A Critical Analysis of Communication Models:

 

The Shannon-Weaver Mathematical Model 1949

 

Schramm’s Model of Communication 1954

 

 

 

Introduction

 

 

Communication is an intrinsic part of being human. Everything from the teachings of the earliest toolmakers to the articulation of the most complex intellectual theories relies upon the abilities of humans to communicate effectively with one another. Communication, says Narula (2006), is “interaction with ourselves, with others and with our external and internal environments” Academics have long studied the complex processes involved in communication, but how do we portray such a seemingly labyrinthine and intangible thing as theory; how do we understand something so natural in an academic context?

 

One solution to the issue of portraying communication in a way that allows us to observe and study it is the use of communication models. A communication model is, according to Mortensen (1972) “a systematic representation of an object or event in idealized and abstract form.” Communication models aim to present communication as a process that can be mapped and followed for study. As far back as 350 B.C. Greek Philosopher Aristotle produced one of the earliest known models of communication in his essay “Rhetoric”. In this paper, we will look at two models of communication: The Shannon-Weaver Mathematical Model (1949), and Schramm’s Model of Communication (1954). We will outline the strengths and weaknesses of the models in relation to each other, and we will examine how they enable us to better understand communication from an academic viewpoint.

 

 

 

Introducing the Shannon-Weaver Mathematical Model (Fig. 1)


Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver produced the Shannon-Weaver Mathematical Model in 1949. Shannon and Weaver were engineers working for an American telephone company, who set out to improve the efficiency of the telephone network. The model they eventually set out (Fig. 1), while intended to develop a mathematical theory of telecommunication, has been adopted by social scientists and applied to human communication beyond a purely technical relevance.

 

 

For the purposes of human communication, the model depicts a sender (transmitter), a receiver and a method of communication (channel). In addition, the model shows us the information source and destination – the model concerns itself with what happens before the sender sends, and after the receiver receives. We can see that the noise source represents any disruption or distortion of the communication. As Lasswell put it when he publicly verbalised his interpretation of the model in 1948: “Who says what in which channel to whom with what effect?” This model, then, allows us to focus on the sender and receiver, and importantly on the information sent and any changes to the information between sending and receiving via the relevant channel. 

 

 

 

Introducing Schramm’s Model of Communication (Fig. 2)

 

Wilbur Schramm produced his model of communication in 1954, and presented it in The Process and Effects of Communication. Schramm’s model depicts communication as a continuous process, rather than the liner exchange of the Shannon-Weaver Mathematical model. Schramm also addressed the issue of meaning in human communication, by including in the model the notion of “interpreter”.

 

 

We see that Schramm’s model depicts both participants as sender (encoder) and receiver (decoder) simultaneously. The perpetual nature of the model allows us to theorise communication as an almost infinite process, with participants sending and receiving information (message) continuously back and forth, and with each participant having to infer meaning from the message.

 

 

 

Advantages

 

 

The Shannon-Weaver Mathematical Model, when applied to human communication, allows us to see the sender and receiver as separate entities that are linked via the communication between them. It shows that both sender and receiver are actively involved in interpersonal communication, even though it does so on a very simplistic level.

 

Notably, the Shannon-Weaver model allows us to see communication as a process that begins before the message is sent, and ends after the message has been received. By way of depicting the information source and destination as the start and end points of the communication process, it makes us aware that the formulation of a message by the sender is an important and intrinsic part of communication, as is the interpretation or inference by the receiver once the message has been received.

 

The Shannon-Weaver mathematical model, while simplistic, has formed the foundation for many subsequent models. It allows communication theorists to see communication in terms of a process, and to study that process scientifically. 

 

The model has spawned several of the base concepts of communication studies. Not least of which is the notion of “noise”. In interpersonal communication, says Narula (2006) “channel noise may be any distraction or distortion of the message between the source and the receiver”. The concept of noise is vital in understanding some of the difficulties that can arise in accurately conveying meaning between sender and receiver.

 

When we look at Schramm’s model, we notice the absence of the issue of noise. Schramm, though, gives is the “interpreter” as a means of understanding the difficulties that can arise in translating the correct meaning between sender and receiver. It visualises, in the process of communication, the ‘work’ that must be done by the receiver to understand the message correctly, and indeed to formulate, or encode, an appropriate response.

 

Schramm’s model of communication also allows us to see communication as a continuous process. It depicts the interaction as circular, or perpetual. The sender passes to the receiver, who in turn infers meaning from the message and responds, becoming the receiver, and so on ad infinitum. When we look at communication in this less linear way, we start to get an idea of the complexity of communication, while still maintaining the abstract picture that shows the overall process.

 

 

 

Disadvantages

 

The Shannon-Weaver model, by its very nature, encounters some difficulty when applied to human communication. Its origin as a model to be applied to telecommunication, rather than to interpersonal human communication, limits its application due to the linear, unidirectional makeup:

 

“Finally, the most serious shortcoming of the Shannon-Weaver communication system is that it is relatively static and linear. It conceives of a linear and literal transmission of information from one location to another. The notion of linearity leads to misleading ideas when transferred to human conduct; some of the problems can best be underscored by studying several alternative models of communication.” (Mortensen, 1972)

 

Furthermore, in contrast with Schramm’s model, it does nothing to account for any feedback as a result of the transmission.

 

While Schramm’s model goes some way further than the Shannon-Weaver model in depicting human communication as a continuous and interactive, it still depicts the interaction as purely bilinear. Schramm’s model is limited to this communication between two parties, and becomes redundant when attempting to understand more complex communication between more than two participants.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

While both the Shannon-Weaver Mathematical Model and Schramm’s Model of Communication have their downfalls, there can be no doubt that they have both played intrinsic parts in the development of communication theory, and both still have their parts to play in helping us to understand human communication as an intellectual concept.  They allow us to concern ourselves with not only the communication itself, but with the construction and understanding of the message that is being conveyed, and with the issues that can arise before, during or after transmission to ambiguate meaning.

 

 

References

 

Narula, U (2006). Communication Models. New Delhi: Atlantic.

  

Mortensen, C. David (1972). Communication : the study of human interaction. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  

Shannon, Claude E. & Warren Weaver (1949). A Mathematical Model of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press

  

Schramm, W. (1954). How communication works. In The Processes and Effects of Mass Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.