What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
Juliet in Romeo & Juliet, Act II, Scene II. William Shakespeare.
By any other name would smell just as sweet.
In agility, we can have five people watch the same thing in the agility ring and have five different ways (or more) of describing what was done. It seems like while Juliet would call it a rose, there could be four other words or languages to describe that same flower. While, it would be just as sweet, the five people might not understand each other and wonder if someone got it wrong.
One of the interesting things I have noticed as a coach, but also as a student with coaches from different countries, is that language is a fickle beast. Language can aid knowledge transfer and learning, or it can hinder and confuse the communicators (see Communication Theory). In agility, ideally the coach and student can share instructions and questions in a way that everyone comes to the same understanding.
That is the point of all communication – to come to a mutual understanding.
Dianne P. Ford
It does not mean we come to a mutual agreement, but we can appreciate what is being said.
In the sport of agility, we have multiple “languages” (or jargon). We have names of obstacles, names on types of dog paths and positions, names on handling manoeuvres, and verbals. Furthermore, some of these different jargon share the same word. This can be problematic for mutual understanding.
In the table below, I provide a summary of the different types of jargon and their likelihood of miscommunication.
| Type of Jargon | Example | Bases of Jargon | Likelihood of Miscommunication | |
| Obstacle Name | Jump Tunnel A-Frame | National/Regional Language Organization’s Rules (e.g., FCI) | Very low (within) to Low (between) | |
| Dog Path & Position | Dog-on-Left Tight turn Slice | National/Regional Language | Very low (within) to Low (between) | |
| Handling Manoeuvre | Front cross Ketschker turn | National/Regional Language “Handling System(s)” Network of Training Friends & Training Coaches | Very low (within) to Moderate (between) | |
| Verbal (instruction to the dog) | “Check” “Go” “Switch” “Zoom” “Jump” | National/Regional Language “Handling System(s)” Network of Training Friends Personal Preferences & Abilities Dog’s Existing Vocabulary | Moderate to Very High |
What I have noticed is that there is the most commonality between labels of obstacles (minding national language differences), and there is the least commonality in the verbals. Indeed within a single club or training group, there may be little or no commonality in the verbals one handler uses to the other handlers. For example, in my earlier blog on verbals and tunnels in which I discuss communication between handler and dog, I mentioned that I used a verbal from Dave Munnings (“Zip”) but for a different behaviour (tight tunnel turn). Indeed, some of the ones I have made up are used by others for different behaviours.
As a coach, I often find myself flexing my memory and translation skills by translating my requests into my students’ own unique verbals. However, that language choice is very cumbersome and tiring for coaches and eats up more class time. Trying to communicate based on verbals is the most error prone form of communication in agility.
In my own research in knowledge management, language can be a significant barrier to knowledge flows in the organization. However, contrary to what you might think, shared language (e.g., English) can lead to more flawed knowledge transfer than when communicators know there is a language barrier. The reason is that the communicators engage in more active listening and verify their assumptions when there is a language barrier; whereas, there may be more “lazy” and assumption-rich communications when there is a shared language (Ford & Chan, 2003). When someone hears a word they know, they may assume the wrong meaning behind that word. The result is miscommunication.
Another related challenge in knowledge transfer is when handlers and coaches switch between the jargon/languages or one assumes the communication is on handling manoeuvres or obstacle name and the other assumes the communication is on verbals. Again, the result is miscommunication.
Thus, my recommendations are the following:
1) Have a quick disclosure before any instructional session to indicate what form of jargon is being used (obstacle/path/handling/verbal).
2) If there is a unique term that the coach is using that the students don’t know, they should ask for clarification of its meaning without second guessing that maybe it’s a verbal for which they are using something else. Similarly, the coach can check to ensure they understand what they mean by that term.
3) Pick the best jargon for the purpose of the training session. If it is a handling workshop: path/position and manoeuvres jargon would be most efficient. If it is a dog skills development workshop, then all four might be relevant. Discussing verbals is great especially if the coach or training friend sees canine confusion or violation(s) of some of the principles for clear and effective verbals, but discussing verbals isn’t good for general instruction.
4) Look into other handling systems and examine how their jargon maps onto yours. For example, in 2018, I conducted a translation analysis between One Mind Dogs and the handling systems I used to become familiar with their terminology. To do the translation, I watched videos of the manoeuvres and dog paths and then described them using my jargon(s). This document might not be helpful to you as I use jargon and acronyms that were meaningful to me in 2018.
I hope this helps bring clarity to your training conversations with your students, coaches, friends!
Reference:
Ford, D.P. & Chan, Y.E. (2003) Knowledge Sharing in a Multi-Cultural Setting: A Case Study. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 11-26.
DPF Leading Agility 