Elements of Communication

While reading chapter two I found the chart breaking down the elements of communication to be interesting. This chart puts labels on all things that are relevant to communication. I began to think that if these elements were not taken into account when analyzing communication how chaotic things would be. If someone was to just hear the words you said and did not factor in anything else there would be a lot of awkward moments. For example if I were talking to a person at a sporting event I might have to shout. Someone may think that is rude if they did not know that there were thousands of people cheering and the only way to be heard was to yell. Also if I were to say a funny comment to a friend of mine it could be seen as rude and innapropriate if they did not know who I was talking to. So as you go down this list the importance of all these elements is brought to light when you think of examples where if they were not taken into account the miscommunication that could occur. I found this real interesting because I had never taken into account all of these things that play a large role in communication.

Pragmatic Perspective

The pragmatic perspective says that communication is a system of interlocking, interdependant behaviors that become patterned over time. Scholars believe that when we communicate we are playing a game with the other person. We play this game by making moves based on what the other person says. There are plenty of ways of communicating that are like a game. For example i would consider negotiating a game. An initial offer is made and then the game begins. Both people attempt to get to a solution that they feel favors them more. Even arguing is another way that communication is like a game. I feel that relating communication to a game is safe because there are many aspects of competition that takes place through communication. Even when athletes are trash talking they are playing head games with thier opponents. A person is using communication to take another person out of there comfort zone. The ways that communication is not like a game is that there are no rules. Granted there are some unwritten rules when communicating but there are no enforcers when communicating with others. As I am writing more aboutt this I think that the comparisson of communication to a game is ridiculous. I can come up with a ton of things that are like games. People are always considering life a game, dealing with the opposite sex a game, business a game, and plenty of other things that are related back to a game.

2). Consider the pragmatic perspective. Does it make sense to think of communication as patterned interaction? How is communication like a game? How is it different from a game?

Social Constructionist Perspective

The view of a social constructionist says that we build worlds through communication by putting together collective ideas in the groups that we are in. With those ideas we put together a collective representation of reality. These are broken into symbolic codes, cognitive customs, cultural traditions, and shared roles and rules. I was trying to come up with some of our ideas that fit into our social construction model that other cultures may not think of. I came up with our obsession with celebrities and money. I think these two things attribute to the lack of happiness in this country. We are so worried and stressed about what other people are doing and have that we forget to be happy with the things we have. I am not going crazy and saying that we should not have money and that poorer countries are happier because they do not have money. That would be absurd! I am just saying that if we did not put such an importance on being rich and wanting an expensive lifestyle that people would have less to worry about. Then there time could be put into something more productive. I like the social constructionist model but I think that some of our collective representations of reality are wrong.

Question 3 The Delivery

While I was reading chapter one, a concept that I found interesting was delivery. Delivery is the way that someone presents an idea to you. This concept, or canon of rhetoric, was dead on this weekend because a friend of mine was able to convince me to go down to the SJSU football game. When the idea was originally presented to me a week ago I shot it down right away. My friend was not really trying to sell the idea of the trip to me so it was easy to say no. When Thursday night came my friend made a case that this would be an amazing trip and that if I missed it I would regret it. He really put some thought into it and had me convinced that I needed to go on this trip. It was all because of his delivery that i changed my mind about the trip. He was throwing his hands around and painting a picture about how the trip would go. I told that story to say that when I first read the chapter delivery did not catch my eye as something interesting, but after being convinced to go on the trip I began to think about it. I came to the conclusion that out of all the canons of rhetoric delivery is by far the most important.

Speaker I admire

After a lot of thought I decided that the speaker that I admire is ESPN sports analysist Stuart Scott. He brings a lot of energy and good humor everytime he is on the air. When Stuart Scott is speaking I think his power to persuade comes from a mixture of ethos and pathos. His power to persuade shows the use of ethos by his presence alone. He seems like a normal guy and that makes him easier to watch because some others sports analysists seem like jerks. He uses pathos with the sentences he puts together. When talking about highlights instead of just saying Touchdown or Homerun he uses a lot emotion and paralanguage in his analysist to make the event more exciting. I never knew watching highlights could be so entertaining until Stuart Scott changed the way we all watch highlights. I am not saying he is the first great sportscaster but I feel he started a trend where you put emotion into highlights and it has made all other sports analysists do it no matter what sport they are talking about. When it comes to my persuasion ability I use logos. I am very thorough and like to know everything before I attempt to talk about anything. I am always trying to lay out all the facts and then attempt to prove my point. So i would say that my qualities fit into those of Aristotles' classification scheme.