Chapter 1: Introducing

Communication
By
Dr. Amy M. Corey

Communication is the process of creating, interpreting, and negotiating meaning.

Communication can be verbal, nonverbal, or textual. It can be aural, visual, or even physical.
Although communication occurs in a variety of different ways, it is always a learned behaviour.
While most human beings are born with the physical abilities to speak, to hear, to see, and so on,
people must learn to communicate through codes, symbols, and systems of language. In this way,
communication is a collective practice in which people use symbols to generate and interpret
meaning.

Models of Communication
In order to explain the social process of communication, scholars have developed several
models. The three most well known models for communication are Linear, Interactional, and
Transactional. As West & Turner (2007) explain, each model sheds light on the development of
communication, but emphasizes different parts of the communication process. The models
provide pictures, or visual representations, of complex interactions. They are useful because they
simplify the basic structure of communication and can help us to understand that structure not
just verbally, but also visually. Most importantly, they identify the various elements of
communication and serve as a kind of map to show how different parts of the communication
process are interrelated.

Linear Models
Originally developed by Shannon & Weaver in 1948, this model describes communication as a
linear process. (See Figure 1.1.) This model describes how a sender, or speaker, transmits a
message to a receiver, or listener. More specifically, the sender is the source of the message.
A message may consist of the sounds, words, or behaviours in a communication interaction. The
message itself is transmitted through a channel, the pathway or route for communication, to
a receiver, who is the target or recipient of the message. There may be obstacles in the
communication process, or noise. Noise refers to any interference in the channel or distortion of
the message. This is a fairly simple model in which a message is simply passed from sender to
receiver.
Figure 1.1:
Shannon and Weaver Model

While the linear model was highly influential during the mid-20th century, this model is perhaps
too simple. Its limitations are easy to see if you pause to think about the beliefs about
communication, or assumptions, made in this model. First, this model assumes that
communication only goes in one direction. Here, a person can be a sender or receiver, but not
both. This is problematic because communication in action is more dynamic than the linear
model suggests. In action, communication involves a give and take between senders and
receivers in which listeners are not simply passive receptacles for a sender’s message. This
model is also limited because it provides only one channel for only one message. Finally, it
implies that messages themselves are clear-cut with a distinct beginning and a distinct end.
However, communication is rarely, if ever, as neat and tidy as a linear model would suggest.

Interactional Models
In the move to a more dynamic view of communication, interactional models follow two
channels in which communication and feedback flow between sender and receiver. Feedback is
simply a response that a receiver gives to a sender. (See Figure 1.2.) Feedback can be verbal (i.e.
“yes”) or nonverbal (i.e. a nod or smile). Most importantly, feedback indicates comprehension. It
can help senders know if their message was received and understood. By focusing on flow and
feedback, interactional models view communication as an ongoing process.

Figure 1.2:
Interactional Model

The final feature of this model is the field of experience. The field of experience refers to how
environment, experiences, culture, and even heredity can influence how a sender constructs a
message. Keep in mind that each person brings a unique field of experience to an interaction.
Likewise, each communication interaction is unique. While the interactional model is more
dynamic than the linear model, it still contains some limitations. For instance, this model implies
that while people can be both senders and receivers, they cannot do so simultaneously. In lived
communication, roles are not quite so clear-cut and in fact are much more fluid.
Transactional Models
The transactional is the most dynamic of communication models. One notable feature of this
model is the move from referring to people as senders and receivers to referring to people
as communicators. This implies that communication is achieved as people both send and receive
messages. (See Figure 1.3.) Fundamentally, this model views communication as a transaction. In
other words, communication is a cooperative action in which communicators co-create the
process, outcome and effectiveness of the interaction. Unlike the linear model in which meaning
is sent from one person to another, also unlike the interactional model in which understanding is
achieved through feedback, people create shared meaning in a more dynamic process in the
transactional model.

Figure 1.3:
Transactional Model

This model also places more emphasis on the field of experience. While each communicator has
a unique field of experience, they must also inhabit a shared field of experience. In other words,
communicators must share at least some degree of overlap in culture, language, or environment
if people are to communicate at all. This model also recognizes that messages will influence the
responses, or subsequent messages, produced in the communication interaction. This means that
messages do not stand alone, but instead are interrelated. The principle of interrelation states that
messages are connected to and build upon one another. The transactional model forms the basis
 for much communication theory because (1) people are viewed as dynamic communicators
rather than simple senders or receivers, (2) there must be some overlap in fields of experience in
order to build shared meaning, and (3) messages are interdependent.
Resources for Communication Theory

There are many valuable online resources for communication students. The following are just a few you
can use. But remember, these are to be considered starting points for detailed references and not the
primary sources. It is always best to use the original.

 Dr. Pierce’s Old School Website

 IACACT’s Communicopedia
 National Communication Association web site
 International Communication Association web site
 Canadian Communication association web site
 Association of Internet Researchers

Sidebar 1.1: Research Resources

The transactional understanding of shared meaning has informed variety of communication

theories. In general terms, a theory comprises a way of seeing, interpreting, and explaining. A
theory is a framework for understanding. It illuminates social practices and helps to make sense
of the everyday life-world. Durham & Kellner (2001) suggest that we consider a theory as “a
way of seeing, an optic, that focuses on specific subject matter” (3). Think about a theory as an
optic or a technology that enhances vision. Just as there are many different communication
theories, there are also many different visual technologies. Sunglasses, contacts, or even virtual
reality goggles each us help to see in a certain way. For instance, when you put on a pair of
glasses, it will cause you to see in a particular way, focusing things near or far depending on the
type of lens. In this way, every different theory will require a different way of seeing the world
of communication. The most important part of this metaphor is that a particular theory will bring
specific aspects of communication into focus yet may blur others. As you work through this
book, pay attention to the ways in which a particular perspective illuminates certain elements
while leaving others in shadow. Also think about how exploring different theories will provide a
more comprehensive look at communication while also allowing you to select those that will be
of greatest use for your interests in communication studies.

Theories of Meaning and Representation

Focus: Relationships between signs, meanings, and
language systems
Semiotics
Semiotics (or semiology) is the study of signs. In its most basic definition, a sign is anything that
carries meaning. In this sense, a sign represents or stands for something other than itself.
Semiotics was pioneered by the French philosopher
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). Saussure studied signs scientifically by breaking them down
into two parts: a signifier and a signified. A signifier is the actual form of the sign. It may appear
as words, images, sounds, etc. For example, as a signifier, the word rose designates a particular
flower. The image in Table 1.1 also designates this flower. These are examples of signifiers, or
the form that a sign may take.

In contrast, a signified is the meaning that is associated with the form of the signifier. The
signified is the meaning that is triggered in your head when you think of the red rose. Think for a
moment. What does a red rose signify? Does it “mean” something different than a yellow rose,
for example? In many cultures, a red rose signifies passion, whereas a yellow rose signifies
friendship. Passion (or friendship), as a conceptual meaning, is the signified. Signifieds are
mental representations. Mental representations are never purely individual, but instead
comprise “shared conceptual maps” (Hall, 1997, p. 17). Conceptual maps provide a common
reference point that enable people to interpret and understand one another.

Photograph from unsplash.com. Photographer Carlos Quintero.

Table 1.1:
Signifier: A Rose is a Rose is a Rose. Which one is “Real”?

If a sign consists of both a signifier and a signified, what, then, is the relationship between them?
The relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. In other words, there is no
necessary connection between a signifier and a signified. There is no “natural” reason that red
signifies passion whereas yellow signifies friendship. There may be a connection between the
parts of a sign, but the connection is socially, not naturally, determined. In this sense, there is
nothing inherent in the colour yellow that connects it to friendship. According to semiotics, all
meanings are associations.
Another example of the arbitrary relationship between signifier and signified can be found in the
word tree. As an English language signifier, tree designates a plant with a wooden trunk,
branches, and leaves. However, in Spanish, árbol is the word, or signifier, used to designate the
very same signified. Arbre is the French signifier. The same signified can have many different
signifiers. Here, the use of different languages also points out that there is no inherent connection
between a signifier and a signified. Meanings are associations that are culturally determined.

Furthermore, meanings are always relational. We understand meaning based on similarities to

and differences from other signs within a system of signs. Take for example a traffic light. (See
Figure 1.6.) “GO” is associated with green whereas “STOP” is associated with red. Hall (1997)
explains that in part, this is understood through difference; go is not stop just as green is not red.
And of course, there is nothing inherent in the colour green that connects it to the action “GO.”
In fact, the colour blue could just as easily designate “GO”. This is a symbolic connection.

Figure 1.6: Meanings are Relational. When ‘green’ means “GO!”

Scholars who study semiotics are interested in both symbolic difference and symbolic
association. They study how the placement of signs constructs connections between otherwise
unassociated meanings. Most importantly, they point out that a sign’s meaning always depends
on its context, or the environment of other signs surrounding it. One of the main areas in which
the concept of semiotic association is applied lies in the critique of advertisements. Take for
example advertisements for beer. In print, online, and on television, beer ads often use images of
slender, beautiful, sexually available women. Visually, these ads juxtapose images of sexuality
with images of alcohol. By surrounding signs for alcohol with signs of sexuality, a semiotic
association is created between the alcohol and sexual satisfaction. In fact, scholars such
as Berger (2007) suggest that consumers never actually purchase the advertised products, but
instead consumers purchase the ideas, or associated meanings, present in the advertising image.
Using the concept of semiotic association, Berger argues that consumers purchase the promise of
sexual satisfaction rather than the actual, particular brand of beer.
Semiotics also offers a detailed vocabulary for understanding and differentiating signs. Much of
this vocabulary was developed by 20th century American philosopher C.S. Peirce. He developed
definitions and charted the differences between different types of signs. He defined an iconic
sign as one that bears a resemblance to what is depicted. A photograph of a rose is considered an
iconic sign because it bears a resemblance to a rose (Table 1.1). Likewise, a drawing of a rose is
also iconic (Table 1.1). Symbolic signs, like traffic lights discussed above have no necessary
relationship between signifier and signified. Symbolic signs carry arbitrary meaning. Finally,
unlike a symbolic sign, an indexical sign holds an inherent relationship between a sign and its
meaning. For example, if you were to see smoke coming from a mountain ridge, it would
indicate that there is a fire. In this sense, it can be said that smoke indexes fire.

Representation
The semiotic tradition has had a tremendous impact on larger theories of representation. In his
influential work in this area, Stuart Hall (1997) explains this is because, “in language, we use
signs and symbols – whether they are sounds, written words, electronically produced images,
musical notes, even objects – to stand for or represent to other people our concepts, ideas, and
feelings” (Hall, 1997, p. 1, emphasis added). According to Hall, (1 representation is a central
communication process by which people make and share meanings, and (2 language is a
significant system of representation.

Hall explained this concept in three major approaches, or paradigms, of representation:

Reflective, Intentional, and Constituitive. First, the Reflective Paradigm draws upon the
metaphor of a mirror. In this view, language functions like a mirror to reflect meanings that exist
in objects and in the environment. A key assumption to this approach is that there is one true and
unchanging meaning present in an object. Here, meaning is a product of the object itself. This is
also called an essentialist viewpoint, or “the conventional view…that ‘things’ exist in the
material and natural world; that their material or natural characteristics are what determines or
constitutes them; and that they have a perfectly clear meaning, outside of how they are
represented” (Hall, 1997, p. 5, emphasis original). However, the Reflective Paradigm is
problematic because it focuses on meanings that are simply and objectively observed by people
rather than the meanings that are created and exchanged between people.

The second approach is the Intentional Paradigm. According to this view, “words mean what
their author intends them to mean” (Hall, 1997, p. 25). An author imposes his or her unique
meaning on an audience through the use of language. It is important to keep in mind that while
as individual speakers or authors, we each use language to convey unique messages; there is no
guarantee that a message will be heard or understood as intended. One of the problems with the
intentional approach to representation is that there is no way to account for the fact that different
listeners or readers may interpret a sentence, poem, or even a work of art differently.

Finally, Hall explains the constituitive paradigm. Developing the semiotic standpoint, he states
that objects, people, and things in and of themselves do not carry meaning. Instead, human
beings construct meaning for the environment, events, and objects. This paradigm is closely
associated with social constructionism, or the view that reality is a product of communication.
How reality is understood at a given social, historical moment is determined by the conventions
of communication unique to that moment. Simply put, reality is socially constructed through
ongoing and interconnected patterns of representation.

In the constituitive paradigm, “we must not confuse the material world, where things and people
exist, and symbolic practices and processes through which representation, meaning and language
operate” (Hall, 1997, p. 25). To be clear, constructionists do not deny the physical existence of
the world. Instead, they argue that the physical world does not exist meaningfully until it has
been represented. Constructionists also recognize that signs always have a material dimension.
For instance, there is a material quality to images or letters on paper or as digital impulses on
screen or that sounds arise from vocal chords to form speech. The key difference for
constructionists lies in that the material world does not present itself objectively to human
beings. Rather, we come to know and to understand only through our communication with
others.

Systems and Interactional Theories

Focus: Relationships between social structures and social
interaction
General Systems Theory
General Systems Theory (GST) is used to study the nature of complex systems. Systems
themselves are collections of different elements that work together to form a cohesive unit. GST
is applied in a variety of different fields from technology and natural sciences to social sciences.
In communication studies, GST has a range of applications, especially in interpersonal and
organizational settings. In this view, families and corporations are perfect examples of systems.
They are each made up of different elements such as members of a family or divisions of a
corporation that interact to form a single unit, or system. GST focuses on how an individual
system structures the communication within that system.

In The Pragmatics of Human Communication (1967), Watzlawick, Bavelas, &

Jackson emphasize that although every system is unique, all systems consist of two components:
objects and attributes. An object refers to the parts of a system. Objects may be members of a
family or divisions of a corporation, as noted above. Attributes refer to the qualities of the
objects. For instance, individual characteristics or personalities are attributes. Most importantly,
the interaction among the objects forms a series of relationships. Relationships tie the individual
objects in a system together.

In addition to objects, attributes, and relationships, other fundamental properties of open systems
include: wholeness, interdependence, nonsummativity, equifinality, feedback, and
circularity. Wholeness refers to the idea that any one part of the system cannot be understood on
its own, but only in relation to the other parts of the system. Systems cannot be understood as
pieces, but only as a unit. For example, we can learn more about the Sinto family by analyzing
their interactions together rather than simply analyzing Pat’s communication behaviours alone.
In this way, “family members are not isolated persons, but their relationships among one another
must be taken into account in order to fully understand the individuals and the family as a unit”
(Littlejohn, 1992, p. 40). Secondly, the parts of a system are interdependent. The concept of
wholeness implies that if there is a change or disruption in one part of the system, it will affect
the whole system. So, if Pat begins to drink heavily, it will have an impact not only on Pat’s
behaviour, but also on the entire Sinto family. In the systems view, Pat’s drinking cannot be
isolated because members of a family are interdependent. Nonsummativity names the idea that a
system is irreducible. In other words, a system is always more than the sum of its parts. A family
as a unit has more value than the total of its individual members. Equifinality refers to the ability
of a system to achieve the same goal through different means “because it is the nature of the
organization which is determinate” (Watzlawick et al., 1967, p. 127, emphasis added).
Essentially, the principle of equifinality offers different explanations for the same outcome. As
parents, Pat and Terry Sinto may use a variety of different methods to secure the obedience of
their children, Chris and Jessie. Discussion, discipline, or even bribery can all be used to achieve
the same result. Likewise, if corporate management wants to increase profit in an organizational
system, they may cut budget expenses or increase sales. Either method could achieve the same
goal.

Feedback is the information or input received by the system. A system will use the input to self-
regulate. Negative feedback helps a system to adapt and to make adjustments. For instance, if
Chris and Jessie don’t do household chores, Pat and Terry could use discussion to provide
feedback. When Chris and Jessie receive the feedback, they can then make the necessary
adjustments to the system (i.e. do the chores). This is considered negative feedback not because
it is necessarily harsh or bad, but because it causes a change within the system. In contrast,
positive feedback will keep a system going with no change. So, when Chris and Jessie do not do
household chores and still receive an allowance, they are receiving positive feedback. As
positive feedback, the allowance communicates that there is balance within the system and that
no changes need to be made.

Circularity names the principle that systems develop patterns of recurring communication.

Recurring patterns in turn structure the communication process for that system. GST brings into
focus a cyclical model in which systems are self-perpetuating. Here, a system creates
communication, and communication in turn sustains the system. For instance, when Pat begins to
drink heavily, Terry complains and nags. When Terry complains and nags, Pat begins to drink
heavily. The cycle of drinking/complaining/complaining/drinking forms a self-continuing
system. Circularity implies a causal and continuous relationship. (See Figure 1.7.)
Figure 1.7: Circularity in General Systems Theory
Symbolic Interactionism
George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) is largely credited with developing Symbolic Interactionism
(SI). Although Mead published very little during his lifetime, a collection of his lectures
titled Mind, Self, and Society (1934) was published posthumously. This work laid the
foundations for SI. SI was named by Mead’s student Herbert Blumer, and continued to be
developed throughout the 20th century. SI has been extremely influential in communication
studies as well as in sociology. Because it has been so influential, its applications vary widely.
Although approaches may vary, the major principles of SI concern (1) the role of symbols, (2)
the role of self concept, and (3) the relationship between symbols, self, and society.

(1) Symbols play a significant role in human life and behaviour

SI states that all human life is mediated by symbols and that it is the use of symbols that defines
the human experience. In this way, humanity has a symbolic source, not merely a biological one.
Thus it can be said that human beings are not born, but instead are made. Secondly, just as
humanity is a process, so too, is society itself. Society is the product of human beings using
symbols.

(2) Self concept is a significant factor in human life and behaviour

SI emphasizes the importance of agency. Agency is defined as an individual’s ability to act

within a social system. It implies that an individual has some degree of choice or independence.
SI brings into focus the idea that human beings are actively involved in shaping their own
behaviour. Secondly, SI is concerned with the ways in which individuals develop self concept.
Self concepts are the “relatively stable set of perceptions people hold about themselves” (West &
Turner, 2007, p. 99). They are self-formed identities that develop over time in interaction with
others. Self concepts, in turn, provide important motives for behaviour. An individual’s beliefs,
values, feelings, and evaluations of themselves affect how they interact with others. Individuals
will interpret, monitor and guide their own behaviour according to their ideas and perceptions of
themselves.

(3) The relationships between symbols, self, and society

People and groups are influenced by social processes. Simply put, social norms constrain
individual behaviour. While individuals have some degree of agency, as noted above, there is
always a tension between individual freedoms and societal restraints. Finally, SI argues that
social norms and even social structures are created through interaction. Society is neither fixed
nor unchanging, but instead is a product of symbolic interaction that is subject to interpretation
and (re)construction.

Lively’s (2009) case study used SI to analyze the professionalism of paralegal assistants in
private law firms. Drawing from Becker (1970), Lively focused on the way that “the symbol
‘profession’ organizes the way individuals think about work; ‘professional’ and
‘professionalism’ constitute symbols that organize how individuals think about their own and
others’ behaviour or status in the workplace…” (Lively, 2009, p. 346). She analyzed how
paralegal assistants actively construct professional images of themselves. They do so through a
common concept of professionalism, which is defined through displays of competence
(knowledge and skills necessary to perform job tasks) and demeanor (appearance, attitude, and
manner). Symbolically, the degree of adherence to professionalism affected the paralegal’s self
concepts. The degree of adherence to professionalism also constructed a specific corporate
culture in private law firms. SI analysis emphasized that the paralegals have a degree of agency,
or control over their own behaviour. At the same time, they are also constrained by the norms of
professional behaviour in their firm. In the case of paralegal professionalism, people are using
symbols to (1) develop a sense of self, (2) to interact with others (e.g. attorneys, paralegals, and
clients), and (3) to construct meaning and culture within the law firm itself.
One of the contributors to this book is Dr. Mark Johns from Luther College in Decorah Iowa, USA.
Luther College is a small 4-year residential college and Dr. Johns was the chair of the Communication
Department. Dr. Johns is not only active in the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR), he is a
Reverend in the Lutheran church. He is a great example of how one person can blend multiple interests
into one career.

Dr. Mark D. Johns – A Symbolic Interactionism Scholar

People and groups are influenced by symbols and social processes. At the same time, social
structure is created through symbolic interaction of people and groups. While this may sound
similar to GST, there are important differences between the two theories. At base, GST brings
into focus the structure of a system and analyzes how the structure determines behaviour. It is
based on the idea that human behaviour is a product of the system to which it belongs. SI inverts
that formula and seeks to explain how symbol use creates social structures. In SI, social
structures are products, not determinants of interaction
environments, and expressions will be explored throughout this book. As you work through the
various chapters, remember the optical metaphor discussed earlier. Each chapter will provide a
unique way of seeing communication by bringing specific aspects into focus. In doing so, the
chapters will help you to expand your horizons by illuminating different communication contexts
and features. The more perspectives you explore, the better able you will be to develop a richer
and more comprehensive understanding of human communication.

Glossary
Shared Conceptual Maps

Groups of mental labels that describe how mental labels are grouped together or classified.
While mental labels do exist inside an individual’s head, they also must be socially determined.
In this way, shared conceptual maps provide a common reference point that enable people to
think individually yet also to interpret and understand one another collectively.

Critical Theory

This is a branch of research that focuses on the relationships between culture and power. Critical
Theory is based in Marxist philosophy and analyzes the control and circulation of ideas within
capitalist societies. This research identifies the relationships between culture and economy and
focuses on class as the most important feature of social difference.

Cultural Studies

While related to Critical Theory, Cultural Studies also focuses on other features of social
difference such as gender, race, sexuality, and ethnicity. This research is concerned with the
process in which different social groups vie for power through cultural resources.
 General Systems Theory (GST)

GST is used to study the nature of complex systems. It explores the structure of a system by
charting out how a system is organized. It views a system as a whole (rather than a sum of its
parts) that is circular or self-perpetuating. GST brings into focus the structure of a system and
analyzes how the structure determines behaviour. It is based on the idea that human behaviour is
a product of the system to which it belongs.

Interactional models of communication

This model follows two channels in which communication and feedback flow between sender
and receiver. This model adds the concept of field of experience to the communication process.

Linear model of communication

This model is credited to Shannon & Weaver (1949), and includes a sender (source of message)
and receiver. It is a one-way path for communication.

Paradigms of representation

A paradigm is a major approach, or a comprehensive set of ideas that make up a way of viewing
the world. The three paradigms of representation are Reflective, Intentional, and Constituitive.
Each makes up a unique way of viewing the process of meaning-making.

Semiotics

The study of signs. A sign is anything that stands for something else. Semiotic studies are
concerned with the relationship between a sign and its meaning. They take a sign apart to see
how meanings are associated with signs and how systems of signs shape the social construction
of meaning.

Transactional Models

These models move away from referring to people as senders and receivers to referring to people
as communicators. Fundamentally, this model views communication as a transaction – a
cooperative action in which communicators co-create the process, outcome and effectiveness of
the interaction.

Understanding This Chapter

1. One of the basic tenets of communication theory is that one “cannot, not communicate.”
Do you think this is true? Why or why not?
2. There are three basic models of communication discussed in this chapter. Do you think
that it is time to develop a fourth model? Perhaps one that addresses the interactivity of digital
and internet communication? What would it look like? Can you draw it?
3. Is Marxist theory still relevant to today’s society? Why or why not?
4. Multiple Online Games like Fortnite are virtual worlds where people congregate and
interact using avatars. If you were to analyze Fortnite using “Semiotics” would you classify the
avatars as signifiers? signifieds? signs? symbols? Perhaps they are none of these?

References
Adorno, T. (1991). The culture industry: Selected essays on mass culture. London: Routledge.

Becker, H. (1970). Sociological work: Method and substance. Chicago: Aldine.

Bennett, A. (2001, 2005). Cultures of popular music. Berkshire and New York: Open University
Press.

Berger, A. A. (2007). Ads, fads, and consumer culture. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleford.

Bernstein, N. (2006). Goin’ gangsta, choosin’ cholita. In S. Maasik & J. Solomon (Eds.) Signs of
life in the USA: Readings on popular culture for writers (5th ed). (pp. 606-611). Boston:
Bedford St. Martins.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Casey, B., Casey, N., Calvert, B., French, L., & Lewis, J. (2008). Television studies: The key
concepts, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

Durham, M.G., & Kellner, D.M. (Eds.) (2001). Media and cultural studies: Key works. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.

Hall, S. (1997). The work of representation in S. Hall (Ed.) Representation: Cultural

representations and signifying practices (pp. 13-73). London: Sage.

Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The Meaning of style. London: Routledge.

hooks, b. (1999). Black looks: Race and representation. Boston: South End Press.

Jhally, S. (Writer, Editor, Producer). (2008). Dreamworlds 3: Desire, sex, and power in music
video. Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.

Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Littlejohn, S. J. (1992). Theories of human communication (4th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Lively, K.J. (2009). Occupational claims to professionalism: The case of paralegals. Symbolic

Interaction 24 (3), 343-365.
Marx, K. (1963). Selected writings in sociology and social philosophy. T. Bottomore & M. Rubel
(Eds.) Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. C.W. Morris
(Ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Peirce, C.S. (1960). Collected papers (c. Hartshorn & P. Weiss, Eds.) Cambridge, MA: The Kelnap
Press of Harvard University Press.

Rose, G. (2007). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials.

2nd ed. London: Sage

Saussure, F. de (1959). Course in general linguistics. London: Fontana.

Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana:

University of Illinois Press.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin-Bavelas, J., & Jackson, D.D. (1967). Pragmatics of human

communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: W.W.
Norton & Co.

West, R., & L.H. Turner. (2007). Introducing communication theories: Analysis and
application (3rd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
 

For Further Reading

Anderson, J.A. (1996). Communication theory: Epistemological foundations. New York: Guilford
Press.

Audi, R. (Ed.) (1995). The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. A. Lavers (trans.) London: Paladin Books.

Barthes, R. (1988). The semiotic challenge. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bennett, A. (2000). Popular music and youth culture: Music, identity and place. London:
Macmillan.

Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology
of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.

During, S. (2005). Cultural studies. New York: Routledge.

Griffin, E. M. (2009). A First look at communication theory (7th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hall, S. (1986). On postmodernism and articulation: An interview with Stuart Hall. Journal of
Communication Inquiry, 10, (2), 45-60.

Hoggart, R. (1958). The uses of literacy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Manis, J., & Meltzer, B. (Eds.) 1978. Symbolic Interaction Boston: Allyn & Bacon

Strinati, D. (1995/2001). An Introduction to theories of popular culture. London and New York:
Routledge.

von Bertalanffly, L. (1968). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications. New

York: Braziller.

Williams, R. (1976). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana.

About the Author

Amy M. Corey holds a doctorate in Communication Studies from the University of Denver. Her
research focuses on Culture and Communication and she has published critical work on popular
culture and online interaction. She teaches a variety of courses, including Communication
Theory and Research.

 
 Previous: Preface
Next: Chapter 2: Interpersonal Communication And Self