What is Human Communication?

     Scholars over the ages have attempted to define the term communication.

     A writer once claimed that scholars have identified as many as 126 different published definitions of the term (Beebe and Beebe, 2001). Definitions are broad based and more specific and general in nature. That there are myriads of definitions available to students and scholars alike is underscored by the claim that there are as many definitions of the term as there are people trying to define it! Communication contains several fields of study, which look at the concept from a variety of perspectives; therefore, having several definitions of the term is not farfetched, it is indeed expected (and warranted).

     Let us make an attempt to define the term communication by examining some of these current definitions. This exercise is certainly not an endeavor to arrive at a comprehensive definition of the term or even to assemble many of these definitions, but rather a random identification and analyses of five of these definitions taken from popular introductory texts in the field. Ultimately, these analyses will provide you with the common concepts used in defining the term and present you with a general foundation of understanding.

University Now:
Principles of Human Communication Course Cover

Communication Is Viewed as What Someone Does to Another,
a One-Way Flow of Information or Message from a Sender to a Receiver

     Communication, therefore, is what a sender does to a receiver who, in turn does the bidding of the sender. It is believed that the receiver changes because of the information received and that when this happens, the sender has communicated. This does not represent human communication as we now understand it. The receiver is not a static receptacle of information; neither is the sender always a commander, who bellows information to a receiver. The sender and receiver are sharing messages in a dynamic process of communication. Consequently, we can see both, interchanging their roles and prompting each other to action.

     Before moving on with a more current and inclusive definition of communication, take a moment to review the classic Abbott and Costello comedy skit which clearly exemplifies a lack of effective feedback and the potential rut the sender and receiver can create.

Communication: Sender/Receiver, Abbott and Costello Comedy Routine

     Communication, therefore, is a process, a dynamic phenomenon that impacts all of the people involved in one way or another and serves as the basis for future behavior. We can claim that communication does not have a beginning or an end – the stream of communication is always rolling along. It does not start with anyone per se because any communication must have been prompted by some previous or series of prior messages. In addition, it does not end when someone has received a message, because, as the trite expression goes: “there is no action without a reaction.”

Communication Is Viewed as an Interaction between a Sender and a Receiver

     This is an improvement over the previous linear perspective because it suggests that the communicators do interact in the process of exchanging messages. However, interaction suggests terminal action and reaction between the interacting elements. This suggests that when one person talks, for instance, the other listens until it’s his or her turn to speak. In a true sense, this is the action-reaction understanding of how communication works. But, think for a moment about a ping-pong match – the back and forth nature of the players. Would this successfully work if it were communication that was so ‘back and forth’? More than likely not. It would be robotic and unnatural. Consider that by you just being in the presence of another, say the receiver, are you not constantly sending messages that can be classified as verbal or non-verbal or vocal or non-vocal? The fact that you’re not speaking does not mean that you’re not sending messages to the receiver, correct? Think of interrupting, eye rolls, crossing your arms or leaning into the person. The reality is that we are constantly sending messages instantaneously and simultaneously. If we send and receive messages all at the same time, then, communication can be viewed as involving much more than two people simply interacting.

Communication Is a Transaction Between Two or More People:
A Transaction Is an Exchange that Occurs Simultaneously
and in which the Participants Influence and Are Influenced by Each Other’s Experiences

     Let’s compare this to a business transaction in which one person exchanges a thing of value for another thing of value, albeit at the same time. Communication always results in some type of effect, which in turn influences the subsequent exchanges of the players. This is a more illuminating perspective of communication in that it captures more sparingly the phenomenon of communication. We can consider communication to be actional, interactional and transactional. Review this YouTube video for an example of transactional communication from collegiate students, like yourself, perspective.

Transactional Model of Communication

Communication Is Defined As the Simultaneous Sharing
and Creating of Meaning through Human Symbolic Action (Seiler and Beal, 2007)

     This model would suggest that humans jointly create understanding through symbolic interaction. This is an exchange facilitated using words, signs and gestures that can be directly interpreted by the receiver. A simple example is the Western nonverbal okay sign one makes with their fingers. Understanding is coming to a common agreement about what a situation or something represents as presented by the sender to the receiver. Understanding therefore occurs in the minds of people through the evaluation of received messages. In other words, it is perception. This is because words in and of themselves do not contain meaning and as such can reveal only the meanings imposed on them by their users. In more simple terms, consider this – words have no meaning. Meaning is transmitted through a person’s action and/or behavior. Understanding is not always possible in the process of communication because there are many unintended messages that may lead to unintended interpretations and outcomes. Put another way, perception convolutes the communication process.

Communication Theory: Symbolic Interactionism

Communication Is a Transactional Process Involving Participants
Who Occupy Different, but Overlapping Environments and Create Relationships
through the Exchange of Messages, Many of Which Are Affected by External,
Physiological, and Psychological Noise (Adler and Proctor, 2007)

     This definition introduces the concepts transaction, environment and noise to the explanation of the term communication. A transaction is a simultaneously, and that is truly the operative word, occurring exchange of values such as a business transaction, in which the participants exchange one value for another. As such, both the sender and the receiver are both sending and receiving messages all at once. If this is so, then both communicators are senders and receivers since they are interchanging roles constantly. These participants occupy different environments that may sometimes overlap, that is, their interests, backgrounds, orientations, expectations, cultures, gender, etc., may be different yet be similar in some cases. The divergence of environments may lead to misunderstanding of messages, if the messages get across at all. Anything that may interfere with the communication process and renders it less effective is referred to as noise. There are different types of noise recognizable in the communication process. (Read more about noise in the communication process in the latter part of this chapter). It is important to know here that many circumstances can foster a transactional process, even contexts or modes like Facetiming. For a more specific example, view the following YouTube video:

Transactional Analysis: 03 Crossed Transactions

     These definitions draw largely from the fundamental truths that scholars and practitioners alike have come to agree upon as basic principles of the nature of communication.