communication is
how people affect each other through persuasive messages
- modifies the environment, two information processing devices
interpersonal communication 2 types with types
Intra-individual - what goes on in our heads, processes that enable production and comprehension, eg auditory signals
- encoder-decoder
-intentionalist
- perspective-taking
Inter-individual - things between people, processes that cause you to be affected and affect others eg conversation
- collaborative
- interactive alignment
intra
Encoder-Decoder
simplest model
- meaning is a property of the message
- encoding speaker and decoding listener signals
- each message has a single meaning
encoder-decoder Shannon Weaver 1949
comprehension and channel
message to signal by encoder and received signal and message by decoder
- source, encoder, channel, decoder, destination
- channel = air, noise
speaking and listening are 2 autnomous processes
- comprehension is responsiblity of listener
intra
intentionalist
assumptions
- meaning is a property of the message, but more than message exchange
- words and meanings dont have fixed relationship
- context influence meaning
communication = exchange of communicative intentions - listener must infer the speaker
eg. ‘gee thanks for the invite’ sacrasm, or true thankful
intentionalist - 3 stage model
how achieve stage 2?
stage 1 - decode the literal meaning of the utterance/sentence
stage 2 - determine appropriateness of the literal meaning/context/maxims
stage 3 - infer the speakers intended meaning
intentionalist - Grice’s cooperative principle
4 of them, what abt when rules are broken?
conversation is cooperative
maxims/conversational rules
1 - quality = message should be truthful
2 - quantity = only contain necessary information
3 - relation =message should be relevant to ongoing discussion
4 - manner - message should be brief, orderly
when broken;
- go beyond the literal meaning
- violated or flouting (on purpose)
eg. gee thanks for invite = violate quality
‘how was ur date? ‘there was a table…. = manner
who picks up the kids? i have meeting = relation
quantity - do you like both, i like kate
Interactionalist limitations
- inability to deal with social information
- based on comprehension - listener-based
- little consideration of speaker intentions during message formation
- assumes S + L have maxims in the same way
- no consideration of speaker-listener relaitisihp
perspective-taking
what and assumptions
- experience the world from perspectives
- taking the attitude/perspective of others
assumptions
- meaning is a property of the message, BUT communication is more than message and context
- same message can mean different things to different people
- speakers consider the audience perspective when constructing messages
message design = audience design
eg. giving directions to a tourist, give more information than to local
perspective taking
3 descriptive types - eg circles
- describe to partner which circle to put a cross in
1. egocentric perspective = circle on my right
2. addressee = the one on your left
3. neutral = the one near the door
speakers take addressee 72%, neural 21%
empirical work - reference
- to perform an act of reference (to an object/abstract concept) the speaker must construct a ‘referring expression’
- this is a word or phrase that will permit the addressee to identity the intended referent
perspective taking
example - referring expressions to communicate
- object/shapes and partner has to figure out which one from their description
= communcation intentions assigned by experimenter
= often use abstract geometric shapes with no label
allows researchers to study how particpants establish a joint perspective
eg. shape was called ‘a rice bag’, ‘whale’ streched stop sign’
another perspective taking example - objects
production = comprehension
- participants describe items for other person vs self
- Production = ‘for other’ descriptions longer and less figurative than self
- comprehension = ‘for other’ descriptions more comp than ‘for-self’ (self for self highest)
eg. “my dad’s hand” makes sense to me, but others need more information
perpsective taking - writing shape descriptions
- pairs of friends wrote shape descriptions for each other
- try to identity from own description, description from friend, and stranger
comprehension = highest accuracy for own descriptions, friend > stranger
perspective taking in conversation
- feedback does…
example of martini glass
- speakers draw from backchannel eg. ‘mm’ smile’, head nod
feedback
- reduces pressure to product fully informaive message from outset
- allows speakers to update ‘addressee model’ and use for future referring expressions
example
- interactive task, descriptions of shape get shorter from 1-4
- give less info as they begin to comprehend
–> shape is upside down martini glass in wire stand
–> inverted martini glass
–> martini glass
–> martini
characteristics of persepctive taking
- speakers design utternaces with the destination in mind
- meaning = message + model of the addressee
speaking and listening = 2 autonomous processes - comprehension is part responsibility of speaker
= partner modellng
Intra-individual communication
summary
-in each one speaker and listener are autonomous, roles are distinct
speakers produces + listener processes
encoder-decoder = literal account, meaning = message, listener-driven
intentionalist - considers speakers intentions
- meaning = message + speakers intention
- listener-driven
perspective-taking = partner modelling
- meaning = message +partner model
- speaker +listener driven
inter
Collaborative
characteristics, 2 phases
- communication is a ‘joint activity’
- requires coordinated action
- presentation/production phase = utterance is produce
- acceptance phase = meaning is negotiated
inter
collaborative assumptions
- transfer of meaning, not just a function of message context of the addressee
- not determined soley by speaker
INSTEAD is - a product of interaction between speaker and addressee
- meaning is ‘mutally agreed’ or ‘grounded’
- addressee-specific = overhearers are at disadvantage, coz listener drives info
collaborative example
- speaker and listener coordinate strategies and adjust their meaning to enusre mutual understanding
- participant one director and matcher
- pairs interct to identify abstract shapes, using the same item set
- eg. director - ‘the next one looks like a person iceskating with arms out’ THEN, matcher acceptance/negotiation
= ‘are they falling over?’ no gliding - they have one leg out? yep
- got it!
utterance refinement (collaborative)
- = speakers refined model of shared perspective
- tailor message to the addressee
- consistent with perspecive taking
- eg. the person with arms out, skating along BECOMES ‘the ice skater’
addressee strategies change across trials
- information expansion requests are reduced coz they get the meaning
addressee affect the speakers message
- the listener plays an active role in shaping the speakers message
at beginning of task, director and addressee use more words per figure
collaborative
different matchers vs same
- with different matcher each time, interaction not repetition
- still describing with lots words per figure
collaborative
listeners are
and their importance
- ‘co-narrators’ in conversation
- active
- eg. speaker - ‘the figure is, um a square head, um’
- addressee/listener - ‘which way is the head tilted?’
importance
–> speaker narrates a story to an active or distracted listener
distracted = less feedback, generic (m-hm) and specific)
causes speaker to tell story less well
collaborative tangram task conversation
what about overhearers?
- listener drives the conversation, is active
- collaobrative communication = addressee specific, meaning is mutually agreed
- late overhearer may get insufficient info comapred to early overhearer
