question about communication theory.

[rbarghouti]

I have never taken a serious communication theory class but I had a question regarding communication. Mostly I’m hoping that someone can direct me toward reference material.

Firstly, since my terminology will probably be wrong, let me take a moment to define what I mean by a few terms.

By communication, in this context, I mean absolutely anything meant to be observed by an audience, whether or not, it includes symbols. So in this discussion, I hope that what I model will extend to all communication.

By presentation, I mean to suggest a communication, which tends to elicit predictable responses from the audience. Even if the responses vary from audience to audience, they are predictable either based on the knowledge of the audience, or based on expectation that the audience will respond in one of a pre known set of ways.

By conversation, I mean, a communication, which is acted out with no predetermined expectation of response. That is to say the audience may react in a creative or intuitive way to the communicator.

And by perspective, I mean, as a member of an audience, the collection of knowledge or ideas, which are contemplated with regard to the communication at or over a given time. These aspects seem to tend to some theme and tend to include a chronological dimension.

Now that I have my terms set I will proceed on with my question.

I am interested to know if it would be correct to say, given the previous terms:

As a the breadth of a perspective tends to be greater or broader (by wich I mean that it includes a greater amount of information chronologically or thematically), do communications bearing upon that perspective tend to be more conversational and less presentational?

More simply put, if you view a given topic in a broader sense, does it’s communications seem more responsive to each other.

Is the inverse true. As a perspective shrinks to a single occurrence of the elements of a theme, does the audience seem more like the passive recipient of a presentation?

I already believe this to be the case, but I am looking for counter examples, where the breadth of a perspective tends to make an audience more predictable rather than less.

I’m also concerned that I’m hashing over something that I could more thoroughly learn by reading someone else’s work.

Lastly, I want to put forth a couple of examples of what I mean by these statements.

A clear example of a communication being observed as a presentation (though it’s mixed with other active “conversational” responses) is an observer of a performance of music. The observer of a performance of a big band performance simply enjoys the music, but as he sees more big band shows he becomes dissatisfied with big band and begins to look for, lets say hard bop jazz groups.

In the context of one experience of big band, he passively responds to it. In the context to a year of big band, he starts to look for something that is new and unexpected.

[someoneisatthedoor]

Dear rbarghouti

Communication theory is a massive field because it essentially refers to crossroads of various other disciplines or parts of disciplines.

@rbarghouti

I have never taken a serious communication theory class but I had a question regarding communication. Mostly I’m hoping that someone can direct me toward reference material.

For the beginner John Fiske’s book ‘Intro to Communication Studies’ covers a good range and is very clear. It will also introduce you to some of the terminology which is always handy, and makes you look like you know a bit more than you really do, which is par for the course…

…

I am interested to know if it would be correct to say, given the previous terms:

As a the breadth of a perspective tends to be greater or broader (by which I mean that it includes a greater amount of information chronologically or thematically), do communications bearing upon that perspective tend to be more conversational and less presentational?

From Fiske’s book,

“Closely related to information is the concept of redundancy. Redundancy is that which is predictable or conventional in a message. The opposite of redundancy is entropy. Redundancy is the result of high predictability, entropy of low predictability… Convention is a major source of redundancy and thus of easy decoding.” (p10-12)

As such it isn’t the perspective as such which is broad, but the (presumably) shared associative conventions, the expectation of conversations on a certain topic, in a certain kind of context, between particular types of people to go a certain way, for certain exchanges to be played out. An example of this is a political press conference. An example of the opposite is stand up comedy.

More simply put, if you view a given topic in a broader sense, does it’s communications seem more responsive to each other.

I advise you to break with this understanding of communication being viewed from a singular perspective. Communication is between people, language (and all forms of communication) are constructed socially…

Is the inverse true. As a perspective shrinks to a single occurrence of the elements of a theme, does the audience seem more like the passive recipient of a presentation?

See above.

I enjoyed this post. It’s a field which I’ve been exploring for a couple of years…

[someemofag]

It is nice to see someone I know on this message board. Regarding your post I can’t really say much that wasn’t already said at the cafe, oh how French.

[rbarghouti]

Firstly, thanks for the recomendation. I’ll look up that book. The last communications theory book that I tried to read had my head spinning. A good solid introduction is really what I need.

Then on to the meat of the topic:

At the risk of rationalizing a statement that I can see has wrinkles to ironed out, I’m going to try to incorporate in what you said about redundancy. I’m also going to try to remove referances to perspective.

I think that I see what you mean about redundancy and entropy. You mean to suggest that some contexts provoke higher levels of entropy. Your example of or a press conference would be of this case because there is a low predictability of how the press will respond. Alternativitly, redundancy would be found in a stand up comedy act because the audience’s responce to the act is highly predictable. And that the term for what causes one communications to be redundant and another to be entropic is called shared associative conventions.

In communications theory, how do we term sets of shared associative conventions? It would seem that some sets would be subsets of other sets. Or is it meant by the term shared associative conventions, only that portion of conventions of assiciations which at least 2 people share limiting it to one set which excludes all of our non shared association? I.E. If I were talking to someone who spoke german and a little english, we would be limited to speaking a little english because I don’t speak any german. So our shared associative conventions is the subset of my conventions, and his conventions excluding those conventions that are not shared.

Can I then rephrase my statement in my previous post to go something like this:

As the conventions shared by the participants in a conversation become more numerous, the communications grow more entropic. As the conventions become more few the conventions become more redundant.

I’m also interested to find out how the role of active and passive participant play into communications theory.

To be honest, I don’t really need answers yet, I’m sure that I’ll have my hands full, when I find the book you mentioned. I’m going to try to find a copy online.

[someoneisatthedoor]

@rbarghouti

Firstly, thanks for the recomendation. I’ll look up that book. The last communications theory book that I tried to read had my head spinning. A good solid introduction is really what I need.

It’s quite a short book but has a massive reading list in it. I’m currently reading another book by the same author on Television Culture which is hit and miss, though it’s a topic on which I’ve got apparently peculiar opinions.

Then on to the meat of the topic:

At the risk of rationalizing a statement that I can see has wrinkles to ironed out, I’m going to try to incorporate in what you said about redundancy. I’m also going to try to remove referances to perspective.

It’s not so much about removing references to ‘perspective’ (if I said this then ignore it), more so about seeing the audience and the speaker as involved in an ongoing dynamic power struggle, none of the entire system of communications (regardless of how you conceive of it) should be seen as passive or uninvolved in any strict sense of those words.

I think that I see what you mean about redundancy and entropy. You mean to suggest that some contexts provoke higher levels of entropy. Your example of or a press conference would be of this case because there is a low predictability of how the press will respond.

Actually I meant the opposite, that most press conferences are essentially redundant, highly predictable affairs in which it seems like a script has been written.

Alternativitly, redundancy would be found in a stand up comedy act because the audience’s responce to the act is highly predictable.

Likewise I would take comedy to be entropic. Of course I’m primarily talking about the words uttered by the comic when I say ‘entropic’ because the audience’s reaction may well be predictable but the words chosen by the comic during their act are usually unpredictable, that’s one of the rhetorical rules of comedy.

And that the term for what causes one communications to be redundant and another to be entropic is called shared associative conventions.

No, that is simply the term I choose to use. If you read some of the Deconstruction thread that I started you’ll see more what I mean, though it’s not necessary for this present conversation.

In communications theory, how do we term sets of shared associative conventions? It would seem that some sets would be subsets of other sets. Or is it meant by the term shared associative conventions, only that portion of conventions of assiciations which at least 2 people share limiting it to one set which excludes all of our non shared association? I.E. If I were talking to someone who spoke german and a little english, we would be limited to speaking a little english because I don’t speak any german. So our shared associative conventions is the subset of my conventions, and his conventions excluding those conventions that are not shared.

I think that most theorists would accept the description that you’ve just offered, except for those who oppose any notion of sets or the overall notion of shared associations being central to successful communication.

Can I then rephrase my statement in my previous post to go something like this:

As the conventions shared by the participants in a conversation become more numerous, the communications grow more entropic. As the conventions become more few the conventions become more redundant.

I would accept this for many cases but the opposite is also true. Language, communication in general, tends to be caught in such double binds.

I’m also interested to find out how the role of active and passive participant play into communications theory.

No offence but I think you need to read, read, read. I can present you with what my views on things but I don’t want to cloud you with my thoughts when there are plenty of others out there.

To be honest, I don’t really need answers yet, I’m sure that I’ll have my hands full, when I find the book you mentioned. I’m going to try to find a copy online.

This is a commedable attitude…

[rbarghouti]

Your right, what I really need to do is read, fundamental texts and analytical texts alike, if I’m going to really grasp the topic that I’m trying to understand. I’ll probably pop in here ocasionally to check understanding and whatnot.

I’m glad that there are people here that study communication theory. From what I hear, it’s sort of the bastard child of post-modernism, psychology, and other disciplines. I wasn’t sure that this would be the right forum to look for response.

Well, thanks for the referance and the input, you helped me rephrase and reconsider what I was hashing over in my head. I’m sure I’ll run into you again a few times on the message board.