Discourse (from Latin discursus, meaning "running to and from") generally refers to "written or spoken communication".

The following are three more specific definitions:

In semantics and discourse analysis: A generalization of the concept of conversation to all modalities and contexts. "The totality of codified linguistic usages attached to a given type of social practice. (E.g.: legal discourse, medical discourse, religious discourse.)" In the work of Michel Foucault, and social theorists inspired by him: "an entity of sequences of signs in that they are enouncements (enoncs)." An enouncement (l'nonc - often translated as "statement") is not a unity of signs, but an abstract matter that enables signs to assign specific repeatable relations to objects, subjects and other enouncements. Thus, a discourse constitutes sequences of such relations to objects, subjects and other enouncements. A discursive formation is defined as the regularities that produces such discourses. Foucault used the concept of discursive formation in relation to his analysis of large bodies of knowledge, such as political economy and natural history.

Discourse in the first sense is studied in corpus linguistics. Analysis of discourse in the second and third senses is carried out within a variety of traditions that investigate the relations between language, structure and agency, including sociology, feminist studies, anthropology, ethnography, cultural studies, literary theory, and the philosophy of science. Within these fields, the notion of "discourse" is itself subject to discourse, that is, debated on the basis of specialized knowledge. Discourse can be observed in multimodal/multimedia forms of communication including the use of spoken, written and signed language in contexts spanning from oral history to instant message conversations to textbooks. Discourses being corpuses of texts or communication have internal relations to themselves as well as external to other discourses. Thus, a discourse is not locally isolated, rather interdiscourse and interdiscursivity takes part in the constitution of a discourse. In the humanities In the humanities and sometimes the social sciences, 'discourse' refers to a formalized way of thinking that can be manifested through language, a social boundary defining what can be said about a specific topic, or, as Judith Butler puts it, "the limits of acceptable speech"or possible truth. Discourses are seen to affect our views on all things; it is not possible to avoid discourse. For example, two notably distinct discourses can be used about various guerrilla movements describing them either as "freedom fighters" or "terrorists". In other words, the chosen discourse provides the vocabulary, expressions and perhaps also the style needed to communicate. Discourses are embedded in different rhetorical genres and metagenres that constrain and enable them. That is language talking about language, for instance the American Psychiatric Association's DSMIV manual tells which terms have to be used in talking about mental health, thereby mediating meanings and dictating practices of the professionals of psychology and psychiatry. Discourse is closely linked to different theories of power and state, at least as long as defining discourses is seen to mean defining reality itself. This conception of discourse is largely derived from the work of French philosopher Michel Foucault (see below). Modernism Modern theorists were focused on achieving progress and believed in the existence of natural and social laws which could be used universally to develop knowledge and thus a better understanding of society. ]Modernist theorists were preoccupied with obtaining the truth and reality and sought to develop theories which contained 1

certainty and predictability. Modernist theorists therefore viewed discourse as being relative to talking or way of talking and understood discourse to be functional. Discourse and language transformations are ascribed to progress or the need to develop new or more accurate words to describe new discoveries, understandings, or areas of interest. In modern times, language and discourse are dissociated from power and ideology and instead conceptualized as natural products of common sense usage or progress. Modernism further gave rise to the liberal discourses of rights, equality, freedom, and justice; however, this rhetoric masked substantive inequality and failed to account for differences, according to Regnier. Structuralism Structuralist theorists, such as Ferdinand de Saussure and Jacques Lacan, argue that all human actions and social formations are related to language and can be understood as systems of related elements. This means that the individual elements of a system only have significance when considered in relation to the structure as a whole, and that structures are to be understood as self-contained, self-regulated, and self-transforming entities. In other words, it is the structure itself that determines the significance, meaning and function of the individual elements of a system. Structuralism has made an important contribution to our understanding of language and social systems. Saussures theory of language highlights the decisive role of meaning and signification in structuring human life more generally. Postmodernism Following the perceived limitations of the modern era, emerged postmodern theory. Postmodern theorists rejected modernist claims that there was one theoretical approach that explained all aspects of society. Rather, postmodernist theorists were interested in examining the variety of experience of individuals and groups and emphasized differences over similarities and common experiences. In contrast to modern theory, postmodern theory is more fluid and allows for individual differences as it rejected the notion of social laws. Postmodern theorists shifted away from truth seeking and instead sought answers for how truths are produced and sustained. Postmodernists contended that truth and knowledge is plural, contextual, and historically produced through discourses. Postmodern researchers therefore embarked on analyzing discourses such as texts, language, policies and practices. French social theorist Michel Foucault developed a notion of discourse in his early work, especially the Archaeology of knowledge (1972). In Discursive Struggles Within Social Welfare: Restaging Teen Motherhood, Iara Lessa summarizes Foucault's definition of discourse as systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak." Foucault traces the role of discourses in wider social processes of legitimating and power, emphasizing the construction of current truths, how they are maintained and what power relations they carry with them. Foucault later theorized that discourse is a medium through which power relations produce speaking subjects. Foucault (1977, 1980) argued that power and knowledge are inter-related and therefore every human relationship is a struggle and negotiation of power. Foucault further stated that power is always present and can both produce and constrain the truth. Discourse according to Foucault (1977, 1980, 2003) is related to power as it operates by rules of exclusion. Discourse therefore is controlled by objects, what can be spoken of; ritual, where and how one may speak; and the privileged, who may speak. Coining the phrases power-knowledge Foucault (1980) stated knowledge was both the creator of power and creation of power. An object becomes a "node within a network." In his work, The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault uses the example of a book to illustrate a node within a network. A book is not made up of individual words on a page, each of which has meaning, but rather "is caught up in a system of references to other books, other texts, other sentences." The meaning of that book is connected to a larger, over-arching web of knowledge and ideas to which it relates.

Feminism Feminists have explored the complex relationships that exist among power, ideology, language and discourse. Feminist theory talks about "doing gender" and/or "performing gender".] It is suggested that gender is a property, not of persons themselves but of the behaviours to which members of a society ascribe a gendering meaning. Being a man/woman involves appropriating gendered behaviours and making them part of the self that an individual presents to others. Repeated over time, these behaviours may be internalized as "me"that is, gender does not feel like a performance or an accomplishment to the actor, it just feels like her or his "natural" way of behaving." Feminist theorists have attempted to recover the subject and "subjectivity." Chris Weedon, one of the best known scholars working in the feminist poststructuralist tradition, has sought to integrate individual experience and social power in a theory of subjectivity. Weedon defines subjectivity as "the conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the individual, her sense of herself, and her ways of understanding her relation to the world. Judith Butler, also another well known post structuralist feminist scholar, explains that the performativity of gender offers an important contribution to the conceptual understanding of processes of subversion. She argues that subversion occurs through the enactment of an identity that is repeated in directions that go back and forth which then results in the displacement of the original goals of dominant forms of power.

References

M. Foucault (1977). Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon. ISBN 0-394-49942-5. M. Foucault (1980). "Two Lectures," in Colin Gordon, ed., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews. New York: Pantheon. M. Foucault (2003). Society Must Be Defended. New York: Picador. ISBN 0-312-42266-0. A. McHoul & W. Grace (1993). A Foucault primer: Discourse, power, and the subject. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. ISBN 0-8147-5480-5. J. Motion & S. Leitch (2007). "A toolbox for public relations: The oeuvre of Michel Foucault". Public Relations Review 33 (3): 263268. DOI:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.05.004. R. Mullaly (1997). Structural social work: Ideology, theory, and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-7710-6673-2. B. Norton (1997). "Language, identity, and the ownership of English". TESOL Quarterly (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)) 31 (3): 409429. DOI:10.2307/3587831. JSTOR 3587831. Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous and anti-oppressive approaches.(2005). In Brown L. A., Strega S. (Eds.), Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. S. Strega (2005). The view from the poststructural margins: Epistemology and methodology reconsidered. In L. Brown, & S. Strega (Eds.), Research as resistance (pp. 199235). Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. J. Sunderland (2004). Gendered discourses. New York: PalgraveMacmillan.

SEVEN TRADITIONS OF COMMUNICATION THEORY

Rhetorical Communication theorizedas: Problemsof Communication theorizedas: Practicalartof discourse Socialexigency requiring collective deliberation andjudgment

Semiotic Intersubjective mediationbysigns Misunderstanding orgapbetween subjective viewpoints

Phenomenological Experienceof otherness; dialogue Absenceof,or failuretosustain, authentichuman relationship

Cybernetic Information processing Noise; overload; underload,a malfunctionor bugina system

Metadiscursive Vocabulary suchas:

Art,method, communicator Audience, strategy, commonplace, logic,emotion

Sign,symbol,icon, index,meaning, referent,code, language,medium, (mis)understanding

Experience,self& other,dialogue, genuineness, supportiveness, openness

Plausiblewhen Appealsto Metadiscursive Commonplaces suchas:

Powerof words;value ofinformed judgment; improvability ofpractice

Understanding requirescommon language; omnipresent dangerof miscommunication

Allneedhuman contact,should treatothersas persons,respect differences,seek commonground

Source, receiver, signal, information, noise, feedback, redundancy, network, function Identityof mindand brain;valueof information andlogic; complex systemscan be unpredictable

SocioPsychological Expression, interaction& influence Situation requiring manipulation ofcausesof behaviorto achieve specified outcomes Behavior, variable,effect, personality, emotion, perception, cognition, attitude, interaction Communication reflects personality; beliefs& feelingsbias judgments; peoplein groupsaffect oneanother

SocioCultural (Re)production ofsocialorder Conflict; Alienation; misalignment; failureof coordination

Critical Discursive reflection Hegemonic ideology; systematically distorted speech situation

Society, structure, practice,ritual, rule, socialization, culture, identity,co construction Theindividual isaproductof society;every societyhasa distinct culture;social actionshave unintended effects.

Ideology, dialectic, oppression, consciousness Raising, resistance, emancipation

Interesting when challenges metadiscursive commonplaces suchas:

Merewords arenot actions; appearanceis notreality; styleisnot substance; opinionisnot truth

Wordshave correctmeanings &standfor thoughts;codes& mediaareneutral channels

Communicationis skill,wordisnot thething;factsare objectiveand valuessubjective

Humansand machines differ,emotion isnotlogical; linearorderof causeand effect

Humansare rationalbeings; weknowour ownminds;we knowwhatwe see.

Individual agency& responsibility; absolute identityofself; naturalnessof thesocial order

Self perpetuation ofpower& wealth;values offreedom, equality& reason; discussion produces awareness, insight Naturalness& rationalityof traditional socialorder, objectivityof science& technology

BASICMODELS THE LASSWELL FORMULA AnAmericanpoliticalscientistHaroldD.Lasswellbegananarticlein1948withperhapsthemostfamoussingle phrase in communication research: A convenient way to describe an act of communication is to answer the followingquestions: WhoSaysWhatinwhichchanneltowhomwithwhateffect? ThishaseversinceknownandcitedastheLasswellFormula.Thissimpleformulahasbeenusedinseveralways, mostlytoorganizeandtogivestructuretodiscussionsaboutcommunication.Lasswellhimselfusesittopoint outdistincttypesofcommunicationresearch. HavingfoundtheLasswellianmodelusefulalthoughsomewhattoosimple,someresearchershavedevelopedit further.Braddock(1958)foundthattherearemoreconsiderationstoworkwiththanthosefivepresentedby Lasswell. Inhisversionofthemodel,Braddockaddstwomorefacetsofthecommunicativeact,namelythecircumstances underwhichamessageissent,andforwhatpurposethecommunicatorsayssomething(seethemodelIgave you). TheLasswellFormulashowsatypicaltraitofearlycommunicationmodels:itmoreorlesstakesforgrantedthat the communicator has some intent in influencing the receiver and, hence, that communication should be treated mainly as a persuasive process. It is also assumed that messages always have effects. Models such as thishavesurelycontributedtothetendencytoexaggeratetheeffectsof,especially,masscommunication.On the other hand, this is not surprising when we know that Lasswells interest at the time was political communicationandpropaganda.Foranalyzingpoliticalpropagandatheformulaiswellused. Braddockstressesthattheformulamaybemisleadinginthatitdirectstheresearchertodistinctfieldsofstudy. Inrealitytheyaretoalargeextentinterrelated. Lasswell has further been criticized for having omitted the element of feedback. In this way, too, his model reflectsthegeneralviewofthetimewhenitwasformulated. Thiscriticism,however,shouldnotobscurethefactthatitiseventodayaconvenientandcomprehensiveway ofintroducingpeopletothestudyofthecommunicationprocess. SHANNON AND WEAVER Shannon worked for the Bell Telephone Laboratory and that his theories and models primarily applied to its particularfieldofcommunication,involvingquestionssuchas:Whichkindofcommunicationchannelcanbring throughthemaximumamountofsignals?Howmuchoftransmittedsignalwillbedestroyedbynoiseunderway fromtransmittertoreceiver? Thesearequestionsmostlydealtwithwithinthefieldofinformationtheory.Neverthelessthegraphicalmodel, made by Shannon and his coworker Warren Weaver (1949), has been used analogically by behavior and linguisticscientists.Technologicalproblemsdifferofcoursefromhumanones,butitiseasytofindthetracesof theShannonWeavermodelinanumberoflatermodelsofhumancommunication.

Communicationinthismodelisdescribedasalinear,oneway process.The modelstatesfivefunctionstobe performedandnotesonedysfunctionalfactor,noise. Firstintheprocessistheinformation source ,producingamessageorachain of messagestobecommunicated. In the next step, the message is formed into signals by a transmitter. The signals should be adapted to the channel leading to the receiver. The function of the receiver is the opposite of that of the transmitter. The receiver reconstructs the message from the signal. The received message then reaches the destination. The signalisvulnerableinsofarasitmaybedisturbedbynoise,interferencewhichmayoccur,forexample,when there are many signals in the same channel at the same time. This may result in a difference between transmittedandreceivedsignal,which,initsturn,maymeanthatthemessageproducedbythesourceandthat reconstructedbythereceiverandhavingreachedthedestinationdonothavethesamemeaning.Theinability on the part of communicators to realize that a sent and a received message are not always identical, is a commonreasonwhycommunicationfails. DANCES HELICAL MODEL (1967) Dances helical model of communication is more recent, compared to the two models earlier presented. It directs ones attention to the fact that the communication process moves forward and that what is communicatednowwillinfluencethestructureandcontentofcommunicationcominglateron. Dance underlines the dynamic nature of communication (look at the model). The communication process, contains elements, relations and environments that are continuously changing. The helix describes how differentaspectsoftheprocesschangeovertime.Inaconversation,forexample,thecognitivefiledisconstantly wideningforthepartiesoractorsinvolved.Theactorsgetcontinuouslymoreandmoreinformationaboutthe actualtopic,abouttheotherspointofview,knowledgeetc. Thehelixtakesondifferentshapesindifferentsituationsandfordifferentindividuals.Forsome,thehelixtends towidenverymuch,becauseofpriorknowledgeofthetopic,whereasforotherswithlittlebasicknowledge,the helixexpandsmoderately.Themodelmaybeusedtoillustrateinformationgapsandthethesisthatknowledge tends to create more knowledge. It may also illustrate communication situations such as the one where a lecturer in a series of lectures on the same subject assumes that his audience becomes successively better informed, which enables him in every new lecture to take this for granted and to structure his presentation accordingly. Dancesmodelis,ofcourse,notatoolfordetailedanalysis.Itsworthliesinthatitremindsusofthedynamic natureofcommunication,somethingthatisotherwisetooeasilyforgotten. Itwouldnotgotoofartosaythattheconceptofthecommunicatingmanhereismorepositivethaninmost othermodels.Onegetsthenotionfromthismodelthatman,whencommunicating,isactive,creativeandable tostoreinformation,whereasmanyothermodelsdepicttheindividualratherasapassivecreature. GERBNERS GENERAL MODEL OF COMMUNICATION As the title indicates, the aim of the American mass media researcher George Gerbner, has been to sketch a modelwitharangeofapplications.Itwasfirstpresentedin1956. A special feature of this model is that it may be given different shapes depending on what kind of communicationsituationitdescribes.Itspartscanbeusedasbuildingblocks,whichmakeitpossibletodescribe simpleaswellascomplicatedcommunicationprocessesasoneofproduction(ofmessages)andofperception

(of messages and of events to communicate about). The model allows us toput forward questions about the natureofandinterplaybetweenperceptionandproduction. Themodelisgivenaverbalaswellasagraphicversion,andalthoughwewillconcentrateonthelatter,hereis GerbnersalmostLasswellianformula. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Someone perceivesanevent andreacts inasituation throughsomemeans tomakeavailablematerials insomeform andcontext conveyingcontent withsomeconsequence

Whatisperceived(seemodel1giveninclass)ismarkedE (event)andtheperceiver,M,perceivestheeventas E1.Whenthemodelreferstohumancommunication,Mmaybeaman,inanonhumancontextM maybea machineofsomesort(asathermostatinaheatingsystem). Therelation betweenE,MandE1isoneofperception,andasstudentsofmasscommunicationswemayuse different approaches to this relation. Gerbner, discusses a dimension of approaches with two extremes. One extremeisthetransactionalinwhichE1primarilyisregardedasafunctionofMsassumptions,pointofview, experientialbackgroundandotherfactors.WhatE1willlookliketoM depends,thus,onfactorswithinortied toM.theotherextreme Gerbnerlabelspsychophysical.There Einitselfis themost importantfactor,giving risetoaperceptionoffidelityandadequacyunderfavorableconditions. WhatwillbeperceivedbyM isdeterminedbyhiswayofselecting,thecontextinwhichtheEinquestionisto befoundandthedegreeofavailabilityofthisandotherEs. In the next step of the model it is assumed that M wants to communicate about E1 to someone else. M producesmessageSE (statementaboutevent).Sstandsforshape,form,whileE iscontent.Gerbnernotesthe S never stands by itself, unless it signifies noise; it is always coupled with E, the representational, content qualitiesofthesignal TosendhisSE, Misdependentuponchannelsmediaoverwhichhehascontroltoahigheroralowerdegree. Themessage(SE)mayinitsturnbeperceivedbyanothercommunicationagent(M2).InthesamewayasEwas perceived by M as E1, SE will be perceived by M2 as SE1. What was said earlier about different ways of approachingperceptionisvalidfortherelation/seM2SE1aswell.Wecannowseehowthemodelisbuiltupas a perceptionproductionperception chain, exemplified by Gerbner (in the second figure given in class). The eventcondensationofmoistureintheair,isperceivedbyMasrain,whichgivesrisetothestatementabout theevent,itsraining,whichinturnisperceivedorunderstoodbyM2asitsraining. Thismodelsuggeststhatthehumancommunicationprocessmayberegardedassubjective,selective,variable andunpredictableandthathumancommunicationsystemsareopensystems.

The two different approaches to perception may easily be exemplified in mass communication research, in whichgivenstimuliwereexpectedtoproduceapredictablequantityofresponse,whereasonecannoticethat todaysresearchmorereadilyacceptsthetransactionalwayoflookingatperception. Gerbnerdemonstratehowhismodelcanbeusedforseveralpurposes.Itmay,forexample,bebuilttodescribe mixedhumanandmechanicalcommunication.Itisalsousedtodistinguishbetweendifferentareasofresearch andtheorybuilding,justasLasswellusedhisformula.Gerbner(1964)drewonhisownmodeltoillustrateand explainthemainproceduresofcontentanalysis. Thedynamiccharacterofthismodelmakesitusefulondifferentlevels.Onindividualtoindividuallevelitmay, for example, be useful to illustrate communicative and perceptual problems in the psychology of witnessing beforeacourt:HowadequateistheperceptionofwitnessMofeventE,andhowwellisE1expressedinSE,and towhatdegreedoestheperceptionSE1ofjudgeM2correspondtoSE? Onasociallevel,letEbepotentialnewsorjustreality,letMstandformassmedia,SEformediacontentandM2 formediaaudience.WethenhaveamodelthatgivesusthepossibilityofaskingquestionssuchasHowgoodis thecorrespondencebetweenrealityandthestories(betweenEandSE)aboutrealitygivenbythemedia(M)? Reference: McQuail and Windahl Group UK Limited. 1981. Communication Models: for the Study of Mass Communications. Longman

EVALUATINGCOMMUNICATIONTHEORY:Lookclosely,veryclosely We need some standards for judging communication theories worth. The following criteria are generallyacceptedasusefulmeasuresforevaluatingcommunicationtheory: Scopereferstothebreathofcommunicationbehaviorcoveredinthetheory Logical consistencyreferstotheinternallogicinthetheoreticalstatements Parsimonyreferstothesimplicityoftheexplanationprovidedbythetheory Utility-referstothetheorysusefulnessorpracticalvalue Testabilityreferstoourabilitytotesttheaccuracyofthetheorysclaim Heurismreferstotheamountofresearchandnewthinkingstimulatedbythetheory Test of timereferstothetheorysdurabilityovertime. DEFININGATHEORY:Whatsinaname? A theoryisanabstractsystemofconceptswithindicationsoftherelationshipsamongtheseconcepts thathelpustounderstandaphenomenon.In1986,JonathanH.Turnerdefinedtheoryasaprocessof developingideasthatcanallowustoexplainhowandwhyeventsoccur. Theories are often seen as being grand (or universal), midrange (or general), and narrow (or very specific). Grand theories purport to explain all of communication behavior in a manner that is universallytrue.Outsidethedisciplineofcommunication,Marxismisanexampleofagrandtheory.A grandtheorywouldhavetheabilitytounifyalltheknowledgewehaveaboutcommunicationintoone integrated theoretical framework. A grand theory attempts to explain all of a phenomenon such as communication. A mid-range theory explains the behavior of a specific group of people rather than everyone, as a grandtheorywoulddo,ortriestoexplainthebehaviorofallpeoplewithinaspecifiedtimeorcontext. UncertaintyReductiontheory(URT)fallsintothemidrangetheorycategorybecausealthoughitsclaim initially covered only a small amount of relational time (initial encounters), these claims were forwardedasageneralexplanationforpeopleinallinitialencounters. Anarrow-theoryconcernsonlycertainpeopleincertainsituationsforexample,thecommunication rulespertinenttostandinginanelevator.Narrowtheoryattemptstoexplainaverylimitedaspectof aphenomenonsuchascommunication.Oftentheoriesarecriticizedforclaimingtobegranderthan theyreallyare.Forinstance,somecriticsofStandpointTheoryarguethatitsassertionsaboutwomen havetobemodifiedbyotheridentifierssuchasclassandrace.Insum,knowingthelevelofgenerality helpsussortthroughdifferenttheoriesandunderstandthetermbetter.

Metatheory is a theory about how to develop theory. Covering law approach is metatheoretical framework suggesting that theories should follow ifthen formats and should be universal, invariant statements. It seeks to explain an event in a real world by referring to a general law. Researches applyingacoveringlawapproachbelievethatcommunicationbehaviorisgovernedbyforcesthatare predictableandgeneralizable. Rules approachisametatheoreticalframeworksuggestingthattheories should follow a format that lists rules in given contexts and should acknowledge variability across situations,cultures,andtime.Itholdsthatcommunicationbehaviorisrulegoverned,notlawlike.The rulesapproachdiffersfromthecoveragelawapproachinthatresearchersholdingtherulesapproach admit the possibility that people are free to change their minds, to behave irrationally, to have idiosyncratic meanings for behaviors, and to change the rules. Ultimately, their differences focus on theconceptofchoice.Thecoveringlawmodelexplainshumanchoicethatismade(usuallyaneffect). From the rules model, rule following results from a choice made by the follower but does not necessarily involve antecedentconditions or any aspect of the causeeffectlogicof the covering law approach. Thethirdview,thesystemapproach,subscribessomewhattothebeliefsoftherulesapproachwhile also suggesting that peoples free will may be constrained by the system in which they operate. Further, this approach acknowledges the impossibility of achieving what the covering law approach requires: laws about human communication that are invariant and general. The systems approach proposesassumptionsthataremoreeasilymetthanthoseofthecoveringlawapproach. ONTOLOGICALAPPROACHESTOCOMMUNICATION Approach CoveringLaw Description/Example Coveringlawtheoristsholdthattherearefixedrelationshipsbetweentwoormore eventsorobjects.Example:WheneverAoccurs,Boccurs;thisisalawlikestatement that expresses a relationship between A and B. These statements are commonly referredtoasifthenstatements. Rules theorists contend that much of human behavior is a result of free choice. Peoplepickthesocialrulesthatgoverntheirinteractions.Example:inaninteraction between coworkers, much of their conversation will be guided by rules of politeness,turntaking,andsoon. Systemstheoristsholdthathumanbehaviorispartofasystem.Example:Thinkofa family as a system of family relationships rather than individual member. This illuminatesthecomplexityofcommunicationpatternswithinthefamily.

Rules

Systems CHECKPOINT:

1. DO YOU SEE COMMUNICATION BEHAVIOR AS BEING LAWLIKE OR RULE GOVERNED? EXPLAIN YOPURANSWER. 2. PROVIDESOMEEXAMPLESOFWAYSYOUTHINKLIKEATHEORISTINYOURDAILYLIFE.
10

COM THEORIES HANDOUT 1 FUNCTIONSOFTHEORIESANDMODELS Distinguishingtheoriesandmodels Theconfusionabouttheoriesandmodelsistotallyunderstandable;afterall,bothhavethefunctionsof description,explanation,andprediction Howthendoweseparatetheoriesfrommodels?Theoriesareprimarilyforexplanation,whilemodels areprincipallyforrepresentation. Theoryisconcernedwiththeissueofvalidity,whilemodelsareconcernedwithutility.

Functionsoftheories Organizingandsummarizingfunctionorsimplificationofcomplexhumanprocesses.Forexample:Bales theoryinteractionprocessanalysisinsmallgroup. Focusingfunctionorpointingouttheimportantvariablesandrelationships.Forexample:Agenda SettingofMcCombsandShaw Clarifyingfunctionorexplainingandinterpretingspecificaspectsofhumanbehaviorandinteraction. Example:thetheoryofUses,GratificationandDependency;theExpectancyvalueModelof Gratification. Observationalfunctionordirectingusonwhattowatchoutforwhenstudyingdynamicssituations. Example:MaletkesMassCommunicationprocess;PacanowskyandODonellTrujillostheoryof organizationalculture. Predictionfunctionorforecastinghumanbehavior,otheroutcomesandeffectsinvarioussituations. Example:ElaborationLikelihoodtheory;Gametheory Heuristicfunctionthatnotonlyteachesrelationshipsamongconceptsbutalsoaidsorguidesthe directionoffutureresearch.Example:LasswellsModelofcommunicationprocess;Semiotics,in particularthetheoryofsignsbyECOandSaussure. Controlfunctionorregulatinghumanrelations.Example:thePersuasiontheoriesreinforcementtheory Evaluationfunctionorassessingtheeffectsofvarioustreatmentsorinterventiononhowpeoplethink andbehave.Example:Thibaut&KellyscomparisonofalternativeasstatedintheirSocialExchange theory Generativefunctionorchallengingprevailingassumptions,andpossiblyleadingtotheinventionofnew ideasandprocesses.Example:SpiralofSilencebyNeumann Integrationfunctionallowingincorporationofwhatisknown/hasbeenfoundthroughresearchintoour dailylives. Communicativefunctions:theoriesprovidethevenueandthemeansforcommunicationinorderthat complexhumaneventsandsituationscanbepresented,discussed,understood,andevendebated.

11

Planningfunctionorconsideringvariousfutureinterventionsorscenariostoimprovetheelements, processesandeffectsofourlifestyles.Example:DiffusionofInnovation

DYSFUNCTIONOFTHEORY Tendencytosimplifythephenomenon.Hencerevealinglittleabouttheforcesatworkwhichrelateto elementstoeachother. Tendencytotraptheiroriginatorsanduserswithinratherlimitedconfineswhichtheythembecome eagertodefend.Thistendencycanhaveadecayingeffectonthegrowthofknowledge. Theincompletenessofasingletheorytoexplainacomplexphenomenonshouldleadtheusertothink ofotherpossibletheories/explanation.

COM THEORIES HANDOUT 2 Theoriesareprimarilyforexplanation;itisamoreorlessverifiedorestablishedexplanationaccountingfor knownfactsorphenomenon. Hypothesisisaconjectureputforthasapossibleexplanationofcertainphenomenonorrelations.Itservesasa basisofargumentorexperimentbywhichtoreachthetruth.Boththeoriesandhypothesis(whichoriginates fromtheory)attempttoexplainphenomena.However,neithercanclaimtotalcertaintyoftheirexplanations andpredictions.Veryclearly,itisthehypothesisthatdirectstheresearchbybeingabeginningpointandthe ruddersteeringthestudydesignandmethodology. Modelsareprincipallyforrepresentation. TWO PERSPECTIVE OF COMMUNICATION THEORY Epistemology Ontology Axiology Purposeofthetheory Researchmethods Standardsforevaluation Quantitative (akaScientific) Discoverthetruth Determinism Objectivity Giveuniversallaws Experimentandsurvey Explanationofdata Predictionoffuture Relativesimplicity Testable Hypotheses Practicalutility Qualitative (akaHumanistic) Createmeaning Freewill Emancipation Giverulesforinterpretation Textualanalysisand ethnography Understandingofpeople Clarificationofvalues Aestheticappeal Communityof agreement Reformsociety

CONTEXTUALTHEORIESOFHUMANCOMMUNICATION A. INTERPERSONALCONTEXT:interpersonalcommunicationtheories Representativetheoriesrelevanttointerpersonalmessages:CoordinatedManagementofMeaning (PearceandCronan);SymbolicInteractionism(Mead) 12

Representativetheoriesofmessageproduction:CommunicationApprehension(McCrosky); Competence(Spitzberg&Cupach);RhetoricalSensitivity(Hart);CommunicatorStyle(Hart); CommunicatorStyle(Norton);Aggression(Infante);Accommodation(Giles):ActionAssembly(Greene); Constructivism(Delia);ComplianceGaining(Marwell&Schmitt,etc) Representativetheoriesdealingwithrationaldevelopment:Interpersonalattraction(Balancetheory Newcomb,SocialExchangeThibautandKelly,SocialPenetrationAltman&Taylor,Stagesof RelationshipDevelopmentKnapp);SocialConflict;UncertainlyReductiontheory(Berger&Calabrese) Representativetheoriespertainingtoinfluence,messagereceptionandprocessing:Attribution(Heider); ExpectancyValue(Fishbein);CognitivedissonanceandConsistencyTheories(Festinger);Expectancy Violation(Burgoon);MediationHypothesis(Osgood);SocialJudgmenttheory(sheriff);Elaboration Likelihood(PettyandCacciopo)

B. GROUPSANDORGANIZATIONALCONTEXT Representativetheoriespertainingtogroupcommunication:Fieldtheory(Lewin);Structurationtheories ofgroupcommunication(Giddens,andPoole);Groupdevelopment Representativetheoriesgroupdecisionmaking:Functionalperspectiveongroupdecisionmaking (Hirokawa);Groupthink(Janis);InteractionProcessAnalysis(Bales) Representativetheoriesdealingwithorganizationalcommunicationandnetworks:Informationsystems Approachtoorganization,(Weick);CulturalApproachtoorganizations(GeertzandPacanowsky); Informationtheory(Shannon);Networktheory(Monge,Eisenberg,Farace) Representativetheoriespertainingtorhetoric:Rhetoric(Aristotle);Dramatism(Burke);Narrative Paradigm(Fisher)

C. CULTURALCONTEXT(CULTURALORCROSSCULTURALCOMMUNICATIONTheories) Representativetheoriesoflanguageandsigns:VerbaltheoriesSemiotics(Eco),MeaningofMeaning (OgdenandRichards),GenerativeGrammar(Chomsky),LinguisticRelativity(SapirandWhorf), GenderlectStyles(Tannen).NonverbaltheoriesKinesics(Birdwhistell),Proxemics(Hall). Representativetheoriesofexperienceandinterpretation:ClassicalPhenomenology(Husserl),Social Phenomenology(Schultz),Hermeneutics:TextualPhenomenology(Ricoeur),CulturalInterpretation (Geertz),EthnographyofCommunication(Phlipsen),CulturalApproachtoOrganizations(Pacanowsky andODonnellTrujillo),Interactivecommunities/interpretivemediastudies,Anxiety/Uncertainty Managementtheory(Gudykunst) Representativecriticaltheories:Universalpragmatics(Habermas),CuLturalStudies(Hall),Feminist Studies:MutedGrouptheory(Andener&Adener,Kramamae)

CHECKPOINT: CHOOSETWOTHEORIESFROMEACHCONTEXTANDDOTHEFOLLOWING: 1. DISCUSSWHATEACHTHEORYISALLABOUT 2. GIVEASITUATIONINWHICHEACHTHEORYCANBEAPPLIED.

13

Kite co-orientation model Co-orientation A school of research in communication has flourished which has developed out of the ideas of balance, congruence and seeking of supportive information. The label coorientation approach has been given (by McLeodandChaffee1973)tothistradition,whichhasitsoriginsbothintheworkofNewcombandalsoinearly sociological concerns relating to symbolic interactionism. The key features of the approach are as follows: a focus on interpersonal communication or communication between groups i.e., on communication which is twowayandinteractive;anemphasisonthesimultaneousinclusioninanystudyofthethreemainelementsof informationsources,communicatorsandreceivers;aninterestinthedynamicsofcommunicationsituations. Theelementsshown(seemodelgiveninclass)arelargelyselfexplanatory.Elitenormallyreferstoaonesided politicalinterest.Issuesareanymatterofcurrentpublicdebate,aboutwhichtherewillbeitemsofinformation (shownasasetofxs).thepublicistherelevantcommunityaffectedandalsotheaudienceforthemedia.in practicemediastandsforeditors,reporters,journalistsetc.,whodealwithpublicaffairs.Thelinesconnecting elements stand for different things: relationships, attitudes and perceptions; one or twoway channels of communication. Themodeldepictsanotuncommonfindingofresearchonpublicopinionandcommunicationthatinformation about an event or issue is sought from, or acquired by, members of the public, by reference to personal experience, or elite sources, or the mass media, and often from a combination of these. The relevance of theoriesofinterpersonaladjustmentandinformationseekingjustdescribedliesinthefactthattheoutcomeof whatisadynamicsituationwilldependontherelationshipsbetweenpublicandagivenelite,ontheattitudeof the public to the media and on the relationships between elite sources and media channels. Discrepancies betweeneliteandpubliconissueperceptioncanbeasourceofstrain,leadingtoattemptstofindinformation fromthemediaandothersources.Atthesametime,suchdiscrepanciescanalsoleadtoattemptsbyeliteto manipulateperceptionsbydirectlyactingoneventsorbytryingtocontrolmediachannels. Theframeofreferenceestablishedinthiswaycanbeenlargedtotakeaccountofsomevariablefeaturesofthe mainelementsinthemodelelites,mediacommunications,publicandissues.Thus,wecandistinguishissues according to their relevance, importance, novelty and controversiality and we can characterize sectors of the public,elitesourcesofinformationandmasscommunicatorsvariouslyaccordingtotheirpositioninthesocial structure of community and society. In a study of mass media use and opinion about community issues, Tichenor et al. (1973) confirmed an initial expectation that the definition of an issue as controversial leads to morelearningfromthemediaaboutthatissue.Thisworkwascarriedoutwithreferencetotheexistenceand development of knowledge gaps and this approach is particularly relevant to research on convergence and divergenceinopinionandinformationlevelsbetweengivensocialgroupsandcategories. Comstocks Psychological Model of Television Effects on Individual Behavior Thismodelinitscompleteform,isanattempttofindanorganizingframeworkforresearchoutofalargeand variedsetofempiricalenquiriesintothedirectbehavioraleffectsoftelevision,withparticularreferencetothe unintended effects of entertainment content. The emphasis is on effects which might involve aggressive or delinquentbehavior(sincethathasbeentheconcernofmuchofsuchresearch),butthemodelcouldequally accommodatesexualbehavior,generalprosocialbehaviorandevenlearningfromrealitymaterial. Thepurposeofthemodelistoaccountfor,andhelppredict,theoccurrenceofaneffectonindividualbehavior inagivencasebybringingtogethersomeofthemainfindingsandtheoriesaboutthegeneralconditionsunder

14

whicheffectshavebeenobservedtooccur.Wecallitapsychologicalmodelbecauseitdealswithmentalstates andbehaviorofindividuals. A principal assumption is that television should be treated as a functional equivalent of any other personal experience,actorobservationwhichmighthaveconsequencesforeitherlearningoracting.Thus,itcoversthe casewheretelevisionnotonlyteachesabehavior,butalsoservesasastimulusforputtingintoeffectabehavior whichhasbeenlearntfromanothersource. The process depicted by the simplified version of the model. An individual watching a particular television presentation of a behavioral act receives several possible inputs relevant to behavior. For purposes of the model,themaininputistheportrayalofaspecifiedaction(TVact).Otherinputsare:thedegreeofexcitement, arousal,attractiveness,interestandmotivationtoactassociatedwiththepresentation(collectivelynamedTV arousal) and the alternative actions or forms of behavior shown by television in the same context (TV alternatives). In addition, we can consider as relevant inputs the consequences of the main action as these maybe shown or implied (TV perceived consequences) and the degree to which the portrayal is shown as realistic(TVperceivedreality).Thecentralpropositionofthemodelisthatagivenportrayalofanactionismore likely to lead to learning of that action, the more salient it is for the individual (i.e the more psychologically important),themorearousal thereisandthemoreprominenttheactionisinthetotalrepertoireofbehaviors availabletotheindividual. Both salience and arousal necessary conditions for learning, without which the process is negated, while prominence is a matter of degree. The supposition of the model in this respect is only that the smaller the repertoireofavailableacts,thatistosaythefewerthealternativestothespecifiedTVact,themorelikelyisthe latter to be adopted. Finally, we can observe that for a learned act to be actually applied, there must be an opportunityinreallife. The model is given in the form of an itinerary of an individual in time, starting with exposure to a given television portrayal, proceeding through the experience of acting or not acting and returning to a new or repeated television experience. Thus the model stands for one loop in a sequence in which subsequent televisionexperiencewillbeconditionedormodifiedbyearlierviewinganditsconsequences.Inprinciple,the modelportraysthesituationofanindividualcomingtotelevisionforthefirsttime,butinthenormalcasethe modelrelatestoonemomentamongstotherswhichmakeuptheexperienceoftelevision. Definition of terms in the abridged model TV act:anyformofhumanbehaviorshownontelevision Inputs:messagesfromtelevisionandassociatedattributes TV arousal:extenttowhichapersonismotivatedtoperformanyactincurrentsituation TV perceived consequences:sumofallpositive,minusallnegative,valueswhicharelearntfromtelevisionand whichgowithagivenact TV perceived reality:degreetowhichapersonperceivesthetelevisionportrayal(TVact)tobetruetolife TV alternatives:other(relevant)socialbehaviorsshownontelevision PTV act:probabilityofcarryingouttheTVact Opportunity:realLifechanceofputtingTVactintopractice

15

Display behavior:observableperformanceofsocialbehaviorshownontelevision Dynamic process of the model 1. An individual observes a television portrayal of a social behavior, together with associated inputs of arousal, perceived consequences of the behavior and presentations of other related, similar or alternativebehaviors. 2. Theprobabilityofanytendencytolearnandapplythebehaviordependsfirstonthedegreeofsalience, orpsychologicalimportance.Accordingtothethinkingunderlyingthemodel,anactorbehaviorwillbe given salience firstly, by the demonstration on television, secondly, by the degree of positive value attached to it, and thirdly, by the degree to which it is shown to be closed to real life. The authors proposethatdemonstrationonitsownwillatfirstincreasesaliencemarkedly,butafteracertainpoint repeateddemonstration willhavelessandlesseffectonsalience. Thevaluesgiventoanact depend mainlyonwhetherthebehaviorisshowntohavepositiveornegativeconsequencesfortheactororfor thecommunity.Suchvaluationwillbebasedonindicationsofmoraljustificationaswellasevidenceof personal satisfaction, pain, reward or punishment. The more favorable in value terms is the act, the moresalientittendstobe.Realityperceptionisconsideredtobeveryimportanttothemodel,sincethe authorsinterpretresearchevidencetoshowthatwhereportrayalsaretotallydissociatedfromreallife, theactwillhavenosignificancefortheindividualandproducenotendencytolearnorapply.Finally,we canconcludethatthedegreeofsaliencealwaysdependsontheprominenceofthegivenactamongst othersandthisdependsbothonthenumberofotheractspresentedandtherelativetimeandattention paidtotheactinquestion. 3. Atthispointinthemodelwecansaythatthemoresalientactsarelikelytodeadoptedandnonsalient actsarelikelytobeignored.Nowtheamountofarousalplaysacriticalpart.Arousalcomesfromtwo mainsources:intrinsicpropertyofthepresentationandcircumstancesofviewingandpredispositionof theviewer.Thesearehardtoseparateempirically,sothatitisproposedonlythatwithoutsomearousal of either kind even salient events will have no effect (P TV act = 0). Any increment in arousal will increasetheprobabilityofasalientactbeingapplied. 4. For acts which emerge with some probability of application, there must still be some opportunity for trialandwherenoneexists,theprocessisstoppedandtheviewerreturnstotheloopofrepeatedor furtherviewing. 5. Finally, there can be implementation of the act itself which is open to observation and the viewer is returnedtosubsequentviewingexperiencesinadifferentframeofmindandwithalteredprobabilities forfuturebehavior.

16