Scribd
Upload
28K views

Models of Communication

The document describes several models of communication: 1) Riley and Riley's model views communication as integral to the social system, with messages flowing between primary groups, social structures, and the overall social system. 2) Maletzke's model sees communication as complex interaction between the communicator, receiver, message, and medium, influenced by their self-images and perceptions of each other. 3) Gerbner's model emphasizes perception is determined by attitudes, experience, and is influenced by selection, context, and availability of information.

Uploaded by

masquerading
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
28K views

Models of Communication

The document describes several models of communication: 1) Riley and Riley's model views communication as integral to the social system, with messages flowing between primary groups, social structures, and the overall social system. 2) Maletzke's model sees communication as complex interaction between the communicator, receiver, message, and medium, influenced by their self-images and perceptions of each other. 3) Gerbner's model emphasizes perception is determined by attitudes, experience, and is influenced by selection, context, and availability of information.

Uploaded by

masquerading
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

1.

Riley and Riley Model :


John and Matilda Riley pose a model in which the process of communication is an integral
part of the social system. Both the Communicator and the recipient are affected by the three
social orders, namely: the primary group/s of which they are members, the larger social
structure (the immediate community-social cultural, industrial - to which they belong,) and
the overall social system. All these are in dynamic interaction, with messages flowing multi-
directionally. Thus the C and R are neither passive nor isolated but are related and their
messages are patterned in terms of these relationships.

2. Maletzke’s model:
Maletzke’s model of the mass communication process is extremely useful because of its
comprehensiveness and the complex interaction of the factors at play. The self-image of the
communicator corresponds with that of the receiver. Both act upon and are influenced by the
Message which is itself constrained by the dictates of the Medium chosen. To add to the
complexity, the message is influenced by the communicator’s image of the receiver’s image
of the communicator. Maletzke’s model suggests that in the communication process, many
shoulders are being looked over. The more the shoulders, the more compromises, the more
adjustments.
Thus not only is the communicator taking into due regard the medium and the nature of the
audience, and perceiving these things through the filter of self-image and personality
structure, he or she is also keenly responsive to other factors - the communication team, with
its own special set of values and professional practices. Beyond the team, there is the
organisation which in turn has to look over its shoulder towards government or the general
public.
Just as the communicator is a member of a team within an organisational environment, so the
receiver is part of a larger context of reception. He or she is subject to influences other than
the media message. Those influences may start in the living room of a family home, and the
influencers might be the viewer’s or reader’s family, but there are contextual influences
beyond that - in the pub, at work, in the community. The complexity suggests an almost
limitless interaction of variables which indicates the enormous difficulty faced by research
into mass media and its effects.

3. Gerbner’s General Model (1956):

Gerbner's General Model emphasizes the dynamic nature of human communication. It also
gives prominence to the factors which may affect fidelity.

The model shown diagrammatically is to be read from left to right, beginning at E - Event.
• The event (E) is perceived by M (the man (sic) or machine).
• The process of perception is not simply a matter of 'taking a picture' of event E. It is a
process of active interpretation.
• The way that the E is perceived will be determined by a variety of factors, such as the
assumptions, attitudes, point of view and experience of M.
• E can be a person talking, sending a letter, telephoning, or otherwise communicating with
M. In other words, E could be what we conventionally call the Source or Transmitter.
• Equally, E can be an event - a car crash, rain, waves crashing on a beach, a natural
disaster etc. In this case, we could be applying the model to mass media communication,
say the reporting of news.
The model is a useful starting-point for the analysis of wide variety of communication acts.
Note that the model, besides drawing our attention to those factors within E which will
determine perception or interpretation of E, also draws our attention to three important factors
viz. Selection, context and availability.
1. Convergence Model (1981):

Rogers and Kinclaid formulated convergence or network model which represents


communication as a process of horizontal sharing among two or more participants within
social networks.

2. Jakobson’s Model 1958:

Based on the Organon-Model by Karl Bühler, Jakobson distinguishes six communication


functions, each associated with a dimension of the communication process:
One of the six functions is always the dominant function in a text and usually related to the
type of text. In poetry, the dominant function is the poetic function: the focus is on the
message itself. The true hallmark of poetry is according to Jakobson "the projection of the
principle of equivalence from the axis of selection to the axis of combination". Very broadly
speaking, it implies that poetry successfully combines and integrates form and function, that
poetry turns the poetry of grammar into the grammar of poetry, so to speak.

3. Baker’s Mosiac Model of Message Environments:

In The Prospect of
Rhetoric (1968), Sam
Becker presented a
mosaic model of
communication, arguing
that "our traditional
concept of the message
has severely limited
usefulness for
understanding
contemporary
communication. The
emphasis of rhetorical
studies should probably
remain upon the message, in a way that is more descriptive of what man as receiver is
exposed to, rather than what man as source creates." We construct message which "are, in
effect, overlaid to form the large and complex communication environment or 'mosaic' in
which each of us exists. This mosaic consists of an immense number of fragments or bits of
information on an immense number of topics. . . . These bits are scattered over time and
space and modes of communication. Each individual must grasp from this mosaic those bits
which serve his needs, must group them into message sets which are relevant for him at any
given time, and within each message set must organize the bits and close the gaps between
them in order to arrive at a coherent picture of the world to which he can respond."

4.Toulmin model
A six-part model of argument (with similarities to the syllogism) introduced by British
philosopher Stephen Toulmin in his book The Uses of Argument (Cambridge Univ. Press,
1958). The Toulmin model can be used as a tool for analyzing and categorizing arguments.

Observations:

"What is it that makes arguments work? What makes arguments effective? The British
logician Stephen Toulmin made important contributions to argument theory that are useful
for this line of inquiry. Toulmin found six components of arguments:

○ Claim: A statement that something is so.

○ Data: The backing for the claim.

○ Warrant: The link between the claim and the grounds.

○ Backing: Support for the warrant.

○ Modality: The degree of certainty employed in offering the argument.

○ Rebuttal: Exceptions to the initial claim.

The Toulmin model provides us with useful tools for analyzing the components of
arguments."

8. Transactional Model (Dean Barnlund Model):

The current evolutionary development of basic interpersonal communication models is the


Transactional Model of communication, first proposed by Barnlund (1970) and subsequently
refined by other theorists. Departing from a linear view of communication which had its
rhetorical/persuasion seeds before the time of Aristotle, the transactional model posits that
interpersonal communication is a dynamic, process-oriented activity in which the two
participants are simultaneously sending and receiving messages. Anderson and Ross
summarize the model as follows: "Encoding and decoding are not alternating sub processes
of communication, however, but are mutually dependent, each contributing to the meaning
the communicators are building together. The two-way symmetrical model identified by
Grunig and Hunt (1984) takes a transactional view of public relations because the objective is
to gain understanding rather than to persuade.

Figure: Barnlund's Transactional Model

References:

1. Andal N. 1998 Communication, Theories and Models Himalaya Publishhing House


Mumbai

2. http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/9780335220533.pdf

You might also like