"Robert Bacal" <rbacal@escape.ca> writes:
Now, I know this is a bias, because my main interest is in communication
and influence, but I my experience has taught me that the more liberties
people take with language....... (continues)
This discussion raises some interesting points about use of language.
When language is used to describe a situation (a paradigm in itself) the
vagueness of everyday language can obfuscate meaning. Think of a word
like tolerance: some see it as a virtuous state, and others would see it
as a way of listening and being which makes the "TOLERATED" wrong. No
fruitful dialog can happen without an inquiry into its meaning and a
shared understanding and usage.
Specialist words (large or small) can be defined and used to clarify.
They can be used as shortcuts to elaborate some quite complex ideas. The
language in itself becomes a mental model. When used in this way,
language can be an extremely powerful tool for building shared meaning.
When language used to distance oneself from the listener/ user (I am
thinking of consultants and lawyers, meaning and shared understanding can
be lost.
Robert continues
" the more people use particular difficult to understand language when it
isn't necessary, the LESS their concern about helping others, and the more
their concern about portraying themselves in some particular ways. ""
On the whole I agree - when people use language in this way their motives
may be less about helping and more about looking good. However, it seems
you make a couple of assumptions/attributions....
a) that our view of when it is necessary is correct
b) that when they use elaborate language, their motives are different than
if they were using natural language
Thoughts??
Paul Gibbons, Coopers&Lybrand Consulting
Organisational Innovation, Learning and Change
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>