So, instead of trying to conclude what good literature is, I decided to tackle the idea of what well- constructed literature is. It is important to remain aware of the fact that good literature is many things to many people. Different people will try to reach a different type of fulfillment. In my opinion, it is impossible to judge or define good literature, one may only attempt to judge or define what well-constructed literature is, as I hope to have done here, in this essay, for you.
Barriers to Effective Communication Even though an individual’s backgrounds and beliefs can affect the process of communication, one must utilize the different processes and components to achieve effective communication. Because barriers block the listening process causing misunderstanding that may block the flow of information between individuals. Therefore, this misunderstanding may blur the lines of communication utilized within the criminal justice system. The basic concept of communication is interaction between two or more people that results in the passing of information. However, for this process to happen effectively one must understand the different methods and standards required to achieve the process because without this knowledge one may miscommunicate information.
The difference between cultures may cause more severe complications for the translator than the difference in languages. The translator's role is to translate the source text into a suitable form of the target language. In other words, the target text must correspond to the source text version. When translating, it is important to consider the lexical impact on the target language reader and the manner in which cultural aspects may be perceived. There are two methods for dealing with the problem of culture implications for translation: transference, which opts for keeping cultural names and concepts, and componential analysis, which excludes the culture and highlights the message.
Generally the main tenets that they tried to establish were; language has a structure, language is a system of signs and the language operates at two levels as “langue” and “parole”. “Course in General Linguistics” reveals the way that Saussure supported to develop those conceptions. Since he reveals his idea about the systematic nature of language, the relational conception of the various elements of language and about the arbitrary nature of language through this book, it helped to strengthen the conception of structuralists, that is seeing the language as a system which has an abstract
Your own culture directly shapes how one communicates, such as when it is appropriate to make eye contact. We are not born knowing when and how we should speak; this is a learned behavior that is taught by interaction with others. This is not an easy task because nonverbal signals differ from culture to culture. Charles Braithwaite stated, “One of the fundamental components of cultural and linguistic competence is knowing how and when to use silence as a communication tactic” (Neuliep, 2011, p. 64). Before one can communicate effectively one must understand the context in which the culture exchanges information.
One cannot coin all the laws either with morality or coercion, as it undermines the relationship between them. It is important first to state the definition of law according to Hart, which is rules (not habits, as some aspects of morality (in daily life) are the matter of habit, constant practice, not some legal concept) that either restrain one from certain actions or impose certain duties/obligations. Laws serve multiple and important purposes, for instance they not always bestow obligations on individuals but may grant them with certain privileges. Hart describes obligation and duties as, what he calls, primary rules of obligation. When there is uncertainty or ambiguity regarding the primary rules is involved among objects, or some aspect are proved to be defective (inefficient), the "secondary rules" are to be introduced (e.g.
Everyday Creativity is Always Dialogical in Bakhtin’s Sense Traditional definitions of language have often categorised creative activity in the ‘canonical’ literary uses we see in artistic works. However, contemporary definitions no longer confine creativity with language to the work of the novelist or poet. It is a well argued point that the seeds of such literary language reside in what may be described, as the mundane, practical uses of ‘everyday’ talk and writing. This shift in opinion and approach to language study may be largely attributed to the work of Mikhail Bakhtin, who developed a social theory of language. Bakhtin’s main argument was that there should not be a special category in which to place literary language, as different and superior to the everyday, but that “literature was just one set of genres out of the wide range of different speech genres within social life” (Maybin, 2006, p.418).
Every word has its own place. If someone says that, he/she takes account of concept, what does it mean? What do you take from concept? When you perceive the concept of political or economic books you do not work with words, where you are not faithful to words, but in literature any word has its own meaning. I am one of those translators, who believe that every word must be used in its place, but not necessarily as, the author has applied.
We choose to describe something reality with words but there are our own understanding of reality. Remember, we all see the world differently. Our own understanding reality and others may not be the same. Therefore, to have mutual understanding is one of the most important reasons of why we communicate. Communication is not just about sending and receiving meaning of the message.
The empiricism of specific language functioning in the form of bilingual language contamination brings us back to the assumption of the existence of uniform internal metalanguage structures of verbal thinking. The Internal Form as a Language Structure Ever since Bertrand Russell, analytical philosophy has searched for an inner logical form of the sentence that could be true with respect to the world. Obviously, the superficial external grammatical form of sentences that we comprehend is a weak expression of the true form of corresponding facts. "Poor grammar" introduced many errors in traditional metaphysics disallowing distinctions available exclusively in the new logic. There is a need for a "philosophical grammar" — a grammar, because we speak about the form of the sentences, and philosophical because it should address not only the external but also the internal grammatical structures and reflect their interactions and transmutations thus revealing forms and elements that create the reality of true sentences.