Instability, Ambiguity and Errors in the Communication Process Essay

Subjectivity and duality argon linked pitf eachs of the dialogue adjoin. Limitations in the power of expression, constraints imposed by circumstances, social conventions and the desire to carry through with(predicate) intentions coert, all contri notwithstandinge to pack saying, writing and signaling thoughts and ideas that whitethorn be at variance from the whole truth. The effects of much(prenominal) shortcomings ar magnified by matching limitations on the part of the single(a) or the group which is the object of conference.Since context is fluid, confabulation may cease to be relevant, even when conveyed and received with commodious clarity and accuracy. Thus the conference process posterior be no more durable than inevitable changes in perceptions, situations and aims. Mayhew (2002, p 3) has emphasized the essential temper of intercourse as a means of maintaining dialogue in modern society, and in order to resolve various shades of assent that evolve on all issu es of common concern.The element of inst cleverness may not arise from the conversation process al peerless, hardly may be integral to the environment in which communicating takes place (Windahl, Signitzer and Olson, 1992, p219). We sightnot always blame parley for the instability in which it is forced to operate). An element of instability is al close to inevitable in any communication that is not static. parley instability can squander roots in changing agenda of the encoder, media, psychological disorder and the through the intellectual evolution of the decoder as well. The term instability should be seen in communication terms without any necessarily negative connotation. The aspect of instability should in like manner serve to warn encoders that their rivals as well ass noise may undermine their influence at any time. Communicators, for this priming coat, can never rest High issue turnover nonplus audience interest excess stability can lead to boredom and even annoyed changes of perception.Errors may arise not just from encoding and decoding, but from noise. Noise may even add to the value and merits of in painsation comp ard to the original transmission. Noise is an primal source of errors in communication, whether perceived as beneficial or h outgrowthful (Shannon and Weaver, 1963, p19). conference free of errors is utopian, and should be accepted in a positive spirit. Sensitivity to feedback and the ability to respond appropriately in terms of rush along and modification are meaningful defenses against the inevitable and even at times useful errors that are part of the communication process.Windahl, Signitzer and Olson (1992, p205) also give the ambiguity of communication a utilitarian hue, by referring to the effect of political and some other campaigns in the media, that spur people to search for additional in organic law and even to movement, based on the questions and curiosity that such ambiguity can arouse. Ambiguity can be utiliz e with good effect by skilled communicators. Many advertising campaigns, for example, may fail to meet set marketing objectives, if they present comprehensive and defined in take shapeation in pedantic musical mode intended targets may receive such communication and respond with inaction. Ambiguity can also help to attract management in a situation full of noise.The onerous task of getting effective communication skills can be a thankless one, for its benefits and effects may be muddied by a lack of matching abilities on the part of the intended audience. A productive approach may be to study, mimic and adapt to the communication foibles of the other party, virtually disadvantages of language and customs as this may imply.Difficulties and obstacles to effective communication do nothing to undermine the importance and the value of link skills, difficult as they are to practice and to use. chat ability, on the contrary, practically becomes the deciding vote mingled with succe ss and failure, among victory and defeat, and mingled with peaceful resolution and destructive violence, in all kind of proceedings between man-to-mans and groups. It is a means of intellectual distinction and of influence over the affairs of people at greathearted.Signaling, implication and the Code ModelSignaling serves many important purposes in communication. A signal succinctly conveys a notion that may take many words and a long time to relieve in normal language. A signal also bears the stamp of independent certification, thus endorsing a person or a view with the stamp of trustfulnessworthy authority. Finally, signals support obvious communication, supporting the overt message in subtle manner. An commandmental qualification, a professional or a social association and oeuvre with an illustrious organization, are examples of signals and their benefits.We may presume to think that Mayhew is uncharitable in declaring that signaling is born in the assumption that oth ers may not be honest during the communication process (2002, p 124). It would not be possible for any meaningful dialogue to take place within a reasonable period, if we had to guide without signals. Signaling is also a valid response to the manner in which human minds function and form opinions. Signaling adds to the retention of communication, and thereby serves to fight competing communication and noise as well.Signification is a more basic aspect of communication than signaling, and one that is free of any implied criticism as we find with Mayhew. Signification relates to meaning. It has a valid base, since professional linguists can decide for us, the label value of each term. This does not mean that implication is elementary of free of controversy. Syntax and scummy language ability can easily and commonly results in signification errors.The latter are especially common in verbal communication, especially in hasty situations when people cannot think as quickly and complet ely as they may be instigated to communicate. Signification capability im experiments with practice, and the most accomplished of people from all fields other than communication, may use spokespeople and writers to communicate better than their own powers of signification may allow. Artful changes of signification add to the elegance of communication (Silva Rhetoricae, 2002). Tropes and figures of livery are examples of some desirable changes in signification that may be used to enhance the value of communication.Signification is inseparable from the Code Model. Signification gives form and valid substance to the Code. However, all people may not be familiar with the formal dictionary meanings of words, which lead to communication errors in coding and decoding.Communication as a Means of Social Representation and ExtensionIt is critical to the integrity of communication that practitioners distinguish between engaging others in dialogue, and the unethical drift to exert overpowerin g influence on others. Differences in language abilities can become tools to impose on passive subjects in a manner that destroys private freedom, and undermines development. Freire has recognized the power of literacy as a means of social development. Extension is not particular to mere transmission of messages, but maintenance of society over time it has played key consumptions in impart and use of modern technologies and in achieving study changes in social behavior (Windahl, Signitzer and Olson 1992, pps 7 and 130).However, there are a number of casual settings in which extension objectives may degrade in to efforts to wield undue influence on the thought processes of others. It is therefore important to restrict extension efforts to facts that have strong foundations in evidence, though many communicators are not bound by such ethics.Mayhew has acknowledged the power of communication as used by people who seek to wield influence over others with whom they have affiliation a nd ties (2002, p 74). The communication process has the tightial to mystify desirable social change, but this should be through the path of developing strong conceptual abilities on an egalitarian basis. Social objectives can be undermined when education is either restricted or restrictive, thus giving some individuals superior signification abilities. This can prove to be especially manipulative when individuals with positional and resources strengths arm themselves with communication skills as well.The dangers of abuse of communication skills are as potentially deleterious in extension activities as they are in social authority within closely-knit groups of peers. However, the element of trust is likely to be much higher in an extension context, because of which the manipulation potential is also magnified. Widespread and uniform literacy with the ability for unrestrained critical thought is the only stable and durable way of preventing socially harmful and exploitative use of communication. This is the core value of Freires office to oppressed people everywhere.Pitfalls of Coding and DecodingThe conversion of thoughts in to words and signs, and their translation by an audience, relate to the core and very delicate part of communication. The formation of words and signs to denote thoughts is the process of encoding, whereas the reverse by an audience is called decoding. Many of the processes of semiology lie outside the conscious realm they are also limited by the period of literacy and facility with language. The processes of encoding and decoding are therefore fraught with dangers of errors and manipulation as well.The transport framework of communication postulates the existence of a medium to convey thoughts from one individual to another, or between groups. Such a medium may vary in its degree of transparency, and can discover the veracity of decoding encoded messages. Distortion is also possible at the stage of encoding itself.The cullred mean ings that we may wish to attach to words and signals are major instruments of errors in signal engineering. Such changes may also be intentional as in situations of propaganda. Judicious and deliberate encoding, as well as pensive and literate decoding, are some essential features for constructive dialogue, free of transport deficiencies. This is somewhat utopian in semiotic terms, and recognized as inevitable distortion, though it may vary widely in degree and differ by way of intent.A full dread of the processes of encoding, decoding and use of media is crucial for the understanding of many contemporary phenomena in the worlds of social development, political evolution and industrial psychology. Mayhew has recognized its integral role in modern government (2002, p 249). hi-fi encoding and semantic decoding hold the keys to errors that even redundancy cannot substitute (Shannon and Weaver, 1963, pps 26, 71). They are therefore instrumental in effective communication, and in prev enting both uncaused misunderstandings and intentional noise that may be interjected in the system.Discourse and MiscommunicationSustained communication, as in a discourse, naturally multiplies encoding and decoding errors. Such a process lays the basis for basic and seemingly insurmountable misunderstandings. Edward Said has used the perception of the Orient (or the Middle East, which was his principal concern,) as an example of a misconception be perpetuated by a process of sustained discourse.Distortions that arise from discourse arise principally because individuals and groups have designated sources of information on which they depend, to decode information about entities and subjects of which they have no first-hand experience. Style is not an optional feature of discourse, because ideas cannot be communicated effectively without a degree of ornamentation (Silva Rhetoricae, 2002). Differences in styles used by encoders on the one hand, and styles to which decoders are accust omed on the other, may affect the integrity of the communications process.Mayhew has presented the same concepts as Said in the business light of Advertising, Market query and Public Relations (2002, p206). Here, style variations may be used intentionally in discourse to affect perceptions and basic decoding processes. The manipulation of open opinion on a variety of matters through structured communication is a significant weapon of both politicians and business people. It is an important industrial application of communication skills. Commentators such as Edward Said have lamented the abuse of communication potential to create misrepresentations and distortions of public perception.Some parties may be excluded from parts of a discourse, which leads to misunderstandings, as they are not privy to the same facts, opinions and other inputs (Windahl, Signitzer and Olson1992, p 149). This is another insidious aspect of the potential for discourse to affect the realization of truth by large numbers of people with no direct entranceway to undistorted facts.Literacy, common facility with language, equal access to transparent media and the ability for critical approximation of issues, are definite safeguards against misrepresentation and unintentional errors in discourse and other forms of communication. Primary education and literacy for deprived adults are therefore essential tools for those who aim for egalitarianism and justice in the field of communication.Propaganda and more Ethical Forms of InfluencePropaganda is marked by a unitary objective to encode and transmit, over-riding noise, feedback and any other form of influence on the transmission process (Windahl, Signitzer and Olson, 1992, p 91). It is a feature of many attempts at the business function of public relations by large organizations. Propaganda sees the decoder as a virtually passive object, who seems to have no rights to their own opinions, much less the world(a) access to factual information Propaganda is toothless in literate circumstances, and can prove to be counter-productive, through loss of trust. Propaganda favors weed media such as television that can deliver quick results and which traditionally discourage or disable feedback mechanisms in the short-term (Windahl, Signitzer and Olson, 1992, p 154). Exhibitions and exchanges are examples of relatively slow media that do not lend themselves to propaganda aims. National aims are often touted as justification for propaganda.Though propaganda has some negative decoding in the public mind, it is in essence putting forward an idea with a certain agenda. Mayhew seems to acknowledge the authenticity of using eloquence to reinforce some ideas (2002, p 47). Professionally therefore, propaganda should not be seen as less or different than the related processes of propagation and diffusion, though the latter operates more at the informal and individual level. Much of Edward Saids problems with the Occidental perception of Palestine could be seen in retrospect, as degrees of propaganda, propagation and diffusion.Rumors stand apart, for they lack the foundations in facts, and they often generate from sources that lack authority. Rumors always remain below the surface, and do not appear in official and open forms of communication. This does not mean that rumors lack potency rather they can be even more damaging than propaganda in shaping public opinion. The insidious circulation of rumors is especially effective when overt communication transactions are lacking.Diffusion is one of the most professional means lendable for sanguine communicators ((Windahl, Signitzer and Olson, 1992, p 57). Though it is a slow process, it has the benefit of durability and leads to long-term credibility of the best communicators. Diffusion uses a two-step process as a model and networking. Diffusion can produce revolutionary changes in opinions and habits, albeit in very phased and gradual manner. Diffusion suits those wi th long-term communication goals. It is a valid counterfoil to the strut of propaganda.How Trust Fosters Successful CommunicationThere can be no effective communication without degrees of faith and reliance. Decoding errors are more likely if the degree of trust in an encoder is low. Trust may be born in authority, but communication is more durable if the dependence is based on share values and good experiences. Encoders have therefore to bear in mind that a single reason for loss of trust can very quickly result in a breakdown of communication that has been built over a long period. The most enduring communication campaigns, both in politics and commerce, are born in consistent support of espoused causes. Mayhew has said that even rhetoric is based on trust (2002, p 14). Mayhew is critical of some nuances of trust in communications, as it can be abused by encoders to prevent full discourse and to evade accountability.Social development depends in large poster on the trust that p eople have in communication from agents of change. This is a major challenge for state media and also for international agencies that wish to make impacts on communities in emerging nations, and in the aftermath of natural disasters and after times of distress. Support for fresh developments in technology may also be hampered by the lack of trust in the minds of lay public for sources of such information that are viewed as being biased. The aspect of trust presents special challenges in the new field of Internet communication, where the intended audience may have no direct experience with the sources of such information.We may conclude by stressing the invaluable role of trust in communication. As Mayhew has observed, solidarity depends on interdependence rather than uniformity people willing look for alternate encoders if they lose trust in formal sources of information (2002, p 16). Windahl, Signitzer and Olson have repeatedly stressed the vital role of trust in various phases o f the communication process (1992, pps 55, 62, 88, 103).The Motivating Force of Communication in Social InfluenceWe learn from history that the force of communication is more sustained and influential than the use of force. The latter may produce some transient compliance, but only consistent advocacy can succeed in shaping and changing opinion. This concept applies in equal measures for both individual thought and for group action. The quality of signification in terms of its suitability for the intended audience, the peripheral support of signals and the consistent of transport across all available media, contribute to the motivating power of communication.People are known to undertake the most heroic and other forms of extreme action, under the influence of effective communication. Mayhew draws our attention to how governments use professionals from the world of advertising to try and wield influence over banks of voters (2002, p 7). Communication backed by appropriate media, can steer people towards forceful and aimed action. However, Mayhew warns that the persuasive power of communication can be misleading (2002, p 129). There is the important distinction at this stage, between factual statements, which are neutral, statements of identification that promote solidarity, and thereby appeal to irrational reaches of the decoding mind.Mayhew stresses the creative use of rhetoric to move people to action (2002, 129). The communication process may use inventive sentences with the intention to deceive. The influential power of communication may therefore be devoid of ethical merit. This cannot, unfortunately, detract from its susceptibilityThe power of communication campaigns to move large groups towards concerted action is a dangerous weapon amongst people who are unable to decode messages accurately, and who cannot reflect critically on the inputs to which they are subject. Such distortions are often more clear in retrospect than during the heat of a campaign. Motivation on issues beyond rational thought, such as related to religion, and on matters for which common people have no way of unbiased validation, as before war, are especially harmful in their Brobdingnagian powers.Contradictory Balances of Deception and Cooperation in Communication ModelsCommunication models trace the flow of interaction between two entities. They serve both to understand the process and to go steady strategies. All models must(prenominal) have the three normal components of sender, receiver and medium or channel. Early communication models depicted the process in linear manner from source and encoder to a receiver through a channel and a decoding procedure. Sources of noise were the only sides to this simplistic straight line. We know now that communication involves feedback, and is therefore a complex and non-linear process.The relative roles of deception and cooperation will not change depending upon the chosen model, for the latter is only a conceptual representation of a unitary reality. The game begins with the initiator of a communication. He or she has the discretion to use a valid source, or to pretend to have one. This person must be both skilled and committed to accurate encoding, and should know which channels and how many to use at each point in time. The initiator has also to be sensitive to feedback and to adapt subsequent transactions accordingly. Cooperation lies largely in the domain of the recipient, decoding as best as he or she can, and reflecting critically on inputs, with meaningful feedback and requests for supporting evidence.Mayhew has noted the role of deception in advertising campaigns as a 20th century phenomenon (2002, p 193). The endorsement of cigarettes by celebrities has been cited as the most powerful and terrifying of all deceptions used by the media. Interpersonal cooperation, on the other hand is a way of establishing relevance (2002, p 12). We may conclude that cooperation is a key factor in int imate communication between individuals, whereas deception works most effectively in campaigns conducted through the media.Brevity and wordinessFeedback often instigates verbosity. Redundancy may be rooted in assumptions about the conceptual and decoding capabilities of an audience, or in excessive excitement in a point of view. Propaganda aims may require repetition beyond the requirements of more neutral and virtuous communication. However, feedback may provide a justifiable reason for verbosity. They is a natural tendency to repeat oneself, as in a selling situation in which the customer appears unconvinced or even distracted.Verbosity also serves to allay anxieties of encoders and communicators. The imperative to succeed as when seeking financial succor or support, for example may bring forth a boozer of words far more voluminous than an audience may desire. Begging is an extreme form of communication in which brevity can be counter-productiveA more serious limitation of brev ity is its ability to serve a multiplicity of communication objectives. Professional advertisers would love for their industrial clients to limit the number of points they regard to convey paying clients may be greedy and so involved with their brands, that they require a unitary buying benefit to be presented in as many ways as possibleWe may conclude that verbosity is a failing of amateurs it is shunned by the best communicators, who treasure the transport of concepts with as fewer signals as possible. However, amplification may be considered as a good reason for a degree of the stylistic vice that is verbosity (Silva Rhetoricae, 2002).Semiotics can reduce the tendency to be verbose, especially between homogenous groups which are accustomed to communicating with each other. The development of trust is also efficacious in keeping communication as brief as possible, without sacrificing completeness. Verbosity can therefore be an indicator of the lack of trust and of wide chasms be tween the ethnic and linguistic preferences of people. This could be a reason for the long-windedness from which bodies such as the General Assembly of the United Nations seem to sufferA Pragmatic climb to SemioticsCommunication Science, Semiotics and other Cognitive Processes cannot be seen in isolation of each others. Professional communicators and professional enthusiasts of the process have been accused by many commentators of exaggeration to the point of exclusion of necessary attendants (Windahl, Signitzer, Olson, 1992, p 18). Semiotics has always had a major role in communication surmisal, and modern users of mass media have heaped increasing loads of importance of this branch of insight in to human minds). Semiotics is an exact and an exacting field of endeavor, and its rigors can easily prove irrelevant to some sections of a heterogeneous audience.Focused targeting on sharply defined segments can make better sense of semiotics in communication, but real life often demand s that a single transaction of a communications process necessarily reaches out to a diverse audience. The Chairman of a business Corporation has to bear in mind that the public use of semiotics may lead to varying degrees of decoding errors by categories of stakeholders with contradictory goals. Employees, vendors, regulators, investors and competitors will respond to a set of semiotics in different ways. The effect of semiotics on the enemy places an even greater burden on spokespeople of the struggle sides and on political leaders of all shades of opinion.Pragmatism must often dominate semiotics in real life, especially when unitary signification is within the reach of diverse decoders, each with their own needs and objectives. Effective communication is rare if the social and cultural nuances of linguistics are discarded in the interests of semiotic perfection. The latter does not have many universal manifestations in any case. Pragmatic perlocution is often the result of a com municatory action, though other forms of decoding could be considered as valid (Eco, 1978, p 65). Such pragmatism may be born out of the exigencies of a situation, apart from cultural metier of decoding.Communicative Action and PerlocutionLocution refers to the uttered word, illocution to the intention behind the communication, and perlocution refers to the effect of locution in terms of producing action (Cutting, 2003, p 16). Speech Act theory refers to the relationships between and the sequences of illocution, locution and perlocution.Locution, illocution and perlocution are integral parts of communication. Illocution is the first step, as we cannot have any communicative action shorn of some intention. Locution can reflect illocution only to the extent that the encoder is literate and careful in signaling. Perlocution skills are similar to those of locution, except that they relate to the decoder, rather than to the originator of the communicative action. Communicative action an d perlocution are therefore only the signification of the communicative process in codes that are not widely understoodNevertheless, they serve to display the communication process in analytical light for the professional and for the enthusiast as well. Adianoeta are examples of signification in which signification can have authentic differences in perlocution (Silva Rhetoricae, 2002). parable and irony are related techniques of transmitting ideas and of attracting attention and exerting influence over perceptions. However stylistic vices are also inherent in many aspects of communicative action. Most communicative action will suffer from some bias or even error due to illocution on the part of encoders, their locative powers and the perlocution abilities of individual members of a diverse audience.Speech acts are limited by culture (Cutting, 2003, p 21). The use of words and their meanings have major differences across countries, and sometimes between ethnic groups in a single nat ion. A compliment within the confines of a community may be taken as lordly in another This is a drawback of the Speech Act theory. Colloquialisms and figures of speech that gradually creep in to everyday language as used by the temporality can render the Speech Act irrelevant to some extent. The pedantic meanings of words can vary from common perceptions that evolve over time. Most communities prefer to accord precedence to such conventions over original root meanings.Therefore the use of the Speech Act to analyze real life communication processes may be prone to debilitating errors. Many expressions of feedback also fall outside the purview of the Speech Act, because decoding is at variance from the purist line. Finally, the Speech Act is lacking(predicate) to analyze precisely communication that includes incomplete sentences. The latter are normal reactions to feedback that communicators receive during the course of discourse and dialogue. Incomplete sentences may also be used to create drama, humor, sarcasm and intimacy.Communicators have to be sensitive to the perlocution results of target audiences, and to adapt their locative techniques accordingly. Some errors may be due to the medium, and it takes long years of experience, with perpetrate instinct to distinguish between various possible sources of error that lead to unplanned communicative action. Similarly, perlocuters have to be wary of differences between expressed locution, distortions of media and noise and the true illocution of an encoder. Such potential errors are easier to manage over time and with repeated communicative transactions.Concluding RemarksCommunication is a complex but universal and essential part of human life as a social species. It is shared by people with many earlier forms of life, but probably most evolved and certainly best understood within the context of our own cognitive abilities. Variations of signification lie at the deepest root of many communication errors. A un iversal lexicon, as used to some extent in the enunciation of law, serves to improve the accuracy of communication to an extent where independent and binding resolution of differences is possible.Opacity of media and environmental noise are common and highly significant sources of distortions and errors in the communication process. They are often clearer in review mode than during actual operation, whereas hidden aspects of illocution are more difficult to uncover without ambiguity. Linear models of communication are as ineffective as they are archaic. The roles of feedback and noise are essential elements of any templet of productive and desirable communication. However the linear force of propaganda can be stunning when used with unbalanced force on groups of people with low literacy levels.Politics, relationships between nations and branding of industrial goods and professional services are the most powerful and remunerative applications of communication theories, though the pro cess is relevant to all interaction between individuals.Communications have been used to subjugate people, imposing pervasive influence over perceptions and opinions of large groups of people with inferior literacy, comprehension and analytical skills. Equal access to quality primary education is therefore a primary weapon of mass empowerment. Communication skills, not just for encoders, but for decoders as well, are potent though non-violent shields against pernicious propaganda by vested interests of the elite.There is a need for more widespread appreciation of the role and nature of communication. The validity of some key theories and the efficacy of painstakingly developed techniques are adversely affected by imbalances between parties in a communication process. Pragmatism often wins the day against the elegance of semiotics and related disciplines.Diffusion based on valid and factual inputs, respectful of feedback, is a certain and virtuous, if slow means to eminent communicat ion. Cultural and linguistic differences between people are the most important obstacles to utopian states of communication the development, maintenance and reinforcement of mutual trust are amongst the most reliable facilitators of ideal communication between individuals and between groups as well.ReferencesCutting, J 2003, Pragmatiics and Discourse, Routledge (UK)Eco, U 1978, A Theory of Semiotics, p 65, Indiana University PressMayhew, LH 2002, The New Public Professional Communication and the Means of Social Influence, Cambridge University PressWindahl, S, Signitzer, B, and Olson JT, 1992, Using Communication Theory, Sage Publications IncorporatedShannon, CE and Weaver, W, 1963, Mathematical Theory of Communication, pps 26, 71, University of Illinois PressSilva Rhetoricae, 2002, retrieved January 2006 from