Developing a prediction based on communication theory at this point in our nascent careers as graduate communication students is like probing a teenager for advice on how to fix the downturned American economy. We might get an answer; however, the answer is certain to exude theoretical naïveté. Admission of theoretical naïveté aside, the task at hand is to predict quantitative values of communication during a twenty-four hour period. To accomplish this task, one must have at least a rudimentary understanding of theory---its role and function in the prediction phase of this project. I turn to Griffin (2009) for this necessary foundation. In Communication: A First Look at Communication Theory (2009), Griffin culls from the work of Judee Burgoon, who defines theory as a “set of systematic hunches about the way things operate” (p. 2). The emphasis on “systematic hunches” spotlights the predictive nature and value of effective, and therefore, valid theory. We should notice, however, that Burgoon carefully chooses the word “systematic” to modify the hunches. These hunches are not simply whims of fancy. Hunches are to be systematic, or, what we might also call orderly, methodical, or rigorously organized predictions.
Having developed a working paradigm for how to go about the business of predicting, I now focus on what we are to predict: communication. I turn to Griffin’s working definition of communication: “Communication is the relational process of creating and interpreting messages that elicit a response” (p. 6). As I perused the discussion board thread dedicated to this project, I noticed how a good number of students have been focusing on two aspects of this definition—relational process, and an elicited response—as a way to exclude sleeping, or rather dreaming, from their predictions. I, on the other hand, do not discard dreaming from Griffin’s working definition. Griffin’s working definition does not mention specifically that communication demands a sender and a receiver. Some communication scholars such as George L. Grice and John F. Skinner (Mastering Public Speaking, 2010, p. 5) necessitate the dyadic nature of communication. Griffin (2009), on the other hand, leaves the issue of dreaming within the paradigm of communication open to debate by her use of “relational process.” To some, a relational process conjures connotations of two or more people relating to each other. To others, myself included, “relational process,” in addition to including two or more people relating to each other, also includes one person as he/she relates to him/herself. A good example might be the intrapersonal form of communication we call daydreaming. Daydreaming can be purposeful or whimsical. It is not a stretch to accept purposeful daydreaming as having effects on how one relates to oneself and the outside world. Being the “cousin” of daydreaming, dreaming while sleeping may have similar effects. At the very least, Griffin’s working definition accounts for the possibility of dreaming as a relational process.
The second aspect of Griffin’s working definition of communication one might use to exclude sleeping from the act of communicating is the elicited response. One might conclude since dreaming does not elicit a response, dreaming is not a form of communication. This conclusion fails to recognize that elicited responses may either be immediate or delayed. If one is startled from a dream, bolting uprightly and crying out, “AHHHHHH!” the response is immediate. However, one, who, weeks after having had a dream has an insight that may have been present in an image in that dream illustrates how the elicited response of a dream might be delayed. So, I am accepting dreaming as part of the communication process.
In addition to setting the parameters for predicting and what we are predicting, namely, communication, several other parameters must be set before I can begin the work of predicting. The first of these parameters is the various levels of communication in which one might find oneself on a daily basis. I turn once again to Grice & Skinner (2010) for their distinction between five such levels of communication: interpersonal (Grice & Skinner, p. 8), intrapersonal (p.9), group (p. 9), public (p.10), and mass (p. 10). Grice and Skinner (2009) define interpersonal communication as dyadic or one-to-one communication (p. 8). The classic example of interpersonal communication is the casual conversation. They define intrapersonal communication as “communication with yourself” (p. 8). As we have seen above, this “self-talk” can either be purposeful or whimsical. Grice and Skinner define group communication as “three or more people interacting and influencing each other to pursue a common goal” (p. 9). The classic example of group communication is a committee meeting. Grice and Skinner define public communication as one person speaking face-to-face with an audience (p. 10). The classic example of public communication is public speaking. Grice and Skinner define mass communication as print or electronic media (p. 10). The classic example of mass media is television. I set my systematic hunch into a taxonomy with the five levels of communication as the headings.
Now that I’ve set my taxonomy headings, I need to develop subcategories within the headings. Anyone who has taken an undergraduate communications course knows that messages delivered and received during the communication process are either of the verbal (spoken or written words) or nonverbal (proxemics, haptics, paralanguage, kinesics, appearance) variety. So I will divide my taxonomy between the five levels of communication, and whether the communication that happens in each level is verbal or nonverbal. But I am still lacking a key component in my taxonomy. As mentioned above, communication can either be purposeful or whimsical. Griffin (2009) rightly notes that communication can either be “crafted” (p. 7), implying that the communicator makes a “conscious choice of message form and function” (p.7), or “preprogrammed” (p. 7), implying that the communicator is on “cruise control” (p.7), and may be unaware of the messages he/she is sending.
Based on this discussion of theory and communication, I have constructed the following taxonomy and predictions. I chose Friday, September 2, a typical work day, during which to complete the experiment. Readers must know that I teach English at a private high school; consequently, communication on a daily basis is fast and furious.
My Communication-Prediction Taxonomy
Interpersonal 25%
crafted verbal (conversation, texting, responding to questions)
crafted nonverbal (purposeful tone of voice, purposeful body language)
preprogrammed verbal (ritualistic greetings and salutations)
preprogrammed nonverbal (subconscious body language and tone of voice)
Intrapersonal 40%
crafted verbal (verbal spoken and unspoken self-reminders, verbal dream images)
crafted nonverbal (verbal daydream images)
preprogrammed verbal (nonverbal dream images)
preprogrammed nonverbal (nonverbal daydream images)
Group 0%
crafted verbal (agenda setting, problem solving)
crafted nonverbal (purposeful tone of voice, purposeful body language)
preprogrammed verbal (ritualistic greetings and salutations)
preprogrammed nonverbal (subconscious body language and tone of voice)
Public 30%
crafted verbal (lecture notes, question-and-answer sessions)
crafted nonverbal (purposeful tone of voice, purposeful body language)
preprogrammed verbal (ritualistic greetings and salutations)
preprogrammed nonverbal (subconscious body language and tone of voice)
Mass 5%
crafted verbal (watching television, reading, watching movies, listening to the radio)
crafted nonverbal (instrumental music under television dialogue)
preprogrammed verbal (subliminal advertising images)
preprogrammed nonverbal (subliminal advertising images)
No comments:
Post a Comment