Message Not Sent

In today’s fast paced, time pressed world, technology has proven a key asset in advancing communication. While its contribution has certainly improved the efficacy and speed at which messages are sent, it may not necessarily advance the clarity at which they are received. We are now able to connect with relative ease from numerous devices using various senses over multiple platforms. As these technologies become pervasive throughout our communicative society they replace prior methods and certainly diminish the frequency of direct interpersonal communication. These technologies, be it e-mail, texts, instant messages, or the like, have revolutionized how we interact with publics. And it is truly only when these technologies become the norm have they actually reached legend status. This notion is characterized by John Jackson, Greg Nielson, & Yon Hsu (2011) as “what is banal is magical” (p. 117). The idea that communication technology is taken for granted is perhaps why we treat it with such indifference in terms of engagement level. Our lexicon has become intensive requiring a plethora of acronyms and emoticons to expedite the meaning of our prose. However, this style of communication remains informal requiring communicators to ensure they continue to develop strong textual skill sets to convey meaning, persuade publics and resolve conflict. It is with the latter thought in mind that one questions if new generations will be at a disservice in terms of formal communication in a world often reduced to smiley faces and three letter responses.

Communication complexity is born of interpretation. Communication scholar Em Griffin notes that communication is not simply “bowling” where messages are directed one-way down a lane (2000, p. 50). It is much more complex according to Griffin, who compares the exchange to “Ping-Pong” whereby (2000), “one party puts the conversational ball in play and the other gets in position to receive. It takes more concentration and skill to receive than serve because while the speaker/server knows where the message is going, the listener/receiver doesn’t” (p. 50). This aspect of varying interpretations can at times be lost to the sender who believes they have crafted a clear, concise message with explicit direction. In the world of incessant corporate communications, it has become increasingly important for the sender to spend additional time crafting the message to ensure it does not get lost in translation. Albeit Griffin (2000) argues that “meaning is negotiated through the use of language…” and with negotiation there is always an aspect of give and take so perhaps added discussion is beneficial overall to the end result (p. 55). The concept of “meaning (as a) system of relations” is shared by Schirato & Yell (2000, p.19). The authors draw on renown Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure’s perspective that “meaning is relational (more) than substantive” (2000, p. 19). According to Schirato and Yell (2000), Saussure’s view is that there is “no innate meaning attached to a language’s terms, only difference” (p. 19). We can then infer that it is differences in interpretation of a message’s meaning that can lead to conflict and confusion.

Improving textual message clarity and comprehension can be achieved by having the sender spend additional time drafting the message to suit his or her audience. However, the speed at which technology is advancing, combined with the volume of messages in transmission, may inhibit any real improvement in textual communication in the foreseeable future.

References:
Griffin, E. A. (2000). A first look at communication theory (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Image retrieved from http://www.theportugalnews.com/uploads/news/1112-43.jpg
Jackson, J. D., Nielsen, G., & Hsu, Y. (2011). Mediated Society: a Critical Sociology of Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schirato, T., & Yell, S. (2000). Signs and meaning. In Communication and Culture (pp. 18-33). London: Sage.

Signs, Signs Everywhere a Sign

In “Signs and Meaning” (2000) (in Communication and culture) Schirato and Yell explore the foundational work of Ferdiand de Saussure and the critique of his conclusion by V. N. Volosinov. Both men attempted to understand how the meaning of language is constructed on both a societal and individual basis.

As Schirato and Yell trace the work of these two thinkers, they note words are inherently “problematic” and that the true meaning of those words is a matter of “negotiation, disagreement or conflict” (p. 19). This is something most communication professionals have a grim experience in understanding firsthand – the meaning intended by a communication is not always the meaning received.

They began with Ferdinand de Saussure, a major force in both 20^th century Linguistics and Semiotics. Saussure’s breakthrough was the realization that language produced meaning that is “relational rather than substantive” (p. 20). In this view, language does not have an absolute meaning but rather the meaning is achieved through a “language system” defined by differences rather than identity. While this relationship is inherently arbitrary, it has become institutionalized within the language system.

Can’t you see the sign?

Saussure’s work focused on the linguistic sign, which he divided into three parts (P. 20):

1. Signifier
2. Signified
3. Sign

In this construction, the signifier is the written word or spoken sound, while the signified is the idea that word or sound evokes, and the sign is the combination of the two.  Schirato and Yell write that, “Instead of seeing language and semiotic systems as containers into which the natural meanings of the world were poured, Saussure made the point that meaning was relational; that is to say, meaning was produced, and the world was read, understood and seen, in terms of how signifiers were related to each other within semiotic systems” (P. 24).

While Schirato and Yell find that “Saussure’s theories turn conventional notions of language and meaning upside down,” (p. 20) they do find flaws in this approach. They point out that the Signified isn’t really different from the Signifier, “Every time we use a sign, it gets translated into another sign” (p.21). Secondly, they argue that intentionality is a flaw with his approach.  Not every sign is intentionally constructed and distributed by an individual – often signs are sent without intent, although the individual receiving the sign will still interpret it. And thirdly, while the construction of a signifier is arbitrary (why does the word “elephant” necessarily capture the true “elephantness” of the animal?), it is to Schirato and Yell motivated. In this, “the ways in which words are used and deployed, and the meanings they come to suggest, do not occur accidentally. Rather, meaning is always political” (P. 21).

Volosinov: “Words are always filled with content and meaning drawn from behaviour and ideology,”

Saussure’s theories were critiqued by the Russian Marxist linguist V.N. Volosinov for constituting languages as “idealised, abstract machines which edited out questions of languages practice,” (P. 25). Among Volosinov’s complaints were his (quite compelling) argument that, “Words are always filled with content and meaning drawn from behaviour and ideology,” (P. 26). Beyond that, the context required for assigning meaning to a word is almost, to Volosinov, entirely determined by the context in which it is viewed. Or, as Schirato and Yell summarize, “the meanings that are read into signifiers, the meanings that are activated from a variety of potential meanings, depend on the specific context,” (P. 26).

To demonstrate the political implications of language, Schirato and Yell point to an Australian debate about whether Australia was “invaded” or “settled” by Europeans. They deconstruct a 1994 article on the subject, pointing out the political uses of language and rhetoric to formulate an argument that there was, in fact, no invasion, as told from an explicitly European colonialist perspective. An Australian Aboriginal person might conclude something quite different. The meaning of the words they would use would be quite different.

Schirato and Yell conclude this chapter by stating that, “meanings are relational” (P. 33). Meaning is only achieved through the relations between signs and signs themselves do not contain meaning. Secondly, “the interpretation of a signifier is always made through another signifier” (P. 33) and finally, echoing Volosinov, “the production of meaning is an area of ideological contestation” (P. 33).

Creating context for a communication to be interpreted through is one of the major missions for communicators. The work of Sassure and Volosinov, though each reaching different conclusions that contribute to our understanding of language and symbols, underscores the complexity of this challenge.

References

Schirato, T., & Yell, S. (2000). Signs and meaning. In Communication and culture (pp. 18-33). London: Sage.