Saussure and the model of communication

Semiotica ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (217) ◽  
pp. 173-194
Author(s):  
Russell Daylight

AbstractOne of the less obvious contributions of Saussure is his role in establishing modern communications theory. The sender-message-receiver (SMR) model of communication was developed by Shannon and Weaver (1949, The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press). Within the humanities, it is Roman Jakobson’s version of the SMR model that is most influential. Jakobson’s model creates a methodology for considering such complexities as the sender’s intentions, the context of transmission, metalinguistic codes, the transmission medium, and the relation to the referent. Despite the complexity of Jakobson’s model, it is still bound by the assumption that perfect communication can be achieved through the full recovery of contexts. The most thorough and powerful critique of what’s often called the “transmission model” of communication is found in Jacques Derrida’s “Signature Event Context.” Derrida’s critique begins by demonstrating “why a context is never absolutely determinable” (1988a: 3, Signature event context. In Gerald Graff (ed.), Limited inc., Samuel Weber (trans.), 1–23. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press). In place of context, Derrida proposes the notion of “dissemination” in which a text is radically adrift of the conditions of its utterance or reception. At face value, Saussure’s “speech circuit” model represents an early and underdeveloped model of communication. As if often the case, however, a closer reading of the Cours reveals something far more radical and profound. Closer attention to Saussure’s speech circuit model re-opens many questions in communication theory, and in associated fields such as literary theory, cultural studies, and semiotics.

Author(s):  
Jody Jahn

Over the past several decades, organizational communication has embraced rich theoretical understandings for organization, communication and the interface between the two. Yet, as our theories have become richer and more complex, they have also become increasingly difficult to “sell” to applied audiences that often assume a “transmission” model of communication. This chapter describes challenges I have faced while applying organizational communication theory to issues related to wildland firefighter safety. I propose that a key challenge of applied organizational communication research is transforming what it means for organizational managers to think communicatively. This requires uncovering the organization's research engagement history and trajectory, encountering and working with organization members' assumptions about organization and communication, and identifying and working with pivot points that can help organization members approach problems using communication lenses.


1948 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-283

The bibliography that follows is a supplement to “Radio Journalism: An Annotated Bibliography,” published by the Council on Radio Journalism in the Journalism Quarterly of June 1946. Its purpose is to provide annotated citations of major publications—book, periodical, and pamphlet—dealing with radio news and closely related fields that have appeared since the first bibliography was compiled. Like the first, this bibliography is selective, not exhaustive. It does not list the scores of articles, many of them of first importance, that have appeared in the trade press—Broadcasting, Radio Daily, NAB Reports, Variety, Billboard, Tide, Television, FM and Television, Frequency Modulation Business, Radio Showmanship, Newscaster, and the like. It is assumed that those interested in radio journalism keep abreast of materials of this kind. Compilers of this bibliography are members of the Council on Radio Journalism, with the assistance of Baskett Mosse of the Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University, and C. H. Sandage of the School of Journalism, University of Illinois.


Author(s):  
Fred Dretske

The mathematical theory of information (also called communication theory) defines a quantity called mutual information that exists between a source, s, and receiver, r. Mutual information is a statistical construct, a quantity defined in terms of conditional probabilities between the events occurring at r and s. If what happens at r depends on what happens at s to some degree, then there is a communication ‘channel’ between r and s, and mutual information at r about s. If, on the other hand, the events at two points are statistically independent, there is zero mutual information. Philosophers and psychologists are attracted to information theory because of its potential as a useful tool in describing an organism’s cognitive relations to the world. The attractions are especially great for those who seek a naturalistic account of knowledge, an account that avoids normative – and, therefore, scientifically unusable – ideas such as rational warrant, sufficient reason and adequate justification. According to this approach, philosophically problematic notions like evidence, knowledge, recognition and perception – perhaps even meaning – can be understood in communication terms. Perceptual knowledge, for instance, might best be rendered in terms of a brain (r) receiving mutual information about a worldly source (s) via sensory channels. When incoming signals carry appropriate information, suitably equipped brains ‘decode’ these signals, extract information and thereby come to know what is happening in the outside world. Perception becomes information-produced belief.


1967 ◽  
Vol 10 (01) ◽  
pp. 43-50
Author(s):  
Frank Willett ◽  
Brian M. Fagan

This conference was held at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, December 8 to 10, 1966, under the cochairmanship of Professor Frank Willett (Northwestern University) and Dr. Brian M. Fagan (University of Illinois). Thirteen persons in some way associated with Iron Age archaeology were official participants, and there were six observers who also contributed to the discussions. The names of these participants are listed at the end of this article. Their primary concern was with the archaeology of Africa since the origins of food production, with special reference to the Iron Age. As a guideline the participants were given brief reports on four recent conferences which had touched on the problems of African Iron Age archaeology. Terminology and research needs, primarily for the Stone Age, were topics at the Wenner Gren Symposium on the African Quaternary held at Burg Wartenstein, Austria, in July, 1965. The results of this symposium were reviewed at the meeting of West African archaeologists in Sierra Leone during June, 1966. This meeting also expressed concern at the shortage of manpower and resources in West African archaeology, especially in the French-speaking territories, and training facilities and other terminological problems were also discussed. The difficulties of communication and training, especially in related disciplines, were discussed by a group attending an ARC meeting on the African Arts in March, 1966.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document