‘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.