Where you are going off the track in your assessment that what I said is wrong is in your assumption of the speaker's intent. You are assuming that given the audience's responsibility for understanding that the speaker is not being impeccable with his/her word.
Nope. I still think it's entirely possible I've misunderstood your intent, but my meaning has nothing to do with the speaker being impeccable with his/her word or not. Audience members simply bring different context to the table, and the same message will not deliver the same outcome in terms of understanding.
I, too, am a teacher. I speak clearly and concisely. My words are planned before they are delivered. I am impeccable with my word. If I leave something open to interpretation, it is purely intentional and planned.
Just for full disclosure, I'm an ex-teacher. Primary teacher, with a little bit of lecturing. I no longer work in teaching, I'm a business consultant in the ERP industry.
Sincerely, I mean no offence, but if you think your words never leave anything open to interpretation, you are either only speaking about very specific and technical items, or you're kidding yourself.
My teaching style may be different than yours. I do not spoon-feed my audience. I speak in a fashion that requires the audience to think and give feedback.
I've been accused of a lot of things, but spoon-feeding my audience is certainly not one of them. Regardless, you appear to be suggesting that you deliberately leave things open to interpretation as a way of encouraging your audience to more fully immerse themselves in the topic at hand, and actually think about it. In a generic sense I commend this. However, I cannot see communication in terms of a strict transactional process.
I taught in Papua New Guinea using a Queensland curriculum, and asking the children to list their cousins (as a very simple example) elicited a vastly different response to what I expected, even though the children I was teaching had English as their first language, and had at least 1 Australian parent.
On occasion, I will add a bit of shock value to my words, which in my experience, helps the audience better retain the information.
Makes sense. I used to occasionally make incorrect connections on purpose, to encourage active listening.
That said, the audience is responsible for understanding the information provided. If something is left to interpretation, it is on the audience to think and give feedback as mentioned above.
I still think there is an inherent assumption here that lacks utility. The audience may believe that they HAVE understood the information. Small and dicky as the example was, my audience in PNG was quite convinced they knew what I meant. I didn't account for their background in framing the instruction (due to ignorance) and they weren't able to effectively clarify (due to ignorance). We both believed the instruction made sense, but it made 'different' sense to each side of the 'transaction'.
If someone is unclear about the information provided, it's on them to ask for clarification. It is their choice to give feedback or remain silent. The responsibility for the understanding of the information provided is theirs. I've done my job in the delivery and my response to any feedback or requests for clarification.
Have you studied communication models by country? It's an interesting concept, and highlights cultural differences in approach. You can believe in them or not, of course, but on a basic level there are very clear differences in structure when communicating across cultures and countries. Having a single communication approach not accounting for audience is a good way to ensure miscommunication.
