Theories and Models of Communication.

NAME – IKWUETOGHU MARTINS

COURSE – BUS 2122: BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

DEPARTMENT “€“ ACCOUNTING

COLLEGE “€“ MSAT

DATE “€“ 11th of MAY, 2010

THEORIES AND MODELS OF COMMUNICATION.

INTRODUCTION

Currently, many definitions of communication are used in order to conceptualize the

processes by which people navigate and assign meaning. Communication is also

understood as the exchanging of understanding. Additionally the biocommunication theory

investigates communicative processes within and among non-humans such as bacteria,

animals, fungi and plants. 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. 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[update] expect a consensus conceptualization of

communication across disciplines.

We might say that communication consists of transmitting information. In fact, many

scholars of communication take this as a working definition, and use Lasswells maxim

(“who says what to whom”) as a means of circumscribing the field of communication.

Others stress the importance of clearly characterizing the historical, economic and social

context. The field of communication theory can benefit from a conceptualization of

communication that is widely shared. I.e. Communication consists of transmitting

information from one person to another. Lasswells maxim, states that “who says what to

whom in what channel with what effect,” as a means of circumscribing the field of

communication theory. Other commentators claim that a ritual process of communication

exists, one not artificially divorcible from a particular historical and social context.

This approaches communication theory from a biographical perspective, in an attempt to

show theory development within a social context. Many of these theorists would not

actually consider themselves “communication” researchers. The field of communication

study is remarkably inclusionary, and integrates theoretical perspectives originally

developed in a range of other disciplines. We may turn to etymology for clues:

“communication” (from the Latin “communicare”) literally means to put in common”, to

share”. The term originally meant sharing of tangible things; food, land, goods, and

property. Today, it is often applied to knowledge and information processed by living

things or computers.

DEFINITION OF TERM “COMMUNICATION”€

The Definition of communication is ubiquitous; it appears nonetheless difficult to

define. We see that different individuals define communication in different ways

depending upon their interests. Ruben (1984) says that communication is any “information

related behavior.”€ Dale (1969) says it is the sharing of ideas and feelings in a mood of

mutuality.”€ Other definitions emphasize the significance of symbols, as in Berelson and

Steiner (1964): “The transmission of information, ideas, emotions and skills”€¦by the use

of symbols,”€ and Theodorson (1969): the transmission of information, ideas, attitudes, or

emotion from one person or group to another”€¦primarily through symbols.”€

Taken together, theses definitions hint at the general picture. They also illustrate the

influence that an individuals perspective may have on the way he or she approaches a

problem. The source of the definitions works (variously) in psychology, sociology,

philosophy and education. Their definitions are influenced by the aspect of human

behavior of greatest interest to them. We will see similar influences in models of

communication in the other pages.

THEORIES & MODELS OF COMMUNICATION

Many suggest that there is no such thing as a successful body of communication theory,

but that we have been relatively more successful in generating models of communication.

A model, according to Karl Deutsch 1952 (“On Communication Models in the Social

Sciences”), is “a structure of symbols and operating rules which is supposed to match a set

of relevant points in an existing structure or process.” In other words, it is a simplified

representation or template of a process that can be used to help understand the nature of

communication in a social setting. Such models are necessarily not one-totione maps of the

real world, but they are successful only insofar as they accurately represent the most

important elements of the real world, and the dynamics of their relationship to one another.

Deutsch suggests that a model should provide four functions. It should organize a

complex system (while being as general as possible), and should provide an heuristic

function. Both these functions are similar to those listed above for theories. He goes on to

suggest models should be as original as possible, that they should not be obvious enough

that they fail to shed light on the existing system. They should also provide some form of

measurement of the system that will work analogously within the model and within the

actual system being observed.

Models provide a simplified view of something to be studied. We choose those elements

of interest and use the model to help us frame questions and predictions. The elements we

include (or exclude) and the relationships between them that we represent will by necessity

dictate the domain of inquiry. What we dont see (or acknowledge) we cannot study. I.e.

Models are tools of inquiry in a way that theories may not be. By representing the system

being observed, they provide a way of working through the problems of a “real world”

system in a more abstract way. As such, they lend themselves to the eventual construction

of theory, though it may be that theory of the sort found in the natural sciences is

something that cannot be achieved in the social sciences. Unfortunately, while models

provide the “what” and the “how,” they are not as suited to explaining “why,” and therefore

are rarely as satisfying as strong theory.

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 charity,

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 Robert A. Lanham and Erving Goffman that style and performance is the whole process.

Communication Theory attempts to document types of communication, and to optimize

communications for the benefit of all. Indeed, a theory is some form of explanation of a

class of observed phenomena. Karl Popper colorfully described theory as the net which we

throw out in order to catch the world–to rationalize, explain, and dominate it.” The idea of

a theory lies at the heart of any scholarly process, and while those in the social sciences

tend to adopt the tests of a good theory from the natural sciences, many who study

communication adhere to an idea of communication theory that is akin to that found in

other academic fields.

This approaches communication theory from a biographical perspective, in an attempt to

show theory development within a social context. Many of these theorists would not

actually consider themselves “communication” researchers. The field of communication

study is remarkably inclusionary, and integrates theoretical perspectives originally

developed in a range of other disciplines. Humans communicate everyday. Communication

is a basic activity by which humans consider fundamental. Everybody delivers messages

but not everybody understands the underlying theories and studies about this way of life.

The following are the major theorist with their theories and models

COMMUNICATION THEORIES AND MODELS

|

|Verbal Model of |1948 |Harold Lasswell |Who says what in which channel

to|Persuasive speaker |

|

|Transmission Model of |1949 |Claude Shannon & |Diagram of Transmission Model

of |Telephone conversation, Radio or television broadcast |

|

| | | | |

|

|Coorientation Model of |1953 |Theodore |Diagram of Coorientation Model

of|Tobacco companies and health agencies differ on public |

|Communication | |Newcomb |Communication (see below)

|policies about tobacco. |

| | | | |

|

Congruency |

|Shared Experience Model of|1954 |Wilbur Schramm |Diagram of Shared Experience

|Successful message encoding and decoding depends on |

language and values. |

meanings |

|Transcendental Model of |1967 |Alfred Schutz |Diagram of Transcendental Model

|Cultural and background differences result in different |

|Communication | | |of Communication (see below)

|understandings of messages. |