‘SHE JOURNAL OF COMMUNICX r1o.v Vol. 20, June 1970, p. 201-210 The “Concept” of Communication FRANK E. X. DANCE Abstract This essay examines multitudinous definitions of ‘communication’ in the light of the meaning of ‘concept’ as reflected in the literature of the philosophy of science. The examination produced 15 main themes from the definitions. Among the 15 conceptual components there are three upon which the definitions rather critically divide. These three points of conceptual split are examined for their impact on theory construction in communication. Some suggestions are made for conceptual clarification. In the process of theory construction a concept determines the behavioral field observed which, in turn, affects the principles derived which, in turn, affect the hypotheses generated which, in turn, affect the laws and the system of laws stated which, all together, compose the theory c0nstructed.l The concept is basic to any study of communication or the communicative process. The concept determines the field which the theorist, experimenter, or historian will choose to study.’ The concept of communication with which one starts will substantively affect any additions to Frank E. X. Dance (Ph.D., Northwestern, 1959) is Profesror of Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. His research and publication interests have centered in the areas of human communication theory and adult speech communication. Mr. Dance has served as President of the ICA, editor of the Journal of Communication, and is the current editor of The Speech Teacher. ‘Although the vocabulary of meta-theory is subject to many interpretations, one schema for theory construction suggests the following system: 1. Assumptions underlie all behavior and theory building; 2. concepts and their corresponding definitions structure 3. obscrved behauiors from which 4. principles (general observations not stated in testable form) are drawn, from which a 5. hypothesis, or theorem ( a general observation stated in testable form), is extracted, based upon which a 6. law(s) ( a statement expressing tested relationships between facts) is formulated, a number of which laws constitute a 7. system ( a concatenation of laws), leading to a 8. theory ( a n interrelated system of laws capable of explanation and prediction). “mest Bormann states it this way: “The setting up of classes in such a way that knowledge can be ordered, related, and explained is dependent upon concept formation.”Ernest G. Bormann. Theory and Research in the Communicutive Arts. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965, p. 84. 202 The Journal of Comnzunication, Vol. 20, June 1970 an already extant theory of communication or any efforts directed toward the development of a new theory. Concepts serve as a real, if unstated, rule for making observations and organizing e ~ p e r i e n c e . Although ~ psychologists and psycholinguists have considered and studied conccpt-formation it is the scholars in the philosophy of science who have concentrated on the study of the “concept.” Abraham Kaplan observes that “What makes a concept significant is that the classification it institutes is one into which things fall, as it were, of thernselve~.”~ The concept is basic to theory and theory construction since it is the point of research origination and, as is the case with all points of origination or departure, radically affects the determination and reaching of the desired destination or goal. The main purpose of this essay is to examine the multitudinous definitions of communication in the light of the meaning of “concept” as reflected in the literature of the philosophy of science. One possible result of such an examination is the derivation of the essential components of the concept of communication as reflected in the definitions. A second, though admittedly less plausible, result would be the synthesis of the components into a single definition of the concept of communication. A concept is the result of a generalizing mental operation. The initial apprehension and perception of individual acts, or realities, lead to the grouping of percepts and the labeling of such grouping. The grouping is the concept, and the name, or “term,” serves as the label for a specific concept. A concept is a generic mental image abstracted from percepts and generally relies on an originally inductive process rooted in objective reality. Everyday concepts, such as “dog” or “food,” seem manifest to all. Other concepts depend on cognitive structuring for their existence. Herein is the difference between ordinary, common concepts and extraordinary or scientific concepts. “Some features of the world stand out, almost begging for names. Concepts of clouds, thunder, table, dog, wealth, hunger, color, shape, and the like, name Margaret J. Fisher. A Methatheoretical Analysis of the Literature on Theory-Construction in. Speech-Commzrnication. Master’s Thvsis. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin, 1969, p. 26. Abraham Kaplan. The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1964, p. 50. Dance: Concept of Communication 203 differentiated slices of reality that impinge willy-nilly on all of us. The terms of common sense name these obtrusive daily experiences. Other features of the world have to be cut out, as it were. They are discerned only by a morc subtle and devious examination of nature, man, and society than is made in everyday life. These more covert aspects of experience are named by the concepts of science. Terms like mass and momentum, ZQ and primar!4 group, anomie and repression name attributes that do not stand out as do love and hunger, green, round, and huge.”5 Kaplan, by implication, raises two questions which can be fruitfully asked of our concepts of communication. First, are the concepts objective? and second, do the concepts mark out paths which help us move freely in both logical and experiential space? “The word ‘object’, it has been said, can be understood as referring to that which objects. That is objective which insists on its own rights regardless of our wishes, and only experience can transmit its claim to us.” Subjectivity is held in check with the question, “Do you sec what Z see?”6 One way of assessing the usefulness of any given concept of communication is to see if our experience “objects” to it-to decide whether or not, based upon our experience, we recall instances which contradict the essence of the concept. Such contradictions do exist in certain published concepts of communication and shall be alluded to later in this essay. “The function of scientific concepts is to mark the categories which will tell us more about our subject matter than any other categorical sets.”7 Do our definitions of communication so serve us? The examination reported in this essay does not so indicate. The definitions of communication examined were drawn from diverse fields and divcrse publications. In order to be included, each definition had to have been published, thus assuring its being subjected to some prior scrutiny and expert evaluatiom8 The definitions were subjected to a content analysis for their main May Brodbeck. “General Introduction.” In Readings in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (Edited by May Brodbeck). Toronto: The Macmillan Co., 1968, 1-11, p. 3-4. Kaplan, op. cit., p. 35. Ibid., p. 52. s A limited number of copies of the definitions and their sources is available, at cost, upon request from the author. 204 The Journal of Conztnunicntion, Vol. 20, June 1970 themes. The substantive terms of each definition were listed and then collated into a master list which provided evidence of repetition and redundancy of themes. Out of approximately 4,560 words or tokens comprising approximately 2,612 types, thirty different terms were classified from which were derived 15 of what were considered to be distinct conceptual components. Below are presented the 15 conceptual components, each accompanied by a definition representative of those definitions including the component. Included are both intensional and extensional components. No componential valuation is intended by the order of presentation. Almost every definition contained more than one conceptual component and the sample definitions are not intended to represent only the component for which they serve as examples. 1. Symbols/Verbal/Speecla ; 2. Understanding: 3. Interaction/Relationslzip/Social Process; “Communication is the verbal interchange of thought or idea.” John B. Hoben. “English Communication at Colgate Re-Examined.” Journal of Communication 4:76-86, 1954, p. 77. “Communication is the process by which we understand others and in turn endeavor to be understood by them. It is dynamic, constantly changing and shifting in response to the total situation.” Martin P. Andersen. “What is Communication.” Journal of Communication 9:5, 1959. “Interaction, even on the biological level, is a kind of communication; otherwise common acts could not occur.” George Herbert Mead. “Mind, Self, and Society.” In Sociology. 3rd Ed. (Edited by Leonard Broom and Philip Selznik). New York: Harper and Row, 1963, p. 107. Dance: Concept of Conimtrriication 4 . Reduction of Uncertainty: 5 . Process: 6. Traiisfer/Transmission/ Interchange: 205 “Communication arises out of the need to reduce uncertainty, to act effectively, to defend or strengthen the ego.” Dean C. Barnlund. “Toward a MeaningCentered Philosophy of Communication.” Journal of Communication 12:197-211, 1964, p. 200. “Communication: the transmission of information, ideas, emotions, skills, etc., by the use of symbols-words, pictures, figures, graphs, etc. It is the act or process of transmission that is usually called communication.” In Bernard Berelson and Gary A. Steiner. Human Behauwr. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964, p. 254. “. . . the connecting thread appears to be the idea of something’s being transferred from one thing, or person, to another. We use the word “communication” sometimes to refer to what is so transferred, sometimes to the means by which it is transferred, sometimes to the whole process. In many cases, what is transferred in this way continues to be shared; if I convey information to another person, it docs not leave my own possession through coming into his. Accordingly, the word “communication” acquires also the sense of 206 The Journal of Communication, Vol. 20, June 1970 7. Linking/Bind ing : 8. Commonality: 9. Channel/Carrier/ Means/Route : 10. Replicating Memories: participation. I t is in this sense, for example, that religious worshipers are said to communicate.” A. J. Ayer. “What is Communication?” In Studies in Communication. Communication Research Centre, University College, London: Martin Secker and Warburg, 1955, 11-28, p. 12. “Communication is the process that links discontinuous parts of the living world to one another.” Jurgen Ruesch. “Technology and Social Communication.” In Communication The0y and Research (Edited by Lee Thayer). Springfield, 111.: Charles C Thomas, 1957, 452-81, p. 462. “It (communication) is a process that makes common to two or several what was the monopoly of one or some.” Alex Gode. “What is Communication.” Journal of Communication 9:5, 1959. “(pl.) . . . the means of sending military messages, orders, etc. as by telephone, telegraph, radio, couriers.” The American College Dictioruzry. New York: Random House, 1964, p. 244. “Communication is the process of conducting the attention of another person for the purpose of replicating memories.” F. A. Cartier and K. A. Harwood. “On Definition of Communication.” Journal of Communication 3:7175, 1953, p. 73. Dance: Concept of Communication 11. Discriminative Response/ Behavior Modifying/ Response/Change: 12. Stimuli: 13. Intentional: 207 “Communication is the discriminatory response of an organism to a stimulus.” S. S. Stevens. “A Definition of Communication.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 22:689-90, 1950, p. 689. “So, communication between two animals is said to occur when one animal produces a chemical or physical change in the environment (signal) that influences the behavior of another. . .” Hubcrt Frings. “Animal Communication.” In Communication: Concepts and Perspectives (Edited by Lee Thayer). Wash., D.C.: Spartan Books, 1967,297329, p. 297. “Every communication act is viewed as a transmission of information, consisting of a discriminative stimuli, from a source to a recipient.” Theodore M. Newcomb. “An Approach to the Study of Communicative Acts.” I n Communication and Culture (Edited by Alfred G. Smith). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966, 6&79, p. 66. “In the main, communication has as its central interest those behavioral situations in which a source transmits a message to a rcceiver(s) with conscious intent to affect the latter’s behaviors.” Gerald A. Miller, “On Defining 208 The Journal of Communication, Vol. 20, June 1970 14. Time/Situation : 15. Power: Communication: Another Stab.” In Journal of Communication 16: 88-98, 1 M , p. 92. “The communication process is one of transition from one structured situation-as-a-whole to another, in preferred design.” Bess Sondel, “Toward a Field Theory of Communication.” In Journal of Communication 6 :147-53, 1956, p. 148. , . communication is the mechanism by which power is exerted.” S. Schacter. “Deviation, Rejection, and Communication.” In Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46:190-207,1951. p. 191. ‘I. Among these 15 conceptual components there are three upon which the definitions rather critically divide. These three points of critical conceptual diiferentiation provide points upon which the definitions split. Given that definitions are descriptions of concepts, definitional split reflects conceptual split and conceptual split alters the behavioral field to which the concepts direct us, thus substantively affecting the theories drawn from these conceptual beginnings. The three points of conceptual cleavage are (1) the level of observation; ( 2 ) the presence or absence of intent on the part of the sender; and (3) the normative judgment (goodness-badness/ successful-unsuccessful) of the act. (1) If we choose to examine all animate matter we accept a task far broader than if we narrow our observational field to include only human beings. The definitions of communication reflect fields at almost every conceivable level ranging from all behavior to meaningful, purposive behavior of human beings in conscious interaction. In addition, some definitions center on themes (such as “process”) which cut vertically through all levels. Obviously, the theories needed and the theories predicated Dance: Concept of Comniunication 209 will differ greatly depending upon the level of observation. The definitions reflect interest in different levels of systems and yet distinct system levels will include wide variations in behavioral fields and probably in the number and interpretation of observations and resultant theory construction. ( 2 ) The conceptual component of “intentionality” markedly reduces the behavioral field and substantially alters a theory’s range and power. The concept of “intentionality” is one of those instances in which experience and reality seem to object to the conceptual component. If one chooses to include only acts which are characterized by sender intent as communication then how does one classify acts wherein there is manifest deception, or accident, but which result in the acquisition of information, or the altering of behavior on the part of onc organism as a result of the behavior (including verbal messages) of another organism? ( 3 ) Even more selcctive is the conceptual component of normative judgment. If we choose only to include successful interaction (defined as that kind of interaction in which the intent of the sender is achieved as a result of the communicative event) as representative of communication then our behavioral field and the resultant observations and final theory is cripplingly restricted. Clearly no one of the 95 definitions reviewed adequately covers the entire range of behaviors studied by these who are identified, or who identify themselves, as communication scholars or theoreticians. In addition, the concept of communication as reflected in the 95 definitions is too loose, indeed includes contradictory components as expressed in the points of cleavage mentioned above, to allow the synthesization of a single, internally consistent definition that would contain all 15 conceptual components. “A concept means what its definition says it means. If it does not say this clearly so that we know when we do or when we do not have an instance of it, then the concept may be criticized legitimately as being inadequately defined.”9 It is difficult to determine whether communication is over-defined or under-defined but certainly its definitions lead the experimentalist, the historian, and the theoretician alike in different and sometimes contradictory directions. Brodbeck, op. cit., p. 5. 210 The Journal of Communication, Vol. 20, June 1970 The looseness of the concept of communication is reflected in the looseness of the field or fields identified with the study of communication. In many ways such diversity is enriching, but such diversity can also lead to dissension, academic sniping, and theoretical divisiveness. A variety of approaches and methodologies is often beneficial when dealing with a concept as complex as communication and we should beware of seeking or, worse, of finding a single, rigid, exclusive definition. On the other hand, it is essential to remain sensitive to the importance of concepts and of their effect upon our scholarly research and professional behavior. We are trying to make the concept of “communication” do too much work for us. The concept, in its present state, is overburdened and thus exhibits strain within itself and within the field which uses it. What may help is the creation of a family of concepts.1° Certainly concepts relate to experience, but they also, within a theory, relate to other concepts. A family of concepts should also facilitate the treatment of communication in a systems fashion. We can spread the work through a family of communication concepts. The members of the family may include “attitudes,” “opinions,” and “beliefs” on one level and then on another level members such as “communication,” “Animal Communication,” “Human Speech Communication,” and even “Effective Communication.” The identification of the familial members is a task still to be completed. Given such a family of communication concepts perhaps those who identify as communication theoreticians or communication scholars could better systematize their scholarly and teaching pursuits, move towards reducing their professional dissonance, work toward eliminating conceptual inconsistencies and contradictions and, in the end, come closer toward producing a satisfactory, systematic theory of communication. lo “The meaning of a term is a family affair among its various senses.” Kaplan, op. cit., p. 48.