COMMUNICATION:Nature of communication, Transactional approach, Communication is symbolic:

THEORY, PARADIGM AND MODEL (I):Positivistic Perspective, Critical Perspective >>

Theories of Communication MCM 511

LESSON 01

COMMUNICATION

Defining communication

Communication is seen as central to our everyday ideas about what makes life worth living. It is not

surprising that academicians have attempted to unravel the secrets of the communication process. In this

section of the study we will examine the theorizing and theories of this discipline of communication.

To understand communication theory we need to understand the nature of communication.

Nature of communication

People define terms in different ways, and those differences in definition can have a profound impact on

the extent to which we understand each other and the way we move forward with both academic and

everyday pursuits.

Given the variety of ways in which words are used and understood, we are often ill-served to search for

the single, so-called correct definition of a term.

In other words, it is better to evaluate definition in terms of their utility rather than in terms of their

correctness. So we should not assume that there is always a single right way to define a concept. There

is a great deal of variation in the definitions. Some are very abstract and some are extremely specific.

Few definitions are cited below.

Communication is the process by which an individual (the communicator) transmits stimuli (usually

verbal) to modify the behavior of other individuals (the audience). (Hovland Janis and Kelly in 1953)

Communication is the process by which we understand others and in turn endeavor to be understood by

them. It is dynamic, constantly changing and shifting in response to the total situation (Anderson, 1959)

Communication is all of the procedures by which one mind can affect another (W. Weaver, 1949)

Communication means that information is passed from one place to another. (Miller, 1951)

These definitions are incomplete in the sense that Weaver's definition is incredibly broad; it includes all

the procedures by which one "mind" could have an effect on another, whereas the other definitions

excludes too many activities that we normally think of as communication. However through this

definitional turmoil many conceptual features have emerged as important points of discussion.

Conceptualizing communication: points of convergence

Communication is a process:

Process-oriented conceptualization of communication suggests that it is continuous and complex and

cannot be arbitrarily isolated. David Berlo in 1960 popularized this idea in these words.

"If we accept the concept of process, we view events and relationships as dynamic, on-going, ever-

changing, continuous. When we label something as a process we also mean that it does not have a

beginning, an end, a fixed sequence of events. It is not static at rest. It is moving. The ingredients within

a process interact; each affects all others."

So when we look at communication as a process, we see that even simple interactions are influenced in

complex ways by the past and will also have important implication for the future. In early

conceptualizations of communication this process was seen as a primarily linear one, in which

communication moved from a source to a receiver. As we can see in the Lasswell's classical model of

communication:

Who?

Says what?

Theories of Communication MCM 511

To whom?

Through what channel?

With what effect?

Lasswell's linear model of communication is not accepted for it does not incorporate a feedback loop

from receiver to source. Rather most communication researchers now take a transactional approach to

communication.

Transactional approach

Communication is transactional and hence highly complex. The concept of transaction is useful to

contrast it with the related ideas of action and interaction.

If we consider communication to strictly action, a source presenting a message to a receiver or an

audience, we would not consider the reaction of the audience or feedback from it. This is a one way

linear model of communication which is also labeled the hypodermic needle model or magic bullet

model of communication.

It suggests that communication is a simple process of injecting our messages into receivers.

In contrast, if we communicate from an interaction perspective, we move from beyond the hypodermic

needle to consider the importance of feedback from the receiver. This is the interaction model; we look

at not only the message of the source but also the reaction of the receiver.

Burgoon and Ruffner in 1978 said:

"People are simultaneously acting as a source and receiver in many communication situations. A

person is giving feedback, talking, responding, acting and reacting continually through a

communication event. Each person is constantly participating in the communication activity; all of these

things can alter the other elements in the process and create a completely different communication

event. This is what we mean by transaction".

A view of communication as transactional also emphasizes the importance of context. That is, not only

do participant constantly influence each other, they are also influenced by the context in which they

interact, e.g. comment made in an organization can take on a very different meaning depending on

whether it is heard in a formal performance appraisal meeting or in casual conversation in the cafeteria..

Communication is symbolic:

A third area of convergence in conceptualizations of communication is the belief that communication is

symbolic. To explore this concept, it is useful to talk briefly about the more general concept of sign,

investigated by the field of semiotics.

Semioticians see a sign as consisting of two inextricably linked parts - signifier and the signified.

Consider the work book and the object made of paper and glue that you hold in your hand right now. In

this case, the signifier is the word book and the signified is the signified is the concept of the book and

the referent is the physical object you are holding. This relationship is obviously not a perfect one-to one

correspondence and is often an arbitrary relationship in that there is no natural correspondence, for

instance, between the letters b-o-o-k and the object to which they refer.

Thus, symbols hold an arbitrary, rather than natural, relationship to what is symbolized, and a symbol

has no inherent meaning.

Other semioticians have also tried to understand these notions more or less in the same manner. For

example theorists, Ogden and Richards in 1946 explained this relationship in terms of a semantic

triangle in which the three points of the triangle are the symbol (the word book) the referent (the

physical object) and the reference (what you mean by book when you use the symbol). In this triangle,

the link between the symbol and the referent is arbitrary. That is, you might be quite clear about what

Theories of Communication MCM 511

you mean when you use the term book, but that symbol might have different meanings for different

people.

However, with most symbols, some degree of shared meaning exists between interactants. As symbol

are developed through shared social experience and exist within a system of other symbols. However

gaps in communication occur if the shared meaning is not the same which happens when there are

different cultures or different social experiences.

So when theorists say that communication is symbolic, they mean that it requires signs and symbols that

have relationships to referents that are to some extent arbitrary.

Conceptualizing communication: points of divergence

1. Communication as a social activity.

2. Communication and intention.

Communication as a social activity

The first point of divergence is whether communication necessarily involves two or more people (e.g., is

a social or interpersonal activity) or whether communication can occur within one individual (i.e.

intrapersonal communication-you communicate with yourself.) that is can you talk to yourself. One

group of scholars say that it is cognition or thinking and says that communication is in which two or

more people are involved. The more important point in conceptualizing communication as a social

process is in the function that communication serves as a social vehicle. That is when we see

communication as something that occurs between people the question arises of what communication is

doing in that relationship.

So when we are looking at the language as a social activity we are then looking primarily at the

pragmatic level. The pragmatic level of language study looks at language use. That is, a pragmatic view

looks at the ways in which we do things with words. That is communication, in this social sense, is a

vehicle through which we are trying to do something- we are trying to get others to understand or

appreciate our internal thoughts or emotion, or we might be trying to understand those internal states in

others.

Communication and Intention

One group of scholars say that "you cannot not communicate". Suggesting that meaning is inherent in

all human behavior, E.g. wearing an old jeans.

So this group makes communication synonymous or nearly synonymous with BEHAVIOR.

Whereas the other group disregard this idea that "you cannot not communicate", arguing that only

intentional behaviors should count as communication. In their view, communication occurs only when

there is clear intention the part of the source to communicate.

"Communication occurs in those situations in which a source transmits a message to a receiver with

conscious intent to affect the latter's behavior" (Miller, 1966)

Summary

In this chapter we have explored the terrain surrounding the concept of communication. We did number

of definitions. We did conceptualizations of communication- points of convergence: Communication as

a process; Communication is transactional; Communication is symbolic. Points of divergence:

Communication as a social activity and Communication and intention.

Table of Contents: