On 9 Feb 98 at 16:50, Mnr AM de Lange wrote:
> > What a great example that disproves your point about "creative
> > language use". The two of you "may" be talking about the same thing,
> > but how would each of you, and anybody else know it?
>
> Robert, we will come to a common understanding by means of keeping up the
> dialogue. As we say in my mother tongue, freely translated into English -
> keep up the dialogue until the crows yawn.
I think perhaps we have a different idea of what the word dialogue means,
and what communication means. My view is that communication involves
developing shared meaning. If one person uses neologisms (new words or
phrases) that have no shared meaning, the communication process then has
to first establish the meaning of THOSE words, before shared meaning can
be exchanged. I think it's pretty standard in communication to realize
that the use of even abreviations or acronyms can be a serious impediment
to communication and retention, for fairly obvious attentional reasons.
If I speak in French, you in German, and neither of us understands the
other's language, is this your idea of dialogue?
> Your reaction to the example shows that despite my explanation, you
> understand very little about communication in revolutionary conditions,
> i.e conditions far from equilbrium.
That may be the case. In order for you contention to hold, you would have
to demosntrate that such a revolutionary condition exists which is out of
the ordinary.
> I want to stress again that "meaning" is not something
> immutable/invariable.
Of course not. Neither does meaning of words get defined by a single
person, although presumably new words must start somewhere <grin>. Here's
an interesting thought. There is a category of mental illness which is
characterized by the use of neologisms...essentially nonsense words strung
together by the afflicted. This type of schizophrenia (if I am remembering
correctly) is problematic because it causes an isolation which is
problematic. Nobody can understand the person. That's not to say the words
or nonsense syllables have NO meaning to the person saying them. It just
means they have no meaning to others.
If one took the time, and assuming that the afflicted could explain the
meanings, one could theoretically develop a lexicon that would enhance
understanding...but one would probably have to spend years with a single
person establishing what the words and phrases meant, before even
venturing into a conversation.
Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On Jan 24, 1998*
--"Robert Bacal" <rbacal@escape.ca>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>