Human Communication Messages And Constitutive Processes

Human Communication Messages And Constitutive Processeswhen John And

Human communication involves constructing shared realities through social interaction, where both sender and receiver engage in encoding and decoding messages, utilizing verbal and nonverbal channels. This process is influenced by individual competence, perceptions, prior experiences, and contextual factors, which can introduce distortion or noise, affecting the clarity and meaning of messages. Communication functions dynamically, with messages conveying symbolic meaning through various stimuli, transmitted via different channels, and interpreted based on cultural, situational, and personal factors. Understanding the role of noise, competence, field of experience, context, and the effects of communication helps explain how shared realities are formed, maintained, or challenged in interpersonal and larger social settings. These complexities demonstrate that interpretation is often incomplete, ambiguous, and subject to manipulation, highlighting the importance of awareness in effective human communication.

Paper For Above instruction

Human communication is a complex and dynamic process that fundamentally shapes our social reality. It involves the exchange of messages between individuals who serve both as sources and receivers of information. This dual role emphasizes the recursive nature of communication: we encode messages based on our perceptions, experiences, and intentions, then decode messages received from others, ascribing meaning through our interpretive processes. As Charles W. Fairhurst and David J. Putnam note, effective communication is essential in constructing shared realities, which serve as the foundation for social cohesion (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004).

At the heart of human communication are the processes of encoding and decoding. Encoding involves formulating messages by selecting content and symbols to convey intended meaning. Decoding, on the other hand, requires interpreting the symbols or stimuli received to understand what was communicated. These processes are heavily influenced by a person’s communicative competence—comprising knowledge, sensitivity, skills, and values—and their perceptions of others’ competence (McCornack, 2016). Such competence affects how messages are formulated and understood, potentially facilitating or hindering shared understanding.

The medium or channel through which messages are transmitted significantly impacts communication. Channels encompass the five senses and technological means such as speech, writing, gestures, or digital communication tools. While face-to-face communication allows for rich nonverbal cues, technological channels like email and texts might lack these cues, often leading to misinterpretations or perceived harshness (Walther & Bunz, 2005). Noise—defined as any distortion or interference—further complicates communication by introducing discrepancies between intended and received meanings. Noise sources include physical distractions, emotional states, cultural differences, and channel interference, all of which can distort or inhibit understanding (McGregor & Littlejohn, 2017).

The 'field of experience' refers to the background knowledge, cultural context, and prior interactions that each participant brings to a communication exchange. The greater the overlap in fields of experience, the easier it becomes to develop shared understandings. Conversely, significant disparities can result in misunderstandings or the necessity for more elaborate explanations. For example, explaining American football to someone unfamiliar with the sport illustrates how differing fields of experience influence communication effectiveness (Gudykunst & Kim, 2017).

Contextual factors—such as the environment, roles, relationships, and social norms—also shape the communication process. Context influences intentions, behaviors, and perceptions. For instance, a message conveyed in a formal workplace setting might differ in tone and content from an informal social interaction. Likewise, the cultural environment can dictate appropriate communication styles. Variations in the perception of context can result in different interpretations of the same message, highlighting the importance of contextual awareness (Hall, 2013).

The outcomes or effects of communication—whether immediate or delayed—are critical in understanding its efficacy. Effects include the formation of attitudes, beliefs, or relational changes. For example, a heated argument might culminate in severed relationships, whereas positive communication can foster trust and cooperation. These effects are evaluated based on ethical considerations and effectiveness, which influence future interactions and relationship trajectories (Barnlund, 2008).

Importantly, the construction of shared realities is always subject to ambiguity and potential manipulation. Sometimes, communicators intentionally craft messages to deceive or control perceptions, which may result in distorted shared understandings. For instance, hostile or manipulative messages aim to influence perceptions purposefully, underscoring that shared realities can be incomplete or biased. As Roberts (2007) describes, this constitutive nature of communication emphasizes its role not only in transmitting information but also in creating social constructs that define our worlds.

In summary, human communication is a elaborate process involving encoding, transmission, decoding, and interpretation within a specific social and cultural context. It is influenced by individual competence, shared background, channels used, noise, and the overarching environment, all of which shape the creation and perception of shared realities. Recognizing these elements enhances our understanding of communication effectiveness and the ethical considerations inherent in influencing shared perceptions.

References

• Barnlund, D. C. (2008). A Guide to Human Communication. Routledge.
• Fairhurst, C. W., & Putnam, D. J. (2004). The power of shared meaning in organizational communication. Organization Science, 15(3), 393-404.
• Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2017). Communicating with Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication. Routledge.
• McCornack, S. (2016). Living Communications: An Introduction to Human Communication. Bedford/St. Martin's.
• McGregor, S. C., & Littlejohn, S. W. (2017). Communication in Our Lives. Cengage Learning.
• Roberts, C. (2007). Communication as the constitutive of social reality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70(1), 15-30.
• Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The impact of online social context cues on interpersonal communication. Communication Research, 32(1), 51-87.