Advantage of Osgood- Schramm model of communication

Communication models.

Communication is a slippery concept, and while we may casually use the word with some frequency, it is difficult to arrive at a precise definition that is agreeable to most of those who consider themselves communication scholars. Communication is so deeply rooted in human behaviors and the structures of society that it is difficult to think of any social event that does not include communication. We might say that communication consists of transmitting information from one person to another. More precisely it may be defined as transferring thoughts, information, emotion and ideas through gesture, voice, symbols, signs and expressions from one person to another. In fact, many scholars of communication take this as a working definition. Furthermore, communication theory itself is, in many ways, an attempt to describe and explain precisely what communication is. Three things are most important and essential in any communication process they are Sender, Receiver and the Channel (medium). These three elements are indispensable to a successful model of communication. A model, according to a seminal 1952 article by Karl Deutsch ("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-to-one 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. The basic model, namely – sender, receiver and the channel was suggested by Claud Shannon and Warren Weaver. It is considered to be the fundamental, basic model, often called “mother of all models”. The 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. The revised model includes: sender, message, transmission, noise, channel, reception and receiver. Nowadays, this model proves to be less effective for being too linear.

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 semantic problem: how precisely is the meaning 'conveyed'?

The effectiveness problem: how effectively does the received meaning affect behavior?

Daniel Chandler critiques the transmission model by stating:

It assumes communicators are isolated individuals.

No allowance for differing purposes.

No allowance for differing interpretations.

No allowance for unequal power relations.

Willbur Schramm’s communication model is a Circular Model, so that communication is something circular in nature. Wilbur Schramm (1954) indicated that we should examine the impact that a message has (both desired and undesired) on the target of the message. Between parties, communication includes acts that confer knowledge and experience, 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:

1. Syntactic (formal properties of signs and symbols),

2. Pragmatic (concerned with the relations between signs/expressions and their users) and

3. Semantic (study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent).

Therefore, communication is a 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.

Speech act theory.

A speech act is a minimal functional unit in human communication. Just as a word is the smallest free form found in language and a morpheme is the smallest unit of language that carries information about meaning, the basic unit of communication is a speech act (the speech act of apology, refusal).

Speech act theory attempts to explain how speakers use language to accomplish intended actions and how hearers infer intended meaning form what is said. Although speech act studies are now considered a sub-discipline of cross-cultural pragmatics, they actually take their origin in the philosophy of language. Philosophers like John Austin (1962), Paul Grice (1957), and John Searle (1965, 1969, 1975) offered basic insight into this new theory of linguistic communication based on the assumption that “the minimal units of human communication are not linguistic expressions, but rather the performance of certain kinds of acts, such as making statements, asking questions, giving directions, apologizing, thanking, and so on” (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989, p.2).

According to John Austin's theory (1962), what we say has three kinds of meaning:

1. propositional meaning (locutionary meaning) - the literal meaning of what is said e.g. It's hot in here.

2. illocutionary meaning - the social function of what is said

' It's hot in here' could be:

- an indirect request for someone to open the window

- an indirect refusal to close the window because someone is cold

- a complaint (expressed emphatically)

3. perlocutionary meaning - the effect of what is said

' It's hot in here' could result in someone opening the windows.

Locutionary Act: Is the basic act of speaking, made up of three sub acts.

Phonic – utterance inscription, noises. Phoneme /s/

Phatic – act of comprising linguistic expression. Intentionally produced words in a syntactic order. /sta:p/

Rhetic – act of contextualizing the utterance inscription. Syntactic arrangement of words with certain intentions in certain contexts in certain messages.

Illocutionary Act: Is the speaker’s intention. What is said has a purpose in mind. An utterance either verbal or written with the purpose in mind to fulfill an intention or accomplish an action. Performing an illocutionary act means issuing an utterance that carries an illocutionary force/point. Examples of illocutionary forces would be accusing, promising, naming, ordering. The meaning of a locutionary utterance has a potential of different illocutionary forces.

  The gun is loaded.

This statement could have the intention of creating threat, or be a warning or simply be an explanation.

This is called the Illocutionary Act Potential.

Perlocutionary Act: act by which the illocution produces a certain effect in or exerts a certain influence on the addressee. The perloctionary act represents a consequence of the speaker’s utterance. The speaker does not have full control over the perlocutionary effect though (!). The actual influence that is realized is not always predictable. A speaker may have control over illocutionary force in the utterance “open the safe now or else!” but the speaker can not control what the perlocutionary effect will be. The addressee could open the safe or the addressee could have a heart attack.

Indirect Speech Acts

In most languages, we have three basic sentence types: declarative, interrogative and imperative. If there is no direct relationship between a sentence type and an illocutionary force, the speech act is indirect. If there is a direct match, it is a direct speech act.

Examples:

1. “Pass the salt!” - Imperative is used to make a request > direct speech act.

2. “Can you pass the salt?” - Interrogative is used to make a request > indirect speech act.

Some more examples: For instance, my remark that you are standing on my foot is normally taken as a demand that you move; my question whether you can pass the salt is normally taken as a request that you do so. These are examples of so-called indirect speech acts (Searle 1975).

Indirect speech acts are less common than might first appear. In asking whether you are intending to quit smoking, I might be taken as well to be suggesting that you quit. However, while the embattled smoker might indeed jump to this interpretation, we do well to consider what evidence would mandate it. After all, while I probably would not have asked whether you intended to quit smoking unless I hoped you would quit, I can evince such a hope without suggesting anything. Similarly, the advertiser who tells us that Miracle Cream reversed hair loss in Bob, Mike, and Fred, also most likely hopes that I will believe it will reverse my own hair loss. That does not show that he is (indirectly) asserting that it will. Whether he is asserting this depends on whether he can be accused of being a liar if in fact he does not believe that Miracle Cream will staunch my hair loss.

Analysis of an indirect speech act

Searle’s approach:

- assume the existence of a dual illocutionary force: the non-literal/indirect force is primary; the literal/direct force is secondary

- Whether an utterance operates as an indirect speech act or not has to do with the relevant felicity conditions.

- Some kind of inference is necessary when an addressee understands an indirect speech act that a speaker performs.

- Apart from inference, there is a certain degree of conventionality about speech acts.

Message design logic

Message design logic

Since people think about communication differently, they construct different types of messages. A message design logic, MDL, then, is your belief about communication that, in turn, links thoughts to the construction of messages. Stated differently, people who have different views about the nature and function of communication will construct different types of messages. This difference in message type is particularly evident when a person is faced with communication challenges such as dealing with a difficult coworker. According Barbara O’Keefe, there are three types of design logics from which people operate.

The expressive MDL is a sender-focused pattern. That is, a person using this pattern is concerned primarily with self-expression. Communication is viewed as a means for conveying the sender’s thoughts and feelings. People who use the expressive MDL have a very difficult time holding back their thoughts; if it’s in their head, it’s out their mouth. They value openness, honesty and clarity in communication and are mistrustful of anyone who seems overly strategic in his or her communication. Such communicators pay little attention to context and what may be appropriate behaviour for a particular context. For example, when faced with potential sexual harassment at work (in an office), a person using an expressive MDL might respond in this way: “You are the most rude and disgusting man I have ever met. You are nothing but a dirty old man. Where do you get off thinking you could force me to have an affair with you? You make me sick”.

A person who uses the conventional MDL views communication as a rule-based game that is played cooperatively. As such, those using the conventional MDL are primarily concerned with appropriateness; these individuals view communication contexts, roles, and relationships as having particular guidelines for behaviour. They are concerned about saying and doing the “right” thing in any given situation. To do the “right” thing, they follow the rules of politeness. Keeping our example of dealing with potential sexual harassment, a person using a conventional MDL might respond (example): “There’s absolutely no chance I will have an affair with, and if you try to fire me over this I won’t keep quiet about it. That kind of behaviour is not appropriate in the workplace. Besides, you are married. Don’t approach me again”. In this case, the message sender makes several allusions to communication rules; not only does he or she point out that his behaviour “is not appropriate in the workplace” but the speaker also refers to an implicit rule by saying “you’re married”, which is a social relationship that is constrained by certain behavioral guidelines.

Individuals using a rhetorical MDL view communication as a powerful means used to create situations and negotiate multiple goals. Instead of emphasizing self-expressing (expressive logic) or social appropriateness (conventional logic), those, acting on the basis of a rhetorical design logic focus on the effect of messages on the recipient. This approach is noted for flexibility, as well as for its sophistication and depth of communication skills. Those using a rhetorical MDL pay close attention to other people’s communication in an effort to figure out theirs’ points of view. They try to anticipate and prevent problems by redefining situations to benefit all parties involved in the interaction. An example of a rhetorical MDL in the potential sexual harassment situation is as follows: “We have got a great working relationship now, and I’d like us to work well together in the future. So I think it’s important for us to talk it out. You are a smart and clear-thinking guy and I consider you to be my friend as well as my boss. That’s why I have to think you must be under a lot of unusual stress lately to have said something like this. I know what it’s like to be under pressure. Too much stress can really make you crazy. You probably just need a break”.

The sender strives to maintain a good working relationship with the person in the future. This is accomplished by redefining the situation from one of sexual harassment to one of excessive stress. By reframing the message, the rhetorical communicator has found “a common drama in which to play” [Applying Communication Theory for Professional Life: A Practical Introduction: P.: 36-37].

Expectancy violation theory

The theory was developed on the basis of expectancy violation model by Judee Burgoon. The Expectancy Violation Theory looks at how individuals react to the communication of others, either positively or negatively. The theory suggests that people hold expectations about the verbal and non-verbal behavior of others. Individuals will respond in specific ways when expectancies are violated. Communication occurs during the exchange of information, and this communication can be either verbal or nonverbal. Individuals have preconceived notions (or expectancies) of how others should act. Violations of expectancies cause arousal and compel the recipient to initiate a series of cognitive appraisals of the violation. The theory proposes that expectancy will influence the outcome of the communication as positive or negative and predicts that positive violations increase the attraction of the violator and negative violations decrease the attraction of the violator.

The Expectancy Violation Theory looks at how individuals react to the communication of others. Either communication is reinforced in a positive manner (i.e. smiling, agreeing, eye contact, etc.) or in a negative manner (i.e. frowning, creating a physical distance, etc.). We learn what we consider to be appropriate through our interactions with others and our culture. (Burgoon, 1993a).

At the heart of this theory is the notion of “personal space” and our reactions to others who seem to “violate” our sense of personal space, which the theory defines as “the invisible variable volume of space surrounding an individual that defines individual’s preferred distance from others. Personal space varies according to cultural norms and individual preferences. Personal space represents the balance between conflicting needs for affiliation and privacy. For us to better understand the said theory, Let us site an example. The perfect one is the movie “How to lose a guy in ten days”. The movie is a feel-good romantic comedy with a twist of drama. The movie tells a story of two different people bound to meet at the right place at a right time but with the wrong reasons. Andy is a magazine writer who works on a magazine article entitled ”How to lose a guy in ten days” which centers on how Andy will be dumped by the guy she is dating in just ten days. Ben is a an executive in an advertisement company who bets with his boss that he can make a woman fall in love for him in just ten days. But where is the EVT? How is the movie connected with EVT? Let us site some scenes that have a connection with the concepts with the Expectancy Violation Theory.

In the first part of the movie, Ben invited Andy into his place after they meet at the party then the first violation began. A girl who just met a guy is not expected to do what Andy did - at least for those who conform to morality in the 21st century. He is trying to provoke Ben into a more physical intimacy through kissing. She is trying to light up a flame of intimacy between the two of them. In this scene, Andy’s actions are the violations while she herself is the violator. But Ben did not entertain her action of seducing thus the action was perceived differently. Ben did not took it negatively because he did not back of or was turned of which was supposedly Andy’s objective. But let us also put into consideration that Ben controlled his action because of his motive-for Andy to fall for him thus the reward valence made its entrance. Ben thought of the reward he will get. But in the same scene he showed physical arousal which is one of the concepts of EVT. Physical arousal is defined as the behavior that the communicator employs during the interaction such as moving out at uncomfortable speaking distance which Ben showed in the scene, He moved out at the distance when the interaction-kissing- happened.

Another scene that could be related to EVT is those scenes where Andy was always sticking with Ben. She would always call him at work and would always want to be with him, even the time that Ben spends with his friends, Andy’s existence should be felt. Ben then reacted into Andy’s suffocating actions. He felt that he needs space from all of Andy’s whims. His reaction can be called as violence valence-negatively, is Ben’s case. Violation valence refers to the positive or negative assessment of a deviation from expected behavior. In the movie, Ben showed a violence valence because of Andy’s unexpected behavior which deviates from the norms. Ben finds the behavior distressing thus making him feel negative valence towards Andy.

Certainly, the movie “How to lose a guy in ten days” showed a lot of potential scenes that could be related to the Violation Expectancy Theory. It is because the plot of the movie showed unexpected behaviours. The motives of the characters also speak for themselves. The context plays the vital role on its relevance to EVT. The movie the right example for it showcased a lot of non-verbal cues that the actors project.

Example2

A sales assistant is showing a person an expensive gadget of a moderate quality. This sets the price-performance expectation. Then, the sales assistant shows them a mid-priced one which sounds much better. They then 'share' (and so amplify) the person's surprise at the superior quality at a moderate price. The person happily walks out with the new gadget, convinced they have a bargain.

 

Communication models.

Communication is a slippery concept, and while we may casually use the word with some frequency, it is difficult to arrive at a precise definition that is agreeable to most of those who consider themselves communication scholars. Communication is so deeply rooted in human behaviors and the structures of society that it is difficult to think of any social event that does not include communication. We might say that communication consists of transmitting information from one person to another. More precisely it may be defined as transferring thoughts, information, emotion and ideas through gesture, voice, symbols, signs and expressions from one person to another. In fact, many scholars of communication take this as a working definition. Furthermore, communication theory itself is, in many ways, an attempt to describe and explain precisely what communication is. Three things are most important and essential in any communication process they are Sender, Receiver and the Channel (medium). These three elements are indispensable to a successful model of communication. A model, according to a seminal 1952 article by Karl Deutsch ("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-to-one 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. The basic model, namely – sender, receiver and the channel was suggested by Claud Shannon and Warren Weaver. It is considered to be the fundamental, basic model, often called “mother of all models”. The 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. The revised model includes: sender, message, transmission, noise, channel, reception and receiver. Nowadays, this model proves to be less effective for being too linear.

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 semantic problem: how precisely is the meaning 'conveyed'?

The effectiveness problem: how effectively does the received meaning affect behavior?

Daniel Chandler critiques the transmission model by stating:

It assumes communicators are isolated individuals.

No allowance for differing purposes.

No allowance for differing interpretations.

No allowance for unequal power relations.

Willbur Schramm’s communication model is a Circular Model, so that communication is something circular in nature. Wilbur Schramm (1954) indicated that we should examine the impact that a message has (both desired and undesired) on the target of the message. Between parties, communication includes acts that confer knowledge and experience, 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:

1. Syntactic (formal properties of signs and symbols),

2. Pragmatic (concerned with the relations between signs/expressions and their users) and

3. Semantic (study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent).

Therefore, communication is a 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.

Advantage of Osgood- Schramm model of communication

1. Dynamic model- Shows how a situation can change

2. It shows why redundancy is an essential part

3. There is no separate sender and receiver, sender and receiver is the same person

4. Assume communication to be circular in nature

5. Feedback – central feature.