Page 118 - Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language

Truth and Meaning
logical term, and language is viewed as a primarily social fact.
Furthermore, communication can also be conceived of as inherent in the linguistic message. The situation, the context, and the communicators involved in com- munication make their mark on the content and expression planes of the message. This definition is neutral with regard to the different traditions in linguistics which divide language for instance into 'langue' or 'system' on the one hand, and 'parole' or 'behavior' on the other.
1. 'Communication': Different Models and Metaphors
One possible way of bringing order into the rather chaotic world of the different approaches to the study of communication in linguistics, is to differentiate between the various trends in communication-relevant research. These trends can be classified according to the basic models of communication they have adopted. Or rather, according to the different meta- phors that linguists use in order to try to illustrate or make explicit the phenomenon of communication.
1.1 TheLinear,Conduit Model
The simplest model of communication has been called the conduit model (Reddy 1979) because of its under- lying assumption that language functions as a sort of channel, or tool for transferring a linguistic message from a source (or sender) to a destination (or hearer). This idea of communication has some of its roots in information theory. To separate what they call infor- mation from communication, certain philosophers of language (e.g., Grice) have advocated the idea that communication proper is characterized by intentional communication, or what Grice calls 'non-natural meaning.' The idea is that the addresser ('sender') intends that the message (or utterance) will cause what is called an effect in the addressee ('receiver'). The only necessary condition is that the addressee recognize this intention. In spite of the differences between these approaches, they are basically ideological models of communication, and this makes them closely related to perhaps the oldest theory of communication, namely that of classical rhetoric. Rhetoric can be defined as a theory of communication that seeks to find the quality which makes it possible for an addresser to persuade or convince his addressee about something.
The most problematic aspects in these models are the notion of effect, or perlocution on the addressee's side, and the notion of intention on the addresser's side. How are we to build a theory of communication on such vague terms, and how are we to find out what is/was the intention in a message and how are we to distinguish between the different effects? Other prob- lematic aspects are the basically individualistic and monological views of communication that advocates of such models implicitly accept. Such views are seri-
ously challenged in the three following com- munication models.
1.2 The Circular, Dialogic Model
The basic idea in what is here called the circular or dialogic model, is that for communication to take place, it is not sufficient that an addresser manifests his intention in a message which results in an effect in the addressee. It is also necessary to give the addressee a more active role in communication.
First, this active part is the more or less conscious interpretation process that the addressee must be involved in for the intended message to get through.
Second, a more or less expressed manifestation of the intended effect in the form of a response, answer, action, etc. from the addressee is necessary for the addresser to understand that his message has been received—in fact, is a message. Without a response of some sort, the addresser would be left in a situation where he is at best talking to himself, at worst is indulging in a monologue more typical of madness. Thus, the interpretation requirement is not restricted to the addressee alone. The addresser, too, has to identify some sort of signal in the addressee's message which can be interpreted as a response or reaction to the intended message.
In this way,communication can be seen as a system of questions and answers, or as a sort of cooperation where the communicators are actively organized in the construction of the message. It is not necessary that the addresser's intended meaning is identically reproduced by the addressee. If such an interpretation is at all possible, it is certainly limited to extremely restricted contexts, e.g., when certain logicians com- municate solely with the help of logical formulas. The prototypical communication between humans is in fact characterized by the opposite: a partial, or limited understanding, or even misunderstanding, on the part of the addressee, which has to be clarified by further messages. Communication is not only the transfer of intentions with language as its tool. It is a constructive process going on in time. The message is constructed through the mutual activity of the actors. In thisway, communication is a creative dynamic process. In fact, if communication did not have these qualities, a great deal of quite normal linguistic activity, like small talk during a lunch break, would be meaningless.
What is retained in this model from the conduit communication model, is the notion of intention. For dialogue to take place, it is necessary that the com- municators intend to take part in the conversation, that they accept some sort of honesty principle, etc. Such principles are described in theories of con- versational implicatures or of pragmatic universals.
1.3 The Feedback, Interaction Model
The third model of communication distinguishes itself from the dialogical model by doing away with the
96