Download Littlejohn

PART
I
The Nature of lnquiry and Theory
seeing communication as one of many social factors. Lnthropologists are interested primarily in
culture, and if they investigate communication'
they treat it as an aspect of a broader theme' Do
we conclude that communication is less significant than behavior, society, and culture? No' we
do not.
In recent years many scholars have recog-
nrzed.that communication is central to all human
experience and have emphasized it above other
topics. Some of these scholars were trained in
traditional disciplines, and others studied in academic departments of communication, speech
communication, or mass communication' Regardless of their original academic homes' howI,r.r, these scholars have formed the new field
called communication.la This field is character-
ized,by its focus on communication as the central
topic and by its attention to the entire breadth of
communication concerns. The work of such or-
gantzattons as the International Communication
Association and the National Communication
Association, along with numerous journals devoted to the topic, typify what is happening in
thefield.Indeed,theyoungcommunicationfield
is now producing fresh theories, many of which
are covered in this textbook'
kl'-
found three points of "critical conceptual differentiation" that form the basic dimenis
sions of communication' The first dimension
definiSome
leael of obseraation, ot abstractness'
tion.17 He
tions are broad and inclusive; others are restrictive. For example, the definition of comrnunication as "the process that links discontinuous
parts of the living world to one another" is gen-
On the other hand, communication as
"the means of sending military messages/ orders, etc., as by telephone, telegraph, radio' cou-
era1.18
tiers," is restrictive.lg
The second distinction is intentionality' Some
definitions includ'e only purposeful message
this
sending and receiving; others do not impose
defia
of
example
an
limitatLn. The following is
nitionthatinciudesintention:"Thosesituations
in which a source transmits a message to a receiverwithconsciousintenttoaffectthelatter,s
not
behaviors '"20 Here is a definition that does
commakes
that
require intent: "It is a process
of
mon to two or several what was the monopoly
one or some."21
The third dimension is normative iudgment'
Some definitions include a statement of success
or accuracy; other definitions do not contain
such implicit judgments' The following defini-
tion, for example, presumes that communication
l'Communication is the verbal inis successful:
DnFTNING
CovtvtuNIcATIoN
Communication is difficult to define'1s Theodore
Clevenger has noted that "the continuing problem in defining communication for scholarly or
scientific purposes stems from the fact that the
verb 'to communicate' is well established in the
common lexicon and therefore is not easily captured for scientific use. Indeed, it is one of the
most overworked terms in the English language."16 Scholars have made many attempts to
communication but establishing a single
definition has proved impossible and may not be
very fruitful.
Frank Dance took a major step toward clari-
d"fi""
of the status of the communication
For a recent discussion
l'Co*"""'ic1tr^o1 Theory and Research:
see Tony Atwater,
Integrat-ed
in" b"*, fol Credlbiliiy in the Social Sciences"' in Anand
D' W'
Anoroach to Communicaiion Theory, eds' M' B' Salwen
pp^'.53e-54e; and stanlev A'
;TJ.'di#;;r', iiil' n.ru""m,1ie61,
;;;t;,)l r.rtrrr" of t:r,e oiscipline : rhe bhuu"tt8".s'
lh", lT"-",ttl'
r/ eo' >'
and the Social Contribution," in Communication Yearbook '
565-600'
pp'
4)
Sage, \99
CA:
Oaks,
n. b""at
tfnousand
;
- -ih";"
E.
arel26definiiions of cimmunicition listed in Frank
1;
Human Communicai. pur,." and Carl E. Larson, The Functions ofRinehart
& Winston'
tion: ATheoretical Approach (New York: Holt'
1976), APPendix A.
tO "The"odore Clevenger, Jt', "Can One Not Communicate? A
io"ni.i of Models," Cotmunication Studies 42 (1997):351"
17 Frank E. X. Dance, "The 'Concept' of Commun\calion"' lour-
14
field,
nnl of Communication 20 (7970):201'-21'0'
"Technology- and S-ocial Communication"' in
(Springfield, IL:
Communication Theory and neseatrLh, ed. L. Thayer
Thomas, 1957),P.462.
a*iiiLon Coltege Dictionary (New York: Random House'
fi " I.t;; n""t.n,
i;- i;,
1964), p.244.
ib' "ierata
R.
Miller, "On Defining Communication: Another
Stab," |ournal of Communication16 (1966):92'
fying this muddy concept by outlining a num-
il-'
ber of elements used to distinguish communica-
cation9 (1959): 5.
At"*Gode, "What Is Communication?" lournal of Communi-
CHAPTER
1
Communication Theory and Scholarship
SOURCE BEHAVIOR
RECEIVER
BEHAVIOR
Unintentional
Behavior
Intentional
Behavior
(Symptoms)
Nonverbal
Verbal
1A
Not
Received
Nonperceived
symptomatic
behavior
2A
Nonperceived
nonverbal
messages
3A
Nonperceived
verbal
messages
1B
28
Received
lncidentally
lncidentally
perceived
symptoms
lncidental
nonverbal
messages
3B
lncidental
verbal
messages
1C
Attended
To
Symptoms
attended to
2C
Nonverbal
messages
attended to
3C
Verbal
messages
attended to
FrcuRE
1.1
Communication-Related Behaviors
terchange of a thought or idea."22 The assumption in this definition is that a thought or idea is
successfully exchanged. Another definition, on
the other hand, does not judge whether the outcome is successful or not: "Communication [is]
the transmission of informatiot't."23 Here information is transmitted,but it is not necessarily receiaed or understood.
Debates on the definition of communication
are perennial. Figure 1.1 shows nine behaviors
that might be considered to be communication.2a
These nine behaviors hinge on how two questions are answered: (1) Must communication be
intentional? (2) Must communication be received? The columns in the figure consist of intentional and unintentional behaviors, and the
rows indicate whether the source behaviors were
received.
In Figure 1.1, the first column is source behav-
iors that are unintentional. These are "symptom-
atic" because they could be read as a sign of some
state in the communicator such as fatigue, nervousness, or anger. The second column denotes
nonverbal behaviors that are intentionally sent to
another person, such as waving to a friend or
shrugging if you don't know the answer to a
22
John B. Hoben, "English Communication at Colgate Re-
examined," Journal of Commtmication 4 (1954):77.
23 Bernard Berelson and Gary Steiner, Human Behaaior (New
York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 7964), p.254.
24 Michael T. Motley, "On Whether One Cannot (Not) Communicate: An Examination Via Traditional Communication Postulates," Western lournal of Speech Communication 54 (7990): l*20;
Janet Beavin Bavelas, "Behaving and Communicating: A Reply to
Motley," Western lournal of Speech Communication 54 (1990): 593602; Wayne A. Beach, "On (Not) Observing Behavior InteractionaIly," Western lournal of Speech Communication 54 (1990): 603-612;
Michael T. Motiey, "Communication as Interaction: A Reply to
Beach and Bavelas," Western lournal of Speech Communication 54
(1990): 613-623; Peter A. Andersen, "When One Cannot Not Com-
municate: A Challenge to Motley's Traditional Communication
Postulates," Communication Studies 42 (1991):309-325; Michael T.
Motley, "How One May Not Communicate: AReply to Andersen,"
Communication Studies 42 (1991): 326-339; Clevenger, "Can One
Not Communicate?"
PART
I
The Nature of lnquiry and Theory
question. The third column includes intentional
verbal, or language-oriented, acts, such as writ_
ing a letter, having a conversation, or giving a
speech.
The three rows in Figure 1.1 represent whether
the message is received. The first row is ,,not
received," meaning that no one observes the
source's actions or hears the message. How many
times have you yawned or maybe even said.,,,I,m
tired," but no one was there to see or hear it? The
second consists of incidental reception, in which
someone sees something, but it does not register
consciously. You might say to a friend, ,'I'm
tired," and your friend would rcaIize that you
had looked tired, though she had not paid atien_
tion to it at the time. The third row is paying con_
scious attention to the source,s behaviors.
Now we have nine things that might possibly
be considered communication:
1,A.. Nonperceived symptomatic behavior_
you yawn, but no one sees it. (Most people
agree that this is not communication. Ai
least it is not interpersonal communication,,
but some might call it intrapersonal com_
munication.)
18. Incidentallyperceived symptoms_you
yawn, and your friend later realizes that
you were tired even though she didn, t pay
any attention to it at the time.
1C. Symptoms attended to-you yawn, and
your friend says, ,,Am I that boring?,,
2A^. Nonperceivednonverbalmessages_you
wave at a friend, but he doesn,t see you.
28. Incidentalnonverbal messages_your
friend later says,,'I,msorry I didn,t wave
back, but I was thinking about something
else and didn't realizeyou had waved tJ
me until after I turned the corner.,,
2C. Nonverbal messages attended to_you
wave to a friend, and she waves back.
3A. Nonperceived verbal messages_you send
a letter to a friend, but it gets lost in the
mail.
38. Incidental verbal messages-you lecture
your daughter for having a messy room,
and although she knows you are talking to
het she really isn,t paying much attent[n.
3C.
Verbal messages attended to-you give a
speech to a group that is eager to hear
what you have to say.
Which of the above acts are communication
and which are not? At least three defensible
positions can be taken. The first, espoused by
Michael Motley, is that communication should
be limited to messages that are intentionally di_
rected at other persons and received by them.2s
Of the nine types of behavior, Motley would
limit communication to those cells outlined in
Figure 7.2(a). The second position, promote dby
Peter Andersen, is that communication should
include any behaviors that are meaningful to receivers in any wayt whether intended or not.26
These would include the cells outlined in Figure
1.2(b). Finally, Clevenger agrees with Motley that
only intentionally sent messages that are re_
ceived should count as communication but that
intentionality is hard to determine. He suggests
that communication behavior should iniiude
both intentional sending and receiving, which
would include even more cells, as outlined in
Figure
7.2(c).27
You can see that these three authors-and this
is true of virtuaily all communication scholars_
agree that intentional acts that are received do
count as communication, but they disagree on
what else might be considered communication.
These definitional issues are important, as
Andersen reminds us: "While there is not a right
or wrong perspective, choices regarding [defini_
tions] are not trivial. These perspectives launch
scholars down different theoretical trajectories,
predispose them to ask distinct questions, and set
them up to conduct different kinds of communi_
cation studies."28 Different definitions have dif_
ferent functions and enable the theorist to do dif_
ferent things. A definition should be evaluated on
the basis of how well it helps a scholar to accom_
plish the purposes of an investigation. Different
Motley, "On Whether
?,2
"Communication
cate."
26
27
28
One Cannot (Not) Communicate,,;
as Interaction,,; ,,How One May Not Communil
Andersen, "\Alhen One Cannot Not Communicate.,,
Clevenger, "Can One Not Communicate?,,
Andersen, "When One Cannot Not Communicate,', p.309.
CHAPTER
1
Communication Theory and Scholarship
find out about something in an orderly way. It is
*fi
2A
s#
,tg
28
3B
ili0.
2C
3C
(C) The sender-receiver
not just one process, of course. Many modes can
be used, but all are distinguished from common
experience.
model
A Basic Model of Inquiry
inquiry involves three stages.3O The first is
asking questions. Gerald Miller and Henry
Nicholson believe that inquiry is "nothing
more . . . than the process of asking interesting,
significant questions . and providing disci-
A11
:ilil
AA
s$
1B
28
3B
1C
2C
3C
'*$
2A
3A
1B
28
3B
1C
2C
3C
[$].;;Tha,rebeiver.:'fi ,ocl6I
plined, systematic answers to them."31 Questions
of definition call for concepts as answers, seeking
to clarify what is observed or inferred: What is it?
What will we call it? Questions of fact ask about
properties and relations in what is observed:
What does it consist of? How does it relate to
(c)
The communication
behavior model
F
rc
uRE
1.2
What ls Communication and What ls Not?
sorts of investigations often require separate,
even contradictory, definitions of communication. Definitions, then, are tools that should be
used flexibly. In this book we will look at theories
that define communication in a variety of ways.
Dance's conclusion is relevant: "We are trying
to make the concept of 'communication' do too
much work for us."2e He calls for a family of concepts; collectively, the theories included in the
following chapters specify some of the members
of this family.
E
TrE^ PnocESS oF INQUIRY
IN COMMUNICATION
Inquiry is the systematic study of experience
that leads to understanding and knowledge.
People engage in inquiry when they attempt to
other things? Questions of aalue probe aesthetic,
pragmatic, and ethical qualities of the observed:
Is it beautiful? Is it effective? Is it good?
The second stage of inquiry ts obseraation.
Here, the scholar looks for an answer. Methods
of observation vary significantly from one tradition to another. Some scholars observe by examining records and artifacts, others by personal involvement, others by using instruments and
controlled experiment, others by interviewing
people. Whatever is used, the investigator employs some planned method for answering the
questions.
The third stage of inquiry is constructing an'
szuers.
Here, the scholar attempts to define, to de-
scribe and explain, to make judgments. This
stage is usually referred to as theory and is the focus of this book.
People often think of the stages of inquiry as
linear, occurring one step at a time-first ques-
tions, then observations, and finally answers. But
inquiry does not proceed in this fashion. Each
29
30
Dance, "The 'Concept' of Communication," p. 210.
The process of inquiry is described in Gerald R. Miller and
Henry Nicholson, Communication Inquiry (Reading, MA: AddisonWesley, 1976).
31 Miiler
and Nicholson, Communication Inquiry, p. ix. See also
Don W. Stacks and Michael B. Salwen, "Integrating Theory and
Research: Starting with Questions," in An Integrnted Approach to
Communication Theory and Research, eds. M. B. Salwen and D. W.
Stacks (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,1996), pp. 3-14.
ENTH EDITION
TnEORIES
OF HUMAN
COMMUNICATION
Stephen W. Littlejohn
Albuquerque, New Mexico
VI'ADSVVORTH
#*
THOIVISON LEARNING
Australia
.
Canada
.
Mexico
.
Singapore
.
Spain o United Kingdom
'
United States