| Home | Audio Magazine | Stereo Review magazine | Good Sound | Troubleshooting |
|
Mathematical models of communication originally developed in the field of cybernetics by those who insisted that "from the point of view of communication, the human organism is not essentially different from a machine." In "An Introduction to Cybernetics and Information Theory" Allan R. Broadhurst and Donald K. Darnell discuss the principles and logic behind cybernetics and in formation theory and indicate the relevance of mathematical models for communication processes generally, whether they take the form of an electronic impulse, spoken word, or gesture. In an extension of the early work in cybernetics, Bruce H. Westley and Malcolm S. MacLean, Jr. use the concept of "feedback" for "A Conceptual Model for Communications Research." The authors present a model which they regard as "sufficiently general to treat all kinds of human communication from two-person, face-to-face interaction to international and intercultural communication." Cybernetic-type models have considerable theoretical and heuristic value for the study of communication; they cannot, however, be transformed uncritically from their original fields to the behavioral sciences. Cybernetic models are limited, for one thing, in neglecting variables that are critically important in the study of human inter action, particularly the nature and influence of the social context. Humans, unlike mechanical systems, must constantly monitor and adjust to the physical and social situation in which they find themselves. In proposing a "Transactional Model of Communication" Dean C. Barnlund emphasizes the importance of social context as a determinant of communicative outcomes. The evolution of meaning in interpersonal communication is, as Barnlund writes, dynamic, continuous, circular, unrepeatable, irreversible and exceedingly complex. Meaning is not simply a given or a constant to be assumed; it is rather, "created" or "invented" by communicators as they react to physical and psychological cues of the other communicators along with environmental cues of time and space. Much of the early work on communication systems typically described the communication process as linear in nature; communication was depicted much like a conveyer belt as a sort of one-way transmission of messages to some final destination. The more sophisticated, later models tend to describe communication as two-way, but circular. In his essay "A Helical Model of Communication" Frank E. X. Dance criticizes the circular-type models in implying that "communication comes back, full circle, to exactly the same place from which it started." This aspect of the circular analogy, Dance maintains, is "manifestly erroneous and could be damaging in increasing an understanding of the communication process and in predicting any constraints for a communicative act." Dance, therefore, proposes a model based upon a helical spiral as a solution to the shortcomings inherent in circular or linear models of communication. Most communication models describe interaction in an abstract and general way. Edward Mysak in "Speech System" outlines a model which deals specifically with human speech. Mysak describes human speech in the rather formidable sounding terms of a "closed, multiple loop system" containing "feedforward and feedback mechanisms." Mysak uses these concepts in a description which clarifies the nature of human speech production. 1. A. Chapanis, "Men, Machines, and Models," American Psychologist, 1961, 16, 119-125. Also in Part 2:
|
|
Top of Page | Index | Home |