Negotiating a Common Language

It would be easy to assume that because we use the same vocabulary as our colleagues, friends and family that we all share a common language.  Our experience would seem to confirm this as we are able to communicate reasonably effectively with one another most of the time. 

However, much of what we routinely express only requires a broad brush without the need for nuanced detail.  When the message is more personal or complex, or the need for accuracy more acute, it may be harder to make ourselves understood.  Conversely, there are also times when we might fail to fully appreciate what is being said to us.

Successful communication is not about having a broad vocabulary and a good grasp of grammar.  Words are just one element, with the beliefs and emotions that lie behind them having equal importance.

For example a power differential will affect the value of the words being expressed.  The needs or wants of one person may override those of another, even when the same vocabulary is being used.  This could reflect an acceptable and recognised organisational hierarchy or one that is being covertly imposed.

It is not always the case that being fully understood by others is the main objective.  Sometimes people simply wish to be heard, to give their speech while others take a supporting role to the main drama.  In this case the deeper meaning lies even less in the words that are used than in the intention behind them.

The meanings of words are not restricted to those provided by dictionaries.  Regional differences in the use of language are well-known, but more importantly there are individual differences.  Appreciating all of the meanings that particular words may have for an individual paves the route that connects us.  This requires us to put our assumptions to one side so that we can identify and agree specific contextual meanings.  Confusion is often the result of incongruence between the words that are used and the meanings, or the assumed meanings, we ascribe to them. 

Authenticity is all important and if the message continues to be confused, then that may be all that can be communicated at the time.  For me it is very important that we develop our own authentic script, not take lines that we have inherited from other people in other contexts.  

I believe that intention is rooted in our beliefs and our emotions.  When these do not align with our words it is possible for two people to appear to be following the same course in their conversation, but as they are not using the same map arrive at very different destinations.  Neither has sought to check for common reference points along the way.  Had this occurred then it would have been apparent they were not journeying together and that their connection was superficial.

In all cases there will be an initial response to what is being said, which can assist or become a barrier to understanding and fully connecting with the speaker.  If there are hidden feelings or intentions, there is every chance they will be noticed and any contradiction with those that are being expressed will cause confusion.  This may lead to hostility, but will certainly result in a mixed message being communicated and the risk that one or the other will erroneously fill in the blanks. 

When speaking positively perhaps the emotion overrides any need for detail so that compliments may not require much clarification.  This may also be the case when we are being negative.  However if our intention is to offer a route for improvement, rather than simply to punish, it is important that the detail is communicated in a way that can be accepted.   Whatever roles we inhabit, there will always be times when it is necessary to be able to criticise and be understood without encouraging intrusive negative emotions in the other.

Within specific relationships many of us develop a language of intimacy over time which involves taking a series of small risks as we explore and share meanings.  Just as we develop a language of intimacy and friendship, we need also to agree a language of dissent so that we can communicate our dissatisfaction, or even anger, in a way that is properly heard and understood.

Short words like love and hate can have a multiplicity of meanings, in effect a specific set for each of us.  To really understand what is meant by what is being said, we need to take the time to understand as closely as possible what each word means for the other person.  This applies equally to the speaker and the listener, which is where the negotiating begins.  While you try to understand exactly what my spoken words mean for me, I endeavour to use words in a way that I know will have a particular meaning for you.

We cannot control how our messages are received.  We can make sure that the messages we are sending match our intention and are constructed to maximize the likelihood of being understood.  In this way communication can deepen, whatever the content, and mutual understanding can grow.

What is our intention and how accurately does it reflect our authentic feelings?  What is there in the other person that we might need to take account of to reduce any obstacles to the exchange?   The answers come from paying attention to the way another person talks and listens and being fully aware of how they are responding in real time to all that is being said.

Conversation is a dynamic process with many opportunities to check meanings through explicit questions and by monitoring responses.  Let us not assume that we know all of what is being said to us.  Let us recognize the need to confirm our understanding and to be willing to renegotiate language again and again to achieve the shared meaning that will bring us closer to each other.

© 2014 Michael Golding