Presentation

Throughout the past week and a half, there seemed to be a common trend within the content or orientation of our presentations, as I guess there should be considering the assignment. Though I had never thought of it this way before, communication issues are caused almost exclusively by lack of communicational common ground. Whether the issue was doctors and patients speaking different languages, doctors not simplifying explanations, or, in my case, engineering firms not being able to exchange information due to differing data systems, the problem was a lack of unity and/or cooperation between parties.

The solutions to the problems varied, however, depending on the field. For instance, in medicine the solution to doctors speaking a different language was a translator, rather than one of the individuals learning the other’s language. In the case of engineering, the solutions proposed relied largely on a common data format in order to create a more seamless transition from organization to organization. Solutions to medical terminology issues, both for medical doctors and psychologists, were not quite so defined. It seemed that the responsibility lay primarily on the physician to accommodate the patient’s vocabulary, however the point at which it is the patients responsibility to have some knowledge of the subject at hand seemed slightly undefined. I don’t find this to be the fault of the presenters or researchers, but rather the nature of the problem, as it is difficult to assign accountability to either the doctor or the patient. The ideal solution seems to be a less defined, and therefore less sustainable, version of the solution to the problems in engineering; each party would meet at a common point of communication in order to exchange information effectively.

Unfortunately, while teaching doctors how to talk on a patients level is a reasonable task, expecting all patients to have a standard level of understanding is ridiculous and unattainable. Therefore, the responsibility inevitably falls upon the doctor, as perhaps it should. In these cases, the solution depends on the competencies of one, both, or neither of two communicating parties, and varies based on the realistic cooperation between them.

DataX

As in any professional field, communication plays a profound role in the practice of engineering. Unlike many other areas of occupation, however, communication’s place in engineering lies largely among massive amounts of data. Engineering firms, amassing data from any number of sources, must take an approach to communication based largely on practicality and repeatability, rather than on rhetoric and inflection.

The difference between engineering and other professions is the nature of the data being collected and distributed, as well as the receiver of the data. For instance, while a doctor may need to translate a diagnosis into layman’s terms for a patient, an engineering firm simply tries to process and record a given data set in a manner that is simply efficient and accurate, as a doctor may communicate with another doctor.

Imagine, however, that two doctors conferring on a diagnosis do not speak the same language. While each is independently competent and fluent in terminology, the lack of uniform communication hinders their effectiveness, rendering the pair ineffective. This, in short, is just part the struggle faced by the engineering community.

Despite the furious pace of technological advance taking place in the US and elsewhere, data sharing in engineering is still an issue. The problem is not lack of available technology, but rather lack of uniform data processing. The cost of inefficient communication ultimately adds up to time, money, and sub-standard quality.

The first step of an engineering project is the design process. Coinciding with globalization and an increased number of developed areas around the world, the field of engineering has seen increasing international collaboration. In the case of design, technology possesses a potential for enhanced collaboration that has yet to be realized. To address this issue, an initial application to establish a means of international cooperative engineering was proposed by design engineers Jiansheng Li and Daizhongd Su. According to Li and Su (2008), the intention of their proposal is to assist “geographically dispersed users to communicate and collaborate over the Internet.” Their system, or what they refer to as a Web Enabled Environment (WEE), would be adaptable to diverse design programs as well as languages, ultimately creating a universal design platform.

In order for the designers’ work to see the light of day, the second step of the engineering process is manufacturing or construction (depending on the nature of the design). In order for this step to take place, however, the builder has to have supplies. As with the design process, the supply process requires detailed, real time data sharing in order to achieve maximum efficiency. Babin et al. (2007) proposes an electronic system of product monitoring using sensors and “Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) Systems” that would allow buyers and suppliers to receive instant product status updates. This “on-demand information exchange” (Babin et al. 2007) would enable more intuitive decision making on the part of both parties. Essentially, this system would create an instant, ongoing electronic conversation between the buyer and seller.

Within the study of supply and demand, though, technology is not the only solution to the problem of inefficiency. According to Chan et al. (2008), the importance of a healthy work relationship between a buyer and seller far surpasses that of instant data exchange. The proposal not only opts for human relationship as apposed to technological solutions, but questions whether information technologies (IT) have any positive effect at all within supply chain management. The only consolation the study offers on behalf of information technologies is the suggestion that they may “generate sustainable competitive advantage by facilitating collaborative communication and fostering relational capabilities.”

The alternative offered by the proposal is the suggestions that cultivating professional relationships is the most effective means of gaining a competitive advantage in today’s marketplace. According to the proposal, “Effective and efficient communication between supply chain partners reduces product and performance-related errors, thereby enhancing quality, time, and customer responsiveness.” Additionally, a warning is offered regarding short sighted and monetarily focused buyer-seller relationships; the paper suggests such practices “can inhibit the development of relational competencies, frustrate collaborative communication, and heighten opportunism, which ultimately dissipates relational rents” (Chan et al. 2008).

After successfully negotiating the realm of supply and demand, the next step of the engineering process is construction. While construction sites are a common site in today’s ever developing world, communication issues on the site are most likely unapparent to the common onlooker. It is easy to see, however, that monitoring a large construction site would be difficult to accomplish from one location. The result of the sometimes immense sprawl is multiple centers of data, or what Bernold and Lee (2008) refer to as “islands of information.” The end result of the “islands” is a disjointed information system that is neither centralized nor consistent. In order to address the issue, Bernold and Lee (2008) suggest a Local Area Network (LAN) based system of cameras placed strategically around a site. Working similarly to a WiFi network, the cameras would allow wireless monitoring of an entire site from a central location, resulting in consistent, consolidated information gathering and processing, cutting out the process of data transfer entirely, and thereby solving the communication issue.

The last step of the engineering process is long term condition monitoring. The practice of condition assessment is very common in the field of transportation, where miles of roads keep agencies busy assessing, reporting, and processing road conditions. In addition to the immense amount of data inherent in such an extensive undertaking, the process is further muddled by inconsistent data gathering and processing. Each transportation agency uses a set of standards and measurements to assess road conditions, known as an Infrastructure Management System (IMS) (Capuruco and Tighe, 2006). According to Capuruco and Tighe (2006), agencies within the US alone are using “8 different categories of devices from 10 different vendors to conduct pavement data collection and condition assessment only.” The data collected by these agencies, intended to provide information that would lead to better future road construction, ends up lost in translation due to the numerous data collection and processing standards. Their proposal calls for a unification or regulation of road monitoring standards, which would ultimately result in improved road quality and cost efficiency due to less need for repair.

Ultimately, the majority of proposals regarding information sharing within the field of engineering call for automated, instant transfer which, ironically, effectively eliminates actual communication from the process. The lone study pushing for more established relationships within a business community is an exception to the common school of thought. Within this paper, the proportion of human based solutions to technologically based solutions roughly matches the proportion produced by academic writers in the field of engineering; technology is undeniably the future of business and engineering. While I would not presume to assign a “correct” time and place for professional relational improvement, I would venture that human contact has, and always will have, its place in each field, and should not be forgotten as the foundation of both.

Works Cited

1.) Capuruco R, Tighe S. A Web-Centric Information Model for Managing Road Infrastructure Data. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering [Internet]. [cited 2008 April 5]; 21: 357-368. Available from EBSCO Host: http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.utk.edu:90/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=120&sid=58c59aa5-89bd-4034-98ec-ae3b8c0a2f56%40sessionmgr109.

2.) Chen I, Lado A, Paulraj A. Inter-organizational communication as a relational competency: Antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Operations management [Internet]. [cited 2008 April 5]; 26: 45-64. Available from ScienceDirect: http://www. Sciencedirect .com.

3.) Li J, Su D. Support modules and system structure of web-enabled collaborative environment for design and manufacture. International Journal of Production Research [Internet]. [cited 2008 April 5]. 46: 2397-2412. Available from Informaworld: http://www.informaworld.com.

4.) Bernold L, Lee J. Ubiquitous Agent-Based Communication in Construction. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering [Internet]. [cited 2008 April 5]. 22(1): 31-39. Available from ASCE Research Library: http://scitation.aip.org.

5.) Babin G, Carothers C, Hsu C, Levermore D. Enterprise Collaboration: On-Demand Information Exchange Using Enterprise Databases, Wireless Sensor Networks, and RFID Systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans. [cited 2008 April 5]. 37(4) 519-532. Available from IEEE Explore: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.

Research: Not for the Faint of Heart.

For what should be the final English paper of my academic career, I have been trying to follow the assignment as closely as I can manage while staying within my major (Civil Engineering). Though there are not as many academic papers regarding language in the field of engineering as I had hoped, I have been fortunate enough to locate five papers that seem relevant to my topic. My topic, as dictated by the information I have found to work with, is the efficiency and effectiveness of communication and data exchange between and within engineering firms. Fortunately, this is similar to what I originally had in mind for this paper, so I have not had to adjust my thinking too drastically to conceive the outline of my ideas.

One of the problems I would say I have had with the research are the sometimes wordy and technical titles and content of the papers I searched for. I have been accused of being a wordy writer; however I don’t ever recall creating a sentence as monstrous as those I have read in these papers. That said, I am painfully aware that my struggles are the result of my technical vocabulary (or lack there of), as well as my inexperience with papers of this sort. I am not too worried, though, because with some quality time spent reading over these behemoths I am sure I will be able to comprehend the messages they are trying to get across.

My only other struggle was deciding what constituted a language related topic and therefore fell within the bounds of this assignment. In the age of technology, it seems that less time is spent relaying data by speaking and more time is spent figuring out ways to transfer massive amounts of data via internet. Because of this, many of the papers I encountered (some of which I am using) focused on perfecting the art of data collection exchange. I have (I think) managed to tie all of the ideas I have encountered together in a manner that satisfactorily meets the requirements of this paper.

We'll have a gay old time.

Language is an interesting entity. Few things of such immense consequence are so uncontrollable and unpredictable. It is the foundation upon which society is built, yet it has all the approximate structural integrity of Jell-O. Despite this, we go on trying to control the monster called English. It is inevitable, however, that the words comprising our language sometimes go awry, taking their own, sometimes mind boggling, path through history. Such is the case of gay.

At this point in our history, gay’s primary denotation is homosexual, as it should be. While I am aware that other usages of gay are common slang, it is my opinion that those usages, though they no longer have a direct association with homosexuality, were born of that usage and therefore rely on its existence in order to remain potent. Without meaning homosexual, gay simply becomes another synonym for stupidity, further cluttering our language with useless words. Under the assumption that gay means homosexual, however, phrases featuring alternative usages inspire thought or reaction, which was their original purpose.

Gay was harmless enough when it came about, typically meaning or having to do with being happy or lighthearted. In this original form, gay found its way into the works of Shakespeare, Chaucer and many others, according to the Oxford English Dictionary; many members of my generation probably remember the ending of the Flinstones theme song, “We’ll have a gay old time.”

Having considered how recently the original definition made its way into pop culture, it is hard to conceive how gay originally came to be associated with homosexuals. A telling consideration, though, may be that the stereotypical homosexual man embodies much of the original meaning of gay; many a portrayal has created an image of the happy, friendly homosexual male in the minds of Americans. Assuming there to be some correlation between the word and the depiction, it is hard to discern whether the term gay was applied to homosexuals because of this image or if the image was created in response to the label, however the former, in my view at least, seems to be the more likely of the two.

During the recent past, the topic of homosexuality has become less taboo due primarily to arguments over rights, such as gay marriage. Terms such as gay pride, gay bashing, gay panic, and the gay gene were born of the public response to the gay movement. Yet another boost in casual talk about homosexuality came from the identification of the AIDS virus in the early 1980’s, at that time also known as the gay plague.

This proliferation of gay related discussion has led to a corresponding rise in the use of the word gay, which may explain why so many different variations have formed. Excessive use of a word or phrase (such as gay) tends to lead to accelerated mutation; such is the case of many of today’s controversial words. Perhaps the simplest explanation for this phenomenon is that once the word has become hackneyed by repeated use, it is more accessible in everyday conversation and therefore more vulnerable to slang.

Though slang terms are often innocuous, they sometimes cause confusion concerning when it’s okay to use what word. In December 2003, the Washington Post ran an article about a homosexual woman in Louisiana whose son was reprimanded at his elementary school for using the word gay to describe his mother. Most administrators supported the disciplinary action, saying that it was inappropriate for a second grader to discuss his mother’s sexuality; the mother, however, saw it as a slight against homosexuals. I doubt the school’s reaction was one of bias against homosexuals (as the article implies), but rather a reaction to what they perceived to be a “bad word”.
The story, however, is telling in that regard; gay is a tricky word. By the article’s admission, use of the word gay towards another student (presumably in a derogatory manner) would be unacceptable and punishable, but the use of gay in describing a homosexual is allowable. The fine line created by this double standard of word usage is the reason for the widespread confusion and reluctance regarding the use of the word gay.

Not all news papers share the interest of ensuring the proliferation of the word gay, however. According to an article in Metro Weekly, a gay and lesbian magazine, a letter sent to the Washington Times containing the word gay was edited by the Washington Times staff to say homosexual instead. Having complained that the alteration changed the meaning of his letter, the author of the letter received an explanatory e-mail from an editor of the newspaper. According to the e-mail, "Per The Times' policy against Orwellian abuse of the English language, the euphemism ‘gay' is not used to describe the homosexual lifestyle." Though ultimately inconsequential, the article illuminates a side of the gay argument that is not often seen, the argument that gay has never meant homosexual, and that using it in that manner is the equivalent of slang. While most forms of media take a traditional approach to language, not many take it to this extent.

Having gone through High School during the most recent evolutionary period of the word gay, I’ve witnessed a number of situations in which the word gay has caused confusion, and heard quite a number of its usages. The most popular use, in my experience, is as a negative or derogatory term. Typically, when directed at a person, gay is applied to a straight man as a term implying stupidity or some other undesirable character trait (“Stop being gay.”). On the other hand, it can be assigned to an inanimate object or activity, typically as an indication of complete contempt or disgust (“That’s so gay.”). Additionally, regional variations occur naturally, such as the expression “Oh my gay” at my High School.

Yet again, the fine line between usages becomes an issue. The implication of gay having a negative connotation is that homosexuality shares those unattractive traits, and is therefore something negative or disagreeable. While those who use gay to describe something negative probably don’t intend for this connection to be made, it is a natural byproduct of the usage.

The rapid evolution of gay has resulted in these simultaneous usage variations. While still in the process of being accepted as a term meaning homosexual, it has been hastily morphed in every day speech, causing bilateral interpretations and controversies, and further confusing the general public as to when and where they can use gay. In order to be coherent and user friendly in today’s society, gay must be understood to mean homosexual.

Though, at times, the monster of English may seem out of control, we must realize that, in fact, we initiate and control its every move, and therefore should take a serious look at the role we play in its growth and development. It is our responsibility to steer the behemoth in the proper direction, and it is not a responsibility we ought to take lightly.

Works Cited

Bugg, Sean. “What’s in a Word?: Holding the Lexical line at the Washington Times.” Metro Weekly 16 January 2003. 8 March 2008 .

Stepp, Laura Sessions. “In La. School, Son of Lesbian Learns ‘Gay’ Is a ‘Bad Wurd’.” The Washington Post 3 December 2003. 8 March 2008 < dids="473779171:473779171&FMT="ABS&FMTS="ABS:FT&date="Dec+3%2C+2003&author="Laura+Sessions+Stepp&pub="The+Washington+Post&edition="&startpage="C.01&desc="In+La.+School%2C+Son+of+Lesbian+Learns+%27Gay%27+Is+a+%27Bad+Wurd%27">.

“Gay.” Def. 3.a. Oxford English Dictionary.

You can call me Play-dough.

In class yesterday we discussed the term ‘macho’ and the difference between advertising and reality. Disregarding the fact that Guilbalt (the author of “Americanization is tough on Macho”) seems to have a distorted view of how American’s define macho, she provides an interesting starting place for the argument of advertising vs. reality.

The real question in this regard, I think, is not why Americans distort reality, but what the reality of a word is. Without getting too philosophical, it seems to me that the American reality can be something completely different from the Spanish reality, but still be reality (or truth) none the less. The word macho, assuming our definition or perception is different from that of the Spanish, is just as much what we make it as what anybody else makes it. If I say that macho means “girly”, that is my own truth or reality, and cannot be called untrue or a distortion of reality by anyone else. On the other hand, if I were to say that the Spanish definition of macho is “girly”, that would be a distortion of the Spanish reality, and therefore untrue (advertising).

Following the same track, if I were to “advertise” to those around me that the definition of macho is “girly” while another individual told the same people that macho means “manly”, we would both be advertising, and therefore using the same means to reach different ends. Those to whom we advertised (assuming they had no previous knowledge of the word) would have the power to accept either definition, both of which would have the sole endorsement of our claims and therefore equal merit.

My conclusion, I suppose, is that, like children playing with play-dough, we have the power to mold our language in the manner we deem fit. Though we often mimic molds others have made, we maintain the prerogative to create something new and different and to defend it no matter how ugly it may be. That is the beauty of language.

Circular Thoughts

Since the beginning of this semester, I have been asking myself which side I would take in the argument about language. Many people feel very strongly about the English language (and why it should or should not be allowed to change), but I have had mixed feelings. Having read the articles for this week, however, I believe I have come to a conclusion. It seems to me that the articles we have read and the arguments contained within them present a false dilemma.

It is my perception (maybe incorrectly so) that the options given us are either to be in favor of meticulously and strictly maintaining English in its proper state or to be in favor of letting the language roam free, taking its own path through history. In my opinion, what is needed is a balance. There certainly needs to be a set of rules and linguistic constants in order to maintain consistency in language throughout the decades. On the other hand, new words and/or usages are a perfectly legitimate means of cultivating language and are necessary to keep it current. As with most things in life, the key to linguistic tranquility is moderation. Language should grow and develop naturally, but should also be pruned often.

I guess my conclusion really is that the present manner in which language is maintained and developed is sufficient for insuring its health and longevity. In the same fashion, perhaps the contradicting extremist views we have observed are necessary as a system of checks and balances to make sure language neither veers dramatically off course nor remains stagnant for too long.

John Cheese

Having read the assigned articles regarding the history of the English language, I find myself not entirely disinterested in the subject. Though, prior to this class, I would probably have expected language to be frivolous and uninteresting study, it seems to me an interesting progression, mirroring history as well as providing a human insight into our ancestry. I guess having an interest in history helps.

Possibly even more interesting than the history of our language are the individuals who study and uncover it. For instance, I never really thought about dictionaries. Being fortunate enough to grow up in well supplied schools, I never found myself lacking a dictionary and, I suppose, never really appreciated the amount of work put into publishing a dictionary. I also never took the time to consider the history of the dictionary. I knew of the Webster’s (or Merriam-Webster), and I knew of the Oxford, but I didn’t ever think about the differences between them. The sheer amount of work required to create the Oxford dictionary is staggering; I can’t even imagine considering such an undertaking.

I often wonder how information regarding obscure linguistic facts is uncovered. What Bill Bryson records regarding the history of the word “dollar”, for instance, seems like a lesson in ambiguousness; how it was traced back to a silver mine in Germany I think I shall never know. For that matter, how did Joachimsthaler become dollar? My best guess is that the silver coming out of that particular mine, or the coins it created, were referred to by the name of their origin, which was then shortened to “sthaler” or “thaler”, from which point it made its progression to the word we use today. Though my amateur assessment of how “dollar” came about may be entirely inaccurate, it seems that the natural progression of a word is something like a multi-centennial game of telephone; what begins as a perfectly standard word or phrase comes out as utter nonsense or a different word or phrase all together. Though this seems to be the standard of linguistic progression, I often wonder what the digital revolution will have. Only time will tell, I suppose.