Communication: The Study of Human Interaction - Essay Example

Transmission Model of the al Affiliation Communication is paramount in any dealing as it enables one to learn what the otherparty requires or needs to convey. By definition, communication is a systematic process through which individuals interact with another through the use of symbols to create and interpret meaning. The importance of communication in real life situation has attracted various researchers and scholars to unravel the mystery of communication. As such, various models have been developed to enable illustrate how communication takes place. These are known as transmission model of communication (Shannon & Claude, 2008). The foundation of the transmission models dates back from the very beginnings of scientific reflections to Weaver’s and Shannon’s works. In fact, this model forms the basis of all communication theory that has been presented and is usually referred to as mother of all transmission models and has played a big role in the development of communication science in the twentieth century. Transmission Model can be considered as a mathematical interpretation of how communication between two people occurs. This model was invented by Shannon and Weaver in 1949. The model enables people to understand how communication takes place. It is built on the following premise. There are eight major elements of communication model namely sender, encoding, channel, receiver, decoding, message, feedback, and noise. The sender is the source of the message and is responsible for encoding the message and success or failure of the message. The sender control how the information is received from the other end. For instance, when the sender gives accurate information, the receiver gets the right thing on the other end. The sender presents multiple truths. Through representing certain truth, the sender set a standard for a new idea. Encoding: this is done through verbal and non-verbal signs. It is involves gaining the meaning of the idea or thought being reflected. This information to be encoded is based on the production of the sender and highly depends on how the sender sent the information (Shannon &Claude, 2008). Message refers to the matter the sender is communicating about. The message is considered as the object of communication completely controlled by the sender. The message can be either verbal or non-verbal communication. The channel refers to the means through which the sender uses to communicate to the receiver. It is an outlet to send a message to the receiver and back to the sender. The message sent back is referred to as feedback. It is an avenue or path whereby an individual can express himself or herself. For a channel to complete for communication, it must contain the right time, place and occasion. The meaning is usually reflected through the channel either connotative or denotative. It is, therefore, important for the user to use the channel eloquently so as to consider the argument as solid and reliable. The receiver is at the end of the communication channel. The receiver encodes the message and gets the meaning. From this meaning, the sender gives the feedback to the sender. Decoding: this involves converting code symbols back into information conducted by the receiver. The translation takes a specific interpretation that has been encoded by the sender. The context may influence the way the receiver decodes the idea. The feedback means the information sent back to the source. It is part of cause and effect chain (Shannon &Claude, 2008). The purpose is to modify the sender’s idea or implication. Feedback can have claims and contentions supported by evidence and reasoning. Noise can be defined as anything that distorts the communication process. Noise may not necessary come from the audience but can be as a result of orator being inappropriate to the audience. In essence, from these elements of communication, language can be conceptualized as a ‘wire’ necessary for transmission of thoughts which means ability to ‘insert meaning into words; through writing and speaking to people pack thoughts into words. Therefore, the words include the thoughts. As a result, fruitful communication is based on extracting the correct meaning of the message package in which the sender packed dressed by the thoughts. The above discussion contains the most important formulations that can serve to scientific knowledge about communication (Carey & James, 2008). Despite being a basis for explaining scientific explanations, the model has been heavily criticized. There are several types of controversies that arose out of the transmission models as a way of explaining the communicating processes. The most vivid one is the presence of psychologist elements in it. Mostly, the model is considered as self-evident or even non-negotiable. But at the same time, the model is leveled with heavy criticism especially from transactionist, constitutive and ritual approaches to communication. Another issue leading to criticism is the notable reduction of communication activities for the transfer of information. Such reduction is the legacy the modern science of communication inherited from the pioneering work of such people as Claude Shannon and Warren Weave that emerged from the formal sciences: cybernetics, mathematics and computer science. In the recent time, however, it is greatly emphasized that the transfer of information is one of the very many but not the only function of communication. The third issue concerns the transmittance on the whole aspect of communication process which concerns on the metaphor of transmission which imposes certain way of talking and thinking about it to all and sundry including the researchers and ordinary participants (Hovland & Carl, 2007). The statement referring communication as the transfer of information and messages is certainly not wrong. Nevertheless, it is too narrow to describe the communication process. It appears the issue arises on how to use the character of the quantifier. From the critics point of view, the above statement is perhaps true only if the preceded by a small quantifier. But it would be completely wrong if the statement is preceded by a large quantifier (Newcomb & Theodore, 2006). Communication is also the transfer of news and information among other things. The same case applies to the function of communication. There are countless such functions some more common while other less common but it would be difficult to identify just one or even two or three functions of communication. Arguably, the multiplicity of communication corresponds with the multiplicity of social practices of the communicative nature of actions. Therefore, the theory of communication does not apply to a particular type of activity but a whole range of various activities identified as communication. Equating communication process with the transfer of news or information is an expression of reductionist tendencies which is a core characteristic of the transmission paradigm. There is a common question that arises out of this: is the communication model constructed on the basis of cybernetic and mathematical theories, reducing the perception of communication to data transfer supported by feedback, a satisfactory tool for research in the humanities and social sciences? Certainly, it is reasonable to conclude that they are effective particularly when an object of communication that the scholar has an interest in such as mass media and telecommunication studies. In such cases, the transmission mode is useful because it is created for the purpose of the analysis of the phenomena of this type. The after- mentioned reductionism is perhaps harmless to a quantitative research of press for example but would be difficult to accept in humanities as it gives the idea of communication on a historical character. A thorough reduction of communication to data transfer is mostly combined with the assumption of restrictiveness and exclusivity of the transmission model. Since it is proposed that communication is everywhere basing on the transfer of mental content from an individual’s mind A to individual’s mind B, then it is concurrently recognized that communication practices have not and will probably not go through any historical transformations. It is understood that irrespective of time and place interpersonal communication has been executed, in the same way, to conceptualize it is a transmission model itself. The contentious argument on this radical form of transmission prototype can, therefore, be justified. There is a need to integrate the assumption of considering communication to be a historical phenomenon. For instance, it includes striving to determine whether the transmission model is the only type of thought that serves as a point of reference for the way we talk about communication. Although one can argue with the exclusivity of the transmission model, it would be totally difficult to reject the assumption of conceptualization of social phenomena including communication. Even a rather relativistic position that permits the communication practitioner the benefit of historicity is based on the recognition that various aspect of conceptualization of communication underwent historical transformation. The transmission model appeared at around seventeenth and eighteenth century in the midst of the transforming communication. Conclusion The transmission model just like any other approaches is a conceptualization that has been designed by researcher in a given social and historical context and in relation to a specific theoretical assumption as well as in relation to the discipline of science. This translate to in converse to the occasionally formulated hypothesis, it is neither exclusionary nor absolute. Another conclusion is that the range of applicability of the transmission model in the study of communication is indeed broad but not unlimited (Mortensen & David, 2002). For this hypothesis to hold true, it requires some justification. First, it is important to emphasize the importance of the circumstances and context of Weaver and Shannon’s mathematical communication theory that inspired the transmission model and even the subsequent ones. One argument that proofs right considering the basic premise of the model is that it was developed in response to particular needs which is telecommunication. It has been transferred to an area of entirely different research problems. Despite these claims, the model of transmission holds so much on how the communication takes place. It may not be right on it’s every aspect, but it strives to give a clue on how the process starts and completes the cycle (Burke & Porter, 2003). References Berelson, Bernard and Steiner, G.A. 2004. Human Behavior, New York: Harcourt. Burke, Peter and Roy Porter. 2003. The Social History of Language. Cambridge: University Press. Carey, James W. 2008. Communication as Culture. New York & London: Routledge. (Carey & James, 2008) Glock, Hans-Johann. 1996. A Wittgenstein Dictionnary. Oxford: Blackwell. Hoben, John. 2004. “English Communication at Colgate Re-Examined,” Journal of Communication 4, 76–86. Hovland, Carl. 2007. “Social Communication,” in Theorizing Communication. Reading Across Traditions, eds. R.T. Craig, H.L. Muller. Los Angeles: Sage. Mortensen, David C. 2002. Communication: The Study of Human Interaction. New York: McGraw-Hill. Newcomb, Theodore. 2006. “An Approach to the Study of Communication Acts.” In Communication and Culture, ed. A.G. Smith, 66–79. New York: Holt. Pearson, Bruce. 2007. Introduction to Linguistic Concepts. New York: Knopf. Shannon, Claude. 2008. “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379–423. Read More