Well, maybe that's not what j a n is referring to in Words Have Meaning(s), but the resulting conflict can be pretty similar:
As we considered the speakers and the sessions of "Q" [the Q conference], as well as the many attitudes and blog posts on post-modernism and the emerging (lower-case "e") church, it becomes more and more apparent that the greatest obstacle between the two schools of thought is simply language.
You've heard the statement, "Say what you mean, and mean what you say." Well, what if you aren't verbally gifted enough to do the former well? Can the latter still be true? What if you do both but your concept of the words you choose doesn't match that of your listener(s)? (We all know what happens when kids play "telephone"...)
The assumption is that because we're all speaking English, we're speaking the same language.
(And we all know what happens when you "ass-u-me"...)
Consider the knee-jerk reactionaries, who hear a statement and immediately jump to a worst-case conclusion:
An emerging church leader may say, "Who cares about doctrine if you don't have a real relationship with someone?" A modernist hears this and says, "Aha! They don't care about doctrine! They are wrong! Having a warm, fuzzy 'conversation' over a cappuccino won't teach someone about the Atonement! Heresy!" When what the post-modern is saying is, "I can't go up to a complete stranger and bonk them over the head with correct doctrine. I need to establish a relationship first, and earn the right to share my doctrinal beliefs."
Ah yes, the fine art of communication...
(Jan, you're speaking my language ;-) )
