Communication and Approximation
Any communication begins with an internal event - something in somebody's mind. It would be fairly simple to state that communication begins with an idea, though it is slightly complicated by the fact that ideas cannot occur without perceptions providing a fertile ground for their development, while equally our perceptions are influenced by our ideas about the things we perceive. (A perception is the internal representation of an external stimulus, and should not be confused with the stuff out there which, let us assume, we can all see, but which we perceive and understand in different ways.) Ideas and perceptions are clearly related, and this relationship is formed as we develop through childhood. This development takes place within an environment which is culturally mediated - the ways in which our parents and peers describe and explain to us the things we see influencing in turn the ways in which we ourselves categorise and label our world. Strictly speaking therefore, communication begins with a dynamic internal system comprising perceptions and ideas. To help us talk about this we could call it a "conceptualization" (and distinguish it from a "concept" - the latter being a single internal representation, whereas a "conceptualization" for our purposes describes an idea comprising a variety of concepts.)
A single to-and-fro communicative event therefore can be described as follows:
1. Person A forms a conceptualization
2. That conceptualization is put into words and articulated.
3. Person B perceives the words and understands them in terms of their own conceptual lexicon. That is, he conceptualizes meaning from the words observed...
4. He then conceptualizes a response.
5. That conceptualization is put into words and articulated.
6. Person A perceives the words and understands them in terms of his own conceptual lexicon. That is, he conceptualizes meaning from the words heard.
1-3 and 4-6 demonstrate the sharing of a conceptualization from one person's mind to another. It is important to note that communication is not the sharing of words - it is the sharing of concepts.
It is not uncommon for people to be described as more or less articulate, and this commonly refers to their ability to put their thoughts into words. An articulate communication may be described as a good fit between an idea / concept and its description, whereas an inarticulate communication is one in which the fit between idea and description is poor. A poor fit in this context entails loss of relevant concepts and gain of irrelevant concepts.
Loss of relevant concepts
Language always abstracts; if you look up "table" in the dictionary it does not describe your table, it describes tables generally. If you look up "Victorian oak occasional tables c.1885" in an encyclopaedia, it does not describe yours. Were we to set out to describe in minute detail this particular table, as well as being absurd, we would still fail to provide a complete picture because words abstract reality at any scale. Therefore, any statement will only partially reflect the intended conceptualization. Articulate statements will be more complete than inarticulate ones (by our definition), but either will lead to data loss.
Gain of irrelevant concepts
As a result of abstracting, words (or signs) offer more degrees of freedom to the receiver. When I describe my 1885 Victorian table as a “table”, what pops into the receiver’s head can be anything commonly described as a “table”. When I say “table” the receiver may well assume it has four legs, stands upright, and enables me to put things upon it, whereas in actuality (and in my head) it has three legs, is in pieces, and requires assembly. When the receiver’s assumptions of leg number, stability and utility are at odds with the conceptualization I intended to communicate, they bring noise to the communication. (Receiver assumption may of course alternatively reflect the speaker’s intention by happy accident.)
These losses and gains of data are both forms of error. This error arises at all points in the communication where a conceptualization is bundled into the vehicles of language, be they words or signs.
For the model above, assuming Persons A and B think clearly and form clear conceptualizations (and this is not always the case anyway), there are four points at which error creeps into the communication:
1) Where the conceptualization is put into words.
2) Where the words are perceived and “understood” by Person B.
3) Where B puts his conceptualized response into words, and
4) Where the words are perceived and “understood” by Person A.
When A and B come from similar cultures, at both macro (perhaps ethnic) and micro (such as family or locality) levels, then the introduced error will be low. When A and B are from different cultures, then error will be higher. This “cultural” background may equally be “professional”, for example when a mental health worker converses with a patient. When those cultural differences are also linguistic, inevitably error is increased still further.
With A and B from different linguistic backgrounds, we often predict that bringing an interpreter into the equation will reduce these errors. Indeed, many linguistic errors may well be avoided as the interpreter is fluent in both languages and will have a good idea about which words in language B best reflect those in language A. However, interpreters are not translation machines and each brings his or her own cultural background and developmental history to the communication. The expanded, interpreted, version of our communication model becomes this:
1. Person A forms a conceptualization
2. That conceptualization is put into words and articulated.
3. That articulation is perceived by an interpreter (X), and understood in terms of their own conceptual lexicon.
4. Those concepts are put into signs and articulated
5. Person B perceives the signs and understands them in terms of their own conceptual lexicon. That is, he conceptualizes meaning from the signs observed...
6. He then conceptualizes a response.
7. That conceptualization is put into signs and articulated.
8. That articulation is perceived by an interpreter (X), and understood in terms of their own conceptual lexicon.
9. Those concepts are put into words and articulated
10. Person A perceives the words and understands them in terms of his own conceptual lexicon. That is, he conceptualizes meaning from the words heard.
There are now eight points at which error (of both types) is introduced:
1) Where the conceptualization is put into words.
2) Where the words are perceived and “understood” by the interpreter.
3) Where the interpreter puts his conceptualized interpretation into signs.
4) Where the signs are perceived and “understood” by Person B.
5) Where B’s conceptualized response is put into signs.
6) Where the signs are perceived and “understood” by the interpreter.
7) Where the interpreter puts his conceptualized interpretation into words, and
8) Where the words are perceived and “understood” by Person A.
Eight is a lot.
The extent to which each of these points introduces error depends upon circumstance.
1 above depends upon how articulate is Person A.
2 depends upon the extent of cultural, professional and linguistic differences between the Person A and the interpreter
3 depends upon how articulate is the interpreter, and also (for they are not the same) their ability to describe a conceptualization deriving from one cultural background, to a person from another often very different background.
4 depends upon the cultural differences between Person B and the interpreter.
5 depends upon how articulate is person B.
6 depends upon the extent of cultural, professional and linguistic differences between the Person B and the interpreter
7 depends upon how articulate is the interpreter, and their ability to describe a conceptualization deriving from one cultural background, to a person from another often very different background.
8 depends upon the extent of cultural, professional and linguistic differences between the Person A and the interpreter.
Conveniently, these can be collapsed to two main areas – each individual’s articulation skills, and the cultural distances amongst the individuals. Interpreting skill would be another area, however the purpose of this essay is to highlight that even assuming the most skilled interpreter possible, there are many points at which considerable error may arise in a communicating interaction.
A single to-and-fro communicative event therefore can be described as follows:
1. Person A forms a conceptualization
2. That conceptualization is put into words and articulated.
3. Person B perceives the words and understands them in terms of their own conceptual lexicon. That is, he conceptualizes meaning from the words observed...
4. He then conceptualizes a response.
5. That conceptualization is put into words and articulated.
6. Person A perceives the words and understands them in terms of his own conceptual lexicon. That is, he conceptualizes meaning from the words heard.
1-3 and 4-6 demonstrate the sharing of a conceptualization from one person's mind to another. It is important to note that communication is not the sharing of words - it is the sharing of concepts.
It is not uncommon for people to be described as more or less articulate, and this commonly refers to their ability to put their thoughts into words. An articulate communication may be described as a good fit between an idea / concept and its description, whereas an inarticulate communication is one in which the fit between idea and description is poor. A poor fit in this context entails loss of relevant concepts and gain of irrelevant concepts.
Loss of relevant concepts
Language always abstracts; if you look up "table" in the dictionary it does not describe your table, it describes tables generally. If you look up "Victorian oak occasional tables c.1885" in an encyclopaedia, it does not describe yours. Were we to set out to describe in minute detail this particular table, as well as being absurd, we would still fail to provide a complete picture because words abstract reality at any scale. Therefore, any statement will only partially reflect the intended conceptualization. Articulate statements will be more complete than inarticulate ones (by our definition), but either will lead to data loss.
Gain of irrelevant concepts
As a result of abstracting, words (or signs) offer more degrees of freedom to the receiver. When I describe my 1885 Victorian table as a “table”, what pops into the receiver’s head can be anything commonly described as a “table”. When I say “table” the receiver may well assume it has four legs, stands upright, and enables me to put things upon it, whereas in actuality (and in my head) it has three legs, is in pieces, and requires assembly. When the receiver’s assumptions of leg number, stability and utility are at odds with the conceptualization I intended to communicate, they bring noise to the communication. (Receiver assumption may of course alternatively reflect the speaker’s intention by happy accident.)
These losses and gains of data are both forms of error. This error arises at all points in the communication where a conceptualization is bundled into the vehicles of language, be they words or signs.
For the model above, assuming Persons A and B think clearly and form clear conceptualizations (and this is not always the case anyway), there are four points at which error creeps into the communication:
1) Where the conceptualization is put into words.
2) Where the words are perceived and “understood” by Person B.
3) Where B puts his conceptualized response into words, and
4) Where the words are perceived and “understood” by Person A.
When A and B come from similar cultures, at both macro (perhaps ethnic) and micro (such as family or locality) levels, then the introduced error will be low. When A and B are from different cultures, then error will be higher. This “cultural” background may equally be “professional”, for example when a mental health worker converses with a patient. When those cultural differences are also linguistic, inevitably error is increased still further.
With A and B from different linguistic backgrounds, we often predict that bringing an interpreter into the equation will reduce these errors. Indeed, many linguistic errors may well be avoided as the interpreter is fluent in both languages and will have a good idea about which words in language B best reflect those in language A. However, interpreters are not translation machines and each brings his or her own cultural background and developmental history to the communication. The expanded, interpreted, version of our communication model becomes this:
1. Person A forms a conceptualization
2. That conceptualization is put into words and articulated.
3. That articulation is perceived by an interpreter (X), and understood in terms of their own conceptual lexicon.
4. Those concepts are put into signs and articulated
5. Person B perceives the signs and understands them in terms of their own conceptual lexicon. That is, he conceptualizes meaning from the signs observed...
6. He then conceptualizes a response.
7. That conceptualization is put into signs and articulated.
8. That articulation is perceived by an interpreter (X), and understood in terms of their own conceptual lexicon.
9. Those concepts are put into words and articulated
10. Person A perceives the words and understands them in terms of his own conceptual lexicon. That is, he conceptualizes meaning from the words heard.
There are now eight points at which error (of both types) is introduced:
1) Where the conceptualization is put into words.
2) Where the words are perceived and “understood” by the interpreter.
3) Where the interpreter puts his conceptualized interpretation into signs.
4) Where the signs are perceived and “understood” by Person B.
5) Where B’s conceptualized response is put into signs.
6) Where the signs are perceived and “understood” by the interpreter.
7) Where the interpreter puts his conceptualized interpretation into words, and
8) Where the words are perceived and “understood” by Person A.
Eight is a lot.
The extent to which each of these points introduces error depends upon circumstance.
1 above depends upon how articulate is Person A.
2 depends upon the extent of cultural, professional and linguistic differences between the Person A and the interpreter
3 depends upon how articulate is the interpreter, and also (for they are not the same) their ability to describe a conceptualization deriving from one cultural background, to a person from another often very different background.
4 depends upon the cultural differences between Person B and the interpreter.
5 depends upon how articulate is person B.
6 depends upon the extent of cultural, professional and linguistic differences between the Person B and the interpreter
7 depends upon how articulate is the interpreter, and their ability to describe a conceptualization deriving from one cultural background, to a person from another often very different background.
8 depends upon the extent of cultural, professional and linguistic differences between the Person A and the interpreter.
Conveniently, these can be collapsed to two main areas – each individual’s articulation skills, and the cultural distances amongst the individuals. Interpreting skill would be another area, however the purpose of this essay is to highlight that even assuming the most skilled interpreter possible, there are many points at which considerable error may arise in a communicating interaction.