The code model of communication: a powerful - SIL International

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2. Model as Metaphor 21 affected by the degree to which the inferred message of the decoder matches the intended message of the encoder. (Fleming 1990:25; preliminary edition, quoted with permission) 15 It is noteworthy that Fleming includes the information theoretic terminology that Lockwood (1972) had avoided. • David Crystal (2003) Crystal’s longstanding work, A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics, provides a classic version of the model in his definition of communication. communication A fundamental notion in the study of behavior, which acts as a frame of reference for LINGUISTIC and PHONETIC studies. Communication refers to the transmission of INFORMATION (a ‘message’) between a source and receiver using a signalling system: in linguistic contexts, source and receiver are interpreted in human terms, the system involved is a LANGUAGE, and the notion of response to (or acknowledgement of) the message becomes of crucial importance. In theory, communication is said to have taken place if the information received is the same as that sent. (Crystal 2003:85) While Crystal’s definition of communication makes a firm appeal to the code model, he does not seem cognizant of the extent to which the model has impacted the discipline. In another entry defining ‘information’, he does refer to information theory; however, he seems to suggest that the impact of that theory is somewhat limited, particularly to the Hallidayan school (Crystal 2003:234–235). Similarly, in defining ‘code’, he almost denies its influence, writing: code (n.) The general sense of this term–a set of conventions for converting one signalling system into another–enters into the subject-matter of SEMIOTICS and COMMUNICATION theory rather than LINGUISTICS. Such notions as ‘encoding’ and ‘decoding’ are sometimes encountered in PHONETICS and linguistics, but the view of language as a ‘code’ is not one which figures greatly in these subjects. The term has come to the fore in SOCIOLINGUISTICS, where it is mainly used as a neutral label for any system of communication involving language–and which avoids sociolinguists having to commit themselves to such terms as DIALECT, LANGUAGE or VARIETY, which have a special status in their theories. (Crystal 2003:78–79) K. Wales (1994) agrees with Crystal in part, suggesting that the term ‘code’ is being used in place of ‘language’, ‘variety’, and ‘dialect’, but in contrast to Crystal, Wales correctly notes that this use of the term ‘code’ extends far beyond the domain of sociolinguistics. Wales writes: ‘Code,’ as a term borrowed from communication theory and semiotics, is so widely used in other fields, linguistic and literary, that it is in danger of becoming a mere synonym for language, variety, or dialect. Yet to a large extent the technical origins of the word still remain, in that it sounds jargonistic and also conveys the connotations of systemization. (Wales 1994:577) 15 Fleming does use the phrase “inferred message” in writing of the decoding process, recognizing that the receiver’s message may not be equivalent to the transmitter’s message.
22 2. Model as Metaphor • The Current Generation The quotations provided above document the existence of the code model from its early years through the recent past. These successive appeals span nearly fifty years. The goal here has not been to produce an exhaustive list, but rather, a sample. The literature includes scores of other appeals to the model which could have been similarly quoted. Having considered the brief description of the code model provided in the introduction and the record of its use as provided through the quotations, some readers may readily identify in that model an historical event, but question the extent to which that model continues to influence the present generation. It is certainly a legitimate question. Just because a model was fashionable for a time does not necessarily mean that its influence has been either pervasive or lasting. As a means of answering this question about contemporary influence, in the early stages of this study, a brief pilot survey was circulated among students who were at the time studying linguistics, as well as among a number of professors and instructors. The survey consisted of one open-ended question: “How would you define or describe the process of communication?” This was followed by a few questions concerning demographics. Of those who returned survey forms, a full 50 percent supplied a code model-based answer in their definition of communication. A full 75 percent made an appeal to one or a combination of the constituent models integrated in the code model. Of this segment, 67 percent employed the code model. 16 No respondents assigned the model a name; rather, they seemed to be describing communication “as it is.” Of those using the code model, only one respondent cited a reference. 17 One other respondent, a student employing the conduit metaphor, acknowledged that he was using a metaphor in his definition of communication, though he did not refer to it by any name. Several responses included diagrams, such as occurs in the response presented in figure A.1 (see the appendix). Figure A.1 records a response from a graduate student studying linguistics. The text states: Concept or idea is encoded, transmitted in some form, either oral or written or other symbolic means (gestures, pictures, etc.), then decoded, by a recipient so that he also now has an idea. The accuracy of communication is determined by the degree to which the recipient ends up with the same concept or idea that the original sender attempted to send. (Questionnaire response; April 7, 1998.) A similar response was offered by a colleague with an M.A. in linguistics (see figure A.2 in the appendix): 16 In a pilot survey with thirty-six responses, one was simply Saussurean, eight were simply conduit metaphorisms, and eighteen employed the code model (including information theoretic terminology). Nine made appeals to various other models or accounts. 17 One respondent cited Van Dyke, but provided no date.
Page 1 and 2: The Code Model of Communication A P
Page 3 and 4: Contents Illustrations ............
Page 5 and 6: Illustrations Figure 2.1. A continu
Page 7 and 8: Epigraph Metaphor plays an importan
Page 9 and 10: 2 1. ‘Communication’: A Fundame
Page 11 and 12: 4 1. ‘Communication’: A Fundame
Page 13 and 14: 2. Model as Metaphor 2.1. Metaphor
Page 15 and 16: 8 2. Model as Metaphor Metaphor inv
Page 17 and 18: 10 2. Model as Metaphor To provide
Page 19 and 20: 12 2. Model as Metaphor What one fi
Page 21 and 22: 14 2. Model as Metaphor and communi
Page 23 and 24: 16 2. Model as Metaphor • Eugene
Page 25 and 26: 18 2. Model as Metaphor • David L
Page 27: 20 2. Model as Metaphor • Ronald
Page 31 and 32: 24 2. Model as Metaphor nature of l
Page 33 and 34: 26 3. The Code Model Decoded quite
Page 35 and 36: 28 3. The Code Model Decoded models
Page 37 and 38: 30 3. The Code Model Decoded model
Page 39 and 40: 32 3. The Code Model Decoded The lo
Page 41 and 42: 34 3. The Code Model Decoded commun
Page 43 and 44: 36 3. The Code Model Decoded In con
Page 45 and 46: 38 3. The Code Model Decoded which
Page 47 and 48: 40 3. The Code Model Decoded on a n
Page 49 and 50: 42 3. The Code Model Decoded In ord
Page 51 and 52: 44 3. The Code Model Decoded weakne
Page 53 and 54: 46 3. The Code Model Decoded lingui
Page 55 and 56: 48 3. The Code Model Decoded This p
Page 57 and 58: 50 3. The Code Model Decoded The em
Page 59 and 60: 52 3. The Code Model Decoded and it
Page 61 and 62: 54 3. The Code Model Decoded Joseph
Page 63 and 64: 56 3. The Code Model Decoded 3.2.3.
Page 65 and 66: 58 3. The Code Model Decoded There
Page 67 and 68: 60 3. The Code Model Decoded 3.2.3.
Page 69 and 70: 62 3. The Code Model Decoded the co
Page 71 and 72: 64 3. The Code Model Decoded Despit
Page 73 and 74: 66 3. The Code Model Decoded From a
Page 75 and 76: 68 3. The Code Model Decoded In spe
Page 77 and 78: 70 3. The Code Model Decoded Weaver
Page 79 and 80:
72 3. The Code Model Decoded of inf
Page 81 and 82:
74 3. The Code Model Decoded 1960:1
Page 83 and 84:
76 3. The Code Model Decoded metaph
Page 85 and 86:
78 3. The Code Model Decoded exampl
Page 87 and 88:
80 3. The Code Model Decoded One of
Page 89 and 90:
82 3. The Code Model Decoded • Na
Page 91 and 92:
84 3. The Code Model Decoded • Th
Page 93 and 94:
86 3. The Code Model Decoded 43.
Page 95 and 96:
88 3. The Code Model Decoded previo
Page 97 and 98:
90 3. The Code Model Decoded speake
Page 99 and 100:
4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch or
Page 101 and 102:
94 4. Code Model Linguistics: Patch
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
100 4. Code Model Linguistics: Patc
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
5. Developing an Alternative 5.1.
Page 191 and 192:
184 5. Developing an Alternative As
Page 193 and 194:
186 5. Developing an Alternative ch
Page 195 and 196:
188 5. Developing an Alternative Sa
Page 197 and 198:
190 5. Developing an Alternative la
Page 199 and 200:
192 5. Developing an Alternative di
Page 201 and 202:
194 5. Developing an Alternative li
Page 203 and 204:
196 5. Developing an Alternative In
Page 205 and 206:
198 5. Developing an Alternative on
Page 207 and 208:
200 5. Developing an Alternative Th
Page 209 and 210:
202 5. Developing an Alternative wh
Page 211 and 212:
204 5. Developing an Alternative tr
Page 213 and 214:
206 5. Developing an Alternative Co
Page 215 and 216:
208 5. Developing an Alternative th
Page 217 and 218:
210 5. Developing an Alternative co
Page 219 and 220:
212 5. Developing an Alternative 5.
Page 221 and 222:
214 5. Developing an Alternative pr
Page 223 and 224:
216 5. Developing an Alternative ei
Page 225 and 226:
218 5. Developing an Alternative po
Page 227 and 228:
220 5. Developing an Alternative In
Page 229 and 230:
222 5. Developing an Alternative cr
Page 231 and 232:
224 5. Developing an Alternative x,
Page 233 and 234:
226 5. Developing an Alternative
Page 235 and 236:
228 5. Developing an Alternative de
Page 237 and 238:
230 5. Developing an Alternative co
Page 239 and 240:
232 5. Developing an Alternative po
Page 241 and 242:
234 6. Summary and Concluding Comme
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
240 Appendix Figure A.2. A linguist
Page 249 and 250:
242 References Bernstein, Basil. 19
Page 251 and 252:
244 References Dance, Frank E. X. 1
Page 253 and 254:
246 References Harris, Roy, and Tal
Page 255 and 256:
248 References Kinneavy, James L. 1
Page 257 and 258:
250 References Makkai, Adam. 1993.
Page 259 and 260:
252 References Pearson, Bruce L. 19
Page 261 and 262:
254 References Stegmüller, Wolfgan
Page 263:
Biographical Information Perry Loui
show all

The code model of communication: a powerful - SIL International

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?