Download Communication is any message that is sent or received by a person

Renee Prunty
Com 422 - Baldwin
October 29th, 2004
Defining Communication
Mahatma Ghandi once said, “The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice
within” (Phillips, 1993, p. 75). As this quote illustrates, communication can be anything from the
obvious, such as words spoken with conscious intent from one person to another, all the way to
thoughts and debates within one person’s own mind.
Communication is a process whereby a message of any kind is either sent or received by
a person. The message that is sent or received can take any form: It can be verbal or nonverbal,
intentional or unintentional, “activity or inactivity, words or silence” (Watzlawick, Beavin, &
Jackson, 1967, 49). These messages are constantly being sent or received by an individual, which
means that communication is a process that is continually taking place (Miller, 2005). This
process requires at least one human present, but does not require there to be a transfer of
meaning between two different individuals. As a definition, communication includes all types of
words, behaviors, actions, and other symbols; therefore it is a broad topic and one that needs to
be further examined and defined by those who are studying it.
The essential ingredient for communication is the sending or receiving of a message. A
message is any communicative meaning that is either sent or received by a person. The message
from which a meaning is sent or attributed, can be intentional or unintentional, conscious or
unconscious, and it can be verbal or nonverbal. If a person says or does something with which
meaning can be attributed communication has taken place. It does not matter if the message sent
is perceived; it is enough that there was a potential for a message to be received.
Miscommunication is still communication. This disagrees with “both receiver- and sender-
1
scholars that if an individual fails to perceive a behavior or receive a message, no communication
has occurred” (Andersen, 1991, p.313). However, when the focus of communication is taken off
both the sender and receiver, and put on the message even this kind of miscommunication
becomes important. Therefore, it matters not if a message sent is received, it matters only that the
message was sent.
Furthermore, not only can a message be one-sided when it is sent, but a received message
can also be one-sided. Once an individual gives meaning to something they observe, hear, smell,
taste, or touch then that individual has received a message and has consequently experienced
communication. This agrees with Anderson’s (1991) perspective that even symptomatic behavior
and actions can be given meaning by the receiver and become communication. In addition, the
message received by a person does not always have to be from another person, the message
could be intrapersonal or from a third non-human source. Nature, animals, and inanimate objects
can communicate a message if a person consciously or unconsciously perceives a meaning from
the non-human source. Moreover, a meaning can be shared within oneself. This disagrees with
Motley’s (1990) assertion that when a person chooses not to act upon a goal to communicate
they choose to not communicate. The decision to not act on a goal requires an internal debate
within oneself, which is of itself communication. Therefore, a message is any stimulus that is
received or any meaning that is sent by an individual that has the ability to affect that person,
whether they are aware of the stimulus and meaning or not.
All behavior sends a message and all activity or inactivity sends a message, therefore a
person is constantly sending or receiving messages. These messages are continually taking place
within and without an individual, as well as through both action and inaction. External messages
are endlessly being sent from one person to another. In addition, messages are also regularly
2
being sent from a person to him/herself or from a non-human source to a human receiver. This
creates a never-ending process of communication, whereby messages are always being either
sent or received. Since communication is a process, it is impossible to run from communication,
to avoid communication or to not communicate.
As a result of this definition communication becomes an ongoing process that is
constantly taking place, which has to be arbitrarily dissected in order to examine a specific part
or area of the communication. The weakness of this definition is that it is extremely broad and
covers a wide range of behaviors, activities, and reactions. The broadness of this definition
allows for the study of all kinds of communication and recognizes all forms of communication;
however it may not be functional within a specific area of communication expertise. For
example, “Rhetoric examines symbolic processes, but the study of communication involves
processes beyond the rhetorical” (Andersen, 1991, p. 318). Therefore, the rhetorical discipline
should come up with a definition that narrowly defines communication with symbolic processes,
while allowing scholars in other areas of communication to create a broader definition that goes
beyond symbolic processes. Hence, it is requisite upon the individual areas of study within the
communication departments to decide the best definition of communication for their unique field
enabling them to better study their specific focus.
This definition of communication is so broad and encompassing because it is a messagebased approach. It accepts most of what Andersen (1991) considers as communication being
receiver driven, but it also accepts that a message can be sent but not received. As well as,
including some non-human and intrapersonal behaviors that Anderson would not consider
communication (1991). However, as Motley states, the acceptance of nonhuman symptoms is a
“logical extension of Andersen’s primary criterion for communication” (1991, p. 334).
3
Additionally, since other-directed intention is not a requirement for this definition it disagrees
with most of what Motley (1990) views as communication. Although, I would agree with Motley
(1990) that it is important to come up with a disciplinarian definition of communication that
remains consistent. I would, however, disagree that the entire field of communication should
adopt the same definition, but instead that his or her area of communication study should adopt a
definition that has a more narrow and specific definition to their area of expertise (Motley,
1990).
To conclude, communication is an ongoing process, which cannot be viewed in segments
unless arbitrarily dissected. Communication requires that a message be either sent or received by
a person; however that message can come in a wide variety of forms. This definition is so broad
and encompassing that each specific area of study within communications should develop a
narrower definition of communication specific to their focus.
4
Reference List
Andersen, P. A. (1991). When one cannot not communicate: A challenge to Motley’s traditional
communication postulates. Communication Studies, 42(4), 309-325.
Motley, M. T. (1990). On whether one can(not) not communicate: An examination via traditional
communication postulates. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 1-20.
Motley, M. T. (1991). How one may not communicate: A reply to Andersen. Communication
Studies, 42/4, 326-339.
Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts (2nd ed.). New
York: McGraw Hill.
Phillips, B. (1993). Books of great thoughts & funny sayings. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House
Publishers, Inc.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A
study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc.
5