In response to John Warfields question (challenge?)
>
> > Within the communication sphere of the LO, has anyone given any
> > thought to the methodology for developing a shared linguistic domain in
> > organizations (i.e., the mixing bowl within which consensus might be
> > stirred up)?
Stuart responds with an example from a Quest For Excellence conference.
> It was attended by 1800 business people, all of whom seemed to
> be convinced that the Baldrige criteria provide a very useful method of
> self-assessment and improvement. What struck me most vividly was that
(snip)
> (all) were using the same language.
While this example might fit within Warfield's question, it by no means
covers the territory. A "shared linguistic domain" does not necessarily
imply the commonality of language nor agreement of Stuart's example.
While that might be the result of some shared linguistic domains, others
might have high disagreement and significantly different vocabularies.
I would say a shared linguistic domain is one where language can become
commensurable, where meaning can be transported across vocabularies and
where differences can meet to create new linguistic possibilities that
didn't exist before.
A methodology for achieving a shared linguistic domain, in my useage, will
be one which establishes practices and structures which can be agreed to
which provide the "field of play" for a dialogue which can accomplish the
above results. The agreements, understandings and/or structures will be
those which are concerned with the domain rather than the result to be
produced in that domain.
While this is far from a complete response to Warfield's question, it
points the areas in which a variety of responses can be formulated.
--
Mike McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
"Intelligence is an underlying organisational principle
of the universe. The 'logos principle' is hidden and
perceptible only to the intelligence." Heraclitus