Reflection
Reflection
While language is specific to humans, because this race is the only one capable of speaking due to its physical construction, communication is common to all other animals, regardless of species (Yule, 1996). Communication does not require words, but body language, signs, behaviors, etc., which transmit information, often unintentionally. On the other hand, language consists of sounds and syllables that shape an intentional information sharing process (Yule, 1996). Language is characterized by: displacement (the capacity of speaking about past, present and future), arbitrariness (the form of human language), productivity (the creativity to utter endless utterances), cultural transmission (passing language from one generation to another), discreteness (treating each sound discretely to define different meanings) and duality (sound and meaning). These properties lack from communication process.
What implications do these properties of language in Yule have for communication?
These properties of language imply that communication is much more sensitive and intimate than language, as it requires more openness and comprehension in reading and interpreting the signs issued non – verbally. This implies that compared with language, communication, as pertaining to animals, has a different complexity and structures, but also different objectives.
Burke give 4 or 5 “definitions” or clauses or observations about humans,
What is most important to you about the implications of each? (i.e. what are the implications of each?)
Burke (1989, p. 70) defines man as “the symbol – using (symbol making and symbol misusing) animal; inventor of the negative (or moralized by negative), separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making; goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order), and rotten with perfection”. The implication of the first definition is that the man reports to reality by substituting it with words, which he constructed based on experience, and he will transmit the symbol-making and symbol-misusing to generations to come, perpetuating this function of man. As the inventor of the negative, it is most important that the man has the capacity of differentiating between items that compose his reality, which favors the process of learning and critical analysis. For me, the fact that the man separates from his natural condition of animality (seeking for food shelter and sex) to develop a second nature focused on war-making, shows that evolution is a paradox, as it implies violence towards one’s own kind. The most important thing about man as goaded by the spirit of hierarchy is linked with the implication of the division of life and work, as this suggests that it is part of the human nature to ascribe to a social status or associate with certain skills. Finally, the implication of the perfectionist definition is that man seeks to better himself, unlike a tree, which “would be all that is needed to make it a tree” (Burke, 1989, p. 71). This is important because it indicates that the man is not pleased with his own condition, always aspiring higher, and this can deteriorate the nature of the man.
How is communication theory like “perspective by incongruity?”
The concept “perspective by incongruity” refers to a language decoding for creating meaning based on an incongruous combination of words. The theory of communication is like perspective by incongruity because words can be used to transmit an information that is incongruous with the intended message. As Littlejohn and Foss (2008) explain, knowledge is hidden, hence language does not necessarily transmit knowledge
How is Communication theory meant to be like “the destruction of every linkage by the perspectives of planned incongruity?” (see quote p. 91 about 2/3 way down the page)
Planned incongruity refers to an intended language misuse, while the perspective of planned incongruity refers to the intended meaning of the language misuse. This is similar with dramatism, which Burke refers to as a communication model. Nietzsche’s idea that “every linkage was open to destruction by the perspectives of a planned incongruity” (in Burke, 1984, p. 91) implies that there can be undermined the meaning of everything. In accordance, the theory of communication is susceptible to meaning that can be undermined by different interpretations, incongruous with the intended meaning of the communication.
On pages 92-94 he writes of planned incongruity designed to give us a “bigger picture” by looking at the way we chop up realities to get a handle on them. How does that speak to language and theorizing about it?
Burke’s (1984) explanation of planned incongruity as aspects beyond their linguistic meaning for offering a bigger picture about reality presents solely another system for conceptualizing reality. Whether we refer to motion in physical terms of centripetal and centrifugal forces or come out with other forms to define this concept, the meaning is the same. In relation with language, this suggests that words are used as a human function to express the surrounding world in an organized, systematic manner (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008).
pp. 94-96. How is all language/communication like metaphor?
According to Burke (1984) metaphors offer an analogy for interpreting facts. Similarly, language facilitates the understanding of reality, also creating analogies between reality and meaning, through words, whereas communication does the same by using body language, signs, movements, etc. They share a common feature that is defining concepts from “an unending line of data and generalization” (Burke, 1984, p. 96).
Korn: Critique Korn’s definitions of communication.
Korn et al.’s (2000) definition of communication is integrated in a system, hence the focus on the field of communication. This is a holistic approach that makes references to messages, meanings, contexts, cultures, which are relevant aspects of communication. However, beyond the technical aspects of communication there is also a personal touch, which is not addressed in the discussed definition.
Also, critique and make our class definition better.
Beyond technical aspects, such as message, creator of the message, receiver, etc., the definition of communication should refer to the principle of interaction and the function of getting individuals closer (Fromkin and Rodman, 1988).
References
Burke, K. (1984) “Chapter Three: Perspective as metaphor”, Performance of change. Indianapolis: Bobbs – Merrill Educational Publishing.
Burke, K. (1989) “Chapter 2: The human actor: definition of a man”, On symbols and society. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Fromkin, V. and Rodman, R. (1988) “Chapter 1: What is language?” An introduction to language. Fourth eds. New York: Hold, Rinehard and Winston, Inc.
Korn, C.J., Morreale, S.P. and Boileay, D.M. (2000) Defining the field: Revisiting the ACA 1995 definition of communication studies. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration. 29: 40-52.
Littlejohn, S.W. and Foss, K.A. (2008) “Chapter Three: The idea of theory” Theories of human communication. Eight eds. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
Yule, G. (1996) “Chapter 3: The property of language”, The study of language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
