Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Shannon andWeaver's "transmission" model of the communication process has long been recognized as inadequate for describing the complex process of human communication except in the limited context of radio-telephone communication for which it was originally developed. In spite of numerous criticisms and attempts to postulate new models, none of the alternatives has been widely accepted.

From a practical standpoint, the principal problem with Shannon and Weaver's model is that it evaluates communication based on the efficiency of the channel. In an effort to account for more of the components of the communication processes, subsequent researchers focused attention on the components of the communication process, communication reaction, and the semantic reaction. A new communication model incorporating both syntactic and semantic aspects of communication is required.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barnlund, D. (1962). Toward a meaning-centered philosophy of communication . Journal of Communication, 12, 197-211.

Baskin, O. & Bruno, S. (1977). A transactional systems model of communications: Implications for transactional analysis. The Journal of Business Communication, 15, No. 4, 65-73.

Berlo, D.K. (1960). The process of communicution. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Bowman, J. & Branchaw, B. (1977). Understanding and using communication in business . San Francisco, CA: Canfield Press .

Campbell, D. & Level, D. (1985). A black box model of communications. The Journal of Business Communication, 22, No. 3, 37-47.

Cherry, C. (1966). On human communication (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Hayakawa, S. 1. (1978). Language in thought and action (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hartley, R. V L. (1949). Transmission ofinformation. Bell System Technical Journal, 28, 535.

Herbert, T. (1977). Toward an administrative model of the communication process. The Journal of Business Communication, 14, No. 4, 25-35.

10.

Johnson, K.G. (1974). Korzybskian models for research. Research designs in general semantics, K. G. Johnson (Ed.). New York, NY: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.

11.

Johnson, W. (1946). People in quandaries: The semantics of personal adjustment. New York, NY: Harper & Row

12.

Korzybski, A. (1958). Science and sanity: An introduction to nonAristotelian systems and general semantics (4th ed.). Lakeville, CT: The International NonAristotelian Library Publishing Company.

13.

Lewis, P.V. (1987). Organizational communication: The essence of effective management (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

14.

Michman, R. & Harris, L. (1977). The development of marketing channel communication models. The Journal of Business Communication, 15, No. 1, 29-39.

15.

Osgood, C. (Ed.) (1954). Psycholinguistics: A survey of theory and research problems. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, Morton Prince Memorial Supplement.

16.

Pauly, J. (1977). The case for a new model of business communication . The Journal of Business Communication, 14, No. 4, 11-23.

17.

Pearce, C. , Figgins, R. , & Golen, S. (1984). Principles of business communication: Theory, application, and technology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

18.

Postman, N. (1977). Crazy talk, stupid talk. New York, NY: Delta.

19.

Schramm, W. (1954). The process and effects of mass communication . Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

20.

Shannon, C. & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press .

21.

Thayer, L. (1968). Communication and communication systems. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

22.

Wiener, N. (1965). The animal and the machine (2nd ed. [first published in 1948]). New York, NY: Wiley.

Modeling the Communication Process: The Map is Not the Territory

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References