DOCSLIB.ORG

Telementation Vs. Interaction: Which Model Suits Human Communication Best?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Telementation Vs. Interaction: Which Model Suits Human Communication Best? Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 12 (2012 5) 1733-1743 ~ ~ ~ УДК 316.772 Telementation vs. Interaction: Which Model Suits Human Communication Best? Viacheslav B. Kashkin* Voronezh State University 1 Universitetskaya pl., Voronezh, 394006 Russia 1 Received 4.12.2012, received in revised form 11.12.2012, accepted 24.12.2012 Models of communication may be classiied into transmissional (linear, mechanistic, or ‘telementational’) and interactional (non-linear, dialogical, activity-oriented). Everyday conception is closer to the reiication-transmissional metaphor of communication, although it admits some non- linearity. The dialogical or interactional paradigm relects the reality of human communication to a greater degree. Keywords: communication, model, interaction 1. Introduction the conceptual approach of the scholar or on the To disclose the characteristics of human scientiic paradigm it adheres to. A model may communicative behavior and the low of also relect the needs of the scientiic domain it communication activities, modeling is widely belongs to. Since communication studies are a used as a method when one object is explained by multidisciplinary domain, models might differ if another object representing its structure and/or they belong originally to technology or politics, functioning. It is practically inevitable when we sociology or linguistics. are trying to explain a physically non-existent, The suggested models of communication i.e. a mental or a behavioral phenomenon. may be classiied according to the paradigmatic Communication does not exist in the physical approaches which they were based on. Two major meaning of the word, and what we mean by paradigms that are often singled out in viewing communication are sequences of actions and their communication can be named transmissional results, sometimes also physically non-existent, (linear, mechanistic, or ‘telementational’) and mental and observed indirectly through human interactional (non-linear, dialogical, activity- behavior. oriented). The term ‘telementation’, or, in other Models of communication are usually words, ‘thought-transference’, belongs to Roy drawings or schemes where the constituent Harris who applies it to what he calls the ‘classical elements or participants are represented and their model of language’ (Harris, 2007, pp. 21-22). A bit interrelation is shown. The way communication of critical irony is felt in applying this term to the is represented in a model depends largely upon “transferring thoughts over a distance by means * Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected] 1 © Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved – 1733 – Viacheslav B. Kashkin. Telementation vs. Interaction: Which Model Suits Human Communication Best? of words”, which is enhanced by its apparent to optimize radio, teletype or telegraph similarity to the word ‘telepathy’. interchange in late 40-s (Shannon, 1948, p. 380). Communication in the transmissional Extended by Warren Weaver (1894-1978) to paradigm is presented as a unidirectional process embrace other instances of communication, the of coding and transmission of information “mother of models” included an information from a source to a receiver, via a channel. In source, a transmitter or coder, a message, a the interactional paradigm, communication is transmission channel, a decoder, and a receiver viewed as mutual activity of the communication (Shannon, Weaver, 1963). Particular attention participants, aimed at developing a shared to the issue of noise was later developed into a consensual view upon things and actions search for effective communication in general. performed with these things. The “telephone” terms were later applied According to the transmissional paradigm, metaphorically to other communication systems, information is transmitted from the sender to the including natural and human ones. Shannon’s receiver, whereas the interactional paradigm states model lies at the basis of any other communication that information is produced (or re-produced) by model, although nowadays it might be regarded the recipient (under the inluence of the sender). as too restricted to give detailed description of According to the irst approach, the human communication. environment creates noise and may interfere with Another model was suggested by Harold communication, while according to the second D. Lasswell (1902-1978) to be applied primarily approach the environment is inevitable and in the sphere of political communication and inluential context of communication. propaganda. Lasswel’s formula was presented We are going to argue that the second, in the form of a wh-sentence: Who says what interactional paradigm relects the reality of to whom in which channel with what effect human communication better. (Lasswell, 1948, p. 37). The resemblance is far from being coincidental, in fact, the structure 2. Communication Paradigms: of the statement relects the prototypical A Historical Sketch communicative situation, thus giving way to The history of communication studies relects connect the form and the pragmatics of human both transmissional and interactional approaches. communication. What was signiicantly different Lots of models suggested by the communication in Lasswell’s approach – that the model included researchers support either the linear or the non- the aftereffects of communication, thus bridging linear interpretation of the communication process. the theory and the applied communication studies, There are also models which might be considered and becoming less “mechanistic”. intermediary as they relect the functional and The well-known Canadian researcher teleological aspect of communication, although Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980) was particularly they remain mainly linear, monodirectional. Let concentrated on the transmission channel, and us give a brief review of the most signiicant his words “the medium is the message” became models of communication. a motto for the contemporary communication environment which includes technologies for 2.1. Linear models multicode messages where the visual channel Claude E. Shannon (1916-2001) was the performs the leading role. McLuhan compared irst who suggested a model of communication the stages in the development of communication – 1734 – Viacheslav B. Kashkin. Telementation vs. Interaction: Which Model Suits Human Communication Best? media and those in the development of culture, the human nature of communication, underlying and his prophetic ideas about the ‘global village’ the role of the language user, or communication in communication were proclaimed years before participant. the expansion of the Internet (McLuhan, 1995). Functional models have a wider explanatory potential and application sphere than mechanistic 2.2 Functional Models ones. Thus, Bühler’s model served as a fundament Functional models paid more attention to for a text typology very widely applied in language the purposeful, teleologic (from Greek τελέιον teaching and translators’ training. Peter Newmark ‘aim, purpose’) nature of human communicative and Catharina Reiß suggested a typology which actions. included three functional types of texts to be Karl Bühler’s (1879-1963) functional model translated: content-oriented or informative, is one of the most compact and rather popular author-oriented or expressive, and reader-oriented in applied domains. He introduced three major or vocative (Reiß, 1971, p. 20ff.; Newmark, 1988, functions of language and communication, pp. 40-47). Communicative analysis of the text related to the two communication participants plays the leading, or even the decisive role in and the message: expressive, related to the sender selecting an appropriate strategy of translation, (speaker or writer); appellative, related to the as well as in inding deinite solutions. receiver (listener or reader); and representative, the function of transmitting information in a 2.3. Non-Linear Models message (Bühler, 1969, pp. 98-99). Norbert Wiener’s (1894-1964) cybernetics Roman O. Jakobson’s (1896-1982) appeared simultaneously with but independently functional model included six components: from Shannon’s model of communication (Wiener, the sender (or the addresser), the message, and 1948). Wiener’s conception of communication the addressee (or a receiver) were similar to introduced the notion of feedback, thus questioning Bühler’s interpretation, whereas the code (or the the linearity of information transfer and opening language), the context and the contact were added ways to explaining human communicative by Jakobson (Jakobson, 1963, pp. 350-377). interchange in a more dynamic and non-linear Context in Jakobsonian interpretation is related manner. Human interaction and dialogue were to the content of the message, the information stressed by Wiener’s quotation from the father transmitted, and to the situation in the real of fractals theory Benoit Mandelbrot and the world (or its fragment) relected in the message. ‘cybernetically-minded philologist’ Roman The contact is related to the regulative aspect of Jakobson: “They consider communication to communication, to establishing, supporting and be a game played in partnership by the speaker ending an interaction. Each constituent element and the listener against the forces of confusion, is ‘responsible’ for the speciic communicative represented by the ordinary dificulties of function of the message. Following the tradition communication and by some supposed individuals of the Prague school,
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]