On 11 Feb 98 at 19:14, PauliGibbo@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
That's a good point. But if we have a word which we are both familiar
with, there will still be shared segments of common meaning. I think it
would be an easier task to talk about tolerance rather than higgantropism
as a malfeasant ideologic entropic enterprise.
> 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.
Ok. The issue, if you are correct, is how those words are used. If I
introduce a new word to you, I can do it by "helping" you understand
it using other words not familiar to you, or I can introduce the word
and present it in terms of the meanings you already understand.
If my specialized word is higgantropism I can define it as a malfeasant
ideologic entropic enterprise or I can define it in terms of something you
have a chance of understanding. If I want to show how bright I am I would
use the former...if I want you to understand, I would use the latter.
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>