Human Communication Theory II
(Continued from Human Communication Theory)
There are multiple aspects and details to communication. A few examples are; language, symbols, sound, and perception. Each of these points have greater or less impact on each type of communication, verbal or non-verbal. Language and sound have an obvious connection with verbal communication, just like symbols do with non-verbal. To create effective communication there must be a common bond between the transmitter and the receiver. A common language, significance, and meaning are all pieces of the common bond. Both the transmitter and receive must share these principles to acquire successful communication. A man talking to a woman is communication, however, if the man is speaking Spanish and the woman only understands Chinese the act of communication does not exist because there is no common bond. The woman cannot understand the man’s language therefore she cannot grasp the meaning of his attempted communication.
The above section describes and analyses my personal theory of human communication. The following are views and theories from published professionals. In Theories of Human Communication by Stephan W. Littlejohn, the book begins by reminding the reader that the book focuses on theories of communication to help “provide explanations that can assist us in understanding all parts of…communication” (2005). The author even organized the book in a way that would not “ignore the complexities and ambiguities of the communication process” (Littlejohn, 2005). In Theories of Human Communication, Littlejohn breaks down his book in to sections about a communicator, the message, and even goes as far as culture and society. Comparing Littlejohn’s overall theory to my communication theory, I believe the basics are similar. However, Littlejohn creates a much more in depth, almost a soul-searching experience, with the amount of communications theories covered within the text.
In another attempt to support or argue my personal theory of communication I would like to examine the Shannon-Weaver model of Communication (Jones, 2003). This particular model has three main parts; a source, a channel, and a sink. The message comes from the source, travels through the channel and gets received by the sink. This model substantially supports my theory. However in contrast to my theory, the Shannon-Weaver model shows the sink giving a “reply” message back to the source. I did not state any type of reaction or conformation message to be necessary for communication to take place in my theory. My later theories of human communication will include the “reply” message as a part of the basic form of communication. After analyzing the Shannon-Weaver model, I believe that for the sender to know that the message was indeed received some type of reciprocation message is needed.
After stating and analyzing my personal theory then researching others theories, I feel that the bases of my theory strongly matches with the two examples I have given. The Shannon-Weaver model (Jones, 2003), although very basic itself, still entails specific details that my theory lacked.