Constructivism rejects the metaphysical position that “truth,” and thus knowledge in science, can represent an “objective” reality, independent of the knower. It modifies the role of knowledge from “true” representation to functional viability. In this interview, Ernst von Glasersfeld, the leading proponent of Radical Constructivism underlines the inaccessibility of reality, and proposes his view that the function of cognition is adaptive, in the biological sense: the adaptation is the result of the elimination of all that is not adapted. There is no rational way of knowing anything outside the domain of our experience and we construct our world of experiences. In addition to these philosophical claims, the interviewee provides some personal insights; he also gives some suggestions about better teaching and problem solving. These are the aspects of constructivism that have had a major impact on instruction and have modified the manner many of us teach. The process of teaching as linguistic communication, he says, needs to change in a way to involve actively the students in the construction of their knowledge. Because knowledge is not a transferable commodity, learning is mainly identified with the activity of the construction of personal meaning. This interview also provides glimpses on von Glasersfeld’s life.

Key words: radical constructivism, education

Key words: Jean Piaget, radical constructivism

Key words: radical constructivism, history

Vico’s constructivist epistemology is compared with that of Piaget with a view to clarifying Piaget’s theory of knowledge. Piaget’s interpreters often show a lack of concern with the metaphysical foundations of cognitive structures. Vico’s emphasis on the limitations of human knowledge, therefore, is helpful in avoiding interpretive inconsistency. In Vico’s and in Piaget’s radical constructivism, knowledge is non-ontological in the sense that no claims may be made about the relation between cognitive structures and reality. Structural adequacy is derived from the consistency of the self-referencing cognitive system.

Key words: radical constructivism, history

The questions I try to answer in the pages that follow were raised after talks I gave at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) meeting in Atlanta, GA (April 1990) and at an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) symposium in Washington, D. C. (February 1991). Given the time limitation at both occasions, I could address only a small selection. While reviewing the whole collection at a later date, I found that the material could be roughly divided into three subject areas. I begin with the specifically epistemological ones, then consider those that concern the problem of social interaction, and I end with some implications the constructivist orientation might have for teachers and the philosophy of instruction. Because the answers I give are not derived from an established dogma butspringfrom my subjective point of view, the reader will find a certain amount of overlapping between the three sections. I would like to claim that this is inevitable because, in my experience, once one shifts to the constructivist orientation, everything one thinks and does changes in a way that seems remarkably similar and coherent. Let me emphasize a point I have made in many of my papers: constructivism, as far as I am concerned, is one possible way of thinking. It is a model, and models, no matter how useful they may prove, must never be claimed to be “true. "

Key words: cybernetics, machine translation

Key words: machine translation, philosophy of language

Accepting Ceccato’s theory of the operational structure of human thought, the author demonstrates the possibility of breaking up the meaning of words into combinations of smaller constant elements (semantic particle) of meaning. Taking as an example a group of related English verbs, the analysis shows that the differences between their meanings can always be accounted for by a difference in the combination of semantic particles constituting their nominata. A comparison with a closely related group of German verbs shows that one can never expect to find an exact interlanguage correspondence between the signification of words, even when they are given as equivalents in traditional dictionaries. The semantic patterns indicated in this essay are the result of a first analysis and may be subject to correction when the research is extented to a larger vocabulary.

Key words: semiotics