COMM250 REVIEW QUESTIONS Last Revised 29 August 2010 1 Dean Barnlund insists that communication occurs whenever meaning is assigned to internal or external stimuli To what sort of position on intentionality in communication does this commit Barnlund and why When Barnlund states this he commits to the beilief that communication is not always intentional An internal and or external stimuli does not have to be aware of the fact that they are indeed a stimuli 2 Barnlund distinguishes between consummatory and instrumental communication What is the difference What are some examples of each of these categories of communication Consummatory communication is creating meaning based on individual reflections like waiting outside an operating room alone Instrumental communication is creating meaning based on linguistic or perhaps other symbolic interaction Alters attitudes and actions 3 According to Barnlund what is the aim of communication The aim of communication is to increase the number and consistency of our meanings within the limits set by patterns of evaluation that have proven successful in the past our emerging needs and drives and the demands of the physical and social setting of the moment 4 Barnlund argues that any exchange of words involves an interference with meaning creation To what categories of communication does he resort in attempting to analyze types of interference with meaning creation What are the characteristics of these categories What ethical conclusions does Barnlund draw from his analysis and characterization of interference with meaning creation Are these ethical conclusions entirely consistent with his meaning centered theory of communication Barnlund explains his view of creation like this Communication is man s attempt to cope with his experience his mood his emerging needs For every person it is a unique act of creation involving dissimilar materials Barnlund s focus on creation arises from his assumption that meanings are never transmitted Barnlund insists that meanings are created within individuals who are exposed to messages and other stimuli His rationale is this We are born into and inhabit a world without meaning That life becomes intelligible to us full of beauty or ugliness hope or despair is because it is assigned that significance by the experiencing being Sensations do not come to us sorted and labeled as if we were visitors to a vast but ordered museum Each of us instead is his own curator We learn to look with a selective eye to classify to assign significance In Barnlund s view any communication that interferes with the aim of communication is immoral He explains this view with reference to three categories of communication coercive exploitative facilitative In coercive communication meaning is constrained to one possibility by threat In exploitative communication meaning is narrowed so that one meaning attractive or appropriate In facilitative communication independence of meaning is encouraged For Barnlund only facilitative communication is moral 5 Barnlund promises to describe the process of communication Given his definition of communication are his comments on the process of communication sufficient to keep his promise Communication is a process Sender message and receiver do not remain constant throughout an act of communication 202 Communication is circular In communication acts there is simultaneous or nearly simultaneous feedback of exchange of roles 202 203 Communication is complex It involves a lot of cognitive psychological informational and linguistic variables 203 Communication is irreversible and unrepeatable Meaning once it arises or is generated cannot be erased 203 Communication involves the total personality The whole organism is involved physical and mental reasons and emotion thought and action 203 Barnlund insists that communication is circular posits the existence of communicative acts and admits that communicative acts are subject to analysis as involving a sender and receiver by a critic at a given moment 203 Yet he elsewhere insists that c ommunication does not require a speaker a message or a listener 6 For Barnlund where or in whom may meaning be located Meaning once it arises or is generated cannot be erased therefore the meaning is located by the receiver listener Individuals create meaning when exposed to messages and other stimuli 7 Dean Barnlund criticizes the view that communication is the transfer of ideas from one person to another on the ground that it fails to account for the fact that communication is as often a matter of hiding or protecting what is in men s minds as it is a matter of revealing their thoughts and intentions How would John Searle respond to this criticism Searle believes that the message must be communicated from the speaker to the receiver and its not communication Communication is a speech act Searle would disagree with this criticism because Searle and Barnlund have very different views on the meaning of communication 8 How do Watzlawick Beavin and Jackson define communication How does their definition differ from that offered by Barnlund WBJ define communication as all behavior is in an interactional way you can not not respond Communication does not have to be interactional could be one person watching another person without the one person having any idea of the viewer There has to be a behavior Barnlund believes that communication is cognitive and takes place in the mind while WBJ believes communication is talking or a behavioral event 9 According to Watzlawick Beavin and Jackson in an interactional situation one cannot not communicate To what sort of position on intentionality in communication does this view commit these theorists and why WBJ s position on intentionality in communication is that people cant not communicate The problem with that is when people analyze all actions a person makes this gives room for analytical error Some people are not trying to convey certain messages that are received when people analyze what is NOT said 10 Present the argument offered by Watzlawick Beavin and Jackson on behalf of their so called axiom One cannot not communicate All behavior in an intercatinoal situation has message value Even behaviors have message values and influence other s actions 11 How do Watzlawick Beavin and Jackson define interaction Does their account specify the scope of interactions with respect to time space or medium of interactions A series of messages exchanged
View Full Document
Unlocking...