 |
 |
Hi, Klaus, If you read my post, you'll see a somewhat different point to the point that you attribute to me. It's clear that the morphology of the word research indicates a formal structure comprised of a prefix “re” and a word stem “search.” What I say is that morphology is not helpful here, because the prefix “re” in the word “research” doesn't indicate the meanings you attribute to it. Even though we were not there when the word was first used in English, lexicographers have access to thousands of usage exemplars in context. Based on this information, lexicographers have a reasonable idea of what the word meant when it was first used, the meanings it has had across the years since, and the meanings that it has in the present day. Scientific research is only one form of research. I’d argue that among the many research traditions, there are forms of future-oriented research aimed at creating preferred states, that is, design research. Ultimately, of course, we’ve got to find out whether we’ve actually created a preferred state, and at that point, we look back, searching again, to see if we’ve done what we set out to do. But before we’ve done it, our research is future oriented. The other day, I mentioned a rich range of broad categories of research: theoretical, empirical, conceptual, positive, descriptive but not positivistic, normative, mathematical, logical, philosophical, historical, textual, exegetical, hermeneutic, interpretive, phenomenological. Some flavors of these require looking back, others looking forward, some both. Some also explore the present -- though, as Augustine noted, the present becomes the past at just about the moment we understand it to be here. Research in the present is therefore only roughly present, but it remains distinct from a defined past. The formal structure of the word “research” show two syllables, “re” and “search.” No question about it. I have not disputed that fact. What I dispute is the meaning of the prefix “re” in the structure of this specific word. If you look up the prefix “re” in Webster’s, you’ll find that in this word, it does not form the same kind of word as the many words in which “re” means “again.” That is why the word “research” does not appear on the list of words formed when the prefix “re” has the meanings you attribute to it. I agree with much of what you’ve written in your reply, and I also agree that the word “research” has the morphology you describe. Where I disagree is in the meaning you attribute to the prefix "re" in this specific word. In the word “research,” the morphology of the word is irrelevant to the meanings you attribute to it. On this, Webster’s provides the evidence of a massive list of words that do take the meaning you attribute. The word “research” is not among them. The reason I continue to struggle with this is that you continue to respond with objections and counter-arguments. It would be irresponsible of me not to substantiate my position. If you offer an argument that leads me to change my view, I will change my view and say so. Yours, Ken Klaus Krippendorff wrote: --snip-- i don't know why you are so insistent that morphologically, “research” does not consist of the prefix “re” and the word stem “search.” you said that the english “research” comes from the french “recherche” which my dictionary breaks down into the very same two components “re-cherche,” searching repeatedly. --snip--