Saturday, October 09, 2004

Shannon Weaver Cont'd...

The Shannon Weaver model seems to be a never-ending saga in the world of communications. Ever evolving though, this concept allows for the admission of many different aspects that can alter the way we look at is a whole.

Saussere understood this well and had his own take on the communication thing. He felt that in every signal there is something that gives that "word" its meaning. As Danielle said, both must be present or the symbol lacks a purpose. So I you could say that though a person may feel as though they adequately got a point across, if what was behind that point was misinterpreted than the transmission was actually a failure.

When studying language, typology is a very neat thing. From the time an infant starts learning they are taught to classify words based on certain facts of those words. Most often these words are classified phonetically in effort to help them read and associate sounds to letters. This all certainly makes perfect sense and has proven to work over hundreds of years. Yet by the time high school is presented, these kids are taught to root these words based on their ancestral background. Why? Does knowing that the root word of one word is from the same "old" language of another really matter? Roman Jakobson was definitely on to something by stating that words should be categorized grammatically rather than by origins.

This was certainly not Jakobson's most notable addition to the Shannon Weaver model. As Sarah Doolin stated, "the recognition of the overlapping system of meanings and the need for subcodes". She gave a very effective example of this when discussing the difference between American English and British English. The difference between these forms of English can be great and without subcodes one may find it impossible to decipher.


Post a Comment

<< Home