Is Communication Intentional?

Another question about communication is whether or not it involves intentionality. Let’s consider an example of unobtrusive observation. Assume that George comes across Liz, who is unaware that she is being watched. Liz does something revealing; perhaps she frowns and looks annoyed. As a re­sult, George draws a conclusion about her mood. Is this communication? According to some definitions, it is not communication, for Liz did not mean to send a message.

But not everyone would agree. Some people feel it’s impossible to know whether a message is intentional. They argue that what is important about the interaction between George and Liz is not what Liz intends but how George interprets her behavior. People who take this view prefer that the definition of communication include unintentional as well as intentional be­haviors.

Is Communication Sender- or Receiver-Based?

If we accept the situation involving George and Liz as an instance of com­munication, we are faced with yet another question. Which of them is commu­nicating? Some people would argue that it is Liz who is communicating, because it is her behavior that is the source of information. Others would contend that it is George who is communicating, since it is he who assigns mean­ing. Those people who locate communication in Liz’s behavior take a sender-based view of communication, whereas those who see George as the communicator take a receiver-based stance. Some definitions may include both sender and receiver.

Is All Communication Symbolic?

A final question concerns the extent to which a definition of communication emphasizes symbolic behavior. We can express ourselves symbolically through words, numbers, and graphic designs. We can also convey meaning nonverbally through facial expressions, body movements, and physical appearance. Many people believe that it is the ability to use symbols (arbitrary and conventionalized representations) that makes humans unique and that we should focus our study of communication on the way humans use symbols to convey meaning. For these people, nonverbal behaviors are a secondary concern. There are, however, definitions that seem to include both symbolic and nonsymbolic behavior.

Multiple Definitions: Communication as a Family of Concepts

As you move from one definition to another, the boundaries of communication shift, and you focus your attention in a slightly different direction. In choosing one definition over another, consider how that definition expands or contracts the domain of communication. A broad definition is useful when you want to emphasize commonalities between human and nonhuman information pro­cessing. A narrow definition is useful when you want to focus on a particular kind of communication, say human communication or symbolic communica­tion. There is no right or wrong way to make your choice, nor is it necessary to choose a single definition. Indeed, Frank Dance has suggested that instead of talking about communication as a single concept, it may be more useful to talk about several kinds of communication, for example, animal communication, nonverbal communication, spoken symbolic interaction, and so on. Dance asks us to think of communication as a family of interrelated concepts, each of which has its own utility.