Definitions of Communication

Broad versus Narrow

The term communication is commonly used in both broad and narrow senses, from simple human contact to technical uses as in information theory. Defining communication broadly, perhaps as the transfer of information, provides the advantage of including most or all the possible instances that the term communication might ever be used to reference.

This large number of possibilities will also include many actual instances that the user likely neither intended nor had in mind. Overly broad definitions are not “wrong,” but in many cases their breadth precludes their utility in delineating the area under study. Related problems are encountered when definitions become too narrow, thereby excluding portions of what is actually under study. To be useful, definitions in any scholarly area need to describe what is actually studied and to represent accurately the manner in which the term is used in practice in the discipline.

Inherent Meaning versus Human Creations

One form of definition states “Communication is…” and lists its defining characteristics. This form assumes that words have fixed or relatively fixed meanings and that the function of definitions is one of discovery of the correct meaning of a term. The concept of fixed definitions implies that there are correct definitions and meanings that are inherent in objects—that all tables possess a form of “tableness,” for example—where tableness is conceived to be a known, preexisting, and relatively permanent property of nature. It also presumes that the definitional process involves seeking out this inherent preexisting meaning and then phrasing this meaning accurately in the definition. Alternately, definitions can be regarded as human creations that are changeable over time, context, sociocultural language group, and purpose. The definitional process in the second approach is seen as a search for utility of usage wherein definitions can be discarded or changed according to that utility. This second approach suggests “Let us use the term communication to mean…” rather than “Communication is…” The human creation approach involves evaluating definitions according to their ability to further the purposes of the persons involved in the communication transactions in question and is often more useful in studying communication.

Clear Boundary versus Central Thrust

Definitions can also be used in an attempt to place all events qualifying as communication in one box and all events not so qualifying in another. The goal of such clear boundary definitions is to create certainty as to what is and what is not included in [Page 296]the defined term. An alternative goal of definitions is represented by the central thrust approach, wherein the major properties of the defined concept are stated and concern for boundary conditions is left for those instances that require such clear delineation when employing the definition in practice.

The Message: Signs and Symbols

Charles Peirce uses the term sign as an overarching category in his system of semiotics, with indexical, iconic, and symbolic signs as principal subdivisions. Each of these subdivisions is intended to overlap with other subdivisions in Peirce's system and is purposely ambiguously defined. For example, a defining characteristic of symbols in Peirce's system is the need for symbols to be learned. Yet both his indexical and iconic signs also require learning, as none are innate. For the purpose of defining communication, a more useful system may be provided by regarding signals as the overarching category, where signals are all stimuli normally detectable by humans through any of their five senses. Two nonoverlapping and clearly defined subdivisions of signals then become signs and symbols. Signs in this method are detectable stimuli characterized by a direct, fixed, physical connection to their referent, while symbols have only an arbitrarily defined connection to their referent. Thus symbols require some form of prior agreement between the communicating parties specifying the relationship between symbol and referent. Signs require learning, but not prior agreement, since they have a physical connection to their referent. Icons in this system are simply symbols that attempt to employ some form of resemblance to some property of their referent in the construction of the representation used to denote them. Any such resemblance must be specified through prior agreement in creating the intended symbolic usage, and that usage can be changed and manipulated in the same way as with all other symbols. Thus icons do not require a special category. They are symbols. And signs and symbols are each unique categories that taken together cover the domain of perceived signals.

...