Philosophy of Communication

Running head: PHILOSOPHY OF COMMUNICATION

Philosophy of Communication

Nicole Ellis

COM 480

Spring Arbor University

November 26, 2012

PHILOSOPHY OF COMMUNICATION

According to A First Look at Communication Theory, trying to define the term

“communication” is nearly impossible. Over 50 years ago, there were more than 120

established definitions for “communication” (with many more now), and yet, not

one of these definitions has become the standard definition of the communication

field (Griffin, 2009). Apparently, the reason for this is because no definition can

adequately explain the communication experience; communication pervades all

human interaction, not only in obvious ways, but in ways we aren’t even aware of. It

is impossible to try to define something that doesn’t have specific boundaries.

However, Griffin offers up this general definition: “Communication is the relational

process of creating and interpreting messages that elicit a response” (2009).

In this definition, Griffin attempts to shed light on the five different features

of communication that are essential to the overall study of communication theory.

He points out that messages are at the very core of communication and can be

studied, regardless of the medium (Griffin, 2009). The creation of messages

generally involves the communicator making a conscious decision about what

message they want to communicate and how; however, there are times when we

communicate unconsciously or in “programmed responses.” The interpretation of

messages occurs through the meaning that both the creator and receiver assign to it;

messages are often open to multiple interpretations. According to Griffin,

communication is also a relational process, not because it takes place between two

or more people, but because it ultimately affects the nature of connections between

those people (2009). Finally, communication involves messages that elicit a

2


response; if a message fails to provoke any type of response, can it truly be

considered communication?

Another way of looking at the communication process is through Jakobson’s

model, the six factors of language: addresser, message, addressee, context, contact,

and code. This model demonstrates how any form of communication, whether

written or verbal, requires a message that proceeds from a sender (addresser) to a

receiver (addressee); this is considered the most obvious aspect of communication.

However, successful communication depends upon other, less obvious factors; for

example, all messages must be delivered through a contact, which is either a

physical channel or a psychological connection, framed in a code, and must refer to a

context (Berger, 2006). The code is the frame by which the sender encodes a

message and the receiver decodes it; in order to understand the context of the

message, it’s important that the code is understood by both the sender and receiver.

It is also important to remember that many times, the codes of the sender may vary

greatly from the codes of the receiver and this may cause communication barriers.

Cheryl Hamilton, in Communicating for Results, defines communication as,

“the process of people sharing thoughts, ideas, and feelings with each other in

commonly understandable ways” (2011). In her textbook, she outlines a useful

model in understanding where miscommunication occurs within the

communication process. The elements of this model includes: person A/person B,

stimulation and motivation, encoding and decoding, frames of reference, code,

channel, feedback, environment, and noise. Person A/person B is classified as the

sender and receiver; they will both send and receive messages simultaneously.

3


However, first the sender must be stimulated (an internal or external

stimulus that triggers a thought and desire to communicate), and sufficiently

motivated to engage in communication. Encoding and decoding determines how the

message will be communicated and understood; our frame of reference, or life

experiences/background, shapes how we encode and decode messages. Often,

inaccurate encoding/decoding is the result of most miscommunication (Hamilton,

2011). The code of the message refers the symbols used to communicate: language

(verbal code), paralanguage (vocal code), and nonverbal cues (visual code). The

channel is the medium that carries the message and often determines the success of

our communication. Feedback is the verbal or visual response to a message, and is

useful in determining whether or not the message was received correctly. Finally,

the environment determines whether or not communication is successful; it seeks

to limit noise, or anything that interferes with communication by blocking the

message.

These various models have been extremely helpful for understanding the

complex process of communication; there are so many factors one must consider

and control when attempting to communicate in the most effective ways. When

miscommunication arises, it is important to be able to understand at what point the

message got lost, or what step of the communication process might have been

overlooked or not fully explored. I also have appreciated these models because they

encourage me to understand how different people communicate in unique ways as a

result of their frame of reference, code, and context. It’s critical to be aware of these

differences and to be gracious to those who communicate in ways we might not

4


normally communicate; by seeking to understand another person’s methods and

viewpoints, we can help to build bridges between communication gaps.

As I have studied the communication process, I’ve come across several

theories that have proven to be very effective tools in my life. One of my favorite

theories is the Social Penetration Theory, developed by Irwin Altman and Dalmas

Taylor (Griffin, 2009). This theory deals with how relationships grow between

individuals. Altman and Taylor liken the personality to a multilayered onion—by

peeling away the outer “layers,” the public self that contains superficial information,

you’ll eventually reach the inner “core,” the private domain consisting of a person’s

values, self-concept, and deeply held fears/fantasies (Griffin, 2009). According to

this theory, closeness between people can only be achieved through self-disclosures.

There are four principles of self-disclosure: superficial items are exchanged more

quickly and frequently; self-disclosure is reciprocal; the deeper the reciprocation,

the slower the exchange; and once reciprocation stops, de-penetration begins. This

theory is not only useful for building new relationships, but it is critical for

maintaining current ones.

Two other theories that I have found useful in my life are the Expectations

Management Theory and the Forgiveness/Forgetfulness Spiral. These theories were

expounded upon in a communication theory class and have been tools that I have

continued to use in navigating relationships. The Expectations Management Theory

states that, “unmet expectations create disappointment; disappointment,

unresolved over time creates resentment; resentment, unresolved over time creates

contempt” (Patton, 2011). According to Professor Patton, three situations create

5


these “unmet expectations” including: when expectations are unshared, when

expectations are extravagant, and when expectations are known, but disregarded.

After learning about this theory, I was instantly able to recognize cases of “unmet”

expectations in my own life—in my personal and professional relationships. This

theory has helped me to become better aware of situations where I create unmet

expectations, as well as unmet expectations that I might have of others;

communication is needed to prevent disappointment from leading to resentment or

contempt.

I think the Forgiveness/Forgetfulness Spiral is also very useful when

approaching an encounter with “unmet expectations.” Conflict is a natural

byproduct of “unmet expectations” and forgiveness/forgetfulness is often needed to

heal broken communication. However, on a greater scale, acts of disloyalty and

betrayal require the sutchering of forgiveness (Patton, 2001). The spiral includes

the event, asking for forgiveness, the act of forgiveness, bearing fruit of repentance,

and functional forgetting. When forgiving, you must commit to three things: to not

bring up the betrayal in public, to not bring up the betrayal in an argument, and if

you find yourself becoming obsessed by the betrayal, think about your own

betrayals instead. I have found this spiral to be extremely useful for even small-scale

conflict; it is helpful for me to understand the forgiveness/forgetfulness process

while working through conflict and reestablishing trust in broken relationships.

These theories are the ones that I have found myself thinking about the most

and sharing with others; it is interesting to me that they are all very relationally

driven. I have a deep concern for my relationships with other people, and I realize

6


that communication is absolutely essential in establishing and maintaining healthy

relationships, both in a personal and professional setting. All three of these theories

fit in very well with Griffin’s definition of communication that I cited earlier; that

communication is a relational process. These types of theories are the ones that I

want to inform my approach to communication and shape how I approach

relationship building.

When considering how to approach communication from a Christian

perspective, I find myself relating to the mission statement of Spring Arbor

University’s Department of Communication and Mass Media. One of the things this

statement emphasizes is “recognizing that communication is a gift by which one

shares the image of God.” I think that this is such a powerful statement and it is one

that I want to incorporate into every aspect of communication in my life. When we

communicate with others, we are sending various messages; as a Christian, those

messages should ultimately communicate God’s love and truth, no matter what the

context is. This should not only be true in a personal/relational setting, but also in a

professional setting.

As a Visual Communication major, communication will be a major aspect of

my profession; what I communicate, and the way I communicate, should fall in line

with these principles. I will have to set high ethical and Biblical standards to live by

and shape the way I approach communication in my field. Some verse that I can hold

onto are Ephesians 4:1-3, “I, therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a

manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and

gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the

7


unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Although this may not specifically relate to

communication, I believe that living my life in a manner that is pleasing to the Lord

will ultimately shape my communication with others.

8


REFERENCES

Berger, A. A. (2006). 50 ways to understand communication: A guided tour of key ideas

and theorists in communication, media, and culture. Oxford, UK: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Griffin, E. (2009). Communication: A first look at communication theory. (7th ed.). New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hamilton, C. (2011). Communicating for results: A guide for business and the

professions. (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Mission statement. (2011). Department of Communication and Mass Media, Spring

Arbor University, Spring Arbor, MI, Retrieved from

http://www.arbor.edu/Mission-Statement/Dept-Communication-Media/

Index.aspx

Paul, P. (2011). [Class Notes]. COM 200, Communication theory & research, Spring

Arbor University.

(2002). The holy bible: English standard version. Wheaton, IL: Good News Publishers.

9

Documents

Philosophy of Communication