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,