Shannon and Weaver to
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. The noise could also mean the absence of signal.[1]
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
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:
5. 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
effectiveness problem: how effectively does the received meaning affect
behavior?
Daniel Chandler critiques the transmission
model by stating:[3]
It
assumes communicators are isolated individuals.
No
allowance for differing purposes.
No
allowance for differing interpretations.
No
allowance for unequal power relations.
David Berlo
In 1960, David Berlo expanded Shannon and Weaver’s,Steven
Munyao (1949) linear model of communication and created the SMCR Model of
Communication.[4] The Source-Message-Channel-Receiver Model of
communication separated the model into clear parts and has been expanded upon
by other scholars.
Schramm
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 Schramm (1954) also indicated that
we should also examine the impact that a message has (both desired and
undesired) on the target of the message.[5] 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:
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.
Barnlund
In light of these weaknesses, Barnlund (1970) proposed a
transactional model of communication.[6] 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 code-book,
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 co-regulation
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).
Psychology of communication
Bernard Luskin, UCLA, 1970, advanced computer assisted
instruction and began to connect media and psychology into what is now the
field of media psychology. In 1998, the American Association of Psychology,
Media Psychology Division 46 Task Force report on psychology and new
technologies combined media and communication as pictures, graphics and sound
increasingly dominate modern communication. The Social Psychology of
Communication is the first comprehensive introduction to social psychological
perspectives on communication. This accessible guide provides an overview of
key theoretical approaches from a variety of different disciplines (including
cognitive, developmental and evolutionary psychology) as well as practical
guidance on how to implement communication interventions in differing contexts.
Divided into three parts covering theoretical perspectives,
special topics in communication and applied areas and practice, the book
features:
• Navigational tools providing a 'how to' guide to using
the book most effectively • A list of key words at the beginning of each
chapter which are highlighted throughout the chapter for easy reference • A
thorough glossary of keywords and definitions • A section on Special Topics in
Communication including identity and resistance, rumour and gossip, evolution
and communication
This book will be an invaluable resource for students,
academics and practitioners in Psychology and Communication. (Sounds like ad
for the book?)
Constructionist Model
There is an additional working definition of
communication to consider[examples
needed] that authors like Richard A. Lanham (2003) and as
far back as Erving Goffman (1959) have highlighted. This is a progression from
Lasswell’s attempt to define human communication through to this century and
revolutionized into the constructionist model. Constructionists believe that
the process of communication is in itself the only messages that exist. The
packaging can not be separated from the social and historical context from
which it arose, therefore the substance to look at in communication theory is
style for Richard Lanham and the performance of self for Erving Goffman.
Lanham chose to view communication as the rival to the
over encompassing use of CBS model
(which pursued to further the transmission model). CBS model argues that
clarity, brevity, and sincerity are the only purpose to prose discourse,
therefore communication. Lanham wrote, “If words matter too, if the whole range
of human motive is seen as animating prose discourse, then rhetoric analysis
leads us to the essential questions about prose style” (Lanham 10). This is
saying that rhetoric and style are fundamentally important; they are not errors
to what we actually intend to transmit. The process which we construct and
deconstruct meaning deserves analysis.
Erving Goffman sees the performance of self as the most
important frame to understand communication. Goffman wrote, “What does seem to
be required of the individual is that he learn enough pieces of expression to
be able to ‘fill in’ and manage, more or less, any part that he is likely to be
given” (Goffman 73) Goffman is highlighting the significance of expression.
The truth in both cases is the articulation of the
message and the package as one. The construction of the message from social and
historical context is the seed as is the pre-existing message is for the
transmission model. Therefore any look into communication theory should include
the possibilities drafted by such great scholars as Richard A. Lanham and Erving Goffman that style and performance
is the whole process.
Communication stands so deeply rooted in human behaviors and the structures of society
that scholars have difficulty thinking of it while excluding social or
behavioral events[weasel words]. Because communication theory
remains a relatively young field of inquiry and integrates itself with other
disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, and sociology, one probably cannot
yet expect a consensus conceptualization of communication across disciplines[weasel words].
Communication Model Terms as provided by Rothwell
(11-15):
- Noise; interference with effective
transmission and reception of a message.
- For
example;
- physical
noise or external noise which are environmental distractions such as
poorly heated rooms, startling sounds, appearances of things, music
playing some where else, and someone talking really loudly near you.
- physiological
noise are biological influences that distract you from communicating
competently such as sweaty palms, pounding heart, butterfly in the
stomach, induced by speech anxiety, or feeling sick, exhausted at work,
the ringing noise in your ear, being really hungry, and if you have a
runny nose or a cough.
- psychological
noise are the preconception bias and assumptions such as thinking
someone who speaks like a valley girl is dumb, or someone from a foreign
country can’t speak English well so you speak loudly and slowly to them.
- semantic
noise are word choices that are confusing and distracting such as using
the word tri-syllabic instead of three syllables.
- Sender; the initiator and encoder of
a message
- Receiver; the one that receives the
message (the listener) and the decoder of a message
- Decode; translates the senders spoken
idea/message into something the receiver understands by using their
knowledge of language from personal experience.
- Encode; puts the idea into spoken
language while putting their own meaning into the word/message.
- Channel; the medium through which the
message travels such as through oral communication (radio, television,
phone, in person) or written communication (letters, email, text messages)
- Feedback; the receivers verbal and
nonverbal responses to a message such as a nod for understanding
(nonverbal), a raised eyebrow for being confused (nonverbal), or asking a
question to clarify the message (verbal).
- Message; the verbal and nonverbal
components of language that is sent to the receiver by the sender which
conveys an idea.
Linear Model
It is a one way model to communicate with others. It
consists of the sender encoding a message and channeling it to the receiver in
the presence of noise. Draw backs – the linear model assumes that there is a
clear cut beginning and end to communication. It also displays no feedback from
the receiver.
- For
example; think Mass communication - television, radio, newspapers. It is
any method in which there is no possible way for feedback (even
nonverbally). Letters, text messages, and e-mail can be responded to. A
lecture would not fit in this model because listeners can still give
feedback nonverbally. Think of when you are listening in a class or even a
meeting. You nod or shake your head in response to the speaker, therefore
you are responding.
Interactive Model
It is two linear models stacked on top of each other. The
sender channels a message to the receiver and the receiver then becomes the
sender and channels a message to the original sender. This model has added
feedback, indicates that communication is not a one way but a two way process.
It also has “field of experience” which includes our cultural background,
ethnicity geographic location, extent of travel, and general personal
experiences accumulated over the course of your lifetime. Draw backs – there is
feedback but it is not simultaneous.
The
Interactive Model.
- For
example – instant messaging. The sender sends an IM to the receiver, then
the original sender has to wait for the IM from the original receiver to
react. Or a question/answer session where you just ask a question then you
get an answer..
Transactional Model
It assumes that people are connected through
communication; they engage in transaction. First, it recognizes that each of us
is a sender-receiver, not merely a sender or a receiver. Secondly, it
recognizes that communication affects all parties involved. So communication is
fluid/simultaneous. This is what most conversations are like. The transactional
model also contains ellipses that symbolize the communication environment (how
you interpret the data that you are given). Where the ellipses meet is the most
effective communication area because both communicators share the same meaning
of the message.
Communication Theory
Framework
It is helpful to examine communication and communication
theory through one of the following viewpoints[weasel words]:
- Mechanistic:
This view[who?] considers communication as a perfect
transaction of a message from the sender to the receiver. (as seen in the
diagram above)
- Psychological:
This view[who?] considers communication as the act of
sending a message to a receiver, and the feelings and thoughts of the
receiver upon interpreting the message.
- Social
Constructionist (Symbolic Interactionist):
This view} considers communication to be the product of the interactants
sharing and creating meaning. The Constructionist View can also be defined
as, how you say something determines what the message is. The
Constructionist View assumes that “truth” and “ideas” are constructed or
invented through the social process of communication. Robert T. Craig saw the Constructionist View
or the constitutive view as it’s called in his article, as “…an ongoing
process that symbolically forms and re-forms our personal identities.”
(Craig, 125). The other view of communication, the Transmission Model,
sees communication as robotic and computer-like. The Transmission Model
sees communication as a way of sending or receiving messages and the
perfection of that. But, the Constructionist View sees communications as,
“…in human life, info does not behave as simply as bits in an electronic
stream. In human life, information flow is far more like an electric
current running from one landmine to another” (Lanham, 7). The
Constructionist View is a more realistic view of communication[opinion]
because it involves the interacting of human beings and the free sharing
of thoughts and ideas. Daniel Chandler looks to prove that the
Transmission Model is a lesser way of communicating by saying “The
transmission model is not merely a gross over-simplification but a
dangerously misleading representation of the nature of human
communication” (Chandler, 2). Humans do not communicate simply as
computers or robots so that’s why it’s essential to truly understand the
Constructionist View of Communication well. We do not simply send facts
and data to one another, but we take facts and data and they acquire
meaning through the process of communication, or through interaction with
others.
- Systemic:
This view[who?] considers communication to be the new
messages created via “through-put”, or what happens as the message is
being interpreted and re-interpreted as it travels through people.
- Critical:
This view considers communication as a source of power and oppression of
individuals and social groups.[7]
Inspection of a particular theory on this level will
provide a framework on the nature of communication as seen within the confines
of that theory.
Theories can also be studied and organized according to
the ontological, epistemological, and axiological framework imposed by the
theorist.
Ontology
Ontology essentially poses the question of what,
exactly, it is the theorist is examining. One must consider the very nature of
reality. The answer usually falls in one of three realms depending on whether
the theorist sees the phenomena through the lens of a realist, nominalist, or
social constructionist. Realist perspective views the world objectively,
believing that there is a world outside of our own experience and cognitions.
Nominalists see the world subjectively, claiming that everything outside of
one’s cognitions is simply names and labels. Social constructionists straddle
the fence between objective and subjective reality, claiming that reality is
what we create together.[unbalanced opinion][neutrality is
disputed]
Epistemology
Epistemology is an examination of how the theorist
studies the chosen phenomena. In studying epistemology, particularly from a
positivist perspective, objective knowledge is said[who?] to be the result of a systematic look at the
causal relationships of phenomena. This knowledge is usually attained through
use of the scientific method[neutrality is disputed].
Scholars often think[weasel words] that empirical evidence
collected in an objective manner is most likely to reflect truth in the
findings. Theories of this ilk are usually created to predict a phenomenon.
Subjective theory holds that understanding is based on situated knowledge,
typically found using interpretative methodology such as ethnography and also
interviews. Subjective theories are typically developed to explain or
understand phenomena in the social world.[citation
needed]
Axiology
Axiology is concerned with how values inform research
and theory development.[8] Most communication theory is guided by one
of three axiological approaches.[citation
needed] The first approach recognizes that values will
influence theorists' interests but suggests that those values must be set aside
once actual research begins. Outside replication of research findings is
particularly important in this approach to prevent individual researchers'
values from contaminating their findings and interpretations.[9] The second approach rejects the idea that
values can be eliminated from any stage of theory development. Within this
approach, theorists do not try to divorce their values from inquiry. Instead,
they remain mindful of their values so that they understand how those values
contextualize, influence or skew their findings.[10] The third approach not only rejects the idea
that values can be separated from research and theory, but rejects the idea
that they should be separated. This approach is often adopted by critical theorists
who believe that the role of communication theory is to identify oppression and
produce social change. In this axiological approach, theorists embrace their
values and work to reproduce those values in their research and theory
development.[11]
Mapping the theoretical
landscape
A discipline gets defined in large part by its
theoretical structure[weasel words]. Communication studies often
borrow theories from other social sciences[neutrality is
disputed].
This theoretical variation makes it difficult to come to terms with the field
as a whole[neutrality is disputed].
That said, some common taxonomies exist that serve to divide up the range of
communication research. Two common mappings involve contexts and assumptions.
Contexts
Many authors and researchers[who?]
divide communication by what they sometimes called "contexts" or "levels",
but which more often represent institutional histories[neutrality is
disputed].
The study of communication in the US, while occurring within departments of
psychology, sociology, linguistics, and anthropology (among others), generally
developed from schools of rhetoric and from schools of journalism.[citation needed]
While many of these have become "departments of communication", they
often retain their historical roots, adhering largely to theories from speech
communication in the former case, and from mass media in the latter. The great
divide between speech communication and mass communication
becomes complicated by a number of smaller sub-areas of communication research,
including intercultural and international communication, small group
communication, communication technology,
policy and legal studies of communication, telecommunication,
and work done under a variety of other labels. Some of these departments take a
largely social-scientific perspective, others tend more heavily toward the humanities, and still others gear themselves more
toward production and professional preparation.
These "levels" of communication provide some
way of grouping communication theories, but inevitably, some theories and
concepts leak from one area to another, or fail to find a home at all.
The Constitutive Metamodel
Another way of dividing up the communication field
emphasizes the assumptions that undergird particular theories, models, and
approaches. Robert T. Craig
suggests that the field of communication as a whole can be understood as
several different traditions who have a specific view on communication. By
showing the similarities and differences between these traditions, Craig argues
that the different traditions will be able to engage each other in dialogue
rather than ignore each other.[12] Craig proposes seven different traditions
which are:
Craig finds each of these clearly defined against the
others, and remaining cohesive approaches to describing communicative behavior.
As a taxonomic aid, these labels help to organize theory by its assumptions,
and help researchers to understand why some theories may seem incommensurable.
While communication theorists very commonly use these two
approaches, theorists decentralize the place of language
and machines as communicative technologies. The idea (as argued by Vygotsky) of communication as the primary tool of a
species defined by its tools remains on the outskirts of communication theory.
It finds some representation in the Toronto School of
communication theory (alternatively sometimes
called medium theory) as represented by the work of Innis, McLuhan,
and others. It seems that the ways in which individuals and groups use the
technologies of communication — and in some cases are used by them — remain
central to what communication researchers do. The ideas that surround this, and
in particular the place of persuasion, remain constants across both the
"traditions" and "levels" of communication theory.
Some realms of
communication and their theories
- universal
communication Law: Universal Theory, Dynamic-transactional Ansatz
- message
production: Constructivist Theory, Action Assembly Theory
- message
processing: Elaboration Likelihood
Model,
Inoculation theory
- discourse
and interaction: Speech Acts Theory, Coordinated Management
of Meaning
- developing
relationships: Uncertainty Reduction
Theory,
Social Penetration
Theory,
Predicted Outcome
Value Theory
- ongoing
relationships: Relational Systems Theory, Relational Dialectics
- organizational:
Structuration Theory, Unobtrusive and
Concertive Control Theory
- small
group: Functional Theory, Symbolic Convergence
Theory
- media
processing and effects: Social Cognitive Theory, Uses and
Gratifications Theory
- media
and society: Agenda Setting, Information deficit
model,
Spiral of silence, Symbolic Convergence
Theory
- culture:
Speech Codes Theory, Face-saving Theory
- making
social worlds: Coordinated Management
of Meaning,
Symbolic Interactionism
References
1. Shannon,
C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication.
Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press
2. Crag,
Robert T. (1999). Communication Theory as a Field.
International Communication Association. Retrieved 12.07.2011.
3. Chandler,
Daniel (1994). The Transmission Model of Communication.
University of Western Australia. Retrieved 11.06.2011.
4. Berlo,
D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York, New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston.
5. Schramm,
W. (1954). How communication works. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The process and
effects of communication (pp. 3-26). Urbana, Illinois: University of
Illinois Press.
6. Barnlund,
D. C. (2008). A transactional model of communication. In. C. D. Mortensen
(Eds.), Communication theory (2nd ed., pp47-57). New Brunswick, New
Jersey: Transaction.
7. Littlejohn,
S.W. and Foss, K.A. (2008). Theories of human communication, 9th edition.
Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
8. Miller,
Katherine (2005). Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and
Contexts 2nd Edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. ISBN 0-07-293794-7.
12.
Craig, Robert T. (May 1999). "Communication Theory as a Field"
(PDF). Communication Theory (Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; International Communication
Association
Social Plugin