Awoo?

Dec. 16th, 2003 at 12:24 PM

From a document describing "leveled reading theory," that is, that through a system of equations and observations, an objective reading level can be obtained for a given book, that with an acceptable margin of error can be used to accurately give an idea of readability at a specific level of comprehension.

This sentence is poetry. Absolute art. I really wish that the levels of irony it contains had been intentional.

Incidentally, Semantics=meaning.

"The Semantic Component. As far as the semantic component is concerned, it is clear that most operationalizations are proxies for the probability that a person will encounter a word in context and thus infer its meaning."

Beauty. Sheer beauty. I am awesturk.

[sic]

Current Mood: Academic
Current Music:Abba, something or another

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )

the_october

Dec. 16th, 2003 07:11 pm (UTC)

Wow, it is indeed awe-inspiring. I can't imagine any train of thought that makes 'operationalizations' a preferable word to 'operations'...

Link | Reply | Thread

spottylogic

Dec. 16th, 2003 07:13 pm (UTC)

I was impressed by operationalizations, which is a beautiful word to say aloud, except for the "P". It's the graceful, unwitting self-referentiality that I am still, an hour later, dazed by.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

spottedhyena

Dec. 17th, 2003 12:16 pm (UTC)

Operationalism is the application of mathematics to all aspects of reality so in the context of mathematically quantifying readability it makes perfect sense. Naturally their own treatise would rank quite low in readability ;?)

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

spottylogic

Dec. 17th, 2003 02:10 pm (UTC)

The beauty of academic language is the extreme precision with which it can obscure concepts. I don't doubt that "operationalization" is the perfect word to describe a concept. I also don't doubt that it took eight black-robed cultists, each holding a single volume of the Oxford English Dictionary, to construct that sentence...

Except that Operationalization isn't in the dictionary. They probably had to force Bulwar-Lytton to manifest directly for that one.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

spottedhyena

Dec. 17th, 2003 02:16 pm (UTC)

Academics do this in every discipline, even history.

I couldn't find the word in my dictionary either. But I don't place much significance in that. I once saw the OED in all it's glory. The University Bookstore at the University of Maryland College Park, was selling the full set for $1,500 about twenty years ago. It was every bit the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica....and I positively lusted after it ;?)

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

spottylogic

Dec. 17th, 2003 08:16 pm (UTC)

I have the condensed version. All the material in the OED in two bulky volumes with 3-point type. Madness! Requires a fresnell lens to read. Bwahaha!

What the hell is "semiotics"? It seems to be a word without a coherant definition, save one found through inference.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread