comm theory: on seminal theories john a. cagle, ph.d. communication california state university,...

45
COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Post on 22-Dec-2015

216 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

COMM THEORY:On Seminal Theories

John A. Cagle, Ph.D.Communication

California State University, Fresno

Page 2: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Who Says What in Which Channel to Whom with What Effect?

Harold D. Lasswell (1948)

Page 3: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Franklin Fearing (1953)

Communication behavior is a specific form of molar behavior which occurs in a situation or field possessing specified properties, the parts of which are in interdependent relationship with each other. A theory of such behavior is concerned with forces, psychological, social, and physical, which determine the course of this behavior and its outcomes in relation to the culture in which it occurs.

Page 4: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

(a) the forces which determine the effects of communication, that is, constructs regarding individuals designated interpreters;(b) the forces which determine the production of communications, that is, constructs about communicators;(c) the nature of communications content considered as a stimulus field;(d) the characteristics of the situation or field in which communication occurs.

Such a theory should formulate hypothetical constructs and present a terminology with appropriate definitions in the following four interrelated areas:

Page 5: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Information TheoryClaude Shannon

Page 6: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Shannon & Weaver (1947)

Norbert Weiner’s Cybernetics added the notion of feedback to this communication model.

Page 7: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Information Theory

In a perfect communication system, the sender and receiver have identical knowledge of the code.

All possible messages are known in advance. The source makes a choice to send a

message from the set of possible messages. The receiver needs to know what choice the

sender made.

Page 8: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno
Page 9: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno
Page 10: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Information is not content

A message has information if it reduces the uncertainty about what choice the sender made.

If the choice is already known to the receiver, the message is redundant.

Information is not content in information theory.

Page 11: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is that the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Amzanig huh?

Page 12: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Information is not meaning

Information is different from the content and meaning of messages.

Information is not the interpretation of information.

Peter Drucker wrote of the difference between informating and communicating in an organization.

Page 13: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Entropy

Entropy is randomness, chaos, the lack of organization and predictability.

Entropy is uncertainty. Information reduces entropy in a

communication system. Entropy is variable in most situations.

Page 14: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Measurement of Information

The smallest unit of information is a bit

Eight bits = one byte Four bytes = one word

These terms are still at the core of computer science• E.g., 32-bit word processors in the CPU

Page 15: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Measurement of Information

I = - log2 pi

is the formula for measuring the information value of each message sent against the probability of that message in the field of all the messages that could be sent.

Page 16: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Measurement of Information

H = - ∑ pi log2 pi

is the formula for measuring the amount of information of all the messages that could be sent in a communication system.

Page 17: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Choices

Signal: we make choices about which signal to send (sounds, letters, etc.)

Semantics: we make choices in a given situation about which meaning to send.• Lexical choice

• Meaning

Pragmatics: we make choices in a given situation about which behaviors to enact.

Page 18: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Communication behavior is a specific form of molar behavior _____1_____ occurs in a situation or field possessing specified properties, ____2_____ parts of which are in interdependent relationship with each _____3_____. A theory of such behavior is concerned with forces, _____4_____, social, and physical, which determine the course of this _____5_____ and its outcomes in relation to the culture in _____6_____ it occurs.

Page 19: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

We construct messages which "are, in effect, overlayed to form the large and complex communication environment or 'mosaic' in which each of us exists. This mosaic consists of an immense number of fragments or bits of information on an immense number of topics. . . . These bits are scattered over time and space and modes of communication. Each individual must grasp from this mosaic those bits which serve his needs, must group them into message sets which are relevant for him at any given time, and within each message set must organize the bits and close the gaps between them in order to arrive at a coherent picture of the world to which he can respond."

Samuel Becker (1968)

Page 20: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno
Page 21: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Leah Vande Berg on Becker (1999)

One of the most visionary aspects of Becker’s essay was his call for communication scholars to reconceptualize how we think of messages. . . . Becker’s call for message-audience centered critical studies of differences among audience members moved far beyond the “active audience” notion. . . . In fact, Becker’s mosaic model of the fragmented processes entailed in receiving information and creating meanings, and his assertion that critical scholars should concentrate on differences among segments of audiences, prefigured the subsequent development of audience-centered critical media studies.

Page 22: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Information theory analysis

choices freq rel freq I

one 10 0.33 1.584963 -0.53

two 6 0.20 2.321928 -0.46

three 3 0.10 3.321928 -0.33

four 3 0.10 3.321928 -0.33

five 1 0.03 4.906891 -0.16

six 1 0.03 4.906891 -0.16

seven 1 0.03 4.906891 -0.16

eight 1 0.03 4.906891 -0.16

nine 1 0.03 4.906891 -0.16

ten 1 0.03 4.906891 -0.16

eleven 1 0.03 4.906891 -0.16

twelve 1 0.03 4.906891 -0.16

30

1.00 H= 2.97

Page 23: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Ring a-round the roses,A pocket full of posies,_____1_____! Ashes! We all fall down!

Three blind mice,See how they run!They all _____2_____ after a farmer's wife,Who cut off their tails _____3_____ a carving knife.Did you ever see such a ____4______ in your life,As three blind mice?

Page 24: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Brian está en el aeropuerto de Barajas en Madrid. _____1_____ y otros estudiantes del grupo esperan la llegada del _____2_____ para ir a Leób. Deben esperar una hora. ¿Qué ____3______ hacer?

1 Alice

2 vuelo

3 deciden

Page 25: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Fritz Heider (1946)

Balance Theory

People try to maintain a certain type of consistency between their opinions of other people and their opinions of what those other people say.

Imbalance produces a psychological stress that must be resolved.

Page 26: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno
Page 27: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno
Page 28: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Theodore Newcomb (1953)

Communication among humans performs the essential function of enabling two or more individuals to maintain simultaneous orientation toward one another as communicators and toward objects of communication.

The term “orientation” is used as equivalent to “attitude” in its more inclusive sense of referring to both cathectic and cognitive tendencies.

Page 29: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

A

X

B

Page 30: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

John

TunaCasserole

Eve+

+

+

“I love you, Eve”

“I have cooked adelicious casserolefor our dinner.”

“I love you, John”

“Crap—I hatetuna casserole.” -

Page 31: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Westley & MacLean (1957)

Page 32: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno
Page 33: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967)

Their theory is based on a systems paradigm. Their book, Pragmatics of Human Communication, posited five axioms of communication.

Page 34: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967)

Five Axioms of Communication

1. One cannot not communicate. 2. Every communication has a content and a relationship

aspect such that the latter defines the former and is therefore metacommunication.

3. Every communication sequence is defined by the way the interactants punctuate communication events.

4. Interpersonal contacts are digital and analogic. 5. Communication relationships are either symmetrical or

complementary.

Page 35: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

1. What are the communicative events, and their components, in a community?2. What are the relationships among them?3. What capabilities and states do they have, in general, and in particular events?4. How do they work?

Del Hymes (1966)

Page 36: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

The concept of a message is taken as implying the sharing (real or imputed) of a code (or codes) in terms of which a message is intelligible to participants, minimally an addressor and addressee, in an event constituted by transmission of the message, and characterized by a channel, a setting or context, a definite form or shape in the message, and a topic or comment.

Page 37: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Hymes builds upon Jakobson’s Model of Communicative Functions (1960)

Type Oriented Function Example towards

emotive addresser expressing It’s bloody feelings or pissing downattitudes again!

referential context imparting It’s raining.information

conative addressee influencing Wait here till it behaviour stops raining!

(cf. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Functions/mcs.html)

Page 38: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Jakobson’s Model continued

Type Oriented Function Example towards

phatic contact establishing or Nasty weather maintaining again, isn’t it?

social relationships

metalingual code referring to the This is the nature of the weatherinteraction forecast.

poetic message foregrounding It droppeth as textual features the gentle rain

from heaven.

(http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Functions/mcs.html)

Page 39: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Hymes adds contextual and metacommunicative functions to Jakobson

Page 40: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Frank E. X. Dance (1970)

His study identified 15 distinct conceptual components in the various definitions. His analysis identified three points of "critical conceptual differentiation" which form the basic dimensions along which the various definitions differ: (1) Level of observation. E.g., restricted as in a definition pertaining to radio communication, very broad as in Stevens's definition of communication as a discriminatory response of a organism to a stimulus. (2) Intentionality. (3) Normative judgment. Implicit judgment as to success or value of the behavior.

Page 41: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Conceptual Components of Communication

Symbols/verbal/speech Understanding Interaction/relationship/

social process Reduction of uncertainty Process Transfer/transmission/

interchange Linking/bonding

Commonality Channel/carrier/means/

route Replicating memories Discriminative response/

behavior-modifying-response

Stimuli Intentional Time/situation Power

Page 42: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno
Page 43: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Bowers and Bradac Axioms (1984)A number of competing sets of axioms undergird contemporary communication research and theory.

1a Communication is the transmission and reception of information.1b Communication is the generation of meaning.

2a Communication is individual behavior.2b Communication is the relationship among behaviors of interacting individuals.

3a Human communication is unique.3b Human communication is a form of animal communication.

Page 44: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

4a Communication is processual.4b Communication is static.

5a Communication is contextualized.5b Communication is noncontextualized.

6a Human beings cannot not communicate.6b Human beings can not communicate.

7a Communication is a ubiquitous and powerful force in society.7b Communication is one among many forces in society, and a relatively weak one.

Page 45: COMM THEORY: On Seminal Theories John A. Cagle, Ph.D. Communication California State University, Fresno

Definitional Issues

Intentionality: to what degree, if any, does intention play in communication?

Symbolic behaviors: what behavior is symbolic?

Rhetorical theory and communication theory