Active language is active thinking

Posted on Wed 29 Sep 2010 @ 6.00pm UTC



TAKE THESE two sentences:

The Irish and Welsh were discriminated against by the English at that time. (1) (13 words)

At that time, the English discriminated against the Irish and Welsh. (2) (11 words)

Why is the second sentence so much easier to understand?

Why is it so much shorter (by 15.4%)?

How is it that two extra words could add absolutely no extra information to the sentence?

More importantly, why is it so much easier to memorise?

If we switch the sentences around like this…

At that time, the English discriminated against the Irish and Welsh. (2)

The Irish and Welsh were discriminated against by the English at that time. (1)

… why is it we could still recall the second sentence word  for word even after a week, but the first sentence would almost be gone in the same time?

Why is it that a hard-to-absorb language format is usually promoted as ‘correct’ or ‘appropriate’ for an environment where the aim is ostensibly to have people absorb information?

All these questions lead us to the inevitable question:


Why does the Educational Establishment in any country maintain a teaching regime that aims to develop ways of thinking resembling sentence (1) rather than (2) in its students?

Advertisements
Posted in: Colour Section