In this essay, we have undertaken to express certain principles which we have found useful in the exercises of spoken and written (as opposed to electronic) communication. It is felt that the regular observance of the foregoing principles will result in the minimization of misunderstandings and unnecessary errors. We have, for purposes of clarity, presented the same in separate categories.
The Golden Rule of Communication:
Fundamentally stated, speech is the thoughtful art of deployment of chosen words to convey intended thoughts. As is universally the case, relative to the all-encompassing world of the “arts,” there empirically, exists regarding this indispensable capability, variations in skill or aptitude. The confident and candid assumption that something has, indeed, been said, is objectively, reliable (only) to the extent of the speaker’s personal skill at precision in the apt communication of his intended thoughts. Stated otherwise, the degree of confidence that something, intended to be conveyed, has, indeed, been effectively expressed, is based upon the objective clarity and exactitude of its actual expression and not on the actual intentions or subjective recollection of the speaker. The beneficial observance of our selected, “golden rule” of communication, will tend to avoid unnecessary, misunderstandings, and contentious strife.
Conveyance of Specifically Intended Message:
The accurate and precise communication of ideas, by spoken, and (most especially) written, words, is pragmatically dependent upon the discernment and selection of appropriate vocabulary, uniquely and precisely (as opposed to “generally”), expressive of the desired communication. The latter admonition is the very soul and lifeblood of poetics, but, as well, vital for meaningful verbal communication.
In specific relation to the art of written and spoken interaction, we would, emphatically, caution against the facile reliance upon a thesaurus, as a solution to the cogent selection of words, expressive of one’s intended communication. Our determined priority regarding the vital accuracy of intended expression, over the years, has, confidentially, led us to the radical belief, that there seldom exist exact synonyms, such that, on the relevant occasion, adequately or precisely, describe our intended and nuanced feeling. Examples, “hot” as in tea, vs. “torrid,” as in sexy, flamingo dancer; “cold”, as in milk vs. “frigid,” as in the artic; “cautious,” as in “discerning,” vs. ”cautious,” as used when crossing the avenue. For those, properly concerned with the accurate transmission of the nature and extent of his feelings, seldom will other similar words will be found to be descriptively adequate.
The Misconception Regarding “Big” Words:
The thematic message of this writing, and the irrefutable, sine- qua- non, of successful communication is the selective use of words that precisely, express one’s intention. Such being the primary criterion we have, eternally, been perplexed by the sophomoric characterization of “big” and “plain” words. It would appear that such misconceived categories are meaningful to those who are not avid readers.
It appears that the descriptive, “big” in such comments has reference to the fact that the word, in the experience of the critic, is not to his discernment, in the popular parlance, rather than objected to, based upon the number of its syllables; to illustrate: the words, “vegetarian” and “international,” inarguably, are commonly used, and accordingly, easily understood, (i.e., not “big words,”) albeit, multi-syllabic.
In sum, effective communication requires the literary sensitivity to select those words, clearly and most expressive of the speaker’s, or writer’s, intended expression.
-p.
[“What’s in a word?” Shakespeare, “Romeo and Juliet”]
plinyblogdotcom 