Linear
Communication Model
The first major model for communication was introduced by
Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver for Bell Laboratories in 1949. The original model was
designed to mirror the functioning of radio and telephone technologies. Their
initial model consisted of three primary parts: sender, channel, and receiver.
The sender was the part of a telephone a person spoke into, the channel was the
telephone itself, and the receiver was the part of the phone where one could
hear the other person. Shannon and Weaver also recognized that often there is
static that interferes with one listening to a telephone conversation,
which they deemed noise.
In a simple model, often referred to as the transmission
model or standard view of communication, information or content (e.g. a message
in natural language)
is sent in some form (as spoken language)
from an emisor/ sender/ encoder to
a destination/ receiver/ decoder.
This common conception of communication simply views communication as a means
of sending and receiving information. The strengths of this model are
simplicity, generality, and quantifiability. Social scientists Claude Shannon
and Warren Weaver structured this model based on the following elements:
- An
information source, which produces a message.
- A
transmitter, which encodes the message into signals
- A
channel, to which signals are adapted for transmission
- A
receiver, which 'decodes' (reconstructs) the message from the signal.
- A
destination, where the message arrives.
Shannon and Weaver argued that there were three levels of
problems for communication within this theory.
The
technical problem: how accurately can the message be transmitted?
The
semantic problem: how precisely is the meaning 'conveyed'?
The
effectiveness problem: how effectively does the received meaning affect
behavior?
It
assumes communicators are isolated individuals.
No
allowance for differing purposes.
No
allowance for differing interpretations.
No
allowance for unequal power relations.
No
allowance for situational contexts.
In 1960, David Berlo expanded on Shannon and Weaver's
(1949) linear model of communication and created the SMCR Model of
Communication.[15]
The Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver Model of communication separated the model
into clear parts and has been expanded upon by other scholars.
Communication is usually described along a few major
dimensions: Message (what type of things are communicated), source / emisor /
sender / encoder
(by whom), form (in which form), channel (through which medium),
destination / receiver / target / decoder
(to whom), and Receiver. Wilbur Schram (1954) also indicated that we should
also examine the impact that a message has (both desired and undesired) on the
target of the message.[16]
Between parties, communication includes acts that confer knowledge and
experiences, give advice and commands, and ask questions. These acts may take
many forms, in one of the various manners of communication. The form depends on
the abilities of the group communicating. Together, communication content and
form make messages
that are sent towards a destination. The target can be oneself, another person or
being, another entity (such as a corporation or group of beings).
Communication can be seen as processes of information
transmission governed by three levels of semiotic
rules:
- Syntactic (formal properties of signs
and symbols),
- Pragmatic (concerned with the relations
between signs/expressions and their users) and
- Semantic (study of relationships
between signs and symbols and what they represent).
Therefore, communication is social
interaction where at least two interacting agents share
a common set of signs and a common set of semiotic
rules. This commonly held rule in some sense ignores autocommunication,
including intrapersonal
communication via diaries or
self-talk, both secondary phenomena that followed the primary acquisition of
communicative competences within social interactions.
In light of these weaknesses, Barnlund (2008) proposed a
transactional model of communication.[17]
The basic premise of the transactional model of communication is that
individuals are simultaneously engaging in the sending and receiving of
messages.
In a slightly more complex form a sender and a receiver
are linked reciprocally.
This second attitude of communication, referred to as the constitutive model or
constructionist view, focuses on how an individual communicates as the
determining factor of the way the message will be interpreted. Communication is
viewed as a conduit; a passage in which information travels from one individual
to another and this information becomes separate from the communication itself.
A particular instance of communication is called a speech act.
The sender's personal filters and the receiver's personal filters may vary
depending upon different regional traditions, cultures, or gender; which may
alter the intended meaning of message contents. In the presence of "communication noise"
on the transmission channel (air, in this case), reception and decoding of
content may be faulty, and thus the speech act may not achieve the desired
effect. One problem with this encode-transmit-receive-decode model is that the
processes of encoding and decoding imply that the sender and receiver each
possess something that functions as a codebook,
and that these two code books are, at the very least, similar if not identical.
Although something like code books is implied by the model, they are nowhere
represented in the model, which creates many conceptual difficulties.
Theories of coregulation
describe communication as a creative and dynamic continuous process, rather
than a discrete exchange of information. Canadian media scholar Harold Innis
had the theory that people use different types of media to communicate and
which one they choose to use will offer different possibilities for the shape
and durability of society (Wark, McKenzie 1997). His famous example of this is
using ancient Egypt
and looking at the ways they built themselves out of media with very different
properties stone and papyrus. Papyrus is what he called 'Space Binding'.
it made possible the transmission of written orders across space, empires and
enables the waging of distant military campaigns and colonial administration.
The other is stone and 'Time Binding',
through the construction of temples and the pyramids can sustain their
authority generation to generation, through this media they can change and
shape communication in their society (Wark, McKenzie 1997).
Communication noise
In any communication model, noise is interference with
the decoding of messages sent over a channel by an encoder. There are many
examples of noise:
Environmental noise
Noise that physically disrupts communication, such as
standing next to loud speakers at a party, or the noise from a construction
site next to a classroom making it difficult to hear the professor.
Physiological-impairment
noise
Physical maladies that prevent effective communication,
such as actual deafness or blindness preventing messages from being received as
they were intended.
Semantic noise
Different interpretations of the meanings of certain
words. For example, the word "weed" can be interpreted as an
undesirable plant in a yard, or as a euphemism for marijuana.
Syntactical noise
Mistakes in grammar can disrupt communication, such as
abrupt changes in verb tense
during a sentence.
Organizational noise
Poorly structured communication can prevent the receiver
from accurate interpretation. For example, unclear and badly stated directions
can make the receiver even more lost.
Cultural noise
Stereotypical assumptions can cause misunderstandings,
such as unintentionally offending a non-Christian person by wishing them a
"Merry Christmas".
Psychological noise
Certain attitudes can also make communication difficult.
For instance, great anger or sadness may cause someone to lose focus on the
present moment. Disorders such as Autism
may also severely hamper effective communication.[18]
References
2. Jump up ^ de
Valenzuela, Julia Scherba. (1992). American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
(ASHA): Guidelines for Meeting the Communication Needs of Persons
With Severe Disabilities
5. Jump up ^
Xin Li. "Complexity Theory - the Holy Grail of 21st
Century". Lane Dept of CSEE, West Virginia
University.
7. Jump up ^
Heyman, Richard. Why Didn't You Say That in the First Place? How to Be
Understood at Work.
8. Jump up ^
Robbins, S., Judge, T., Millett, B., & Boyle, M. (2011). Organisational
Behaviour. 6th ed. Pearson, French's Forest, NSW p315-317.
11. Jump up ^
Baluska, F.; Marcuso, Stefano; Volkmann, Dieter (2006). Communication
in plants: neuronal aspects of plant life.
Taylor & Francis US. p. 19. ISBN 3-540-28475-3. "...the emergence of
plant neurobiology as the most recent area of plant sciences."
Social Plugin