There is so much to learn about the development and nature of language. It is certainly not helped in safety by trying to turn language into some kind of mathematical equation (Usability Mapping).

The beginning of understanding language is by studying and understanding the following:

• Linguistics
• Para linguistics
• Semiosis (meaning)
• Text (spoken, written, as-person)
• Grammar
• Semantics
• Syntax
• Metaphor
• Gesture
• Cultural use
• Discourse and discourse
• Comprehension
• Literature
• Poetics

The idea that one can ‘de-clutter’ documentation, make language ‘efficient’ or make paperwork more useable (given utility) simply demonstrates a lack of expertise in understanding language.

The idea that Usability Mapping holds space in the AIHS Body of Knowledge (https://safetyrisk.net/paperwork-and-usability-in-tackling-risk/) demonstrates the same level of amateurish incompetence as the AIHS has with Ethics (https://safetyrisk.net/the-aihs-bok-and-ethics-check-your-gut/). Professional indeed.

I know let’s learn about ethics from someone with no expertise in Ethics (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-the-expert-in-everything-and-the-art-of-learning-nothing/ ). Let’s learn about language from a source with no expertise in language. Ah, this is the safety way (https://safetyrisk.net/best-fraud-in-safety-wins-this-is-the-way/).

BTW, volume in itself is not the problem in safety, its meaning that matters much more.

In the Chapter in the AIHS BoK on Useability Mapping there is no mention of all of the most critical elements of language: meaning, linguistics, semantics, semiosis, symbolism-as-text, persons-as-text, metaphor, sense-making, Poetics, Discourse, myth, discourse, legal liability, ethics, politics or culture. All of these are foundational for tackling the nature of language in risk.

Fancy proposing some idea of the usability of language and omitting all the most critical aspects of language in discussion.

Indeed, just browse the References at the back of the chapter and all of the most important researchers in Linguistics don’t get a mention (Chomsky, Halliday, Lacan, Kristeva, Johnson, Fuchs, Shaules etc). This is the safety way!

Contra-Diction

The key to praxis in risk and safety (https://safetyrisk.net/praxis-and-spor/) is the deconstruction of contradictions through contra-diction. In SPoR, we know this as the ‘Poetics of Critique’. In the study of Poetics we learn about language and how it works. What is clear in Usability Mapping is little understanding how language works.

Contra-diction speaks a new language to Safety.

It deconstructs its discourse and Discourse (power in text) and poses a new reconstruction in meaning (semiosis). In praxis, SPoR offers not just a new way of speaking about risk but methods of counter-conduct through a new diction.

We know in SPoR that the courts will hold organisations accountable for their language (https://safetyrisk.net/praxis-and-spor/). All language use holds ethical and political power in its use. We know that when language is mapped (https://safetyrisk.net/myth-objectivity-and-the-subjectivity-of-language-in-safety/) we begin to see how language works. And, until one understands how language works and how it creates meaning, playing with language like some mathematical construct is delusional.

What we know about Safety is that it loves speaking nonsense language to people (https://safetyrisk.net/nonsense-goals-and-language-on-display/), for example:

• Zero harm
• Blame fixes nothing
• Safety is a choice you make
• All accidents are preventable
• Psychosocial ‘hazards’
• Culture is what we do around here

The use of this language is a contra-diction to reality. None of this language makes sense.

But this is what safety adores, speaking nonsense to people and seeking expertise in places where there is none!

If you are interested in learning about language and how to improve your language in safety, you can study here (https://cllr.com.au/product/linguistics-flyer-unit-21/) or seek coaching here: admin@spor.com.au