Lecture
In the 1920s, important first developments were made in the field of communication and communication theory, laying the foundation for deeper research in the future. Below are some of the significant events and contributions in this area:
The Frankfurt School and critical theory: The Frankfurt School emerged in Germany in the 1920s, developing the ideas of critical theory. This school raised questions about the influence of mass communication media, such as radio and print, on society and culture. Researchers of the Frankfurt School, such as Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, analyzed the sociocultural aspects of communication and propaganda.
Gregory Bateson and communication theory: In the 1920s, Gregory Bateson, an American psychologist, developed a theory of communication, which asserted that the exchange of information and meanings is a key aspect of communication. He also introduced the concept of "two-way exchange of information," which emphasized the interaction between sender and receiver in the process of communication.
Charles Coulet and rhetoric: The French scholar Charles Coulet contributed to the development of rhetoric and the study of methods of persuasion and influence through communication. His work "Semiotics and Rhetoric" (La Sémiologie et la Rhétorique) presented ideas about the power of language and symbols in communication.
Cybernetics and communication systems: In the 1940s and 1950s, cybernetics, as the science of control and communication in complex systems, began to develop actively. The works of scientists such as Norbert Wiener and Claude Shannon contributed to the understanding of information exchange in systems and the application of this concept to the field of communication.
Experiments in mass communication: In the 1940s and 1950s, important experiments in mass communication began to be conducted. For example, research conducted by Paul Lazarsfeld and Elie Chelleb investigated the influence of the mass media on public opinion and elections.
M. M. Bakhtin believed that the main condition for the emergence of dialogic relations is the presence of communicative intention, an orientation toward
the message, «toward the word.» The objective meanings themselves (an idea, a thought, a judgment) can stand in a logical relation to other objective meanings. However, there are no dialogic relations between them. And only when this objective meaning is endowed with a «voice,» expressed outwardly as
a meaningful position of the person in relation to others – «clothed in a word» – do dialogic relations arise. A communicative
situation arises. For M. M. Bakhtin, the communicative situation is the system-forming factor, the condition that makes possible the emergence of dialogic
relations.
M. M. Bakhtin identifies the main elements of the communicative situation. The main element is the «word,» and the condition for the emergence of dialogic relations is the «clothing of a judgment in a word.» It is the word that contains the impulse that provokes the specific dialogic response.
The «word,» in M. M. Bakhtin's understanding, is an utterance, an expression of the author's position on some question. To become an author means to express not only the objective thought itself, but also one's attitude toward it. This unity of thought and attitude toward it is that indivisible unit between which interaction is possible.
Dialogic relations, from M. M. Bakhtin's point of view, arise between the personal contents of the communicating subjects, which manifest themselves in their relations to some object. Thus, the whole situation can be described as follows: two subjects exchange evaluative
information about a certain object that is significant for both of them, and on the basis of this information they enter into a relationship with each other.
Information by itself is not a full-fledged utterance. If, however, this judgment is accompanied by information about the speaker's attitude toward it, then it thereby acquires meaning and performs a communicative function. Expressing one's attitude toward an object means determining one's
position in the system of socially significant relations with respect to other people, and consequently presupposes a communicative intention. Outside of a communicative situation, expressing one's attitude toward some object has no meaning. A whole utterance is always oriented toward the interlocutor.
In M. M. Bakhtin's dialogue, information about the position of the author of the utterance has greater motivational force than information about the subject of
the dialogue itself. In reality, however, everything in a dialogue depends on the context: if it serves the joint solution of a task, then the primary importance for working out the decision belongs to
objective information; but if the partners need to reveal personal preferences, an assertion of their own position, an attitude toward the subject, then in such a situation modal stimuli take on primary importance. In this connection, there arises a need to clarify the significance of modal information in
the overall structure of the communicative event.
The structure of the communicative process includes the following elements:
1) the communicator – the subject transmitting the information;
2) the communicant – the subject receiving the information and interpreting it;
3) the communicative field – the situation as a whole, about which information can be transmitted;
4) the actual information about the communicative field;
5) channels of communication – the means of transmitting information.
According to the content of information, three large groups are distinguished:
The cognitive type of information is usually under the conscious control of the speaker and forms the main part of the process of verbal planning, whereas the two other types, the indexical and the regulatory, remain in fact unconscious, at least for the speaker. The listener, in contrast,
is aware of all three types of information and depends on
the latter two in taking on the role of the communicant and in attributing
meaning to what they hear. Information about personal preferences,
about the subjective attitude toward the object of communication is of decisive importance
for the complete interpretation of the speaker's utterance.
Every subject, in order to work out a plan and strategy of behavior, needs to constantly receive information not only about changes in the state
of the object of action. But also about all the participants in the communicative process, about how their attitude changes in the communicative field, what their motives, plans, etc. are. It is precisely this information that constitutes the content of modal information. Modal information is present as an integral component of any communication. Anticipating another person's behavior makes it possible to adapt to them, and to work out a further strategy for reaching agreement
on the main points of the activity. Modal information is of fundamental importance in organizing cooperative activity, and modal
stimuli, owing to their importance for successful joint activity, possess great motivational force. For a subject, what often matters is not so much what is being said, but how it is said, how it is treated. Therefore, in these cases the reaction is directed not at the content, but at the attitude.
In the dialogue studied by M. M. Bakhtin, a modal stimulus inevitably provokes a response. Therefore, the exchange of modal stimuli resembles, in M. M. Bakhtin's expression, a «perpetuum mobile.» That is precisely why modal dialogue is «fundamentally endless.» Each modal
stimulus provokes a response, which entails the next response, and so on.
Modal dialogue is a powerful means of personal cognition;
the expression «dialogic comprehension of the personality» can be meaningfully interpreted as a way of revealing the personal content of the interlocutor
through the constant stimulation of them by modal stimuli.
The communicative process is actually carried out as a sequence of communicative acts, each of which performs a certain
function in the communicative exchange and is linguistically formed in the shape of
an utterance. The function of requesting information is carried out by an interrogative
utterance. The transmission of information is carried out by a declarative utterance, and depending on the communicator's attitude toward the information
being transmitted, the utterance may take the form of an assertion, a conviction, or a supposition. A communicative act can perform the function of prompting
an action, regulating the flow of information, expressing an intention, and so on.
Thus, each turn in the dialogue is characterized from a functional point of view: what function it performs in the communicative process. This
characteristic of the utterance is embodied in the meaning of the utterance, which is not
a simple sum of the lexical meanings of the words comprising it.
As M. M. Bakhtin said, «dialogic relations are extralinguistic.»
In each case, the meaning of the utterance is determined by a broad context, in which only the function of the utterance can be defined unambiguously, and
above all by the attitude toward the partner's speech. M. M. Bakhtin noted that the semantics of a word fundamentally change depending on its orientation toward another's word.
These first developments and studies laid the foundation for further theories and research in the field of communication. They helped formulate important concepts and methodologies that continue to be used and developed in modern research in this area.
Comments