This dissertation explores the ongoing division between technical communication practitioners and academics by examining the conceptual metaphors that underlie their discourse in professional journals and textbooks. Beginning with a demonstration that conceptual metaphor theory as formulated by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson is a viable lens through which to engage in rhetorical (in addition to linguistic) analysis, the dissertation shows that academics and practitioners engage in radically different linguistic behaviors that result from the complex and often conflicting interplay of conceptual metaphors that guide their work. These metaphors carry assumptions about writers, texts, and communication that create covert tensions with the ethical value systems overtly embraced by both practitioners and academics. Chapter II looks at two professional publications written primarily by technical communicators for an audience of colleagues, and demonstrates that practitioners tend to use metaphors primarily centered around machines and money, objectifying both documents and people and reducing the processes of communication to a series of abstract mathematical influences. Chapter III looks at two technical communication journals with a more scholarly audience, and argues that academics participate in a much more convoluted conceptual system, embracing “humanist” language about communication that favors metaphors of human agency, physical presence, and complex social interaction; however, academics also participate in the abstracted, object-oriented metaphors favored by practitioners, leading to a particularly convoluted discourse both advocating and at odds with humanist social values. Chapter IV shows the practical consequences of these conflicting conceptual systems in several widely-used technical communication textbooks, arguing that academics inadvertently perpetuate the division between industry and academy with their tendency to use conceptual metaphors that contradict their social and ethical imperatives. This research suggests that a more detailed linguistic analysis may be a fruitful way of understanding and perhaps addressing the long-standing tensions between academics and practitioners in the field of technical communication.

People often create novel lexical expressions to efficiently communicate their thoughts to others. Noun-noun phrases, also known as conceptual combinations, serve as an example of these novel expressions. Most of the research on conceptual combination has focused on structural features of the phrases. However, other research has demonstrated that discourse context can also influence how these phrases are interpreted. Across two experiments, we demonstrate that discourse context has a greater influence on how people interpret these combinations than does a structural level manipulation. We also examine the strength of this contextually based-effect over a series of time delays. The findings from this study indicate that, while structural features of a given conceptual combination influence how that combination is interpreted, the discourse surrounding the novel combination plays a more influential role in the resulting interpretation. The influence of context is more pronounced than has been suggested in much of the research on conceptual combination.

In this study, the balance between conceptual and procedural teaching and its effect on the development of algebraic reasoning was examined. Participants included two seventh grade mathematics teachers and their students in targeted classes (N = 33). One video taped lesson from each teacher was selected for in-depth analysis of the balance between conceptual teaching, procedural teaching, and classroom time that included neither. Student participants took pretest and posttest algebra tests. Distribution of student responses and scores were analyzed for the degree of conceptual understanding demonstrated by students and then related to observed instructional practices. It was concluded that the students of the teacher with a more explicit conceptual emphasis in her lessons performed better on the test and were better able to exhibit flexible reasoning in unfamiliar contexts. Students whose teacher focused more heavily on procedural instruction without conceptual connections were less flexible in their reasoning and unable to apply some of the procedures taught in class.

On what does the meaning of the concept of water depend? I consider three possible answers: the physical world, theory, or both the physical world and theory. Each answer supports a particular history. If the history unique to an answer is confirmed by the actual history of the concept of water, then there is supporting evidence for that account of meaning. I have documented the historical development of the concept of water, focusing on three periods: the ancient Greeks, the 18th and 19th centuries, and the 20th and 21st centuries. Conceptual change figures prominently in that history, and when enough historical data are available communication across theories is obvious. Those features suggest that the meaning of the concept of water depends on the physical world and the theory in which it is embedded. The physical world explains cross theory communication; and theory accounts for the conceptual changes that I have documented. The history of the concept of water suggests that Putnam (1975) is right: meaning depends on the physical world and the theory in which it is embedded. He’s right, however, for the wrong reasons. Putnam relies on a thought experiment to demonstrate that the physical world contributes to meaning, but the history suggests that he built some chemically implausible assumptions into that thought experiment.

No description available.

Conceptual Art emerged as an international, avant-garde art movement in the mid-60s. Attacking the prevailing aesthetics of modern art, Conceptual artists claim that art lies not in the object itself but in the artist's idea or intention. Their asserted goals have been to combine theory with art and to eliminate the need for form in artworks. The purpose of this study was to examine and critique the key theoretical writings of three artists whose works have been recognized by the critics as significant and seminal for the Conceptual Art Movement: Joseph Kosuth, Sol LeWitt, and Terry Atkinson.Historical aspects relevant to this study included the following: (i) early twentieth-century antecedents of Conceptual Art; (ii) recent avant-garde movements of the 60s and 70s; (iii) the history and nature of the concept theories of Kosuth, LeWitt, and Atkinson; (ii) a critiqueof t ese theories in terms of their consistency and viabi ity for generating art; (iii) a comparison of Conceptual Art theories with both commonly accepted theories of art and more radical aesthetic theories of contemporary philosophers.Upon completion of this study, it was concluded that despite many ideological differences, Kosuth, LeWitt, and Atkinson agree on two key notions: (i) the locus of the "work of art" is not a physical object; and (ii) it is the artist's idea which alone accounts for the significance of an artwork. Their arguments in support of these notions are unsatisfactory. Longstanding issues in aesthetics, viz., the problems of defining art and evaluating its significance, are not resolved. The critics' acclaim of the writings critiqued in this study must therefore rest on extrinsic features such as the prestige of the artists, the relevance of the content of the writings to dominant trends in contemporary art, and the potential historical significance of their challenges to established views about art and aesthetics.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.