Instability, Ambiguity and Errors in the Communication Process Essay

Subjectivity and duality are linked pitfalls of the communication process. Limitations in the power of expression, constraints imposed by circumstances, social conventions and the desire to keep intentions covert, all contribute to people saying, writing and signaling thoughts and ideas that may be at variance from the whole truth. The effects of such shortcomings are magnified by matching limitations on the part of the individual or the group which is the object of communication. Since context is fluid, communication may cease to be relevant, even when conveyed and received with great clarity and accuracy. Thus the communication process can be no more durable than inevitable changes in perceptions, situations and aims. Mayhew (2002, p 3) has emphasized the essential nature of communication as a means of maintaining dialogue in modern society, and in order to resolve various shades of opinion that evolve on all issues of common concern. The element of instability may not arise from the communication process alone, but may be integral to the environment in which communication takes place (Windahl, Signitzer and Olson, 1992, p219). We cannot always blame communication for the instability in which it is forced to operate). An element of instability is almost inevitable in any communication that is not static. Communication instability can have roots in changing agenda of the encoder, media, noise 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 also serve to warn encoders that their rivals as well ass noise may undermine their influence at any time. Communicators, for this reason, can never rest! High issue turnover sustain 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 information compared to the original transmission. Noise is an important source of errors in communication, whether perceived as beneficial or harmful (Shannon and Weaver, 1963, p19). Communication 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 speed 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 other campaigns in the media, that spur people to search for additional information and even to action, based on the questions and curiosity that such ambiguity can arouse. Ambiguity can be used with good effect by skilled communicators. Many advertising campaigns, for example, may fail to meet set marketing objectives, if they present comprehensive and defined information in pedantic manner: intended targets may receive such communication and respond with inaction. Ambiguity can also help to attract attention in a situation full of noise. The onerous task of acquiring 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, many 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 related skills, difficult as they are to practice and to use. Communication ability, on the contrary, often becomes the deciding vote between success and failure, between victory and defeat, and between peaceful resolution and destructive violence, in all kind of transactions between individuals and groups. It is a means of intellectual distinction and of influence over the affairs of people at large. Signaling, Signification and the Code Model Signaling serves many important purposes in communication. A signal succinctly conveys a notion that may take many words and a long time to explain in normal language. A signal also bears the stamp of independent certification, thus endorsing a person or a view with the stamp of authentic authority. Finally, signals support obvious communication, supporting the overt message in subtle manner. An educational qualification, a professional or a social association and employment 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 others 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 communicate 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 signification is elementary of free of controversy. Syntax and poor 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 completely as they may be instigated to communicate. Signification capability improves 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 speech 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 Extension It is critical to the integrity of communication that practitioners distinguish between engaging others in dialogue, and the unethical tendency to exert overpowering influence on others. Differences in language abilities can become tools to impose on passive subjects in a manner that destroys individual freedom, and undermines development. Freire has recognized the power of literacy as a means of social development. Extension is not limited to mere transmission of messages, but maintenance of society over time; it has played key roles in impart and use of modern technologies and in achieving major 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 and ties (2002, p 74). The communication process has the potential to induce 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 representation 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 Freire’s contribution to oppressed people everywhere. Pitfalls of Coding and Decoding The 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 semiotics lie outside the conscious realm; they are also limited by the degree 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 model 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 affect the veracity of decoding encoded messages. Distortion is also possible at the stage of encoding itself. The preferred meanings 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 reflective 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 understanding 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 politics (2002, p 249). Accurate 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 preventing both unintended misunderstandings and intentional noise that may be interjected in the system. Discourse and Miscommunication Sustained 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 being 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 accustomed 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 Research and Public Relations (2002, p206). Here, style variations may be used intentionally in discourse to affect perceptions and basic decoding processes. The manipulation of public 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 access to undistorted facts. Literacy, common facility with language, equal access to transparent media and the ability for critical appraisal of issues, are certain 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 Influence Propaganda 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 universal access to factual information! Propaganda is ineffective in literate circumstances, and can prove to be counter-productive, through loss of trust. Propaganda favors mass 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 Said’s 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 available 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 with long-term communication goals. It is a valid counterfoil to the bluster of propaganda. How Trust Fosters Successful Communication There 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 shared 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 measure on the trust that people 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 new 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 will look for alternate encoders if they lose trust in established sources of information (2002, p 16). Windahl, Signitzer and Olson have repeatedly stressed the vital role of trust in various phases of the communication process (1992, pps 55, 62, 88, 103). The Motivating Force of Communication in Social Influence We 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 efficacy! The 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 immense powers. Contradictory Balances of Deception and Cooperation in Communication Models Communication models trace the flow of interaction between two entities. They serve both to understand the process and to determine strategies. All models must have the three universal 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 intimate communication between individuals, whereas deception works most effectively in campaigns conducted through the media. Brevity and Verbosity Feedback often instigates verbosity. Redundancy may be rooted in assumptions about the conceptual and decoding capabilities of an audience, or in excessive enthusiasm 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 torrent of words far more voluminous than an audience may desire. Begging is an extreme form of communication in which brevity can be counter-productive! A more serious limitation of brevity 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 want 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 possible! We may conclude that verbosity is a failing of amateurs; it is shunned by the best communicators, who treasure the transport of concepts with as few 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 between the cultural 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 suffer! A Pragmatic Approach to Semiotics Communication 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 theory, 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 demands 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 warring 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 communicative 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 distinctiveness of decoding. Communicative Action and Perlocution Locution 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 and perlocution are therefore only the signification of the communicative process in codes that are not widely understood! Nevertheless, 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). Allegory 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 nation. A compliment within the confines of a community may be taken as insulting in another! This is a drawback of the Speech Act theory. Â  Colloquialisms and figures of speech that gradually creep in to everyday language as used by the laity 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 deficient 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 consummate 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 Remarks Communication 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 universal 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 template 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 process 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 communication. 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. References Cutting, J 2003, Pragmatiics and Discourse, Routledge (UK) Eco, U 1978, A Theory of Semiotics, p 65, Indiana University Press Mayhew, LH 2002, The New Public: Professional Communication and the Means of Social Influence, Cambridge University Press Windahl, S, Signitzer, B, and Olson JT, 1992, Using Communication Theory, Sage Publications Incorporated Shannon, CE and Weaver, W, 1963, Mathematical Theory of Communication, pps 26, 71, University of Illinois Press Silva Rhetoricae, 2002, retrieved January 2006 from