Communication: The Distinctives

When it comes to communication ideas, it is important to understand what the key things that are behind an approach to communication. This is especially true in my case, where I point out to people that I do a few things differently from what they might be accustomed to seeing.

It may be good to begin by saying that my approach is not meant to replace or undercut the generally effective ways of teaching communication. What it does do is strengthen more what is already effective. So my approach does not so much replace, for example, grammar's use as much as shift it's use to where it is more effective.

So let me deal with each of the key things in my approach one by one. They are: 1)an integrated approach to language, 2)a surface structure approach to language, 3)a communication as relationship approach, 4)a cycle of communication process and 5)a thing-based approach to language. These are the positive components of what I teach about communication.

Let me say something about what I don't do. First, I don't do these things because they are at higher levels in the developmental process and they are not basic. When you get to a higher level, then they do have value. So I don't avoid them as though they are purely negative. It is just that I do not find them to be basic as too many teachers insist they are, when they are teaching in the classroom. I don't teach 1)just one particular approach to language like generative grammar, 2)the deep structure approach to language as more valuable than the surface structure, 3)communication for its own sake outside of relationship building, 4)a chaotic process of communication that leaves out the author or audience and so misses out on the cyclical part of the communcation process and 5)a word-based approach to language that relies on an expansion of vocabulary approach for learners to get smarter.

So back to my list of 5 positives. I will list them in the same order as above.

First, I approach language from an integrated perspective. I think you need to see the whole as you grapple with different views of language. You could call it a multi-dimensional approach. In contrast, I think the phonics versus whole-language debate is way too narrow in its scope. Each side misses the point. It is like a golfer who uses one club for every shot.

Second, I approach language from the surface. I think that the surface structure is actually right there in the speaker's mind. On a basic level, not on a deep level, they know what they are trying to say and in one sense it is all clear. In contrast, I find the generative grammar approach or sentence diagramming to be backwards from what we actually are after. It is like a fisherman fishing in deep water, when the walleyes are feeding close to shore.

Third, I approach language from the standpoint that something relational is happening or there is little sense to trying to communicate. The point is that you have to understand fundamentally whether the communication is attempting to form a connection or not. In contrast, I find some of the analysis of language has lost sight of the basic purpose of communication in trying to connect or not connect people. It is like forgetting what you went to the garage to get.

Fourth, I approach language as a process that begins with an author and leads to an audience and as a cycle in which the audience may then ask the author questions to see if the cycle of communication was completed successfully. In contrast, some books start with a text and then lead to a speech or another book without consideration for the author or the audience. It is like leaving off the beginning steps, like getting together the ingredients, in baking a cake and jumping right to putting the only part of the ingredients in the oven.

Fifth, I approach language as thing-based rather than word-based in its earliest development. Children do not learn vocabulary initially from dictionary definitions. Instead they learn words that point to things. This remains fundamental throughout the process, even after the dictionary becomes a helpful tool. In contrast, many teach language as though it began with definitions of words from other simpler words without any inclusion of things in the beginning. It is like giving a fishing pole to someone who doesn't know what a fish is.

These are the five most basic keys to my approach to communication and to language. For me, these five things or principles have revolutionized my comprehension of communicaiton. It has also enhanced my ability to communicate. Remember these are basic, so there may be those who can communicate better than I, but I think I can stand toe to toe with them on the basics. I know where to begin, even if others have already reached the finish line. Before this point in my life, I could not even find the starting line to begin the race and my communication was chaotic at best. So at least I can help a lot of people get started on the race of communication and give them a fair chance of finishing too rather than a few people finishing, while others haven't even found the starting line.

Sincerely,

Jon