This chapter discusses issues relating to the etymology of the terms “communication” and “communicating.” The communication process will be shown in terms of various traditions in the area of communication theory: socio-psychological, cybernetic, rhetorical, semiotic, socio-cultural, critical, and phenomenological. Selected models of communication, those most adequate from the point of view communication inside an organization, will be analysed.
1.1 Etymology of the Term “Communication”
Communicating, which is one of the oldest social processes, is an integral part of every area of human life, both personal and professional. Communication is a necessary condition for the existence of societies, the activity of organizations as well as human existence in general, which proves its fundamental importance for the efficient functioning of the world. Depending on the adopted research perspective, the terms “communication” and “communicating” are defined in a variety of ways as the authors differently emphasize their individual components.
The words “communicating” and “communication” have their roots in Latin. The noun communicatio means “sharing, imparting,” whereas the verb communico/communicare has two meanings: “to have something in common with someone, to share something with someone” and “to offer something to someone, to give, to allow to participate, to partake” (Potocki et al. 2011, p. 28). When analysing the origin of the two terms, one can also refer to the words communio, meaning “to strengthen, reinforce, assure”; communis, meaning “common, universal, generally accepted, ordinary”; and communitas, which means “community” (Mikułowski-Pomorski 1988, pp. 63–64).
Over the years a number of different definitions of the word “communication” have been proposed. Table 1.1 presents an overview, selected for the purposes of this book, of ways of defining this concept, arranged from the least to the most specific. In the most general terms, communication is understood as a process in which the sender sends a message and the receiver receives it. However, taking into account the significance and complexity of this process, it is necessary to create a more precise definition, which would include the participants, the channel, as well as the goals of communication. Particular attention should be given to the reasons for which an act of communication is undertaken.
Table 1.1
Ways of defining the essence of the term “communication”
Author | Definition |
|---|---|
J. Eicher | “… the process of sending and receiving messages.” |
K. Adams G. J. Galanes | “The process of creating, sending, receiving and interpreting messages between people.” |
L. R. Frey C. H. Botan G. L. Kreps | “The process of organising messages in order to create meaning.” |
Ph. I. Morgan | “The process of transmitting information from one person to another or, more simply, the effort of assigning meaning.” |
N. J. Adler | “A complex, multi-layered and dynamic process through which we exchange meanings.” |
K. Weinsten | “… conveying messages to others; it is both the process (how I communicate) and the content (what I communicate); in practice these two aspects are often inseparable.” |
M. Andersen W. Lewis J. Murray | “A process in which a person, through the use of audible or visual symbols, creates meaning for one or more listeners.” |
D. A. Infante A. S. Rancer D. F. Womack | “Communication occurs when people manipulate (control) symbols in order to stimulate meanings (sense, content) in other individuals, create understanding in other people.” |
G. Miller | “Communication occurs when events in one place and time are closely linked with events in another place and time.” |
G. R. Miller | “Communication focuses on these events in which the source emits a message to the recipient (recipients) with the conscious intention of influencing their subsequent behaviour.” |
A. Awdiejew Z. Nęcki | “Interpersonal communication is an exchange of verbal, vocal and non-verbal signals (symbols) undertaken in a particular context in order to achieve better interaction.” |
B. Sobkowiak | “Interpersonal communication is an exchange of verbal, vocal and non-verbal signals (symbols) undertaken in a particular context in order to achieve mutual understanding and, consequently, better interaction.” |
Leksykon Politologii (Lexicon of politology) | “Social communication is a process of producing, transforming and transmitting information between individuals, groups and social organizations. The aim of communication is the constant and dynamic shaping, modification or change of knowledge, attitudes and behaviours in accordance with the values and interests of the interacting entities.” |
According to S.P. Morreale, B.H. Spitzberg, and J.K. Barge (2007, p. 31), the most useful definition should be considered to be one which can be applied to different people and situations. These authors assume, following L.R. Frey, C.H. Botan, and G.L. Kreps, that communication “is the process of organising messages in order to create meaning.” Messages are words, gestures, sounds, and activities that enable individuals to express themselves in relation to others as part of interaction. They are expressed in a verbal or non-verbal way, but can also have a symbolic character. In the context of communication, organizing is understood as the process of formulating, receiving, and responding to verbal and non-verbal messages; while meaning refers to the interpretation of a message, that is, how it has been decoded or understood.
A. Awdiejew and Z. Nęcki (Nęcki 2000, p. 98) assume that communication is an exchange of verbal, vocal, and non-verbal signals (symbols) undertaken in a particular context, and that its purpose is to achieve better interaction between the participants of the process. Complementing this definition, B. Sobkowiak (2005, pp. 17–18) adds the element of mutual understanding, which was consciously rejected by Awdiejew and Nęcki. In their opinion, the level of understanding between communication participants is not objectively verifiable since it is subjectively assessed by the sender and the recipient. By contrast, interaction requires some form of action from the interlocutors, thus it can be observed and verified.
In most of the more specific definitions (e.g. those by Infante, Rancer and Womack; Miller; and Awdiejew and Nęcki), the authors emphasize the purpose of communication, which is evoking a specific meaning, understanding, behaviour, or better interaction between the participants of the process. Importantly, in addition to transferring information, knowledge, feelings, emotions, or influencing behaviour, communication also helps create a sense of community and maintain social relationships (Kulczycki 2012, p. 27). It has to be borne in mind that each of the interlocutors has their own reasons for engaging in an act of communication. This may lead to a situation where the objective of the person initiating the process will be achieved at the expense of the interests of the recipient. Moreover, as rightly observed by K.E. Rosengren (2006, p. 1), communication can also lead to conflict. The outcome does not have to be agreement; it can also be an agreement to disagree on a given matter. Typically, however, such an outcome for the process is unsatisfactory for one or both parties.
Considering the definitions cited above, the authors assume that communication is a complex and dynamic process, during which the sender creates and transmits a message in a verbal, non-verbal, or symbolic form to the receiver. The aim of the process, which can take place between individuals, groups, or social organizations, is to produce a specific reaction, intended by the sender, in the recipient of the message.
As mentioned earlier, the term “communication” is connected, and often used interchangeably, with the term “communicating.” In the humanities “communicating” is usually understood as the process through which people communicate. It is important to point out, however, that the process of communicating can be either unilateral, limited to imparting a message by the sender to the recipient, or reciprocal, involving feedback, which means that the recipient at some point becomes the sender, and the interlocutors interact in the communication process. K. Weinstein (1994, pp. 323–324) argues, however, that without feedback it is difficult to talk about communication at all, because by virtue of its intentional nature and its objectives it requires the recipient’s response to the information communicated. The authors of this work adopt the same view because even a lack of response from the recipient is a kind of reaction, although probably not the kind expected by the sender.
As regards terminology, an interesting fact is that very often, in everyday language as well as in publications related to communication in organizations, communicating is considered to be synonymous with informing. It is assumed that in both cases the aim is the same, namely transferring information from the sender to the receiver. Most probably, such an attitude is largely caused by the popularity of information theory and the related model of communication developed by C. Shannon and W. Weaver (for more on this model see Sect. 1.3). However, it turns out that the issue is more complex, as well as being vitally important, particularly from the point of view of effective communication management in an organization.
When analysing the differences between informing and communicating, researchers point to the different aims of these two processes, their participants, as well as their reciprocal relationships. French scientists are particularly active in this field. According to D. Weiss (as cited in: Martyniak 1997, p. 5), informing and communicating have different purposes. Informing involves transmitting and receiving structured data, while in the process of communicating the purpose is to exchange information aimed at changing someone’s consciousness. In turn, P. Joffre and G. Koenig (as cited in: Bartoli 1994, p. 59) believe that in the process of informing only the sender plays an active role, while in the proce...