ABSTRACT
Discourse and communication are two interrelated concepts,
intricately interwoven and grossly assumed as overtly synonymous. This
study therefore, attempts to demystify these concepts and also aim to
unearth the intricate relationship that exists between them .In this
regard, the study discussed in detail the theoretical frameworks of
discourse and communication and consequently established the fact that
they are absolutely synonymous in every respect. To this end, the
methodology is Content Analysis using discourse analytic tools of
cohesion and coherence.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Language, it could be said, is as old as man but the central function
of language is and remains communication. In other words, the whole
essence of language boils down to communication and communication is or
entails discourse. The centrality and significance of language in
relation to mankind has made it the concern of linguists. Prior to
modern trends in linguistics analysis, scholars were chiefly concerned
with describing the structures and frameworks of languages, in this
case, the traditional grammarians. However, the development of new
approaches in language study shifted emphasis to functionalism, marking a
quantum leap from linguistic prescriptivism to linguistic
descriptivism. This brought about attempts to explain the roles or
functions of language in different context, thus leading to new
disciplines like discourse analysis and communication studies that view
language as discourse and as a means to exchange ideas or knowledge.
Discourse can be regarded as communication because they are
invariably linked such that the manifestation of one presupposes the
occurrence of the other. This scenario could be likened to two sides of a
coin; intricate parts of a whole. According to Wodak ‘discourse is a
social performance, a relative social phenomenon that depends on a wide
range of discipline…’ (49). Simply put, it refers to conversations or
utterances in a social context. On the other hand, communication is an
umbrella term for processes that involve the exchange of information and
this includes conversations or utterances (discourse). Keyton (52)
states that ‘communication presupposes discourse and all discourse
forms’. In this regard, the concepts of discourse and communication will
be examined in detail to further understand there interrelatedness and
minor differences.
2.0 DISCOURSE & DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
The term Discourse is broad with many definitions. It ‘integrates a whole palette of meanings’ (Horvath, npn). The Wikipedia states that the word discourse is derived from the Latin word discursus which means to and from’
(npn). Literally, discourse refers to communication of thought by words
or a formal discussion of a subject in speech or writing. A plausible
definition of discourse is offered by Stubbs as ‘language above the
sentence or above the clause’ (2). In the same vein, Tenorio (4) states
that discourse ‘is the highest unit of linguistic description; phonemes,
morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences and text are below’. This
definition offers a syntactic description or explanation of discourse.
Adopting a different view, Van Dijk asserts that discourse is ‘text in
context’ (3). Dijk’s position offers a sociolinguistics outlook on the
notion of discourse by taking cognizance of the situation it occurs. The
context is very significant because discourse does not take place in a
vacuum and must be by definite participants or interactants.
Despite the various definitions offered by linguists, Schiffrin
conceives that ‘discourse can be interpreted in wider range than any
other term in linguistic areas, yet it has been least accurately
defined’ (40). This is relatively in consonance with Richardson’s view
which implies that discourse is a term that is used fashionably in
various disciplines and becomes ‘one of the most well used words in
academics today’ (21). In other words, the term is frequently used and
adopted in other academic fields, thus leading to its diverse
definitions. Paltridge (2) offers that Zellig Harris; a well known
linguist was the first to use the term ‘discourse’ in 1952 during a
paper he presented on Discourse Analysis. However, Discourse as a field
only gained much interest during the 1970s when it eventually developed
as a critique of cognitive process in communication. It is based on the
notion that language needs a context for it to function properly. In
this regard, Ahmad (1) stressed that it is ‘difficult to understand the
linguistic items used in discourse without a context’.
The context is so relevant in discourse such that it is part of the
three perspectives outlined by Van Dijk to define or critically
understand discourse. They are: linguistic, cognitive and
socio-cultural. First, he argues that discourse is described at the
syntactic, semantic and stylistic levels (linguistics perspective).
Secondly, he adds that it needs to be understood from the interlocutors’
processes of production, reception and understanding (cognitive) and
finally he points to the social dimension of discourse which he sees as a
sequence of contextualized, controlled and purposeful acts that occur
in the society: context (socio-cultural). In sum, discourse is
multidisciplinary. It is a social performance, an interpersonal activity
whose form is determined by its social purpose.
Discourse Analysis is a cover term for the many traditions by which
discourse may be analysed. Osisanwo (8) notes thus, ‘popular as
discourse analysis is among modern linguists, coming up with a
comprehensive and acceptable definition of the term has been a herculean
task’. To solve this linguistics conundrum, Brown and Yule in Osisanwo
provided an apt definition as ‘the analysis of discourse is necessarily
the analysis of language in use’ (8). This definition implied that
discourse overtly presupposes communication; therefore discourse
analysis is the method of studying discourse. Stubbs in Osisanwo offered
a syntax-oriented view of discourse analysis as an attempt to study
‘the organization of language above the sentence or above the clause,
and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational
exchanges or written texts’ (8).
Schriffin explains that ‘it is a critique of cognitivism (objective,
observable/knowable reality) that developed from the 1970s onwards,
although it has its roots in the turn to language in the 1950s’
(34). Crystal in Mills asserted that ‘discourse analysis focuses on the
structure of naturally occurring spoken language, as found in such
discourses as conversations, interviews, commentaries and speeches’ (3).
This corroborates Van Dijk’s view on Discourse analysis as a modality
for construction of theories in clarifying the existing relations
between language use, thoughts or beliefs and social interactions. He
goes further to correct the general misconception that discourse
analysis can only be done on spoken language since there is an evident
interaction between speakers. On the contrary, written materials can
also be analysed because readers assimilate what they are reading in
spite of what may seem as passive interaction between a reader and the
text.
In a nutshell, Mills (135) agreed that ‘discourse analysis could be
seen as a reaction to a more traditional form of linguistics (formal,
structural linguistics) which focused on the constituent units and
structure of the sentence and which does not concern itself with an
analysis of language in use’. It is concerned with translating the
notion of structure from the level of the sentence to the level of
longer text.
2.1 DISCOURSE STRATEGIES
A strategy ordinarily refers to a modality, procedure or method in
achieving a set goal or aim. Van Dijk conceived strategy as ‘cognitive
representations of action sequences and their goals’ (79). This means
that one’s desires or wants are compared to what one knows about one’s
abilities, the action, context, the possibilities and probabilities of
outcomes and so on. In this regard, he viewed discourse strategies as
‘intuitive notions that underlie semantic relations between sentences
and in terms of rules relating sentences with semantic macrostructures’
(80). These intuitive notions bring about proper linking of ideas or
semantic relations in discourse. Therefore, the basic discourse
strategies are cohesion and coherence.
2.1.1 Cohesion: This refers to the grammatical or
lexical linking within a text or sentence that holds a text together and
gives it meaning. There are two main types of cohesion: lexical and
grammatical cohesion.
Lexical cohesion involves making use of the features of words as well
as the group relationship between them. There are two main types of
lexical cohesion which are: reiteration and collocation. Reiteration
occurs in form of repetition, synonymy or hyponymy. On the other hand,
collocation deals with words that co-occur in discourse.
Grammatical cohesion centres on the logical and structural form of
words used in discourse. There are four main types of grammatical
devices: reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction. Reference
deals with definiteness and can be divided into two: anaphoric and
cataphoric reference. Substitution entails replacement of linguistic
element(s) while ellipsis involves outright deletion of these elements
(words).
2.1.2 Coherence: This covers the semantic aspects of
discourse. Simply put, discourse is said to be coherent when it makes
sense. Coherence in discourse is achieved through syntactical features,
cognitive processes and semantic relations such as the use of deictic,
anaphoric and cataphoric elements, implications and presuppositions.
2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a contemporary approach to the
study of language and discourses in social institutions. It focuses on
the way and manner language exercises its power in the society. Critical
Discourse Analysis began from the assumption that systematic
asymmetries of power and resources between speakers and listeners,
readers and writers can be linked to their unequal access to linguistic
and social resources. It hinges on the notion that language use is a
social practice which does not function in isolation but in a set of
cultural, social and psychological frameworks. CDA accepts this social
context and studies its connections with textual structures. It also
takes the social context into account and explores the links between
textual structures and their function interaction within the society.
The terms Critical Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA) are often used interchangeably. However, the latter is often
preferred and used to denote the former theory previously identified as
Critical Linguistics. CDA is a relatively new approach in discourse
studies, whose emergence could be traced to a small symposium of
discourse scholars in Amsterdam in 1990 and headed by Van Dijk. He views
CDA as;
a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the
way social power abuse, dominance and inequality
are enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and
political context. With such dissident research, critical discourse
analysts take explicit position and thus want to understand, expose and
ultimately resist social inequality. (23)
2.2.1 Theories in Critical Discourse Analysis
Based on Wodak’s submissions, there are about six (6) known theories
of Critical Discourse Analysis. These theories are often referred to as
approaches and shall be subsequently discussed.
2.2.1.1 Dispositive Analysis: According to Carbon,
Foucault conceptualizes the term dispositive as a ‘decidedly
heterogeneous ensemble of elements ranging from buildings to laws to
scientific statements… but also for example, the users exclusive
knowledge of a code’ (2). Carbon notes that one important aspect of
Foucault’s definition is the importance of connections between elements.
Using Jager’s taxonomy, Carbon outlines three elements which she
considers as the bedrock of dispositive analysis. They are: discursive
practices, non-discursive practices (actions) and physical objects.
Discursive practices addresses or refers to processes by which cultural
meanings are produced and understood. The basis of discursive practices
is the insistence that discourse is action and not merely
representation. In this regard, attention must be given to what is
accomplished through discourse. For instance, proverbs are treated not
just as bits of cultural wisdom but as resources available for use in
certain situations. The emphasis will be on how are proverbs used and
not what they mean or say. The key objective of discursive practices is
to understand and develop techniques relevant to the analysis of
meaningful behaviour in actual situations.
The non-discursive practices refer to actions which are accompanied
by knowledge. For instance, the act of going to a particular location
requires a perfect or partial knowledge of the area. The third element
literally refers to the place or role of physical objects in deciphering
meaning. This brings about the idea of referent in the real world.
Although not all words have exact referents, which is of course one of
the limitations of the theoretical aspect. Other approaches in CDA are:
● sociocognitive approach: centres on the
socio-psychological aspect of CDA for explaining phenomena of social
reality based on the triad of discourse, cognition and society;
● discourse historical approach: it establishes the
relationship between fields of action, genres, discourses and text,
focusing on issues of nationalism and national conscientisation;
● corpus-linguistics approach: a linguistic extension of
CDA which deploys the use of linguistic devices for analysis;
● social actors approach: a merger of sociological and
linguistic theories which explains actions in order to establish social
structure; and
● dialectical-relational approach: focuses on social
conflict in tandem with Marxist traditions and tries to detect its
linguistic manifestations in discourse with interest on elements of
dominance, difference and resistance. The approach holds that every
social practice (productivity, means of production, social relations,
social identities and cultural values and consciousness) has a semiotic
element.
2.3 DISCOURSE AND SEMIOTICS
Chandler defined semiotics as ‘the study not only of what we refer
to as signs in everyday speech but of anything which stands for
something else’ (56). In a semiotic sense, signs take the form of words,
images, sounds, gestures and objects. In discourse analysis, semiotics
comes to play because every text is a semiotic element in every respect
because it communicates with a target or general audience. Semiotics
looks at the science of signs and symbols in relation to the meanings
they express and discourse analysis shares this concern as well. In
other words, discourse and semiotics are interrelated.
3.0 NOTION OF COMMUNICATION
The word communication was derived from the Latin word communis
which denotes common. According to Keyton in Lunenburg, communication
is ‘the process of transmitting information and common understanding
from one person to another’ (25). This definition underscores the fact
that unless a common understanding results from the exchange of
information, there is no communication. Communication like any other
skill requires practice. It is a process that requires the effective
participation of all parties (elements) involved.
3.1 Basic Forms of Communication
The basic forms of communication are of two types: verbal and
non-verbal communication. This could be in form of meetings, speeches or
writings, gestures or expressions.
3.1.1 Non-Verbal Communication: This is a primitive
or crude form of communication that does not involve the use of words.
Rather, it uses mediums like gestures, cues, body movements, vocal
qualities and spatial relationships to convey message(s). It is commonly
used to express emotions like love, respect, dislike and
unpleasantness. Non-verbal communication is less structured compared to
verbal and often spontaneous. As it is not planned, sometimes it is
considered more reliable because it reflects communicator’s true
feelings. Also, it enhances the effectiveness of the message as gestures
and body language are registered quicker and easier with a perceived
than verbal communication. However, when combined with verbal
communication, it is more effective and has greater impact(s).
3.1.2 Verbal Communication: This involves the
arrangement of words in a structured and meaningful manner to convey a
message or exchange information between communicators in spoken or
written form. The spoken form (oral communication) is effective in
reaching a focused target audience as it affords the speaker the
opportunity of interacting with the perceived audience while the written
form is suitable when trying to reach a large audience that is
concentrated in a place or due to proximity challenges. On the whole,
verbal communication does have significant advantages over the
non-verbal communication. Perhaps, this explains why it is the most
adopted form in recent times.
3.1.3 Oral Communication: This is the process of
verbally transmitting information and ideas from one individual or group
to another. With advances in technology, there are new forms of oral
communication like video phones and video conferencing
(teleconferencing). Other modern forms of oral communication include
Podcasts (audio clips accessible on the internet) and
Voice-over-internet Protocol (VoIP) which allows phone users to
communicate over the internet and avoid telephone charges. Example is
Whatsapp, Facebook, etc. Oral communication can be either formal or
informal. Formal type of oral communication refers to presentations at
business meetings or seminars, classroom lectures or speeches. The
informal type of oral communication includes face-to-face conversations
or telephone conversations.
3.1.4 Written Communication: This involves any type
of message or information transfer that makes use of symbols or words
(printed or handwritten). It is the most important and effective of any
mode of business communication. Written communication is the opposite
form oral communication. Examples of modes of written communication are
proposals, lecture notes, seminar papers, postcards, brochures, press
releases, memos, etc.
3.2 THEORIES OF COMMUNICATION
The term theory is a multi-faceted term as this implies that it means
a number of things depending on the context. In other words, there is
no exact definition of the word ‘theory’. Dixon defines theory as;
a provisional explanatory proposition or set of propositions
concerning some natural phenomena and consisting symbolic
representations of the observed relationships among (measured) events,
the mechanisms or structures presumed to underlie such relationships or
observed data in the absence of any direct empirical manifestation of
the relationships. (240)
Similarly, Kerlinger defined theory as ‘a set of interrelated
constructs (concepts), definitions and propositions that present a
systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables
with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena’ (36). In
line with the definitions of the term theory, communication theory could
be defined as a set of constructs linked together, relational
statements consistent with each other that explains what happens in
communication. A set of propositions that show the relationship between
the various variables that are at work in the communication process.
Theories are very important in communication because they provide a
foundation upon which the practice of communication operates.
Communication requires very sound theories for there to be an effective
communication process. Hence, Kerlinger asserts that ‘there is nothing
so practical as a sound theory’ (38).
In communication studies, there are many theories of communication
which can be collapsed into five broad types. They are: normative
theories, media and culture theories, active audience theories, sense
theories and behavioural theories of mass communication.
3.2.1 Normative Theories (Theories of the Press)
According to Siebert et al, (45) the normative theories ‘describe the
way an ideal media system should be controlled and operated by the
government, authorities, leaders and the public’. These theories are
basically different from other communication theories because normative
theories of press do not provide any scientific explanations or
predictions. Otherwise known as the ‘four theories of the press’, these
theories do not have a single source. In other words, media
practitioners, social critics and academics were involved in the
formulation of the normative theories. The normative theories comprise
the following theories: authoritarian media theory, libertarian media
theory, soviet communist media theory and social responsibility media
theory. These theories will be discussed based on Siebert et al
submissions.
3.2.1.1 Authoritarian Media Theory: Developed in the
16th and 17th century Europe (England), this theory stemmed from the
authoritarian philosophy of Plato who thought that the state was safe
only in the hands of a few wise men. It also had the backing of British
academic; Thomas Hobbs who argued that the power to maintain order was
sovereign and individual objections was to be ignored. It upheld the
absolute power of the monarch where the state is the master. According
to this theory, mass media, though not under the direct control of the
state, had to follow its bidding. In other words, those who control the
government have monopoly of the truth and of information approach. The
media in this set up (private or public owned) worked to protect the
interest of the government in power. The implication was that the media
was not to publish anything that is under censorship and anyone who did
otherwise was punished severely. Under an authoritarian approach in
Europe, freedom of thought was jealously guarded by a few people (ruling
class) , who were concerned with the emergence of a new middle class
and were worried about the effects of printed matter on their thought
process. Hence, steps were taken to control the freedom of expression.
The result was advocacy of complete dictatorship.
3.2.1.2 Libertarian Media Theory: This theory
originated in England in the 17th century and spread to America. It
stemmed from enlightenment thoughts and natural rights. This theory was
also informed by Milton’s idea of the self-right process of the free
market place of ideas. This meant that good ideas would outlive and
outwit bad ones if all ideas were guaranteed free expression. The
underlying principles of the theory can be summed up as follows:
attacks on government, official party or political party should not be punishable,
no media organization should be compelled to publish anything
no media restriction should be placed on any legal means of eliciting information and
there should be no restrictions on sending or receiving messages across national frontiers.
Apart from Milton, other exponents of this theory are John Locke,
Adam Smith, Lao Tzu and John Stuart Mill. In the nutshell, the theory
advocates power without social responsibility.
3.2.1.3 Soviet Communist Media Theory: This theory
originated from the former USSR in the 20th century and stemmed from the
ideologies of Marx and Engel that the ideas of the ruling classes are
the ruling ideas. It was a modification of the authoritarian theory. The
aim of the press under this system is to support the Marxist
(socialist) system and ensure the sovereignty of the working class
(proletariat) through the Communist party. In this scenario, the media
is theoretically owned by the people but controlled by the Communist
party. The media cannot criticize party objectives. Rather it propagates
party them. This theory differs from the authoritarian model because
the Soviet media is not subject to arbitrary and unnecessary
interference of the government. The principles of this theory can be
summed up thus:
media should serve the interest of the working class
media should not be privately owned
media should present a complete and objective view of the
society and the world according to Marxist Leninist principles.
The advocates of this theory were Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin,
Gobarchev, Castro and Mao. Meanwhile, this theory is still practiced in
Communist countries like China, North Korea and Cuba.
3.2.1.4 Social Responsibility Media Theory: This
theory was developed in the mid 20th century in United States of
America. It stemmed from the virulent criticisms of the libertarian
theory and based on the recommendations of Commission of The Freedom of
Press in the US in 1949. The commission found out that the free market
approach to press freedom (Libertarian Theory) had only increased the
power of a single class (wealthy) and had not served the interests of
the less privilege or lower class. This theory therefore, was formulated
to reconcile independence with obligation to societies. It advocated
some obligation on the part of the media to society. It emphasized that
ownership and control of the media should be seen as a kind of
stewardship; serving and promoting the interest of the public. Hence,
the press should be opened to anyone who has something to say. The
theory hinges on the notion that the social responsibility of the press
is more important than its freedom. The essence of the theory is
premiered on plurality of the press in and a duty to one’s conscience
which is the primary basis of the right to free expression.
In sum, the Soviet Communist and Social Responsibility theories were
derivations of the Authoritarian and Libertarian theories respectively.
Therefore, these four theories are sometimes called the ‘four-in-two
press theories’. However, there are other subsequent additional theories
by scholars.
3.2.2 Media and Culture Theories
Baran & Davies classify the media and culture theories into the
following categories: spiral of silence theory, knowledge gap theory,
media dependency theory and modernization theory.
3.2.2.1 Spiral of Silence Theory: Propounded by
Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (a German political scientist), the focus of
the spiral theory is on how public opinion is formed. The theory states
that the media publicizes opinions that are mainstream and people adjust
their opinions to avoid being isolated. It explains why people feel
often feel the need to conceal their opinions, preference or views,
especially when they fall within or belong to a minority group. This
implies that individuals who perceive their own opinion as being
accepted will express it while those who think themselves as minorities
will suppress theirs. The tendency of one to speak up and the other to
be silent starts off a spiral process which increasingly establishes one
opinion as prevailing one. In this regard, the media which wields power
can canvass popular views so that individual views in opposition of the
media become unpopular.
3.2.2.2 Knowledge Gap Theory: This theory explains
the distribution of knowledge in the society and the role of the mass
media in this distribution. It posits that as the infusion of mass media
information into a social system increases, those in the upper
socio-economic class tend to acquire or access this information faster
than those in the lower socio-economic class. This leads to a gap in
knowledge between both classes. The propositions of this theory can be
summarized thus:
a. people in a society exhibit great psychological differences due to socio-economic classes.
b. individuals with sound or more education tend to have better
developed cognitive and communication skills, broader social spheres and
more diverse social contacts than those with less educative
irrespective of their social-economic class.
3.2.2.3 Media Dependency Theory: This theory was
originally proposed by Sandra Ball- Rokeach and Melvin DeFluer in 1976.
The key idea behind this theory is that audiences depend on media
information to meet needs and reach goals and social institutions and
media systems interact with audiences to create and imprint needs,
interests and motives in them. Therefore, the more a person depends on
the mass media for self fulfillment, the more important the media will
be to that person. According to Rokeach and DeFluer, three media needs
determine how important media is to a person at any given moment. These
needs are:
a. the need to understand one’s social world (surveillance)
b. the need to act meaningfully and effectively in that world (social utility)
c. the need to escape from that world when tensions are high (fantasy-escape)
Furthermore, the theory states two specific conditions under which
people’s media needs and dependency are heightened. They are: (a) when
the number of media and the functions of media in the society are high
(e.g. as a tool for information dissemination, entertainment, escape,
etc) and (b) when a society is undergoing social change like protest,
uprisings, instability and conflict.
3.2.2.4 Modernization Theory: This theory looks at
the effects of the modernization process on societies or human
communication. It explains the changing ways of communication and media
use in traditional and (post)modern societies. It is also an attempt at
identifying the social variables which may contribute to social progress
and development of societies. Baran & Davis assert that the
modernization theory has evolved in three waves: first wave, second wave
and third wave. The first wave centres on the role of the mass media in
economic development, literacy and cultural development and national
identity development; all between the 1950s-60s. The second wave was
popular in the 70s and 80s and it criticized the influence of western
cultural and economic imperialism. The third was moderate in approach on
international influences on emerging societies. It was prominent during
the 90s.
3.2.3 Active Audience Theories
Siebert categorizes the audience theories into three sub-types: uses
and gratification theory, diffusion of innovations theory and
cultivation theory.
3.2.3.1 Uses and Gratification Theory (Functional Theory):
Propounded by Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch in 1970, it is concerned with
how people use media for gratification of their needs. The theory
aligns with Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in the sense that people
choose what they want to see or read and the different media compete to
satisfy each individual’s needs. According to the theory, media
consumers have a free will to decide how they will use the media and how
it will affect them. In general, researchers have found four kinds of
gratification: information, personal identity (looking for role models),
integration and social interaction and entertainment.
3.2.3.2 Diffusion of Innovations Theory (Multiple Step Flow Theory):
Pioneered by Bryce Ryan and Neil Gross of Iowa University in 1943, the
theory traces the process by which new idea (innovation) is communicated
through certain mediums over time among members of a social system. The
media and interpersonal communication are active and potent instruments
in spreading information on a new idea or innovation and also influence
people to adopt the innovation. Greg in Siebert (89) notes that
‘successful efforts to diffuse an innovation depend on characteristics
of situation. To eliminate a deficit of awareness of an innovation, mass
media channels are most appropriate’. Also opinion leaders influence
the diffusion of innovation because they provide advice and information
about an innovation to members of a social system. The opinion leaders
have this advantage because they serve as a model for others and also
support the norms of the social structure. Rogers summarizes members of
the social system innovative decision as a five step that includes:
a. Knowledge- person becomes aware of an innovation and has some idea of how it functions,
b. Persuasion- person forms a favourable or unfavourable attitude towards the innovation,
c. Decision- person engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation,
d. Implementation- person puts an innovation into use and
e. Confirmation- person evaluates the results of an innovation-decision already made.
3.2.3.3 Cultivation Theory: This theory explains how
television shapes concepts of social reality. This implies that the
more people are exposed to television, the more it shapes their
perception social reality and influences their conformity to what is
spread by the television. Propounded by George Gerbner et al,
the theory stresses that television exerts a great tremendous influence
by altering individuals’ perception of reality. Gerbner stressed that
the television, among modern media, has acquired such a central place in
daily life, asserting that ‘the television set has become a key member
of the family, the one who tells most of the stories most of the time’
(56). It is assumed that the more time people spend watching television,
the more their world-views will be like those spread by the television.
3.2.4 Sense Theories
These comprise of play theory, media richness theory, medium theory and reflective projective theory.
3.2.4.1 Play Theory: Proposed by British
psychologist; William Stephenson in 1967, the theory focuses on the
division of man’s activities. The basic assumption of the theory is that
people are divided into work and play. Work involves serious activities
while play is not too serious an activity like entertainment and
relation. Stephenson explained that people use the media for play rather
than work because they see it as a means of entertainment and pleasure
than a means for information and improvement. He posited that the most
significant function of the media is to facilitate subjective play to
give people pleasure, an interlude from pressing issues that concerns
them most of the time. He viewed the media as serving two basic
functions. The first is to provide play, influence customs, normalize
manners and give people something to talk about while the second
function is to help shake up society.
3.2.4.2 Reflective Projective Theory: This posits
that the media is the ‘mirror of the society’. The theory explains that
though the media mirrors society, the mirror they present is an
ambiguous one. The media reflect society as an organized group while the
audience or members project their own individual reflections into the
images presented. For instance, people get different satisfaction from
the same programme watched on television as a result of their attitude,
sex, mood, experience and ethnic differences. The overall implication of
the media as a mirror is that the media has the ability to form or make
somebody into nobody and otherwise.
3.2.4.3 Medium Theory: Postulated by Marshal
McLuhan, the theory focuses on the characteristics of each medium that
make it physically, socially and psychologically different from each
other. It also examines how communication through a particular medium
affects face-to-face interactions. This theory was borne out from
McLuhan’s challenge of conventional definitions by claiming that the
medium is the message. With this claim, he stressed how channels differ
not only in terms of their content but also in regard to how they awaken
thoughts and senses. He distinguished the media by the cognitive
processes each requires. Thus, the medium theory looks at the
relationship between human senses that are required to use a medium and
the structure (face interaction, visual, etc) of the medium itself.
3.2.4.4 Media Richness Theory: The pioneers of this
theory are Daft and Lengel in 1984 and it is based on the Contingency
theory and Information Processing Theory. The theory posits that the
effectiveness of communication is based on the effectiveness of the
media used to relay the message. In other words, the richer the media;
the nearer the top of the continuum. Daft and Lengel presented a
richness hierarchy which incorporates four media classifications:
face-to-face, telephone, addressed documents and unaddressed documents.
3.3 The Communication Process
Human beings are neither passive nor predictable in terms of
interpreting meanings and reacting in a specified way. Also,
communication is not a passive or predictable one way event. Rather, it
could be viewed as an active process influenced by all the complexities
and ambiguities of human behaviour. It is also fraught with potential
points of breakdown. Clampitt in Dixon notes ‘we actively construct
meanings within a unique vortex that includes the words used, the
context of the utterances and the people involved’ (238). It is more
simplistic to look at the communication process as a cyclic process
where information is generated from an element and transferred to
another element through a medium with corresponding effects in terms of a
feedback. On the contrary, there would be no communication process
without the role of key elements like the sender, message, medium,
receiver, feedback, context and noise. Dixon argues that ‘many models
have been developed to simplify and summarize the complex reality of the
communication process and to aid our understanding. Some of these are
helpful but all have their shortcomings’ (239). To solve this conundrum,
she adopts Clampitt communication model which is presented below.
Decode