As templates of the communication process, four models of communication namely Helical Model of Communication (Dance, 1967), Osgood-Schramm Model of Communication (Schramm, 1954), Berlo’s Model of Communication (Berlo, 1960), and Shannon-Weaver Model of Communication (Shannon & Weaver, 1948) will be examined vis-à-vis one another with the goal of defining the communication process itself which is a difficult task as argued by Dance and Larson (1985). Littlejohn and Foss (2010) also recognized this difficulty as they argued that despite various attempts by scholars to define the human communication process, a single definition is proved unlikely to be developed and went on by asserting that the academic debate on the definition of communication and its underlying attributes will in no doubt continue to exist.

Graphically, the Helical Model of Communication is spiral in nature. This representation supports the view of Dance (1967) that the communication process is dynamic and evolutionary as opposed to the traditional perspective that it is linear. With these characteristics, Dance (1967) inevitably included the concept of schema or background of experiences. In effect, therefore, for Dance (1967), the process of communication goes hand-in-hand with interpreting experiences which are modified over time starting from simple forms to complex ones.

            On the other hand, the Osgood-Schramm Model of Communication (Schramm, 1954) is circular in nature. Schramm (1954) identified four components of the model namely encoder/sender, decoder/receiver, message, and interpreter. In this model which is apparently a two-way process, the two persons involved in the communication both act as the encoder, decoder, and interpreter as encoding, decoding, and interpreting simultaneously occur throughout the process. Interpretation is the defining feature of this model because decoding can only be done when the message is interpreted (Schramm, 1954). Through interpretation, the communication phenomenon becomes a two-way process.

            Berlo’s Model of Communication is linear in nature (Berlo, 1960). This model has three elements namely the source, message, channel, and receiver. Berlo (1960) defines the source as the origin of the message which is delivered with the help of communication skills, attitude, knowledge, social system, and culture. On the other hand, the message includes content, element, treatment, structure, and code and the channel comprises all the human senses through which communication is made (Berlo, 1960). And the receiver who decodes the message does so by interpreting it. The main characteristic of this model is the requirement that in order for a smooth communication to occur, both the sender and the receiver need to be in equal footing that is with the same level of communication skills (Berlo, 1960).

            Finally, the Shannon-Weaver Model of Communication (Shannon & Weaver, 1948) is also graphically represented as linear. It is almost similar to that of Berlo’s model except that this model gives emphasis on the role of noise in the process. This is attributable to the fact that Shannon and Weaver developed this model first to improve technical communication (Shannon & Weaver, 1948). According to them, the channel through which the encoder sends and the decoder receives the message is potentially distracted by noise. Overall, by understanding the effects of noise in the process, this model helped solve some issues concerning communication.

While giving solution to the difficulty presented at the outset of this paper is indeed a daunting task, it is hoped that after discussing the models enumerated above, a contribution on the social perspective about the communication process might have been made.

References

Berlo, D. (1960). The process of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Dance, F. E. (1967). A helical model of communication.Human Communication Theory, New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Dance, F. E., & Larson, C. (1985). The functions of human communication.Information and behavior,1, 62-75.

Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2010).Theories of human communication. Waveland Press.

Schramm, W.. The Process and Effects of Mass Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press; 1954.

Shannon, C. and Weaver, W. 1948. A mathematical theory of communications. Bell System Technical Journal. 27(2): p. 632- 656.

By: Jason A. Untalan