An Integrated Model of Communication

Excerpt from my doctoral thesis in Linguistics.

The model suggested in the subsequent sections will systematically round up the various approaches and construct a holistic understanding of what goes on during (mis-)communication.?

The model is based on the premises that:?

1.???? communication is not one sided, and is not complete with an utterance alone;?

2.???? a unit of communication is completed only with its reception or internalization and hence,?

3.???? the role of listening and reception is significant in the completion of a process of a single unit of communication;?

4.???? complete meaning is attributable to an utterance based not only on the intended illocution but also in terms of how it is received and interpreted;?

5.???? furthermore, the meaning is strengthened by the effect it has on the interlocutor;?

6.???? the model therefore divides every unit of communication into two? arms or aspects:?

a.???? the expressive, active or creative aspect [externalization]and?

b.???? the receptive aspect [internalization].?

We can therefore consider a communication transaction to be

completed in two parts, sides, aspects or arms of communication:?

(a)? the externalization process: i.e. whereby the speaker expresses oneself, creates an expression and reaches outwardly to a listener; and

(b)? the internalization process: i.e. whereby the listener receives, interprets (attributes meaning to) the incoming message, and internalizes to make a decision to respond.??

Further, in addition to the two arms of a communication process, the model studies communication operating at three levels:?

i.???????????? the surface level – which deal with what is actually said or heard – this corresponds with the linguistic and semantic level of communication.?

ii.?????????? the central level – which forms the core intentions and interpretations – this corresponds with the psychological level of communication – and which roughly equates to the speech functions (illocutionary act of the speech act theory).?

iii.???????? the profound, sublime or deeper level – which we can also call the extrinsic level - that which is causal or the impact level; this is the more sublime, profound and generic level, which is usually (but not always) beyond the conscious awareness or intention of the speaker and interlocutor; this is an area of maximum possibility for cause and effect, interpretation and relating to one another.?

Each arm or aspect of a social transaction is represented in this model with a set of three concentric circles – each circle representing the different levels. Interestingly, for ease of depiction, the surface level of the transaction is represented as the innermost circle, while the deeper level is shown as the outermost one.? The central circle remains in the centre, and represents, as the name suggests, the central intention, intended function or speech act at the psychological level.??

A. The Externalization Process [Expressive or Creative Aspect of Interaction]

As we have discussed, the proposed model looks at communication operating at three levels. The expressive, creative or externalizing arm of the communication process occurs at the following three levels:?

??????? one is what we call the surface level or face value – corresponding with the locutionary force;?

??????? the second is the intention or functional level – corresponding with the illocutionary force; and finally

??????? the third is the effective, causal or impact level – roughly corresponding to the perlocutionary force;?

The perlocution is a step forward from the illocution or intended function of a speech act. A person might for example scold or reprimand his interlocutor (these verbs being the illocutionary function of the utterance) but will or may at the same time scare, demean, belittle or coerce him or her as a result of his illocution. Perlocution therefore is an incidental function or impact of an utterance of speech act. In the speech act theory, the illocution is synonymous with the speech act, whereas the perlocution is not given much attention.?

B. Internalization Process [Receptive or Listenership Aspect of Interaction]

Since the model suggests that a social unit of interaction is completed not just be expression but by listenership, the reception of an utterance is also mapped at three levels, described in REVERSE order (reverse in relation to the expressive aspect described above);

??????? the deeper perception and perspective level – which relates to the inner mental landscape? of the interlocutor, his-her beliefs and views of life, about oneself and about others;?

??????? the interpretative level – at which the listener or receiver interprets, defines or redefines the incoming message which has percolated after filtering through the previously mentioned prism of beliefs and expectations; and finally;

??????? the uptake or the decision that one takes in terms of one?s response or reaction.

The following diagram expresses a ?? complete unit of communicative transaction or social transaction indicating both the expressive or creative aspect as well as the receptive aspect: It is with the receipt and uptake of an utterance alone that the process of communication is complete.?

In the area where the perlocutionary force of the stimulus interplays with the internal reality of the listener, there is a field of interlanguage and inter-cultural possibilities. Each person comes from a different cultural background, and has a unique individuality. Beyond the illocution (purported intention of the speaker) there lies an incidental and causal force which is better known as the perlocutionary force. This is the area of multiple possibilities. And this, combined with the listener?s personal worldview, beliefs, perceptions and perspectives, gives rise to polysemy and a range of possibilities of interpretation, definition and redefinition.?

On the receptive side of a communicative transaction, the outer-most receptive shell is that of one?s [the receiver?s] perspective, worldview, experiences, perceptions, and preconceived notions. It?s an area that is expecting and preempting, and constantly comparing past experiences with the present incoming stimulus. The incoming stimulus comes loaded with levels of meaning based on the intention and conversational styles of the speaker. Most linguistic styles, devices and rituals are polysemous.?

Mixed with the coloring and distorting effect of the receiver's perception and beliefs, the meaning of the incoming message is determined and established. As a result of the interplay of the receiver?s internal environment with the incoming stimulus and its perlocutionary impact, the recipient forms a judgment or interpretation about the intention, content and meaning of the stimulus. This interpretation can be totally independent of and sometimes contrary to the intended illocution of the incoming stimulus. At other times it can be complementary to it. If the interpretation complements the illocution of the incoming stimulus, we have collaboration and cooperation. The conversation will be productive and purposeful. If the interpretation is discordant to the originally intended illocution or deviates from the perlocutionary force thereof, there is bound to be miscommunication and misunderstanding.?

Based on this interpretation, the listener now DECIDES a response. This is what we call uptake – or the decision to respond, based on the judgment made in aforesaid step. Once this decision is made, the communication process is complete. From here on, the turn and role of the speaker and listener are reversed.?

The locution or the articulation of the response is the external manifestation of the decision taken by the current speaker (previously the listener). It is interesting to note how (a) a stimulus originates in the form of an articulation or locution – (b) intends a function and (c) creates an impact, (c1) which is then filtered through the mental and emotional makeup of the receiver, (b1) interpreted (for intention and purpose) and then (a1) internalized to create a response. Further below, in the section entitled “Process View of the Communication Model”, this process is defined in greater detail.

Soon after the articulation from the interlocutor, the second part of an adjacency pair or interaction commences, where the roles of listener and speaker are reversed – now the listener becomes the speaker and sets forth an utterance in response to the stimulus. With this he sets forth a fresh set of forces at three levels, as did his-her counterpart in the previous transaction.?

This is then followed by interpretation and uptake by the current interlocutor (the original speaker who is now the listener). [See the next diagram.] The previous speaker now listens and receives the response. Filtered by his perceptions, perspective and beliefs, he interprets the incoming message, defines it and makes judgments before taking his turn to decide and finally react or respond to it. [Refer next diagram.]

With this is completed a unit of social interaction involving a

stimulus and response. This cycle then continues in a series of stimuli and responses, each following and flowing into the other.?

Summary:?

?1.???? Each Communicative Transaction has two arms:?

Communicative Transaction? =? Expressive Arm + Receptive Arm?

Communicative Transaction? =? Externalization + Internalization

2.???? Each Transaction can be either a stimulus or a response.? Communicative Transaction =? Stimulus? ????? OR ? ?Response?

3.???? A pair of communicative transactions together makes one Communicative Interaction - this could be an adjacency pair or a stimulus-response combination.?

????????????????????? Communicative Interaction =? Stimulus? ??????? +? ??????? Response

????????????????????? Communicative Interaction? =? Transaction? +? ????????? Transaction??

3.3 Exposition on the Levels of Communication?

The deeper level can be called the causal or causative level – it isboth the deepest intra-psychic level as well as the outer most impact it gives out to the universe, to the situation, the environment and most importantly to the interlocutor. Further, it also is the level at which we operate, most external, most sublime, most ?out there? - the vibration that radiates and reflects the inner environment of the speaker and resonates at another frequency with the innermost construct of the interlocutor. Hence the dichotomy or paradox as to why the deeper level appears most external in the model; it is the deeper most level of operation – a level of vibration, which creates an impact and that is out of the individual control. A word once uttered, no longer belongs to the speaker and is out there in the universe – waiting to be picked up, received and internalized. It is at this extraneous level that a synaptic interchange takes place – and from where the innermost response of the interlocutor is activated after having been filtered and taken up by an intermediate process of interpretation (mental process).?

?The levels of communication are summarized from different perspectives in a table below.?

The deep level (c) is beyond the complete control of the speaker and generally out of the conscious awareness of the receiver.??

Given below is a variation of the model of communication that has been proposed. It varies from the preceding model in that the area of inter culture, inter language and inter style is considered extrinsic to the recipient?s perceptions and beliefs, and not (necessarily) as a result of the perlocutionary influence of the incoming message and the inner environment of the recipient. In either case what matters is that intercultural differences as well as the predisposition of the receiver, who is interpreting the incoming message, have an impact on the uptake of the incoming message. We might consider these two separate factors or belonging to the same force - for the receiving individual is clearly influenced by and is a construct of the culture or linguistic community to which he belongs. The predisposition of the person is the sum-total of the cultural, linguistic, ancestral and historical influences that he grows up with. This is therefore a minor variation and may serve well only for visual effect and clarity.?

3.4 Process View of the Communication Model

In this section, a simpler explanation of the model is being presented in terms of the processes or functions that are at play. Given below is a representation of the cyclical process of communication. The entire process represents a complete communicative transaction, whereas each set of three green circles represent the expressive arm (externalization) and the set of blue circles represent the receptive arm (internalization) process.?

In its smallest units, and at the various levels of operation, a transaction will go through the following processes:

The above six processes are explained as follows:?

(a)??? a stimulus originates or is articulated in the form of a locution;?

(b)??? it intends a function and?

(c)??? creates or causes an impact,?

(c?) which is then filtered through the mental and emotional makeup of the receiver,?

(b?)? interpreted? (for intention and purpose) and finally (a?)? internalized before deciding a response.

The ?? above ?? sub-processes ?? and ?? functions ?? have ?? a ?? 1:1 correspondence with the various levels of the preceding model (shown above as a, b and c in the expressive arm and as a?, b? and c? in the receptive arm). The functions [a] through [c] represent the expressive arm, while the functions [c?] through [a?] form the receptive arm. Reproduced below is a structural section of the process view.?

Integrating the structure of the process view and the constitution of a transaction we can produce the following image. The below diagram shows the process embedded within the structure of an interaction and also links the processes on the expressive and receptive sides of a transaction at the various levels. It is clear from the image at the surface level (a), locution occurs on the expression arm and internalization takes place on the receptive arm; at the intermediate or central level (b) the intention and interpretation operate respectively; and at the deeper level (c), perlocution and perceptions are operating.?

3.5 Difference between Illocution and Perlocution

The distinction between illocution and perlocution is a very vital aspect of the proposed model. Within the discussions of the speech act theory, this topic has found mention and considerable work has been done on it. However, by and large, the focus has been on the illocution which has almost become synonymous with the speech act per se. It must be stressed that the illocution is only one aspect of the speech act and that a speech act comprises three acts in one. In the proposed model, the distinction between the illocution and perlocution becomes essential. There is a difference between intention (or purpose) on the one hand, and the impact or effect on the other. It can be said that while the illocution is the reason why something is said or the intended purpose, the perlocution is the effect it has.??

Below are a few examples to highlight the difference between perlocution and illocution.??

(a)???????? A person might intend to reprimand somebody for non-action. In doing so, the speaker incidentally also undermines the listener?s status, puts him down, or perhaps belittles him, perhaps without wanting to.??

(b)???????? Noteworthy is that some of the effects complement the illocution and are natural and logical outflows of the illocution, i.e. they are the natural result of the intended function and which form part of an act. I.e. if one were to beat or slap someone, one would naturally hurt him or her too. This is a natural and incidental effect.?

(c)????????? There are, however, certain effects that may not be complementary and may happen due to forces beyond the intention or natural fallout of the intended function. For example, one might simply instruct another person to park his car at another place or to engage his rear view mirror. In doing so, one is essentially making a request or giving an instruction. In the process, however, one might create a situation where the person feels insulted, hurt or embarrassed, although that might not have been the intention of the speaker. It is debatable, whether the speaker actually insulted, hurt or embarrassed the interlocutor, but from the perspective of the speaker, based on his or her perception, cultural background, life position, and the given context, it would be possible to say that indeed the speaker insulted the listener or caused him to feel embarrassed. A distinction can be made in the manner of expressing this fact, by the choice of the use of the passive voice viz. “The listener was embarrassed by the speaker?s words.” as opposed to “The speaker insulted the listener.”? This might be a way of expressing the fact impersonally, and speaking about an “it happened” effect rather than “s-he did it”.? A distance can be created between the effect and the speaker who seemingly caused it.? This deals with the important aspect of responsibility and blame. This is often an area where there can be differences in opinion about what one did or did not do, where the meaning really is whether it was intended. In the above example, if an altercation bursts out between the two, the interlocutor could blame the speaker of insulting him, while the speaker, who might not have intended this will vehemently deny such intention, and feel blamed. Blame usually leads to selfdefense and there from defensiveness and rebellion – a behavior that is often associated with and perceived as disrespectful and hence insulting. In this way, the interlocutor can actually drive the speaker into insulting behavior, which the speaker might not have originally intended to do. This is known as a self-fulfilling prophecy in social interaction theories and complementary schismogenesis in conversational style analysis.?

(d)???????? This is an area of polysemy caused due to differences in conversational style, the use of linguistic tools, devices and rituals, which in turn might arise due to differences in peoples? cultural background, gender, race, social hierarchy and many other factors, but most importantly due to differences in their idiolects (personal style of speaking and language). The difference between the intention and the (actual) effect is an area that warrants a lot of attention and study and can present extremely interesting grounds for study.?

(e)???????? The role of perception and interpretation on the one hand and the ensuing judgment and blame on the other can be considered vital elementary concepts for the building blocks of human interaction and especially conflict generation and possible resolution. Blame and judgmental statements about others are a form of violence that drives people into defensiveness and aggression. Most sociable people wish to have a positive face and like to be considered “good” and wish to be liked and respected. The moment a negative judgment or criticism is made or negative intentions attributed to them, especially when they are not true (at least in their perspective), people are naturally driven towards defensive behavior or venomous verbal reactions and aggression. This model presents an opportunity to identify exactly where – at which point – of an interaction, the conversation is going astray and awry and what aspects are really at play.?

(f)????????? When judgment and blame are being discussed, it becomes pertinent to discuss other related concepts. We have discussed the idea of “mixing the person with the act” or “fundamental attribution error” {an idea we get from negotiation studies}, whereby we judge the character or person of a person based on a particular action, which is itself filtered and therefore distorted by one?s own past beliefs and experiences. ?

(g)???????? In the above example, when the speaker reacts to criticism saying: “I did not insult you.” it might get further perceived as denial of accountability for one?s actions and refusal to take ownership and discounting of the listener?s feeling and experience. What the speaker might want to say instead would be “I did not intend to insult you”. This brings out the difference between intention and effect. Similarly on the part of the original listener, if he is able to distinguish between what he perceived and objectively what was said, he would be able to distinguish between “You insulted me …” and “When you said. <…>. I felt insulted.” This immediately dissociates the effect from the speaker and does not put the blame on the speaker and is bound to get a more rational and perhaps cooperative and possibly more compassionate response from the original speaker. This is the fundamental approach of the Non-Violent Communication[1] and other negotiations models. It is the separation of the incidental perlocution and the illocution. i.e., not mixing the intention of the speaker with the effect it caused - or in other words, not judging the illocution with one?s perception of the perlocution, and more importantly the willingness to verify and acknowledge that there are three intermediary forces (illocution, perlocution and perception) that lead to one?s interpretation, that can help in clarifying a lot of ambiguity and potential misunderstanding in a conversation and therefore in a relationship. For, relationship is based on how we relate - and relating happens with conversing.?

(h)???????? It is further relevant to explore the reasons for absolute framing, judgmental blaming or fundamental attribution error. Very often, there is a displacement of anger ensuing anger, which originates out of a perception of power and oppression in a situation that accords situational power to one of the participants. The fundamental attribution error may arise in that the interlocutor may misconstrue the speaker?s situational power as a deliberate attempt to overpower or subdue him or her. Mistaking situational power for personal, interactional or intentional power is also a source of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. A downward spiral of accusation, self defense and counter defense begins setting off a complementary schismogenesis and a breakdown in communication.?

3.7 Comparison with the Speech Act Theory

The Speech Act theory provides the basis for the proposed model. However, although it is the basis and foundation, it is restricted to only the expressive arm or the externalization process of the model being proposed. The speech act theory looks at an act in isolation and does not focus on the listenership, reception or uptake of an utterance or social transaction.?

3.9 Comparison with Conversational Style Theory

?Conversational analysis lays emphasis on linguistic styles, devices and rituals. The Communicative Model studies the process of communication and includes the scope of conversational style. The present model draws from conversational analysis, ? especially conversational style, in that it provides for its scope in the level (c) of the communicative transaction – i.e. - perlocution and filtering. This is the phase of inter-culture, inter-style and inter-language; on the expressive side, the area of perlocution provides for the individual?s effect on the person and situation – and this is widely influenced by the personal style and linguistic devices one uses. On the receptive side, the personal predisposition of the recipient contains his or her own linguistic and conversational styles which will influence the way s-he interpret the meaning of the incoming message.?

?Both Conversational Analysis and the Communicative Model focus on expression and reception as a complete unit for communication. Both theories speak of the function or purpose of an utterance at level (b) (?framing? in the former terminology and ?illocution? in the latter).?

?The latter, however, also includes the psychological aspects of the individual and the pragmatic contexts, while the former is restricted to the study of variance and polysemy of conversational and linguistic style. Further, the Communicative Model studies the process of expression and reception ? in ???? greater ???? detailed ?? and ? more ??????? organically ?????? than does conversational analysis.?

?Traditionally, theories and studies have focused on the connector between the “intention” and the “interpretation”.? In the present model, the process before interpretation is studied in terms of the effect caused (perlocution) by the speaker and the filtering of the information based on the individual style, background and predisposition of the receiver. See following diagram showing a two-level truncated view of the process of communication, obliterating the third sublime level of perlocution and perception, which is the case with most traditional theories.?

There is a considerable gap between what one does (or intends to do) with one?s language and what actually happens as a result or what is caused. This is an interesting and largely ignored area of study. This is what we call the synaptic and polysemous region, where possibilities of misunderstanding exist.?

This is proved by the fact that the same stimulus can get varied responses by different people. Different people will react differently to the same person based on their personal vibrations with each other, and the same holds good for the words expressed by him or her too. [See following diagram.]

4 Appraisal and Critique, Further Research Possibilities and Conclusions

??? ?????? Just like any other model, the integrated model of communication too is not expected to be a perfect model that encompasses all aspects of the communicative process. Although it attempts to look at communication from different perspective and include them into its fold, there are evidently some constraints and limitations that leave the doors to other avenues of research open.?

? A quick appraisal of the proposed model would include the following points:?

a.???? The model integrates elements from the linguistic, psychological and stylistic points of view.?

b.??? It integrates the structure and process of communication in a single model.?

c.???? It provides a step-by-step look at the stages of the communication process.?

d.??? The three-level analysis of communication provides greater depth into the understanding of the process.?

e.???? The greater division of the process provides ample space to identify microscopically where the communicative problem might be located.?

f.????? In dividing the process into smaller sub-process, it becomes easier to identify and locate the source of the problem. It provides a graphical overview, a map of the process, so to speak, which helps dissect the process into the smallest (yet) step.?

g.??? Having integrated different approaches in a single model, it makes it easier for the analyst to look at the issue more holistically rather than suggest one view or the other. The psycho-linguistic analysis may not consider stylistic variations, while conversational style may not consider psychological factors, and at the same time, the speechfunctional (pragmatic and discourse analytical) approach might be failing in either approaches. In the presented model, pragmatics, conversational style and psychology have blended intuitively to provide a very holistic view of the entire process.?

The model nevertheless is not perfect and presents the following difficulties:?

a.?????? At the level of the predisposition of the individual, where the filter of perception occurs, it is difficult to map the psychological landscape of an individual. Whereas the model provides a conceptual possibility, it is fails to provide details of why and how the process of perception takes place, or what the contents of the receiver?s inner mind are

b.?????? Although the model explains WHAT happens, it fails to explain exactly in detail and for every unique situation WHY it happens. Here again, the explanations will depend on various theories of psychology, sociology and management.??

Further research possibilities lie in the application and testing of the model by theorists, social scientists and psychologist as also linguists in the field of discourse and pragmatics. It is proposed that this model be suggested to various departments of universities and corporate human resource development departments as a basis for further research. There is a need and possibility of application of this model in the areas of counselling, coaching, interpersonal relations, negotiations and conflict resolution.?

It is proposed that this theory be further developed and popularized in various fora, conferences and panels. Articles about this model are proposed to be written and published in the few months after the acceptance of the theory and permission for further dissemination.?