Dave Birren recently wrote:
>One of the greatest impediments to learning that I have observed - in
>schools and all kinds of organizations - is the use of jargon. That
>includes acronyms, abbreviations, technical terminology, foreign words
>with highly context-specific meanings, and creating new verbs out of
>nouns.
>I'm writing this for two reasons: (1) to point out in general terms that
>clear communication requires discipline; and (2) to complain about the use
>of a specific word form that interferes with understanding and learning.
Dave, two comments:
Firstly, language, as a living thing, evolves. I recommend Bill Bryson's
very enjoyable book "Mother Tongue" as one perspective on this. He
explains and illustrates how English has developed differently in the UK
and the US. As a Brit who now works in the US, I had to cope with such
terms as "If I had my druthers," in my early days here.
This evolution produces words that are needed to label items and
activities that have emerged, such as the legitimate (for me) use of
"email" as both a verb and a noun.
I agree that we need to be sensitive to the use of jargon etc., but there
will inevitably be times when some groups have institutionalized the use
of words and terms "ahead" of other groups. Many on this list (which the
dictionary will probably not define as an list of electronic mail
recipents) know what a URL address is while other parts of the population
will not.
For me, the potential for language to be an impediment to learning can be
reduced by both the sender being sensitive to the backgrounds of the
receivers and checking any assumptions etc. Also for the receivers to be
empowered enough to bring things "down the abstraction ladder," where
necessary.
Secondly, shared language facilitates group identity and communication. I
have no problem with "tasked" being a verb if it is a common usage in an
organization and there is a shared understanding. New or known words can
evolve within in an organization to become useful shorthand. I worked in
one where the evaluation of projects, people etc. often involved the term
"show-stopper." If something was lacking or missing, people wanted to know
it it was a show-stopper, and if there was agreement that it was, this was
accepted as significant enough to prevent things moving forward.
-- Peter A. Smith Orbis Learning Corporation 74363,3637@compuserve.com"Individual learning is a necessary but insufficient force for organizational learning." Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A.
Orbis <74363.3637@compuserve.com>