What do you know when you know a word?

If I were to ask you "What do you know when you know a word?", honestly, what would your answer be? I bet most of you will answer that knowing a word means knowing what its meaning is. Of course, that is basically, the function of a word : i.e to carry 'meaning' of some abstract concept or to be a direct reference to a concrete entity. Nevertheless, in any interaction, it only eases the flow of communication when the meaning of a word is mutually understood by both the sender and receiver.  This means that both participants need to have the same 'schemata' in order to mutually agree on the meaning of a "term' ; i.e a shared knowledge based on previous experiences, derived from either personal or professional endeavors. I purposely used the word 'term', due to a simple fact that in this knowledge-based era, new words are constantly being coined to appropriately suit its context of use.

Quite recently, a friend asked me of a suitable term to use in the web he's creating and maintaining. He asked of the correct term to use concerning the payment mode. He was contemplating on using the widely used term "payable to". Still, having me as the person he consults regarding language matters, he feels a strong obligation to ask for my opinion. Well, I, a 'straight' government servant, coming from a linguistics background with a qualitative nature of thinking would always try to give the best  of my judgment, and in this case to best situate the meaning of the term to its 'suitable' context of use. So, my 'bizarre' suggestion was for him to use the term "to be paid to", instead. Simply straight-forward. No 'implied' alternative. The only problem: i.e it is not a 'popular' term.

My friend, who was once a 'Physicist', of course, found it difficult to accept my suggestion since he believes in a 'general' accepted opinion. Being always a 'balanced' person in unchanging environment, well, that is understandable. Still, he repeatedly asked me to consider the first term, of which out of exasperation I told him, he actually is at a liberty to choose the term which he himself feels comfortable in using. My answer was only a suggestion. Nevertheless, coming from a linguistics background, I would say that I am more receptive to change since I believe that language and its users are dynamic social entities.  In fact, that is how language evolves because there are always dynamic people who are bold enough to introduce new words to provide new meanings to the ever-changing environment that we live in.

So, when the term K-economy was first coined and landed on our local shores about more than a decade ago, it became a buzz word. Indeed, I would definitely agree that it is a catchy term coined in an economical manner. Being in the teaching line, it was not hard for me to figure out the meaning of the term. Naturally, it made us (i.e. the educationists) realize that as knowledge workers we need to 'empower' ourselves through learning, unlearning and relearning processes so that we would always be informed of new knowledge and be aware of our obsolete ones in order to continuously generate new wisdom. Many were in fact, inspired to embark on advanced knowledge-seeking endeavors in order to maintain their competitive edge in this challenging global era.

The term indeed has a larger impact on our society and its social structure. Being highly knowledgeable actually puts one at an advantage in securing better positions and status  (i.e both within personal and social domains). In terms of economic advantage, the advanced knowledge that one has successfully acquired, undoubtedly enhances one's entrepreneurial value  which is facilitative in acquiring wealth. At a macro-level, with the knowledge that we have successfully acquired, we undoubtedly become the 'human capitals' of the country. And with the government aim to develop first-class human capitals among its citizens who could further take the country to reach greater achievements in both the local and global domains, it becomes a 'moral imperative' for us (the educationists) to provide a succession of highly knowledgeable citizens among the younger generation. Of course, this could only be done through public education where equal quality learning opportunity is provided for all to ensure social mobility especially among students who come from poor-income families.

Well, this is my actual understanding of the meanings of the terms 'K-Economy', 'human capital' and 'moral imperative' as they are widely used within our social domain. From the perspective of an educationist, of course. However, as a linguist I am  very much aware that meanings of words or terms, more often than not, reside in the individuals themselves. This means that each individual actually carries a particular meaning of the word when he or she uses it in human interaction. Within a wider context of social use, the same term may denote different meaning to different social groups depending on how they perceive the term to be in relation to their role and function in the society. In other words, my educationist' understanding of the terms 'K-Economy', 'human capitals' and 'moral imperative' may differ from other social groups such as the economists.

Being a language person by nature (i.e my 'innate' capital) enhanced through advanced academic knowledge (i.e my competitive edge in K-Economy), I feel a strong obligation (i.e my moral imperative) to offer an alternate meanings of these terms from a different perspective to aid in  making better judgment for self-evaluation and self-regulation behavioral purposes. But first, I must admit that most of my thoughts are guided by the great thoughts of Drucker, who simply posit that : "There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer." This simply means that in 'K-Economy' where knowledge is an important commodity, the economists have to think of 'potential' customers since the present older generation and the existing social structure would not be able to sustain its meaningful existence in the future.

And this consequentially gives a new and different meaning to the term 'human capitals'. Indeed, humans are the capitals; i.e the targeted consumers (not producers) for which the knowledge products are being produced, distributed and consumed. Of course, to have a longer life-span for the product to stay in high demand, the younger generation is the correct age-group to be targeted as the consumers. With the 'moral imperative' of business people is to maximize the profit, they have to make their knowledge product attractive to the ones having economic means by making quality knowledge product as a social privilege that clearly distinguishes the social status between the empowered social class and the others.

Well, this is my illustration of how meanings of terms may be differently conceptualized by different people or groups in a society. I could actually provide you with another alternative for the meanings of these terms, probably from a religious stand-point, but at this juncture, I would say, that it is suffice in making my point vividly clear about my initial question of "what do you know when you know a word". We may speak the same language but the essence of what we speak actually differ in the meanings that we ourselves have conceptualized which may be based on various factors such as the social class we belong to, our academic background, the beliefs that we hold and many more. Still,  in line with our ongoing effort to sustain the progress of our nation and to achieve our aim to become a developed country, as an educationist, I firmly believe that generating first-class 'holistic' human capitals among our younger generation, IS, without doubt, our moral imperative. This, of course is greatly aspired in our national education policy of which the public education is based on.