What is communication? Etymologically speaking, the word descended from the Latin root ‘communicate’ meaning ‘to share’ and ‘make common’. The term refers to the ongoing symbolic process by which information are transmitted, interpreted, and exchanged by individuals and groups through mutually understood symbols, behavior, and semiotic conventions. This article summarizes

1) The characteristics and models of communication;

2) Types of communication .

3) History of communication and how it relates to technology.

4) The two channels of communication.

5) The functions of communication.

6) Developing effective communication skills.

6) Common misconceptions about communication.

‍

Since communication is a general term that essentially denotes the sharing and exchange of meaning, every process, be it verbal or non-verbal, that conveys a type of information can be considered a form of communication. In this article, however, animals'and plants communication systems are not taken under consideration, nor are other living organisms. Communication, henceforth, refers solely to ‘interhuman’ communication. That been said, before talking about the two models of communication–which are usually combined in one ‘classical theory’- in which meanings are exchanged, it is important to understand how we, human beings, get to encode and decode these meanings in the first place. According to De Saussure (1916), the meaning an arbitrary sign acquires is primarily established through social convention or agreement. That is to say, linguistic and other semiotic signs do not have intrinsic meaning but we agree to associate certain ‘signifiers’ with certain ‘signifieds’. Sanders Pierce further developed this model by distinguishing the three types of signs we use to exchange meanings—symbolic, indexical, and iconic signs based on the relationship between the signifier and signified. Pearce B. and Cronen (2004)- through their coordinated management of meaning(CMM)- provide us with an understanding of how individuals create and coordinate these meanings (of signs), and G. H. Mead (1934) in his Symbolic Interactionism (SI) explains how people (other than the ones who created the meanings) learn the meanings through communication. From this perspective, Alder and Rodman (1982) define communication as “the process of creating meaning through symbolic interaction” instead of a mere exchange of meanings. Of course, as Mead (1934) mentions in the third premise of his SI, these meanings are not fixed or unchanging but instead are prone to modifications over time; Barthes (1972) takes this a step further with his denotation/connotation –illustrated in his Mythologies- by explaining how signs can even acquire new meanings and relinquish old ones.

Until about fifty years ago, researchers viewed the process of communication as something that one person does to another (Alder & Rodman, (1982). In this linear model, communication is like giving an injection: a sender encodes a message by putting it into signs, either linguistic—spoken or written- or nonlinguistic—haptic and chronemic communication, gestures, body language, facial expressions, eye contact, and others—and conveys them to a receiver, who decodes (attaches meaning to) them. The remaining three elements in this model are: first, the channel—the method by which a message is conveyed between people. Face-to-face contact is the most obvious one, followed by writing; but the emergence of new technologies has given rise to a new channel of communication known as computer-mediated-communication (CMC). This channel includes textual, auditory an

d audio-visual mediums such as emails, instant messages, faxes, telephone, voice mail video chats…etc; the chosen channel can make a big difference in the transmission as well as the interpretation of the message (more on this later with media richness theory). Next, the noise—a broad category that includes any force that interferes with the accurate reception of a message. Noise can occur at every state of the communication process and it can be external (also called environmental or physical) factors—the factors outside the receiver that make hearing, or seeing, difficult, as well as many other kinds of distractions; physiological factors—the biological factors such as illness, fatigue, and so on; and psychological factors—prejudice, defensive feelings, stereotypes, reputations, biases… etc. Another type of noise, not mentioned in the book, is semantic noise which takes place when the sender uses a linguistic system (words, phrases, sentences, or large units of discourse) that the receiver cannot understand. The last element in this model is environment –referred to in classical theory as context—both the physical setting in which communication takes place and the personal experiences and cultural backgrounds that participants bring to a conversation (Alder & Rodman, 1982).

Because of its simplicity, the linear model does not effectively represent the way most communication operates. The transactional communication model, on the other hand, presents a more accurate picture in several respects (Alder & Rodman, 1982). Though it also incorporates the aforementioned six elements, this model shows that sending and receiving are simultaneous. Except for most old-media (mass communication) and, in some aspects, public speaking that involves a huge audience-organizational-, which flows in a one-way linear manner, most types of personal communication- interpersonal and group- are two-way exchanges. The discernible response verbal and nonverbal- of a receiver to a sender’s message is called feedback. These seven elements are the major elements of communication in classical theory; nonetheless, other authors and theorists view the psychological noise as a separate element named filter, others distinguish between environment and context, and others argue that the sender is neither the source nor the encoder and that the receiver is not the decoder, all of which shed light on the disagreement and non-consensus on the elements (apart from the essential ones) of communication.

Within the domain of ‘interhuman’ interaction, scholars distinguish several types of communication based on scope. Despite the common features they all share, each occurs in a distinct context and has its characteristics. Although the communication process commonly refers to the exchange of meanings between two or more individuals, Alder and Rodman (1982) consider intrapersonal communication to be the first type. This is the internal use of language or thoughts through self-talk, acts of imagination and visualization, and even re-call and memory (McLean, 2005) to communicate with one’s self. Intrapersonal communication can involve: the additional activities of speaking and hearing what one thinks, reads, or hears, planning, problem solving, internal conflict resolution, evaluations and judgments of self and others…etc. Communication expert Leonard Shedletsky examined intrapersonal communication through the eight basic components of the communication process (i.e., source, receiver, message, channel, feedback, environment, context, and noise/interference-including filter) as transactional, but all the interaction occurs within the individual (Shedletsky, 1989). Nevertheless, as Ruesch and Bateson argue, this type can be seen as a special case of interpersonal communication.

Dyadic/interpersonal communication –the second type- in simple terms, refers to the communication between one person and another (or others as long as the number of communicators does not turn it into group communication). This field is further subdivided into distinct areas of inquiry each of which brings together countless theories that either delve into one of the communication elements or highlight new aspects of communication. Regarding the third element ‘message’ for instance, besides the aforementioned SI and CMM, Delia’s (1995) constructivism explains how individuals with high cognitive complexity can take the role of the other, anticipate his/her response and tailor their message to be a person-centered-message; social exchange theory describes and predicts why people reveal certain messages (private information) about themselves to others; and Burgoon’s (1976) expectancy violations theory analyzes the relationship between the encoded messages and the personal distance (proxemics). Other theories focus more on relationship maintenance and development: Bergers’s (1975) uncertainty reductions theory addresses the process of how we seek information and knowledge about other people before the initial meeting; Altman and Dalmas’s (1973) social penetration theory sheds light on the role of self-disclosure in relationship development; Petronio’s (2002) communication privacy management theory further scrutinizes how individuals manage private information through boundaries; and Baxter’s (1996) relational dialectics explores the tension of opposing arguments within relationships…etc. Other theories, mainly Sherif’s (1965) social judgment theory and Cacioppo’s (1986) elaboration likelihood model inquire into how individuals are influenced, convinced, and persuaded through communication. In addition, Tannen (1990) through her Genderlect styles studies male-female conversations; Watzlawick (1967)-the interactional view- focuses on families; and Gils (1987) through Communication accommodation theory studies cross-cultural interactions between individuals and points to how they (individuals) adjust their style of speech to one another.

The third and fourth types are group communication and organizational communication.  When we meet together, face-to-face or online, in small –or medium-sized assemblies, associations, bands, clubs, cliques, and the like, we engage in group communication. As members of groups, we permit a part of our identity and goals to exist as part of a small collective, and the convergence of these parts of our individual lives gives the group a coherent meaning, boundary, purpose, structure, and norms (Foss, 2010). Group communication examines the formation, dynamics, and dissolution of small groups of people, explores the mutual influence that occurs between the individual and the group, and aims to develop practical knowledge about group behavior that can aid us as group participants and facilitators (Foss, 2010). Group communication theorists have sought to develop general propositions about group behavior, or at least context-dependent statements about how and why groups behave the way they do. By contrast, relatively few group communication theories have concerned themselves principally with the interpretation of action—i.e., the hermeneutic investigation of the subjective experience and meaning of group life (Foss, 2010). On the other hand, the larger, more permanent collection of people engage in organizational communication when they work collectively to achieve goals. Organizations operate for a variety of reasons: commercial (e.g. corporations). Nonprofit (e.g. charities and religious groups), political (e.g. governmental or political action groups), health-related (e.g. hospitals and doctors’ offices), and even recreational (e.g. sports leagues) Alder and Rodman (1982). The theories within this field have developed from narrow conduit models aimed solely at improving the bottom line of corporations to more diverse formulations that emphasize the importance of participation by multiple stakeholders in the development of public, private, and nonprofit institutions (Foss, 2010).

Public communication—the fifth type—occurs when a group becomes too large for all members to contribute. It happens specifically when a person stands in front of the audience-whether a crowd, congregation, legislative assembly, or jury…- and engages in dialogue to either inform (deliver a message), entertain, or –most likely- persuade. Other authors substitute this type with public rhetoric—studying the capacities of writers or speakers needed to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. The classical work in this field is Aristotle’s rhetoric which identifies three artistic proofs a speaker can create to persuade an audience: logos—appeal based on logic or logic—, ethos—appeal based on the character of the speaker—, and pathos—appeal based on emotions. Other common theories include Burke’s (1968) Dramatism which asserts that unless the speaker identifies with the audience, persuasion is not possible; and Fisher’s (1987) Narrative Paradigm which states that a person’s stories are effective when they appeal to a listener’s values (West & Turner, 2000).

Finally, mass communication studies the process of imparting, disseminating, and exchanging information (messages) through mass media outlets-radio, television, newspapers, magazines, books, digital media, films, and the internet…- to large segments of the population beyond time and space, which generally stay far away from the sources of information. Mass communication is multi-disciplinary, incorporating elements of related fields such as strategic communication, health communication, political communication, integrated marketing communication, journalism, and more; it is chiefly concerned with how the mass communication messages persuade or otherwise affect the behavior, the attitude, opinion, or emotion of the people receiving the messages. That is to say, Scholars in the field study and research subjects such as how media is used and its corresponding effects; the processes behind media production; regulatory, ethical, and legal issues in mass communication; mass media theory; and related cultural and gender issues.

There are countless theories in this field alone: for instance, Hall’s (1989) Cultural Studies demonstrate the role TV discourse plays in indoctrinating people with certain semiotic meanings- created by people in positions of power through encoded messages- to manufacture consent for dominant ideologies and preserve the status quo (Griffin, 1996), and his encoding/decoding model which proposed that audience members can play an active role in decoding messages as they rely on their social contexts, and might be capable of changing the messages themselves through collective action; also, McLuhan in his Media Ecology who argues that the “medium is the message” bridging the gap between the two classical elements ‘message’ and ‘channel’. Katz’s (1994) Uses and Grats explains how people use the media for their own needs and thus concludes that, unlike the prior belief that audiences were passive targets waiting to be hit by a magic bullet (the media message) that would affect everyone in the same way, the audience decide which media they want to use and what effects they want the media to have (Griffin, 1996). Gerbner’s (1998) Cultivation analysis investigates the relationship between exposure to television and the beliefs and attitudes audiences develop about the world. McComb and Shaw (1972) in their Agenda-Setting Theory describe the ability of the news media to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda.

Human communication was initiated with the origin of speech. It started with the early human beings who used primitive forms of spoken language (arbitrary auditory signs with assigned meanings) to exchange ideas with each other. After that, as an attempt to convey messages to other people, symbols were developed; petroglyphs—carving into a rock surface- using pictographs, logographs, and ideographs were forms of proto-writing through which ideas were transmitted through drawing. Later on, more sophisticated writing systems which enabled us to note down messages in papers, scripts, and books and transmit them beyond time and space were developed. However, it was not until the invention of the printing press in the 14th century, and the telegraph, radio, and television in the 19th century that we started to see real changes in the way we communicate with each other; this was the beginning of mass communication. People at the time might have thought that it was the apex of what humanity could reach in the field of communication but the digitization-converting data (texts, pictures, sounds) to a digital form- and computerization -controlling, storing, and processing of these data using electronic computers-of old forms of media as well as the application of the internet in the dissemination of such messages announced the aberration of a new age of communication— New Media. Online newspapers, social media, computer games, websites, and other Web 2.0 platforms that enable user-generated content all have changed the traditional one-way communication of mass media into a two-way communication by which everyone gets to interact and communicate with everyone whenever and wherever he/she wants and on whatever device he/she has.

The effects of these technological advancements have not been limited to mass communication alone but also to other types of communication. One example is the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) as a second channel of communication either as complementary or –in some cases- as a substitution for face-to-face communication. CMC is an umbrella term that encompasses various forms of human communication through networked computers, which can be synchronous or asynchronous and involve one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many exchanges of text, audio, and/or video messages. Scholars who studied new electronic media have already offered a variety of theories to explain the inherent differences between CMC and face-to-face communication (Griffin, 1996). For example, social presence theory suggests that text-based messages deprive CMC users of the sense that other warm bodies are jointly involved in the interaction. Similarly, media richness theory classifies each communication channel according to the complexity of the messages it can handle efficiently. The theory suggests that face-to-face communication provides a rich mix of verbal and nonverbal cue systems that can convey highly nuanced emotions, and even double meanings; by contrast, the limited bandwidth of CMC makes it rather lean—appropriate for transacting everyday business, but not for negotiating social relations (Griffin, 1996). On the other hand, Walther through his social information processing theory affirms that online interpersonal relationships can still demonstrate the same or even greater relational dimensions and qualities (intimacy) as traditional face-to-face relationships.

Yet, most of these theories were presented in the nineties when CMC solely referred to the exchange of online texts and emails. Nowadays, as modern social media has incorporated advanced video calling technologies that allow users to exchange audio-visual messages instantaneously,  social media does fulfill the theory’s (media richness theory) four criteria—capacity to include personal focus, immediacy of feedback, conveyance of multiple cues, and variety of language carried— which render it one of the richest mediums of communication in contemporary society. In addition, because of this adoption of video calling technologies, a person might also argue that modern social media has a high level of social presence (social presence theory by Short and Williams (1976)) as it offers its users a high degree of awareness of each other. Furthermore, face-to-face communication has also been described as less preferable to mediated communication in some situations, particularly where time and geographical distance are an issue.

Regarding the functions of communication, Alder and Rodman (1982) state four needs communication helps us satisfy and fulfill: physical needs— the needs that keep our bodies and minds functioning. Communication which we most often associate with our brain, mouth, eyes, and ears, actually has many more connections to and effects on our physical body and well-being. People who feel socially isolated typically experience abnormally high levels of pain, depression, and fatigue; identity needs—communication helps us build and maintain our self-concept. We form an understanding of who we are based on how other people communicate with us and how we process that communication intrapersonally; social needs—communication provides a vital link with others. All people need emotional and interpersonal relationships with other people (romantic relationships, friendships, and family…); and practical needs—communication helps us ‘get things done with words’ in our day-to-day lives and achieve short- and long-term goals.

Still, the authors assert that to fully meet these needs, communication competence is required. Communication competence refers to the knowledge of effective and appropriate communication patterns and the ability to use and adapt that knowledge in various contexts (Cooley & Roach, 1984). Although scholars are still working to clarify the nature of communication competence, most would agree that effective communication involves achieving one’s goals in a manner that, ideally, maintains or enhances the relationship in which it occurs (Alder & Rodman, 1982). This definition suggests several important characteristics of communication competence: the ability to choose the most appropriate behavior, the skill at performing behaviors, the ability to construct variety of frameworks for viewing an issue (cognitive complexity), paying close attention to one’s behavior and using these observations to shape the way one behaves (self-monitoring), attentive listening, commitment to the relationship, selection of the most appropriate medium of communication, identifying and managing misunderstanding, being open-minded to other people’s points of view…etc.

In conclusion, the authors end the chapter by clarifying some misconceptions about communication. According to them, recognizing these misconceptions is crucial not only because they ought to be avoided but also because following them can lead to unbidden troubles. Firstly, communication does not always require complete understanding. Although some understanding is necessary for us to comprehend one another’s thoughts, there are some types of communication in which understanding as we usually conceive it isn’t the primary goal (e.g. social rituals, attempts to influence and persuade others, deliberate ambiguity, and deception, coordinated action, and the like). Besides, communication is not always a good thing: like many other instruments, communication is neither good nor bad in itself, rather, its value comes from the way it is used; it can be a tool for expressing warm feelings and useful facts, but under different circumstances, the same words and actions can cause both physical and emotional pain (Alder & Rodman, 1982). Thirdly, Meanings rest in people, not words (as mentioned before in De Saussure’s arbitrariness of the sign). Also, communication–unlike most people think-  is not simple. Lastly, more communication is not always better—there are situations when too much communication is ill-advised.

‍

Alder, B. Ronald, and Rodman, George, andAthena du. (1982) Understanding Human Communication.Oxford University Press.

Altman, Irwin and Dalmas Taylor (1973).Social Penetration: The Development of InterpesonalRelationships, Holt, New York.

Barthes,Roland (1972). Mythologies, Annette Lavers (trans.), Hill and Wang, New York.

Baxter, Leslie A., and Barbara M.Montgomery, Relating: Dialogues and Dialectics, Guilford, NewYork, 1996.

Berger, Charles R. (1987). CommunicatingUnder Uncertainty in Interpersonal Processes: NewDirections in Communication Research, Michael Roloff and Gerald Miller (eds.),Sage, Newbury  Park, CA

Burgoon, J. K.; Jones, S. B. (1976). "Toward a Theory of PersonalSpace Expectations and Their Violations". HumanCommunication Research.

Burke Kenneth (1968). “Dramatism,” in TheInternational Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences,Vol. 7, David L. Sills (ed.), Macmillan, New York.

Cooley, R. E., and Deborah A. Roach, “A Conceptual Framework,” in Competencein Communication: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ed. Robert N. Bostrom (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984), 25.

Deborah Tannen (1990). You Just Don’tUnderstand, Ballantine, New York.

De Saussure Ferdinand (1916). Course inGeneral Linguistics. ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Gerbner, George (1998). “CultivationAnalysis: An Overview,” Mass Communication & Society.

Giles, Howard and Tania Ogay (2007).“Communication Accommodation Theory,” in ExplainingCommunication: Contemporary Theories and Exemplars, Bryan Whaley andWendy Samter (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Griffin, E. (1996). A First Look at Communication Theory. McGraw-Hill.

Hall, Stuart (1997). Representation: CulturalRepresentations and Signifying Practices, Stuart Hall (ed.), Sage, London.

Karen A. Foss, and Stephen W. Littlejohn (2009).Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Sage.

Katz, Elihu, and Jay G. Blumler, andMichael Gurevitch (1974), “Utilization of Mass Communicationby the Individual,” in The Uses of Mass Communications: Current  Perspectiveson Gratifications Research, Jay G. Blumler and Elihu Katz (eds.), Sage,

Beverly Hills

Mead, Blumer, Herbert (1969). SymbolicInteractionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliff.

Muzafer Sherif, Carolyn Sherif, and RogerNebergall (1965), Attitude and Attitude Change:The Social Judgment–Involvement Approach, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA,1965.

Paul Watzlawick, John H. Weakland (1997). TheInteractional View: Studies at the Mental Research Institute.Palo Alto. Norton.

Pearce W. Barnet (2004).“The Coordinated Management ofMeaning (CMM),” in TheorizingAbout Intercultural Communication, William Gudykunst (ed.), Sage, ThousandOaks, CA.

Shedletsky, Leonard (1989). Meaning and Mind: An Intrapersonal Approachto Human Communication. Eric Clearinghouse on Reading.

Short, J. A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The socialpsychology of telecommu- nications. London:Wiley.

Walther, Joseph B.  “Interpersonal Effects in Computer-MediatedInteraction: A Relational Perspective,” Communication Research.

West, Richard, and Lynn, H. Turner (2000).Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis andApplication. McGraw-Hill Education.

‍