the gun). We do not even know if it was murder—it might have been suicide or an accident.

  • Thus, we go from reading what the text SAYS to what it MEANS . . . or MIGHT MEAN . . . or COULD MEAN . . .

  • We now screen for unwarranted inferences
• Inferences such as these are essential to both written and spoken communication. Writers often only hint at what they mean, and mean much more than they actually seem to say.

  • The essential and unavoidable presence of the implications of writers and the inferences of readers.
• A man and his son are driving in a car. The car crashes into a tree, killing the father and seriously injuring his son. At the hospital, the boy needs to have surgery. Upon looking at the boy, the doctor says (telling the truth), "I cannot operate on him. He is my son."

  • GREAT example with which to work. I fell for it!!!
• All reading is an active, reflective, problem-solving process.

  • All reading is problem solving-so's writing!!!
• inference equations is particularly powerful in this regard.

  • Inference equations-look this up!!!!

• Writers must assure that the ingredients of the equation are present and clear, and that the desired relationships are signaled in a clear and effective way. As writers, we must be aware that our readers will interpret our thoughts.

  We must strive to make our meaning as clear as possible. We must provide sufficient examples to make our ideas clear, as well as to short-circuit undesired interpretations. We must recognize what evidence is necessary and sufficient for our purpose, and assure that it is included.

  And we must choose our terms carefully for accuracy and clarity of meaning, and spell out our exact thoughts in as much detail as possible. We must recognize biases our readers might bring to the text and explain and support our evidence as much as our conclusions 

7 more annotations...

• Inferences are based on evidence. To infer, we must collect evidence. And evidence is collected by the process of analysis.

  • Analysis => Evidence => Inference worth having
    Experience => Bias => (when applied) assumption
• Analysis is a process of investigating something by breaking it into parts for closer examination.

  • Analysis: Breaking something down into its parts for purposes of investigation and inspection
• The goal of analysis is not simply to discover parts within the whole, but to understand the whole.

  • The key to doing this is discovering the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTS and (may I add) the pattern that this relationship suggests to the alert reader.

  • GOAL OF ANALYSIS: To understand the whole through a study of the parts.
• Once the parts are identified, analysis then seeks to determine how those parts are related. From a recognition of

  • Step Two in analysis: How are the parts related to one another and to the whole????
• Bases of Analysis

  • BASES OF ANALYSIS: Identify this in the writer and in your own analystical procedures. Could equate to a POINT OF VIEW in humbler undertakings.
• content, language, and structure

  • CAVEAT: The three focii for DK:
    1) content
    2) language
    3) structure

4 more annotations...

• Inference is a mental process by which we reach a conclusion based on specific evidence
• We infer motives, purpose, and intentions.

  • What we infer: Motive, purpsoe and intentions
• We want to find significance.

  • We seek significance in communication-even twitterer things!
• Evidence is said toimply; readersinfer.

  • To imply versus to infer
    
    Authors imply; readers infer
• The sense of inevitability to the conclusion suggests that we did not jump to that conclusion or make it up on our own, but found it by reasoning from the evidence.

  • CAVEAT: Yes, our inferences may and should come from evidence, but if we are unwary, noncritical, our inferences will come from the author's store of tricks, arrive on little cat's feet all unnoticed, uninspected and unsuspected.

• 
  

  <!-- Row 1 Column 1 -->

  A man gets on a bus. What might be implied by each of the following? He ran to catch the bus. He is carrying a suitcase. He asks the driver for change of a $100 bill.
• Inferences are not achieved with mathematical rigor. Inferences do not have the certainty obtained with deductive reasoning. Inferences tend to reflect prior knowledge and experience as well as personal beliefs and assumptions. Inferences thus tend to reflect one's stake in a situation or one's interests in the outcome. People may reason differently or bring different assumptions or premises to bear.

  • ALIEN HAND SYNDROME ALERT
• More often than not, disagreements are based not on differences in reasoning, but in the values, assumptions, or information brought to bear.

  • This is where CT intersects with CR and groups come to terms with conflicting value systems, prior knowledge arrays and etc.

  • EXTREMELY IMPORTANT NOTICE: Again, we're in Alien Hand Syndrome, Page 47 territory.
• we will try to use reason to explain the actions.

  • We'll use logical forms of argumentation, dressing our assumptions and biases for the occasion to fool the gullible.

7 more annotations...

• Inference: Denotation

  • I would put this up near the beginning of the series on INFERENCES.
• Whether we think of these various meanings of "ate" as different meanings of the same word or as the meanings of four different words, we still have to recognize the appropriate meaning in any given context. As we read, our brain calls up possible meanings. With barely a pause, we infer an appropriate meaning in each of the remarks.

  • Words have different meanings in different contexts.
    
    Our brain, as we read, constantly seeks appropriate meanings for individual words in context.
• table n 1thin piece of flat wood, stone, etc. 2 article of furniture with a flat top and legs 3 the food served on a table 4 the persons seated at a table 5 arrangement of words, facts, figures, etc., often in columns,  for reference 6 index or summary  vt 7 to lay aside, as a proposal 8 to postpone indefinitely
• From a variety of possible meanings, we infer the meaning appropriate for the given  context. We read ideas, not words.

  • We READ IDEAS, not WORDS
    
    We INFER the meaning of IDEAS from words in context.
• Readers draw on prior knowledge and past experience to infer the appropriate meaning.

  • Lexical ambiguity= word meaning issues

  • INference makes use of reader's priod knowledge and experiences.

• They at once "read" both the language and their knowledge of the world.  Some of the most striking examples of ambiguity of word meaning can be seen in headlines.

  Bundy Beats Date With Chair

  At first glance, this headline refers to an attack by an irate suitor.             

  date = person of opposite sex with whom one has a social engagement             chair = household furniture

  In the context of the news at the time, the headline referred to a convicted killer's scheduled execution.
              date = appointment
              chair = electric chair
• Readers infer word meanings consistent with the surrounding discussion.

  • Readers infer meanings from surrounding discussion

•   In many, if not most, instances, one meanings is obviously the intended meaning within the given context, the other meaning a somewhat funny alternative meaning.             

  The painting was found by the tree.

  By can mean "near," or "through the agency of."  It is unlikely the tree did the finding.  This example, however, involves more than simple lexical ambiguity. We also parse the sentence differently to see the different meanings, as the following suggests.

  The painting was     found by the tree.            It was next to the tree.   The painting    was found        by the tree        The tree found it.

  When the ambiguity lies in how we analyze a sentence, rather than in deciding the meaning of a word, we have syntactic ambiguity. We saw a clear case of syntactic ambiguity in Chapter One:

  He did not marry her because he loved her.

  • Syntactical ambiguity-sentence analysis necessary to decide which is which. Structural problem.
• • 1.  Drunk Gets Nine Months in Violin Case
  • 2.  Iraqi Head Seeks Arms
  • 3.  Prostitutes Appeal to Pope
  • 4.  Kids Make Nutritious Snacks
  • 5.  New Vaccine May Contain Rabies
  • 6.  New Study of Obesity Looks for Larger Test Group
  • 7.  Include your Children when Baking Cookies
  • 8.  Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers
  • 9.  Red Tape Holds Up New Bridge
  • 10. Local High School Dropouts Cut in Half

  • The book of language bloopers I have will work great here.

  • Examples of lexical ambiguity

7 more annotations...

• We have two separate assertions: That the stock market fell and that Burger King laid off 1,000 workers. But watch what happens when the ideas are related in specific ways.
  1. The stock market fell, after Burger King laid off 1,000 workers.
  2. The stock market fell, because Burger King laid off 1,000 workers.
  3. The stock market fell, therefore Burger King laid off 1,000 workers.
  4. The stock market fell, but Burger King laid off 1,000 workers.
• The overall meaning is conveyed not only by the individual assertions, the content, but also by how the elements of the content are related to one another, the structure. We identify the nature and relationship of parts, and infer underlying or unspoken meanings. Consider another set of examples.

  The class went to the beach     and        it rained.
  The class went to the beach     although it rained.
  The class went to the beach     before     it rained.

  The information is the same in all three sentences:
  

  The class went to the beach
  It rained.

  But the relationship of the two assertions is different in each sentence:
  1. The class went to the beach     [series]     it rained.
  2. The class went to the beach    [in contrast to]    it rained.
  3. The class went to the beach      [earlier in time than]      it rained.
  The meaning of each sentence is therefore different:
  1. bad luck
  2. perseverance or determination
  3. good planning
  Depending on the relationship between the two assertions, the class is portrayed as disappointed, determined, or lucky.

  What information would be needed, and how would it be related, to show:

  Overconfidence.
  A lack of self esteem.
  Justified homicide.

• Compared to some of the company many N.B.A. players keep, Hulk Hogan is practically the dean of Harvard Business School.

  Of course, Rodman is the Joker to Jordan’s Batman and Scotties Pippen’s Robin. In his third and presumably last season with what no longer is a mere basketball team but a collection of action heroes, Rodman as what Jackson calls the “anti-hero” has made himself a windfall as Jordan’s evil twin. With Rodman around, Jordan has become more of a deity than ever.
  Harvey Araton, "He's Nobody's Business But the Bulls',The New York Times, Austin edition, June 10, 1998, p. C21.

  • Find a description of a cricket match.
• We are dealing with cultural associations and references, not denotations or connotations.

  • We must deal with denotation and connotation, surely
    
    AND
    
    we must deal with cultural associations and references.
• Reference and association work in somewhat similar ways. Reference calls attention to a particular person, event, or idea. It draws a link to shared knowledge outside the text. Association invokes ideas and feelings through a particular reference.

  • REFERENCE: Calls attention to, LINKS the reader's mind to, elements of shared knowledge outside the text.
    
    ASSOCIATION: invokes ideas and feelings through gthe reference (Neg/pos, accepting/rejecting, approval/disapproval.
    THESE DEVICES ARE WEASEL TONGUE, operating subliminally in the reader's subconcious even as he processes them with his active cognitive faculties.
• The difference between association and reference is not as important as the key similarity: both reference and association involve inferring meaning or feelings not explicitly stated within a text.
• One special form of reference deserves special mention: allusions. Allusions are brief references to a well-known figures or events, often from literature, history, Greek myth, or the Bible).

  • ALLUSIONS are a special form of REFERENCE, one with historical or literary roots, most often favorites of academia rather than popular culture.
• SAYS:
  Make plans early. (Noah built an ark when it wasn’t raining.)
  DOES:
  The remark issues a command to plan early and offers an allusion in support of that idea.
  MEANS:
  If you don’t anticipate problems, you can run into major problems.

  • Excellent short depiction of the three levels at which text operates in the minds of a good reader.
• They exist in the mind of the reader, and need not be true.
• In the past decade, "Tiananmen Square" has come to trigger associations of a massacre. In June, 1998, in conjunction with President Clinton’s trip to China and his welcome in Tiananmen Square, various newspapers referred to a massacre of students demonstrators there on June 4, 1989.

  • STUNNING: R,A,A all exist IN THE MIND OF THE READER and . . . and . . . AND . . . THEY NEED NOT BE TRUE! OMG

6 more annotations...

• We read remarks such as these for the essence of the thought rather than for literal meaning. We interpret an unspoken, and yet, we feel, implied meaning.

  • FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE creates LAYERS OF MEANING out of a phrase of word.

  • We read FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE for the 'essence of the remark', not its literal meaning.
    
    We 'feel' the need to make an implied meaning and infering it for ourselves. More WEASEL SPEAK
• The metaphors of "surfing the Web" or "cruising the electronic highway" imply different mental images, and with that different understandings of the Internet: whether as a natural phenomenon to be experienced vicariously or a man-made network to be traveled with a purpose.

  • Excellent example of figurative language shaping perception.
• New denotations for words can evolve from figurative use of words. Consider the computer mouse—a cursor device that scurries around like the rodent. Computer users are the only ones to wallpaper windows—that is, install a background image (wallpaper) on a portion of a computer screen (window).

  • FULL CIRCLE: New denotations from figurative language (EX: Mouse for a computer, wallpaper for computer window

• Translators attempt to capture both the denotation and connotation of words, as well as the cadence of the language. A translator's linguistic struggles," it has been observed,"

  extend far beyond dictionary definitions, …every word is surrounded by a halo of connotations and associations that radiate far beyond their literal meanings. And since all words carry meanings and suggestions in one culture that don't necessarily have an exact counterpart in another, it is inevitable that translators will end up with colors, tones, and meanings that don't exist in the original.
  Michele Rosen, "Translate This: 'A Man, a Plan, a Canal, Panama!" Or Was It Paraguay?,"The New York Times, July 25, 1998, p. A13.

  Translations, and Biblical translations in particular, are often subject to great debate. Everyone knows the Sixth Commandment:Thou shalt not kill.The commandment has been invoked to argue against murder, abortion, mercy killing, ethnic cleansing, religious persecution, and assisted suicide, bearing arms in time of war, homicide in self defense, and the criminal death penalty. The original Hebrew term for "kill", however, actually means "murder." The command should read:Thou shalt do no murder.

  • struggles with translations between languages. Great example with the sixth commandment.
• They must see what words say, do, and mean.

  • Job One for Readers: Be on the Alert

3 more annotations...