DOCSLIB.ORG

Communication Models, Translation, and Fidelity Paul A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Communication Models, Translation, and Fidelity Paul A Santa Clara University Scholar Commons Communication College of Arts & Sciences 1999 Communication models, translation, and fidelity Paul A. Soukup Santa Clara University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/comm Part of the Communication Commons Recommended Citation Soukup, Paul A. (1999). Communication models, translation, and fidelity. In P. A. Soukup, & R. Hodgson (Eds.). Fidelity and translation: Communicating the Bible in new media (pp. 219-231). Chicago: Sheed and Ward and New York: American Bible Society. Copyright © 1999 Sheed and Ward. Reprinted and reproduced by permission of Rowman & Littlefield. All rights reserved. Please contact the publisher for permission to copy, distribute or reprint This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts & Sciences at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 12 Communication Models, Translation, and Fidelity Paul A. Soukup, SJ The fact that people regularly translate from one language to another or-as the American Bible Society (ABS) New Media Translations Project has done-from one medium to another, may seem to make it easier to evaluate those translations. At some point, people can, and do, claim that one translation "works" whi le a nother does not, that one translation has greater aesthetic qualities than another, o r th at one translation is more fa ith­ ful than another. The fact that people make s uch judgments, though, does not necessarily make it easier to explain theoretically how they make them. Among other things, communication study examines both the process of communicating a nd the product. What might it contribute to an under­ standing of fidelity in translati on? Various perspectives on communication, reflected in models of communication, can illuminate the process and , indi­ rectly, the attendant question of fidelity. Without attempting a ny compre­ hensive treatment, I shall present four such perspectives: communicati on as transportation, communicati on as a semioti c system, communication as rit­ ual , and communicati on as conversation. After a brief introduction to each, I shall examine the consequences of each for fidelity in translation. Finally, I shall offer some more general comments drawn from this treatment. Earl y communicati on theory, fo llowin g a kind of transportation model, fosters a view of fidelity th at favors a sense of equivalence-something that can be measured. Later communicati on theory foll ows a more rituali stic view and asks what communicators do with communication; in this view, fi­ delity becomes more functional. Yet another approach sees communication as a manifestati on of semi otic systems; in thi s v iew, fidelity manifests s ur­ face changes in a deeper stru cture (see essays by Hodgson and Stecconi in this volume). Finally, an interactive approach places communicati on as a conversational system; here fidelity takes on a different va lue-more a c har­ acteristic of the a udi ence than of the text. 2 19 220 Paul A. Souku Communication as Transportation In an influential review article, James Carey ( 1975/1989) proposed a distinction between communication as transportation and communication as ritual. By the former he characterized what had dominated North American communication studies through the mid- I 970s: a sense that communication primarily involved the transfer or transportation of a message from one per­ son or source to another through some medium or agent. That kind of traditional communication study diagrams the communi­ cation process as a linear process involving a sender (or source), a message, a receiver (or target), a channel (or medium), a context, and various sources of noise. (See Figure I .) Originally designed by C laude Shannon (S hannon & Weaver, 1949) as a tool for measuring the electronic transmi ssion capac­ ity of telephone circuits where one could compare an input signal to an out­ put signal, the model, despite its mechanistic presuppositions, has found application in roughly identifying stages of communication. This model pos­ sesses a certain power since it diagrams various general aspects of commu­ nication and thus holds a certain universal applicability-describin g communication in situations ranging from face-to-face interaction through written texts to electronic transmission. Eugene Nida and William Reyburn ( 1981) have successfully appli ed this model to translation. The elements of the model identify key "places" in communication. The source or sender originates a message. Note that this implies that the source somehow determines or controls the message, thus becoming the "original" or yardstick against which to measure any copy or transported message. The receiver, or end location of the message, makes its version of the message available for measurement. If the message differs, then some distortion has occurred-due to "noise" in the channel through which the message passed or due to a change in context that affects the resulting pro­ cess of understanding. This model works well to hi ghlight what occurs in the transfer of a message from one place, or language, to another. It points out the places in which a message mi ght undergo change due to the system of transportation-exactly what an engineer needs to discover. The model Figure 1: Transportation model of communication. Communication Models, Translation, and Fideli 221 applies to texts somewhat m echani call y, but it does give a degree of insight into the communicati on p rocess. With thi s model, we could d escribe a tra nslati on in one of two ways. First of all , we could regard the translati on as an intermedi ate process. A message source creates a message and transmits it through a medium (the translator) who in turn sends it on t o the receiver. The process of translati on may inj ect n oise into the translati on, though it should adjust the message t o the context of the receiver. That very a djustment, though, makes the messages different in language and in presuppositions, as Nida points o ut in several pl aces. Second, we could regard the translator as the c reator of a new m es­ sage, whi ch reac hes a receiver th rough some c hannel or other. In thi s in­ stance, a double process of communicati on occurs: from the message source to the translator; from the tra nslator t o a receiver. In each case, one theoreti­ call y could measure the message at each end of the process and compare the two. The preponderance of authority o r p ower remains at the point of ori­ gin- in the o ri ginal, which acts as the yardsti ck for measurement. From the sender-receiver t ransport perspective, fidelity becomes the demonstrated equi valence o f th e message transmitted from source to re­ ceiver. In the s implest (and original) a pplicati on, one would measure the electronic signal at each end of the model and compare the two. Fidelity re­ sults when the recei ved ( or transmitted/translated) signal di verges little from the o ri gin al. In more c omplicated settings-language translati on, for exam­ ple-one would have to determine an appropriate measure (Thomas, 1994a). Nida a nd Reyburn illustrate this move by showing how a w ord-for-word translati on d oes not necessaril y result in a fa ithful translation since it ig­ nores idiomati c usage, cultural conventions, and so forth . They propose in ­ stead the c oncept of functi onal equivalence, preferring that the translation communicate the same function from one language o r culture to another. For example, the biblical phrase, "to beat one's breast," may not communi­ cate sorrow or repentance in all cultures; in some, a different acti on may serve that fun ction. The faithful translati on mu st change the lingui sti c phrase to convey the s ame meaning. In thi s kind of lingui sti c translati on, a bilingual speaker, one who un­ derstand s both th e c ulture of the o ri gin al or source language and the c ulture of the target l anguage, best judges the fidelity of the translated work to the ori gin al. The sense of measurement implicit in the Shannon model applies almost directly since such a s peaker could quantify the degree of d eviation of the target from source. Though difficult in practice, that kind of m easure­ ment remains fairly simple from the theoreti cal perspective of the model. (When applied t o e lectronic c ircuits-the intent of the model-such meas­ urement also re mains fairl y s imple in practi ce.) Multimedia translation poses a s imilar, but a more complex, situati on. A m essage moves not n ecessaril y from one c ulture to another but from one means of expression to another, usually within the same c ulture. The means of expression, though, do not p arallel each other the way that l anguages do. 222 Paul A. Souku What should a measurement of fidelity measure in this case? T hi s s ituati on touches bibli cal work in two ways. On th e one hand, t he process is not com­ pletely new fo r the b iblical m essage, since it has hi stori call y undergone a major media transi tion from oral p erform ance to written t ext. However, that transi ti on characterizes not onl y the Bible, but a w ide range of t exts, and so th e conventi ons of writing have evolved t o encompass the rhetori cal and oral cues of the spoken word- oft en slav ishl y.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Communication Theory and the Disciplines JEFFERSON D
    Communication Theory and the Disciplines JEFFERSON D. POOLEY Muhlenberg College, USA Communication theory, like the communication discipline itself, has a long history but a short past. “Communication” as an organized, self-conscious discipline dates to the 1950s in its earliest, US-based incarnation (though cognate fields like the German Zeitungswissenschaft (newspaper science) began decades earlier). The US field’s first readers and textbooks make frequent and weighty reference to “communication theory”—intellectual putty for a would-be discipline that was, at the time, a collage of media-related work from the existing social sciences. Soon the “communication theory” phrase was claimed by US speech and rhetoric scholars too, who in the 1960s started using the same disciplinary label (“communication”) as the social scientists across campus. “Communication theory” was already, in the organized field’s infancy, an unruly subject. By the time Wilbur Schramm (1954) mapped out the theory domain of the new dis- cipline he was trying to forge, however, other traditions had long grappled with the same fundamental questions—notably the entwined, millennia-old “fields” of philos- ophy, religion, and rhetoric (Peters, 1999). Even if mid-century US communication scholars imagined themselves as breaking with the past—and even if “communica- tion theory” is an anachronistic label for, say, Plato’s Phaedrus—no account of thinking about communication could honor the postwar discipline’s borders. Even those half- forgotten fields dismembered in the Western university’s late 19th-century discipline- building project (Philology, for example, or Political Economy)haddevelopedtheir own bodies of thought on the key communication questions. The same is true for the mainline disciplines—the ones we take as unquestionably legitimate,thoughmostwereformedjustafewdecadesbeforeSchramm’smarch through US journalism schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Communication Models in Law1
    T. Bekrycht: Communication Models in Law 157 COMMUNICATION MODELS IN LAW1 by TOMASZ BEKRYCHT* Communication processes can be generally described with the use of two models. The first one adopts cybernetic perspective, while the second one adopts social per- spective. Cybernetic perspective leads to transmission conception of communication whereas the social one to convergent concept of it. Both communication models are deeply present in the legal discourses, i.e. in lawmaking discourse and discourse of application. The issue related to the analysis of communication models in law is a part of a comprehensive area, which in the literature on the subject is related to the problem of ideology of lawmaking and law application. Dynamic nature of our social and legal reality can be described, on the one hand, by means of the conceptual network of communication models and, on the other hand, by means of many models of law- making and law application created by Jerzy Wróblewski and socio-historical model of lawmaking developed by Ewa Kustra based on the models of law set out in the conception of Phillipe Nonet and Phillip Selznick. The paper describes the position of the above-mentioned models in these discourses. KEYWORDS Modelling, discourse of lawmaking, discourse of law application, communication models 1. INTRODUCTION The issue related to the analysis of communication models in law is a part of a comprehensive area, which in the literature on the subject is related to 1 The following text was prepared as a part of a research grant financed by National Science Center (Poland), No. DEC-2012/05/B/HS5/01111.
    [Show full text]
  • Models of Communication: Theoretical and Philosophical Approaches ECREA Philosophy of Communication Workshop Vilnius, 8-10 October 2015
    Models of Communication: Theoretical and Philosophical Approaches ECREA Philosophy of Communication Workshop Vilnius, 8-10 October 2015 More info: http://philosophyofcommunication.eu/ It is often claimed that the early phases of media and communication studies were dominated by a linear conception of communication, modelled as a process of transmission. The hegemony of this model may have been exaggerated – it never prevailed in studies of interpersonal communication, for instance – but it has undeniably provided a favourite target for critics of various stripes. While some communication theorists have proposed elaborations of the well- known sender-message-receiver schema, others have argued for more radical revisions of modelling rooted in e.g. semiotics, constructivism, and the ritual view of communication. At the same time, scepticism regarding the very notion of a model of communication has grown stronger; and in recent decades, the focus has often switched from first-level conceptions to second-order “meta-models” of the constellations of communication theory. What is the status and relevance of communication models today? The proliferation of new forms of mediated communication seems to require new ways of making sense of a complex and rapidly moving field. Can the established perspectives provide adequate platforms from which to address emerging questions of “social media” and “big data”? Are we actually witnessing a revival of information-theoretical perspectives in the wake of the advance of computer-mediated communications? Should models of media and communication be descriptive or prescriptive? What, if any, exemplars should provide the basis for a future media and communications curriculum? What is their scholarly, scientific, and heuristic value? For this workshop, we invite proposals that explore new models of communication and investigate various aspects of model construction as well as contributions that scrutinise the use and misuse of models in communication theory and education.
    [Show full text]
  • Encompassing the Scope of Western Models of Communication
    Volume : 4 | Issue : 9 | Sept 2015 ISSN - 2250-1991 Research Paper English Encompassing the Scope of Western Models of Communication Research Scholar – Rai University & Associate Professor Dharnat B. Bandhiya Prin. MC Shah Commerce College, Ahmedabad Research Supervisor & Assistant Professor, Atmiya Institute of Dr Alpesh Joshi Technology & Science, Rajkot – 360 005, Gujarat We teach the same models of communication today that we taught forty years ago. This can and should be regarded as a mark of the enduring value of these models in highlighting key elements of that process for students who are taking the process apart for the first time. It remains, however, that the field of communication has evolved considerably since the 1960’s, and it may be appropriate to update our models to account for that evolution. This paper presents the classic communication models that are taught in introducing students to interpersonal communication and mass communication. It then introduces a new model of communication that, it is hoped, more closely maps to the range of materials we teach ABSTRACT and research in the field of communication today. This model attempts to capture the fundamental interaction of language, medium, and message that enables communication, the socially constructed aspects of each element, and the relationship of creators and consumers of messages both to these elements and each other. KEYWORDS The Lasswell model of the Communication Process good’s definition is an illustration. In the most general sense, Western theories and models of communication have their or- he explains, we communicate whenever one (the system), (the igin in Aristotle’s Rhetoric.
    [Show full text]
  • Communication Today
    1 Communication today COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL c01CommunicationToday.indd 2 10/12/15 5:13 PM LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this chapter, you should be able to: ■ explain the difference between communication and communications ■ discuss the strengths and weaknesses of various communication models ■ explain why communication breaks down and why it succeeds ■ explain the limitations of communication processes. c01CommunicationToday.indd 3 10/12/15 5:13 PM One communication, two communications What is communication? Look it up in a library catalogue or an online bookstore and you could easily become confused. For example, you might be interested in finding out about public speaking or body language or journalism but find that your search is impeded by numerous entries for books on electronics. Or you might be researching the physics of the internet or telephones but instead find countless entries for books on negotiation, public relations and writing skills. So what’s going on? Right from the start — ironically enough — we find confusing communications about communication. The first task, then, is to establish the differences Communication is a between these two concepts. challenging concept, Communication (singular), as applied to human interaction, includes: with a search on ■■ body language or nonverbal communication ‘communication’ likely to ■■ bring up topics as diverse public speaking and presentation skills as team communication, ■■ journalism or writing for the mass media body language and ■■ graphic communication electronics. ■■
    [Show full text]
  • Feedback Tutorial Letter 1 Semester 2017 Assignment 1 Introduction to Communication Ico511s
    FEEDBACK TUTORIAL LETTER 1st SEMESTER 2017 ASSIGNMENT 1 INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNICATION ICO511S 1 cENTRE FOR OPEN AND LIFELONG LEARNING INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNICATION 1B (ICO511S) FEEDBACK TUTORIAL LETTER ASSIGNMENT 2 May 2017 Dear Student, Assignment 2 comprised of two questions, 1 and 2. Question 1 required you to write an essay. When you are asked to write an essay, have a short introduction (first paragraph), then proceed to discuss each point in its own paragraph. And have a sentence or two to conclude your essay. 1. Write an essay comparing and contrasting the models of communication given below. When you are contrasting and comparing, you look for similarities and differences. You need to use your own words as much as possible. Do not write more than 500 words /25/ a. The Linear Model b. The Interactional Model c. The Transactional Model In this question, 3 marks are for the introduction paragraph, 15 marks are for content and language while the remaining 2 marks are allocated t the concluding paragraph. Linda Mupupa’s modified essay below closely models the required essay: The Linear, Interactive and Transactional models are used to explain the human communication process. Although they do share some similarities, they also share notable differences. The Linear model of communication consists of the sender encoding a message to be sent via a channel to the receiver in the presence of noise. This model does not display the feedback element, which indicates continuous exchange of information. The Linear model represents the “one-way communication” (Palmer, 1993). The Linear model best represent mass communication, in which the message is sent out via a transmitter to an audience who will then receive and decode the message, may be vi radio or television.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Communication (COM 101)
    MIDDLESEX COMMUNITY COLLEGE BEDFORD • MASSACHUSETTS • LOWELL Strategies for Success COURSE GUIDE Mass Communication (COM 101) Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education Title III Grant, Strategies for Success: Increasing Achievement, Persistence, Retention & Engagement, 2008-2013. Title III Strengthening Institutions Project Strategies for Success: Increasing Achievement, Persistence, Retention and Engagement The Strategies for Success Title III initiative is a major, five‐year project (2009‐2013) funded by a two million dollar grant from the U.S. Department of Education. This initiative is intended to transform Middlesex Community College by improving the academic achievement, persistence, retention, and engagement of its students. The project focuses on reformed curricula and comprehensive advising. Reformed Curriculum involves the design of developmental and college Gateway courses and learning communities embedded with Core Student Success Skills related to critical thinking, communication, collaboration, organization, and self‐assessment. Overall, 45 courses will be impacted over the five years of the project. Comprehensive Advising involves the design of integrated advising services to include identification of academic and career goals, creation of realistic educational plans, and continuous tracking and intervention with an emphasis on the Core Student Success Skills. Comprehensive Advising Services will be specifically tailored to each program of study. Cross‐division curriculum and advising design teams composed of faculty and staff are designing, piloting, and assessing the curriculum and advising initiatives. The Title III grant provides resources to support faculty professional development related to designing and piloting new curriculum and advising students. The grant also supports the purchase of advising software programs and the hiring of a Pedagogical Instructional Designer, Learning Engagement Specialist, Advising Coordinator, and two academic advisors.
    [Show full text]
  • Four Communication Prototypical Figures
    International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 1 No.11 November 2013 Communication Beings: Four Communication Prototypical Figures Ştefan Vlăduţescu, Associate Professor, University of Craiova, A. I. Cuza Street, code 200585, Craiova, Romania Corresponding Address: Rodna Street no. 46, Craiova, Dolj, Romania E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The study falls within the Communication Ontology (Fundamentals of Communication Science component). It addressed the issue of fundamental ontological element of communication: communication being. First, communication being is defined as tangible, modular, computational and functional element. Then, investigation is developed on two axes. On the diachronic axis is made an inventory of denomination of communication beings since the establishment of communication as paradigmatic discipline. It is found that over the three paradigms (1950-1970, 1970-2000, 2000 - ...) talked about source-destination, sender-receiver, speaker-receiver, addresser-addressee, communicator-communicatee, participants etc. On synchronic axis is performing a taxonomy of communication beings. Bring several arguments in favor of the thesis that, in terms of categories, there are four communication prototypical figures: arhireceptor, participant, actor and agent. Keywords: communication being, communication ontology, communication prototypical figures 1. Introduction Communicators agents are tangible, modular, computational and functional elements of communication system. They are ontological and teleological factors
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Model for Communication
    (IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009 Conceptual Model for Communication Sabah Al-Fedaghi Ala'a Alsaqa Computer Engineering Department Computer Engineering Department Kuwait University Kuwait University P.O. Box 5969 Safat 13060 Kuwait P.O. Box 5969 Safat 13060 Kuwait [email protected] [email protected] Zahra'a Fadel Computer Engineering Department Kuwait University P.O. Box 5969 Safat 13060 Kuwait [email protected] Abstract—A variety of idealized models of communication 2) furnish order and structure to multifaceted systems exist, and all may have something in common. Starting communication events, and with Shannon’s communication model and ending with the OSI 3) lead to insights into hypothetical ideas and relationships model, this paper presents progressively more advanced forms of involved in communication. modeling of communication systems by tying communication models together based on the notion of flow. The basic A variety of communication systems models exist, and communication process is divided into different spheres (sources, “perhaps they all [have] something in common” [12]. channels, and destinations), each with its own five interior stages: Shannon’s model of communication and its variations are the receiving, processing, creating, releasing, and transferring of most common models adopted in many fields. The seven-layer information. The flow of information is ontologically distinguished from the flow of physical signals; accordingly, OSI model is well known as a reference model for describing Shannon’s model, network-based OSI models, and TCP/IP are networks and network applications. It is a reference model for redesigned. the five-layer TCP/IP model.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson 8 Communication Models
    Lesson 8 Communication Models Contents: Introduction- why do we need to study communication models? What are the basic models of communication, Aristotle’s model and Laswell’ model of communication. Learning Objectives: To understand the flow of communication with help of different models. To understand the three basic concepts of Aristotle’s model. To understand basic concepts of Lasswell’s model. Introduction: Technically communication is a process where a sender sends the message to a receiver through the various channels and with the same or the other channel sender gets the feedback from receiver. In our previous lessons we learned about the different types of communication, i.e., intrapersonal, interpersonal, group and mass communication. Each type of communication includes few basic elements namely- sender, receiver, message, channel, feedback and barrier. To simplify and understand the process of communication different models are interpreted. A model is a representation of real world phenomenon in more abstract terms, which can be applied to different forms. Students of communication often use models to try to present a simplified version of communication, containing the essential 'ingredients' only. With a bit of luck, these models should help us to tease out the factors, which are common to all forms of communication. Communication theory models offer a convenient way to think about communication, providing a graphical checklist, which one can use to create anything from a speech to a major advertising campaign. Communication models are visualizations of communication process. They are basic theories concerning the elements of communication and how they operate and interact. 3 basic components that are part of all communication models: SOURCE MESSAGE RECEIVER S ---------> M --------> R (linear) Aristotle’s model of communication Formal communication theory (rhetorical theory) goes back 2500 years ago to Classical Greece when Plato, Aristotle, and the Sophists were speech teachers.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Communication Model
    SAGE Flex for Public Speaking Overview of the Communication Model Brief: Public speaking can be better understood by analyzing the elements of the transactional communication model, which include sender and receiver, message, channel, noise, and feedback. Learning Objective: Identify and understand the elements of the transactional communication model. Key Terms: • Channel: The medium used to transmit the signal from the transmitter to the receiver. • Feedback: A return message sent from the receiver back to the sender. • Linear communication: The type of communication that occurs when a message flows from a source to the receiver without immediate feedback from the receiver. • Noise: Anything that blocks the sending or receiving of a message. • Transactional communication: The type of communication that takes place when one person talks to another person or a group of people in real time, and the sender of the message receives simultaneous feedback. Transactional Model of Communication Models of communication offer conceptual frameworks for understanding the human communication process. Much like a model of a building, a conceptual framework is never an exact replica of what it represents. And to complicate matters even more, there’s more than one type of human communication process. The type of communication you engage in when you watch television or stream video is “linear,” meaning the message flows from a source to you without immediate Watching TV is a linear communication feedback from you. process. When communication takes place with one person talking to another person in real time—or with one person talking to a group of people in real time, as is the case in public speaking—the sender of the message receives simultaneous feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling Telecommunication Systems: from Standards to System Architectures
    Modeling Telecommunication Systems: From Standards to System Architectures Von der Fakultat¨ fur¨ Mathematik, Informatik und Naturwissenschaften der Rheinisch-Westfalischen¨ Technischen Hochschule Aachen zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Ingenieurwissenschaften genehmigte Dissertation vorgelegt von Dipl.-Ing., Dipl.-Wirt. Ing. Dominikus Herzberg aus Bonn Berichter: Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Manfred Nagl Univ.-Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Manfred Broy, TU Munchen¨ Tag der mundlichen¨ Prufung:¨ 17. September 2003 Diese Dissertation ist auf den Internetseiten der Hochschulbibliothek online verfugbar.¨ Abstract The architecture of a technical system reflects significant design decisions about the system’s organization and typically documents a description of key system elements (be they hardware or software), their composition, functioning, and in- terrelation. The process of creating a description of an architecture is called ar- chitecture modeling. In the telecommunication domain, the architecture level has always played an important role in the design and evolution of communication systems and networks. However, the way how telecommunication engineers describe their architec- tures is surprisingly rudimentary: They use natural languages and conceptual draw- ings, as a look into “old” as well as recent standards unveils. Even in the transition phase from standards to the early design phases of systems development, system designers do not go much beyond that level of informality. Therefore, as practice shows, in telecommunications, architecture modeling but not the understanding of architecture as such lacks (i) a suitable, consistent and formal modeling language, which is adapted to the needs of systems designers, and (ii) a methodology to support the modeling process. This work addresses these deficiencies. In this thesis, a systematic approach is presented for modeling architectures of virtually any telecommunication system.
    [Show full text]