Communication Theory - Personal Statement Example

Communication Theory Communication competence is the ability to interact with others in a way that transfers meaning correctly as desired. It is two way, as it includes speaking in way that the listeners will understand and listening for what they mean. “Humans act toward people, things, and events on the basis of the meanings they assign to them.” ("Theory Resources—A First Look at Communication Theory.") Therefore, someone who has developed communicative competence will find a way to examine and understand how the listener will interpret his words by identifying the meanings the listener ascribes to the speaker’s words. The speaker will then identify how the listener would communicate what the speaker means and use what he has learned. At the same time a competent communicator will listen to the other person with a clear understanding of how that person interprets the words he uses and understand his meaning in the process. There will almost always be some common ground from which to work. By working from known shared meanings, it is possible to attach new meanings and new workds by comparing either similarity or difference. Using the more visual metaphor or simile can work well in these circumstances, as long as there is also a clear shared understanding of meanings carries by such imagery. For example one might explain “timidity” as being afraid of small things, such as l0ooking someone else in the eye. However, in some Eastern and Asian cultures, it is the height of rudeness and a very aggressive act to look someone else directly in the eye. The opportunities for miscommunication are many and truly competent communicators are few. II: Discussing Plans for Saturday Night with my Friend’s Mother FM: So I heard you Murray and Carl planning to go bird watching with you tonight. Where will you do that? Me: Oh right on the boardwalk. There’s flocks of them there. FM: Really? At night? Me: Oh you know they love the bright lights and the music. FM: That music? I would think it would drive them away. Me: Well I admit it is a tad loud, and keeps the same beat all night, but one little drink solves that whole problem. They start dancing and get more thirsty, drink a little more and pretty some they love everything. FM: That sounds more like you are planning to catch them. Me: Oh no, nothing quite so crude. After all, they can’t fly. FM: What kinds of birds are they, Penguins or Dodos? Me: Oh no, they’re just girls. I’m sorry. Murray’s a Brit. To him all birds are girls, doncha know? FM: No, I don’t. The prettiest ones are the boys. Me: I stood silent for many seconds and then started to laugh. III: Analysis of the Miscommunication in the Conversation and the Causes In the previous conversation, the two speakers did not share the same definition for several of the key words. Notably the two most important were “bird” and “fly”, which are colloquial expressions in Great Britain meaning “girl” and “run away”. Several other parts of the conversation were ambiguous when paired with the meanings of these two words. “Drink” was meant as an alcoholic beverage, but was interpreted as meaning water by the listener, because she was convinced the conversation was about the animals that have wings and fly mostly in the day time. Neither participant in this conversation were actually competent communicators, since neither one tried to establish a base of meaning before carrying on with the conversation. The use of slang expressions is not anticipating what the listener will understand in the first place, and when the listener misunderstood, she continued talking without trying to clarify what was meant. Since neither participant in this conversation really understood the other, it was difficult to resolve the miscommunication. One must know there is a problem, before resolution becomes possible (Shaklee and Merz 13-20). The first speaker used a term from the previously overheard conversation without asking if she had heard correctly, that Murray had said “birds”. Therefore, the listen and second speaker assumed she meant what Murray originally meant, that they were going girl watching. The miscommunication was compounded when the second speaker added more colloquialism to the conversation: There’s flocks of them there. This expression supported the misunderstanding of the word “bird” by the first speaker. A competent communicator would have used the standard term “girls” in some way to avoid miscommunication. Then it would have been funny for both of them. Whenever there is a doubt concerning a term used, switching to a common standard term will avoid confusion without embarrassing the other person. This is especially important when there is someone who is part of the interaction that originates from a different culture (Shaklee and Merz 13-20). The last major mistake in communication was the response after the second speaker understood that the first speaker had misunderstood. The attempt to define the misunderstood work “bird” was unsuccessful, since the speaker was not clear enough and did not specifically apologize for the misunderstanding. It is not necessary to directly admit fault. However, the first speaker would have realized that the conversation had changes if the second speaker had said, “Oh I’m sorry. Did you not know that Murray is British?” The added colloquialism of “Doncha know?” is often merely an expression of emphasis, so did not communicate that message either. The additional age gap is another factor for which either conversant could have compensated if they really were competent communicators. However, neither one moved to a more formal voice and standard expressions in order to eliminate misunderstanding due to the age gap. That gap in age is nearly as strong as a cultural gap for communication and bother parties should be aware of it (Hays ). Communication competency should include both speaking and listening and all parties to a conversation should attempt to be as clear as possible. When there are visible cultural differences due to geographical or ethnic origins, age, gender or language, all participants should attempt to speak using standard English with no slang expressions. When one person looks confused another should ask if there is complete understanding. In this case neither participant payed any attention to the facial expressions, and the first speaker possibly overheard the original problematic term without actually seeing the speaker. True communication can only be achieved by paying close attention to all the clues, and working hard at communicating and understanding from both points of view Works Cited "Theory Resources—A First Look at Communication Theory."Web. 12/11/2013 . Hays, Pamela A. Addressing Cultural Complexities in Practice. New York: American Psychological Association, 2008. Print. Shaklee, Beverley, and Sydney Merz. "Intercultural Communication Competency for International Educators." International Schools Journal 32.1 (2012): 13-20. Print.  . Read More