The Linguistic Challenge for Standards

Standards Pub Date : 2022-10-04 DOI:10.3390/standards2040030
Richard C. Robinson
{"title":"The Linguistic Challenge for Standards","authors":"Richard C. Robinson","doi":"10.3390/standards2040030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Standards serve a valuable function that enable efficiencies, technological advancement, and commerce. To date, there is little examination of the problems with standards, their implementations, and methodologies that could be introduced to improve utility and utilization. This is contrasted against the large inventory of standards that exist, and proliferation of standards. More available literature exists on standards wars that focus on attempts at market dominance, persistence of ‘legacy’ standards in light of newer and ‘better’ solutions, cases for and against multiple standards, and even legal cases regarding anti-competitive behavior leveraging dominance in particular standards. This, however, focuses more on the politics as opposed to presenting a more fundamental examination of the cause for the existing friction. Through applied linguistics, it becomes more apparent that differences in language, using Communities of Practice as a guide, can provide a dimension to standardsW development and implementation. Friction in standards arises when standards are viewed as broad and universally applicable versus being the expression of a specific Community of Practice, and therefore should be specifically and formally scoped using linguistic methods.","PeriodicalId":21933,"journal":{"name":"Standards","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Standards","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/standards2040030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Standards serve a valuable function that enable efficiencies, technological advancement, and commerce. To date, there is little examination of the problems with standards, their implementations, and methodologies that could be introduced to improve utility and utilization. This is contrasted against the large inventory of standards that exist, and proliferation of standards. More available literature exists on standards wars that focus on attempts at market dominance, persistence of ‘legacy’ standards in light of newer and ‘better’ solutions, cases for and against multiple standards, and even legal cases regarding anti-competitive behavior leveraging dominance in particular standards. This, however, focuses more on the politics as opposed to presenting a more fundamental examination of the cause for the existing friction. Through applied linguistics, it becomes more apparent that differences in language, using Communities of Practice as a guide, can provide a dimension to standardsW development and implementation. Friction in standards arises when standards are viewed as broad and universally applicable versus being the expression of a specific Community of Practice, and therefore should be specifically and formally scoped using linguistic methods.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
标准的语言挑战
标准服务于实现效率、技术进步和商业的有价值的功能。迄今为止,几乎没有对标准、标准的实现和可用于提高效用和利用率的方法的问题进行检查。这与存在的大量标准清单和标准的扩散形成对比。更多关于标准战争的文献关注于市场主导地位的尝试,“遗留”标准在更新和“更好”的解决方案下的持久性,支持和反对多种标准的案例,甚至是关于利用特定标准的主导地位的反竞争行为的法律案例。然而,这更多地集中在政治上,而不是对现有摩擦的原因进行更根本的检查。通过应用语言学,使用实践社区作为指导,语言差异可以为标准软件的开发和实现提供一个维度,这一点变得更加明显。当标准被认为是广泛和普遍适用的,而不是特定实践社区的表达时,标准中的摩擦就会出现,因此应该使用语言方法具体和正式地确定范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Towards Life Cycle Assessment for the Environmental Evaluation of District Heating and Cooling: A Critical Review Towards The Development of a Governance System for Central Purchasing Body Collaboration and Performance Benefit–Risk Assessment in Sport and Recreation: Historical Development and Review of AS ISO 4980:2023 Seasonal Data Cleaning for Sales with Chase Demand Strategy Are Stakeholders’ Opinions Redundant?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1