Complexity theory has its own approach to language. The complexity approach to language suggests that many of the signs we exchange are not codes, but cues. This approach suggests that the meaning is triggered inside the head of the perceiver and that there is some set of history, background, culture, environment, context in which the perceiver is operating. When the cue is given, the cue triggers meaning. Cues do not have one-to-one lookup tables, so cues are very different from codes.
We believe that managers and organizations need to recognize the power of cues.
March 2, 2008 at 8:25 pm
This is a fascinating idea, but not one I’ve come across in the complexity literature; it sounds very relevant to some of the work I’m currently doing on complexity, dialogism and narrative meaning. Do you have any citations I can look into to read more about complexity and language cues?
March 2, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Please look at http://lissack.com/codes.ppt
March 2, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Thanks, Michael! We are obviously very much on the same page about narrative and complexity: I’ve been working on a project that uses narrative and network analysis in a complexity framework to study emergent issue networks, so this is quite useful to me.
March 30, 2008 at 2:18 am
The URL listed leads to “The Communicating Power of Symbols –An Eight Step Demonstration.” This twenty year old exercise (first written in assembly language using character graphics) might be considered an exercise in “cue” context.
March 30, 2008 at 2:20 am
My bad…thought the URL would appear with the comment…http://www.groganenterpriseservices.com/sympower