Using a framework from general semantics, communication as a semantic environment (Postman, 1976), this paper analyzes specific language used in discourse about measuring teacher effectiveness. Three contextualizing features of this sematic environment are discussed (people, purposes, and rules of discourse). With the use of multiple examples, the author introduces and illustrates four common language behaviors (Definition Tyranny, Model Muddles, Propaganda, and Silent Questions) and shows how they can lead to conflict and/or confusion in discourse about measuring teacher effectiveness.
