«Pragmática y eficacia comercial»

Aunque languidece y amarillea buen número de titulaciones de Filologías y otras disciplinas humanísticas relacionadas con el lenguaje y su acción en los diversos campos, que son todos los de la vida humana, en otros ámbitos no especializados en lengua y lenguaje y sí en su radio de acción, encontramos una atención de alto nivel a cuestiones lingüísticas.

El artículo que puedes leer a continuación se publicó originariamente en el blog del autor Pedro Meireles Sobral, director general de la consultora empresarial CASO, y lo he encontrado en el canal de noticias de LinkedIn, Pulse. Presta una atención de calidad a la relación entre pragmática y acción comercial.

Podrás ver que su acervo de lecturas incluye a uno de los filólogos de reconocida carrera científica, Salvador Gutiérrez Ordóñez, a quien creo se puede tener como exponente de comunicación eficaz y didáctica de asuntos especializados. Es así la ciencia amable, la que abre las puertas de su casa, no la ciencia de pedestal y torre de marfil, ¡o la pretendida ciencia!, pues con tanto oscurantismo y acceso restringido no cabe verificar a ciencia cierta lo que hay tras el umbral de la casa de los tales científicos y científicas (valgan todas las redundancias). Esto es tema para otro y muchos días, el del retorno social de la inversión en Universidad.

La visión interdisciplinar que aporta el artículo o post de Pedro Meireles Sobral reproducido seguidamente quizá llame a tu creatividad y al interés por la pragmática; así lo pienso por mi parte. Como verás en el párrafo final, el autor toma de esta disciplina lo que sirve bien en su campo y con el fin de brindar formación empresarial a través de su consultora, no formación en un terreno que califica de complejo. Un enfoque práctico y multidisciplinar de la pragmática.

«Pragmática y eficacia comercial»

Pedro Meireles Sobral

«La Pragmática, como disciplina que se interesa por el modo en que el contexto influye y condiciona el lenguaje en relación con el acto de comunicación y las relaciones interpersonales, se aplica a los más diversos ámbitos de la vida.

»Para no entrar en el debate de si es o no verdad que cualquier interacción humana tiene un fin más o menos “comercial”, paso a recordar el principal axioma de la pragmática de la comunicación humana, postulado por Paul Watzlawick: “No es posible no comunicar”. De este axioma se infiere que no es posible no influir, ya que cualquier acto de comunicación en presencia de otro no puede dejar de ejercer algún tipo de influencia en su percepción. Seria ya una temeridad arriesgar a defender aquí la inferencia de que la interacción humana es una “venta” constante, pero aquí dejo ese posible devaneo.

»Centrándonos más en los aspectos profesionales de nuestra vida, no podemos dejar de constatar que el lenguaje y sus formas de utilización para establecer relaciones funcionales son fundamentales, como afirma S. Gutiérrez Ordóñez en Presentación de la pragmática: “la argumentación constituye una manifestación comunicativa esencial en numerosas actividades de nuestro mundo: la abogacía, la actividad comercial, la política, el discurso científico y académico, el ámbito religioso, el periodismo...”.

»Sin embargo, se puede pasar de un modo de comunicar basado en la dialéctica hacia otro más dialógico, menos argumentativo, que contempla las perspectivas de ambos los interlocutores y propicia que el acuerdo resulte de un descubrimiento conjunto, a través de la aplicación de técnicas que han de ser aprendidas y entrenadas. El diálogo, del griego diálogos, es un encuentro de dos inteligencias que buscan una solución para satisfacer una necesidad y no solamente una presentación sucesiva de argumentos que buscan explicitar y establecer la verdad de quien los pronuncia. Parece evidente la fórmula que mejor puede funcionar en la actividad comercial moderna, donde todas las opiniones cuentan pero no “vence” el que mejor argumentación esgrime sino el que mejor persuade.

»Y como decía el célebre Pascal: “Uno se persuade más y mejor que encuentra por si mismo que con aquellas que provienen de otros espíritus”. El buen persuasor, por lo tanto, es capaz de ayudar al otro a encontrar sus propias razones, sobre determinado asunto, de una forma rápida, estructurada y eficiente. Para tal están las técnicas y el entrenamiento.

»Lejos de pretender formar expertos en áreas de estudio tan complejas, en CASO / Trabajo en Alta Performance hemos decidido poner en marcha un curso que se destina a proporcionar conocimientos avanzados pero operativos, por lo tanto prácticos, a todos los intervinientes en el proceso de venta que pretendan alcanzar o mantener su alta performance. El conocimiento adquirido a través de la aplicación práctica de los conceptos, durante el entrenamiento, es rápidamente transferible a la realidad operativa de los participantes.»

Pragmática, el desafío de la retórica en acción – Henry Doss: «The Rhetoric Of Innovation»

«“I do not pretend to start with precise questions.
I do not think you can start with anything precise.
You have to achieve such precision as you can,
as you go along.”

— Bertrand Russell

»The biggest challenge organizations face in building and nurturing and leading innovative cultures is language. Not plans. Not ideas. Not action items. Not even creativity. It is language.

»When it comes to organizational languages, we have plenty of words for commands, for directions, for setting expectations. Declaring that something needs to be done and then describing how to do it comes naturally. This is the language of strategic plans, of goals, of reports, of evaluations. The rhetoric of command is something that most leaders and most organizations understand and can respond to, and it is the language that we default to in order to run railroads and to get stuff done. After all, command works. Things get done when we speak in the language of command.

»But the language of command is not the language of innovation. If we are to talk precisely about innovation, in a shared language and a shared nomenclature, we need to realize that innovation requires a domain all its own. Innovation requires a distinct rhetoric and its own realm of meaning and nuance and distinctions. Speaking about and to innovation is not the same thing as speaking about or to specific outcomes. When we speak about innovation, we are speaking about states of being, of system conditions, of potential. The language of innovation is a language about culture, and for this reason, it must be a language of narrative, and stories and tales.

»In many organizations, there is a demand for doing innovation, a demand to deploy innovation tactics and strategies, a demand for innovative output. This amounts to demanding innovation in command language, which is like a demand in English to speak French. Demanding that an organization innovate is akin to demanding that a rock roll uphill. The demand is clear, the actors are clearly defined, and the goal is clear. But, the outcome is at best unlikely. In the case of the rock, that is because there is not adequate potential energy to be transformed into kinetic energy. At least not enough to roll uphill.

»Innovation thinking and innovation language store up the potential energy of an organization; they don’t release kinetic energy. Innovation language creates the culture, the conditions, the state of being that is necessary if innovative output is to be realized. Innovation does not really “do” anything; it is the condition, the state of being, where organizations begin to build up potential energy, potential innovative output. Without the potential energy of innovation culture, the kinetic energy of command will simply not work. Or, at best, it will work at very low efficiency levels.

»We may think of this as a requirement for organizational leaders to speak two languages, to understand two different dialects, and to speak from two completely different points of view — at the same time. At one point we might talk about output — products, patents, updates, improvements, and so on — all of which we might be able to describe in rather precise language, and in terms we all share in common. We are comfortable with this language because it is empirical, accessible and common. But it is incomplete. At the same time that we are speaking the language of command, we need also to speak the language of innovation, of culture, of those things that occur to us as less empirical. If we use the term “innovation” the same way we use the term “innovate,” we will create cultural confusion. This is because “innovation” is best used to describe a cultural state, while “innovate” is an action term, a deliverable, an output. They are different things.

»Confusion follows when we conflate the language of innovation and the language of command. Innovation language should speak to and about values, and beliefs and conditions. Innovation language coaxes, encourages, nurtures and fosters high potential. Command language is kinetic, and causes action. Either one alone is inadequate for high levels of performance excellence. In combination, they are magic.

»More often than not, organizational leaders get trapped into the language of command. They get lured into seeing direct connections between commands and action. They can speak a command and something happens and over time this connection seems a priori. But creating an innovation culture — which is building the innovation potential of organizations — is not a place where the language of command will work. You simply cannot command individuals to trust. You cannot declare: “Be more networked!” You cannot just decide that everyone in your organization will suddenly value diverse points of view. These are cultural conditions, and they are emergent of the rhetoric and narrative of your organization, not declarations.

»At its simplest, innovation and the rhetoric of narrative that creates innovation states can be thought of as storing up potential energy. Potential energy — states of being of innovative cultures — is latent. It is there and ready when ideas and creativity and ambition and sense of purpose call on it, and in turn convert potential innovative cultural energy into kinetic energy — output. The best ideas and creativity in the world coming into low potential, low-innovation states of culture, will simply wither away. Ideas die. But, even modest ideas landing in highly innovative cultures acquire power and direction and energy. And things happen. Good things.

»The trick is to remember that innovation — a noun describing a condition — and innovate — a verb describing action — are two very different things, and they require two different ways of thinking and speaking. We might say that the rhetoric of innovate resides in command and the rhetoric of innovation resides in trust. And the two are confused to the peril of an organization’s future.»

Forbes, December 16, 2014

The Indigenous Literacy Foundation

«The Indigenous Literacy Foundation aims to raise literacy levels and improve the lives and opportunities of Indigenous children living in remote and isolated regions. This is done through the delivery of books and literacy resources, publishing and visits out to remote communities. In addition, the Foundation advocates to raise community awareness of Indigenous literacy issues.»

The Indigenous Literacy Foundation on YouTube

«About the Indigenous Literacy Foundation

»Can you imagine not being able to read a newspaper, a road sign or directions on a bottle of medication? Sadly, this is a reality faced by many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in remote communities today.

»WHO WE ARE

»The Indigenous Literacy Foundation (ILF) was founded by Suzy Wilson and set up by members of the Australian Book Industry in 2005 with the core aim of drawing upon the skills and expertise of the Australian book industry to address literacy levels in remote Indigenous communities.

»The ILF aims to raise literacy levels and improve the lives and opportunities of Indigenous children living in remote and isolated regions. This is done through the delivery of books and literacy resources, publishing and visits out to remote communities. In addition, the Foundation advocates to raise community awareness of Indigenous literacy issues.

»Set up in 2011, the Foundation is a not-for-profit charity, without any government or major corporate funding. It works with the support of the Australian Publishers Association, the Australian Booksellers Association and the Australian Society of Authors, along with a team of ambassadors, volunteers and three full-time staff.

»The Foundation’s major fundraising campaign is 
Indigenous Literacy Day, Wednesday 3 September 2014.

»OUR VISION

»Our mission is to make a positive difference in the lives of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children by focusing on ways to improve their literacy levels. We believe that a young child's future educational experiences can be greatly improved through enjoyable and positive engagements with books in both the family and community environments at an early age.

»OUR PURPOSE

»Our key objective is to make a positive difference in the lives of young Australian Indigenous children so that they are enabled to make the most of their educational opportunities in schools.

»OUR CORE STRATEGIES

»Provide books and support Australian Indigenous parents so that they and their young children and babies can enjoy literacy experiences together.

»Encourage links between the book trade, schools and libraries to ensure the supply of books in remote Indigenous communities.

»Assist with the writing and publishing of books in the child's first language as well as English.

»Ensure engagement and familiarity with the range and types of books that children will experience in schools.

»OUR VALUES

»We place the utmost emphasis on the importance of early literacy development in enhancing the life potential of every child in society.

»OUR PRINCIPLES

»The Indigenous Literacy Foundation acknowledges and respects the unique place of Australia's first peoples and commits its energy and resources to ensuring Australian Indigenous children have every opportunity, early in their lives, to do well in their school years.»

About the Indigenous Literacy Foundation

«Indigenous Literacy - a snapshot

»No matter how NAPLAN data is represented, or what very minimal progress has been made over the years, we cannot ignore or sugarcoat the fact that Indigenous children in remote and very remote locations are being significantly out performed by non-Indigenous students and students living in metro locations. One clear stat shows that between 40% and 60% of Indigenous children in very remote locations across WA, SA and NT are achieving below minimum standard in Reading in Year 3. This is certainly something as a nation we cannot ignore.

»Our Foundation’s vision and approach to raising literacy levels is focused at a community level. Our focus is on early exposure to appropriate and quality books in the home and community through the supply of books. We strongly support first language and culture and work with community to translate books which represent both English and first language. We are also committed to encouraging and supporting story writing and the development of community stories through publications. There are sets of challenges, strengths and levels of involvement in each of the communities we work in but we continue to build on our relationships with these communities and develop to find ways of supporting them.

»Indigenous homes, particularly those in remote communities, have fewer books, computers and other educational resources than non-Indigenous homes. All of these factors are linked to children’s achievements at school and in the development of English literacy skills. (Bortoli and Cresswell, 2004)

»The development of English literacy skills is important for the life opportunities of Indigenous children and youth. Literacy provides them with 'the necessary skills to interact within mainstream society and avail themselves of the broadest range of civic, social, educational and employment possibilities'. (Mellor and Corrigan, 2004)

»The gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students emerges early. Non-Indigenous students far out-perform Indigenous students in benchmark tests for reading, writing and numeracy in Year 3 and Year 5. By Year 7, the gap has widened, particularly for numeracy. (DEET NT 2006)

»By the age of 15, more than one-third of Australia’s Indigenous students 'do not have the adequate skills and knowledge in reading literacy to meet real-life challenges and may well be disadvantaged in their lives beyond school'. (PISA cited in Bortoli and Cresswell, 2004, page 11).

»Indigenous children living in isolated areas have even lower literacy rates. In the Northern Territory, only one in five children living in very remote Indigenous communities can read at the accepted minimum standard. By Year 7, just 15% achieved this benchmark, 47 percentage points behind their urban Indigenous peers and 74 percent less than non-Indigenous students. (DEET NT 2006)

»More than half of Indigenous families living in very remote communities speak an Indigenous language in the home. (ABS, 2001) Their children need extra assistance at school and from the community to learn English as a second language.

»Absenteeism from school negatively affects students’ academic performance. Indigenous students miss around 26 days of school per year compared with 8 days for all students. Indigenous students living in remote and very remote locations are likely to miss an even greater number of school days. (Zubrick, Silburn, De Maio et al., 2006)

»Nutrition and health are closely connected to educational achievement, school attendance and literacy skills. (DEST 2003 and ABS 2005) The health status of Australia’s Indigenous population is poor by world standards. More than twice as many Indigenous babies suffer low to extremely low birth-weight compared to non-Indigenous babies and Indigenous children are twice as likely to be hospitalized for infectious diseases. (SCRGSP, 2005)

»Upwards of 70% of Indigenous children in remote communities suffer from chronic Otitis Media, a serious middle ear disease that can cause permanent hearing loss and inhibit language and literacy development. (DET, WA 2006)

»36% or less people in remote communities have access to a library (source)

»References

»NAPLAN reports http://www.nap.edu.au/results-and-reports/national-reports.html

»Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Population Characteristics, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, 2001.

»Australian Bureau of Statistics, The Health and Welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, 2005.

»Bortoli and Cresswell, Australia’s Indigenous Students in PISA 2000: Results from an International Study, Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), Research Monograph No. 59, August 2004.

»Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), Final Report of the National Evaluation of National Indigenous English Literacy and Numeracy Strategy, Dec 2003.

»Department of Education and Training, Western Australia (DET WA) Conductive Hearing Loss and Aboriginal Students, 2006.

»Mellor S and Corrigan M, The Case for Change, a review of contemporary research on Indigenous education outcomes, Australian Education Review, ACER, 2004.

»Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (SCRGSP), Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2005. Commonwealth of Australia, 2005.

»Zubrick SR, Silburn SR, De Maio JA, Shepherd C, Griffin JA, Dalby RB, Mitrou FG, Lawrence DM, Hayward C, Pearson G, Milroy H, Milroy J, Cox A. The Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey (Volume 3): Improving the Educational Experiences of Aboriginal Children and Young People. Perth: Curtin University of Technology and Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, 2006.»

Indigenous Literacy - a snapshot

Intervención en pragmática (programa del curso organizado por el Colegio Profesional de Logopedas de Galicia)

Un programa de curso y acción interdisciplinar con la pragmática como eje. Lo acompaño con una charla en vídeo de una de las ponentes, Marlene Horna.

Santiago de Compostela, 8 noviembre de 2014. Ponentes: María del Carmen Soneira Escariz. Logopeda. Marlene Horna Castiñeiras. Psicóloga. Mónica Vilameá Pérez. Logopeda.

•1. ¿Qué entendemos por pragmática?

•2. El desarrollo temprano de la pragmática.

•3. El juego y la pragmática.

•4. Emociones y teoría de la mente y su relación con la pragmática.

•5. Habilidades conversacionales. Las máximas conversacionales de Grice. El saludo, iniciar, mantener y finalizar, hacer preguntas, turno de palabra, cambios de tema, interrupciones, etc.

•6. Comunicación referencial. Habilidades narrativas.

•7. Los actos del habla indirectos: la mentira, la mentira piadosa, la ironía, la metáfora, las frases hechas.

•8. Componentes básicos del habla: volumen, velocidad, entonación, etc.

•9. Comunicación no verbal: mirada, sonrisa, gestos, expresión facial, la postura física y orientación corporal.

•10. Pragmática del lenguaje y habilidades sociales.

(web de Aperta)