In case it ever comes up (I consider you black belt levels of testing, or I wouldnāt nerd at you, but accept my preemptive apologies), thereās some very nerdworthy text about the relationships between standardisation and communication, and why domain language is useful, and why asking for explanations and examples helps sort out communication problems.
Harry Collins, hallowed be thy name, in Tacit and Explicit Knowledge writes about the difference between language and strings (between human communication and in-principle lossless string transfer like in computers) using the ātransformation-translation distinctionā. He writes that a string (stuff with patterns on it, like sound waves in speech or paper with words written on it) can be transformed into another string and back again without loss of (physical) information - so you can change text into numbers and back via a lookup table for example. Language fundamentally cannot be transformed in this way, only translated with risk of loss of meaning that we cannot necessarily measure.
Human language carries with it a fundamental flaw in communication of meaning because it has to go through an interpretation stage after itās transmitted - when I say something to you I take my meaning, inscribe it on some stuff, give you the stuff, and you have to turn it into something you can access and then pull meaning back out of it, via all your internal models and experiences and emotions. So to reduce information loss in string translation we repeat the string exactly over and over again, like using redundancy against packet loss. When we try to make meaning in transmitted language more clear we use completely different and varied strings - thereās no point in repeating the same thing to get an idea across, I have to explain it in different ways or use varied examples.
So, with that in mind, itās variety in language, born of exploratory performances, that makes communication clearer. Standardisation carries all the problems of individual interpretation that requires more string variation to solve - so you give everyone a standard and they still have to sit around talking about what they mean when they use it anyway. There literally are no absolute linguistic standards, just language affordances - guidelines towards shared ideas. Thatās why people love metaphor - it carries with it a broad affordance of meaning that one can attach to communication, like an information plaque next to a confusing art piece in a museum.
Sorry if that was a bit heavy handed, Iām summarising a very well-written chapter via a couple of paragraphs, an evening whisky and a Coltrane playlist; but if you havenāt gone through Tacit and Explicit Knowledge I canāt recommend it highly enough. Collins changed the game.
ā¦
