Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Shannon and Weaver's model of communication
Communication major dimensions scheme
Communication code scheme
Linear Communication Model
Interactional Model of Communication
Berlo's Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver Model of Communication
Transactional Model of Communication

Models of communication are conceptual models used to explain the human communication process. The first major model for communication was developed in 1948 by Claude Elwood Shannon and published with an introduction by Warren Weaver for Bell Laboratories.[1] Following the basic concept, communication is the process of sending and receiving messages or transferring information from one part (sender) to another (receiver).[2]


Shannon and WeaverEdit

The Shannon–Weaver model was designed to mirror the functioning of radio and telephone technology. Their initial model consisted of four primary parts: sender, message, channel, and receiver.The sender was the part of a telephone a person speaks into, the channel was the telephone itself, and the receiver was the part of the phone through which one can hear the person on the other end of the line. Shannon and Weaver also recognized that there may often be static or background sounds that interfere with the process of the other partner in a telephone conversation; they referred to this as noise. Certain types of background sounds can also indicate the absence of a signal.[1]

In a simple model, often referred to as the transmission model or standard view of communication, information or content (e.g. a message in natural language) is sent in some form (as spoken language) from an emissor/ sender/ encoder to a destination/ receiver/ decoder. According to this common communication-related conception, communication is viewed as a means of sending and receiving information. The strengths of this model are its simplicity, generality, and quantifiability. The mathematicians Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver structured this model on the basis of the following elements:

  • An information source, which produces a message.
  • A transmitter, which encodes the message into signals
  • A channel, for which signals are adapted for transmission
  • A receiver, which reconstructs the encoded message from a sequence of received signals and decodes it.
  • An information destination, where the message arrives.

Shannon and Weaver argued that this concept entails three levels of problems for communication:

  1. The technical problem: how accurately can the message be transmitted?
  2. The semantic problem: how precisely is the meaning 'conveyed'?
  3. The effectiveness problem: how effectively does the received meaning affect behavior?

Daniel Chandler criticizes the transmission model in the following terms:[3]

  • It assumes that communicators are isolated individuals.
  • It makes no allowance for differing purposes.
  • It makes no allowance for differing interpretations.
  • It makes no allowance for unequal power relationships.


In 1960, David Berlo expanded Shannon and Weaver's 1949 linear model of communication and created the Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver (SMCR) Model of Communication.[4] The SMCR Model of Communication separated the model into clear parts and has been expanded upon by other scholars.


Communication is usually described along a few major dimensions: Message (what type of things are communicated), source / emissor / sender / encoder (by whom), form (in which form), channel (through which medium), destination / receiver / target / decoder (to whom), and Receiver. Wilbur Schramm (1954) also indicated that we should also examine the impact that a message has (both desired and undesired) on the target of the message.[5] Between parties, communication includes acts that confer knowledge and experiences, give advice and commands, and ask questions. These acts may take many forms, in one of the various manners of communication. The form depends on the abilities of the group communicating. Together, communication content and form make messages that are sent towards a destination. The target can be oneself, another person or being, another entity (such as a corporation or group of beings).


  1. Syntactic (formal properties of signs and symbols),



In light of these weaknesses, Barnlund (1970) proposed a transactional model of communication.[6] The basic premise of the transactional model of communication is that individuals are simultaneously engaging in the sending and receiving of messages.


Theories of co-regulation describe communication as a creative and dynamic continuous process, rather than a discrete exchange of information. Canadian media scholar Harold Innis had the theory that people use different types of media to communicate and which one they choose to use will offer different possibilities for the shape and durability of society.[7][page needed] His famous example of this is using ancient Egypt and looking at the ways they built themselves out of media with very different properties stone and papyrus. Papyrus is what he called 'Space Binding'. it made possible the transmission of written orders across space, empires and enables the waging of distant military campaigns and colonial administration. The other is stone and 'Time Binding', through the construction of temples and the pyramids can sustain their authority generation to generation, through this media they can change and shape communication in their society.[7][page needed]


There is an additional working definition of communication to consider[examples needed] that authors like Richard A. Lanham (2003) and as far back as Erving Goffman (1959) have highlighted. This is a progression from Lasswell's attempt to define human communication through to this century and revolutionized into the constructionist model. Constructionists believe that the process of communication is in itself the only messages that exist. The packaging can not be separated from the social and historical context from which it arose, therefore the substance to look at in communication theory is style for Richard Lanham and the performance of self for Erving Goffman.

Lanham chose to view communication as the rival to the over encompassing use of CBS model (which pursued to further the transmission model). CBS model argues that clarity, brevity, and sincerity are the only purpose to prose discourse, therefore communication. Lanham wrote: "If words matter too, if the whole range of human motive is seen as animating prose discourse, then rhetoric analysis leads us to the essential questions about prose style" (Lanham 10). This is saying that rhetoric and style are fundamentally important; they are not errors to what we actually intend to transmit. The process which we construct and deconstruct meaning deserves analysis.

Erving Goffman sees the performance of self as the most important frame to understand communication. Goffman wrote: "What does seem to be required of the individual is that he learn enough pieces of expression to be able to 'fill in' and manage, more or less, any part that he is likely to be given" (Goffman 73), highlighting the significance of expression.

The truth in both cases is the articulation of the message and the package as one. The construction of the message from social and historical context is the seed as is the pre-existing message is for the transmission model. Therefore, any look into communication theory should include the possibilities drafted by such great scholars as Richard A. Lanham and Goffman that style and performance is the whole process.

Communication stands so deeply rooted in human behaviors and the structures of society that scholars have difficulty thinking of it while excluding social or behavioral events.[weasel words] Because communication theory remains a relatively young field of inquiry and integrates itself with other disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, and sociology, one probably cannot yet expect a consensus conceptualization of communication across disciplines.[weasel words]


    • For example;
  • Sender; the initiator and encoder of a message
  • Decode; translates the sender's spoken idea/message into something the receiver understands by using their knowledge of language from personal experience.

Humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things. -"Language is the source of meaning". -Meaning arises out of the social interaction people have with each other.

-Meaning is not inherent in objects but it is negotiated through the use of language, hence the term symbolic interactionism. As human beings, we have the ability to name things. Symbols, including names, are arbitrary signs. By talking with others, we ascribe meaning to words and develop a universe of discourse A symbol is a stimulus that has a learned/shared meaning and a value for people Significant symbols can be nonverbal as well as linguistic.

-Negative responses can consequently reduce a person to nothing. -Our expectations evoke responses that confirm what we originally anticipated, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy.


It is a one to and way model to communicate with others. It consists of the sender encoding a message and channeling it to the receiver in the presence of noise. In this model there is no feedback which may allow for a continuous exchange of information. This form of communication is a one-way form of communication that does not involve any feedback or response, and noise. (F.N.S. Palma, 1993)


It is two linear models stacked on top of each other. The sender channels a message to the receiver and the receiver then becomes the sender and channels a message to the original sender. This model has added feedback, indicating that communication is not a one way but a two way process. It also has "field of experience" which includes our cultural background, ethnicity geographic location, extent of travel, and general personal experiences accumulated over the course of your lifetime. Draw backs – there is feedback but it is not simultaneous.

The Interactive Model.

Communication theory frameworkEdit

Communication theory can be seen from one of the following viewpoints:

  • Mechanistic: This view[who?] considers communication as a perfect transaction of a message from the sender to the receiver. (as seen in the diagram above)
  • Psychological: This view[who?] considers communication as the act of sending a message to a receiver, and the feelings and thoughts of the receiver upon interpreting the message.
  • Social Constructionist (Symbolic Interactionist): This view considers communication to be the product of the interactants sharing and creating meaning. The Constructionist View can also be defined as, how you say something determines what the message is. The Constructionist View assumes that "truth" and "ideas" are constructed or invented through the social process of communication. Robert T. Craig saw the Constructionist View or the constitutive view as it's called in his article, as "…an ongoing process that symbolically forms and re-forms our personal identities." (Craig, 125). The other view of communication, the Transmission Model, sees communication as robotic and computer-like. The Transmission Model sees communication as a way of sending or receiving messages and the perfection of that. But, the Constructionist View sees communications as, "…in human life, info does not behave as simply as bits in an electronic stream. In human life, information flow is far more like an electric current running from one landmine to another" (Lanham, 7). The Constructionist View is a more realistic view of communication[opinion] because it involves the interacting of human beings and the free sharing of thoughts and ideas. Daniel Chandler looks to prove that the Transmission Model is a lesser way of communicating by saying "The transmission model is not merely a gross over-simplification but a dangerously misleading representation of the nature of human communication" (Chandler, 2). Humans do not communicate simply as computers or robots so that's why it's essential to truly understand the Constructionist View of Communication well. We do not simply send facts and data to one another, but we take facts and data and they acquire meaning through the process of communication, or through interaction with others.
  • Systemic: This view[who?] considers communication to be the new messages created via "through-put", or what happens as the message is being interpreted and re-interpreted as it travels through people.




Ontology essentially poses the question of what, exactly, the theorist is examining. One must consider the very nature of reality. The answer usually falls in one of three realms depending on whether the theorist sees the phenomena through the lens of a realist, nominalist, or social constructionist. Realist perspective views the world objectively, believing that there is a world outside of our own experience and cognitions. Nominalists see the world subjectively, claiming that everything outside of one's cognitions is simply names and labels. Social constructionists straddle the fence between objective and subjective reality, claiming that reality is what we create together.[unbalanced opinion?][neutrality is disputed]


Epistemology is an examination of the approaches and beliefs which inform particular modes of study of phenomena and domains of expertise. In positivist approaches to epistemology, objective knowledge is seen as the result of the empirical observation and perceptual experience. In the history of science, empirical evidence collected by way of pragmatic-calculation and the scientific method is believed to be the most likely to reflect truth in the findings. Such approaches are meant to predict a phenomenon. Subjective theory holds that understanding is based on situated knowledge, typically found using interpretative methodology such as ethnography and also interviews. Subjective theories are typically developed to explain or understand phenomena in the social world.[citation needed]


Axiology is concerned with how values inform research and theory development.[9] Most communication theory is guided by one of three axiological approaches.[citation needed] The first approach recognizes that values will influence theorists' interests but suggests that those values must be set aside once actual research begins. Outside replication of research findings is particularly important in this approach to prevent individual researchers' values from contaminating their findings and interpretations.[10] The second approach rejects the idea that values can be eliminated from any stage of theory development. Within this approach, theorists do not try to divorce their values from inquiry. Instead, they remain mindful of their values so that they understand how those values contextualize, influence or skew their findings.[11] The third approach not only rejects the idea that values can be separated from research and theory, but rejects the idea that they should be separated. This approach is often adopted by critical theorists who believe that the role of communication theory is to identify oppression and produce social change. In this axiological approach, theorists embrace their values and work to reproduce those values in their research and theory development.[12]

Some realms of communication and their theoriesEdit


  1. ^ a b Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press
  2. ^ Craig 1999.
  3. ^ Chandler, Daniel (1994). The Transmission Model of Communication. University of Western Australia. Retrieved 11.06.2011.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  7. ^ a b Wark, McKenzie (1997). The Virtual Republic. Allen & Unwin, St Leonards. 
  9. ^ Miller 2005.
  10. ^ Miller 2005, p. 30.
  11. ^ Miller 2005, pp. 30–31.
  12. ^ Miller 2005, p. 31.