Human communication, or anthroposemiotics, is a field of study dedicated to understanding how humans communicate. Humans' ability to communicate with one another would not be possible without an understanding of what we are referencing or thinking about. Because humans are unable to fully understand one another's perspective, there needs to be a creation of commonality through a shared mindset or viewpoint.[1] The field of communication is very diverse, as there are multiple layers of what communication is and how we use its different features as human beings.

Humans have communicatory abilities other animals do not. For example, humans are able to communicate about time and place as though they are solid objects. Humans communicate to request help, inform others, and share attitudes for bonding.[1] Communication is a joint activity largely dependent on the ability to maintain common attention. We share relevant background knowledge and joint experience in order to communicate content and coherence in exchanges.[2]

The evolution of human communication took place over a long period of time. Humans evolved from simple hand gestures to the use of spoken language. Most face-to-face communication requires visually reading and following along with the other person, offering gestures in reply, and maintaining eye contact throughout the interaction.[1]

Category

The current study of human communication can be branched off into two major categories; rhetorical and relational. The focus of rhetorical communication is primarily on the study of influence; the art of rhetorical communication is based on the idea of persuasion. The relational approach examines communication from a transactional perspective; two or more people interact to reach an agreed perspective.[3][citation needed]

In its early stages, rhetoric was developed to help ordinary people prove their claims in court; this shows how persuasion is key in this form of communication. Aristotle stated that effective rhetoric is based on argumentation. As explained in the text,[which?] rhetoric involves a dominant party and a submissive party or a party that succumbs to that of the most dominant party. While the rhetorical approach stems from Western societies, the relational approach stems from Eastern societies. Eastern societies hold higher standards for cooperation, which makes sense as to why they would sway more toward a relational approach for that matter. "Maintaining valued relationships is generally seen as more important than exerting influence and control over others".[4] "The study of human communication today is more diversified than ever before in its history".[4]

Classification of human communication can be found in the workplace, especially for group work. Co-workers need to argue with each other to gain the best solutions for their projects, while they also need to nurture their relationships to maintain their collaboration. For example, in their group work, they may use the communication tactic of "saving face".

Spoken language involves speech, mostly human quality to acquire. For example, chimpanzees are humans' closest relatives, but they are unable to produce speech. Chimpanzees are the closest living species to humans. Chimpanzees are closer to humans, in genetic and evolutionary terms, than they are to gorillas or other apes. The fact that a chimpanzee will not acquire speech, even when raised in a human home with all the environmental input of a normal human child, is one of the central puzzles we face when contemplating the biology of our species. In repeated experiments, starting in the 1910s, chimpanzees raised in close contact with humans have universally failed to speak, or even to try to speak, despite their rapid progress in many other intellectual and motor domains. Each normal human is born with a capacity to rapidly and unerringly acquire their mother tongue, with little explicit teaching or coaching. In contrast, no nonhuman primate has spontaneously produced even a word of the local language.[5]

Definition

Human communication can be defined as any Shared Symbolic Interaction.[6]

Types

Human communication can be subdivided into a variety of types:

Face-to-Face Communication

Face-to-face interaction is social communication carried out with other present individuals without any mediating technology. It is defined as the mutual influence of individuals’ direct physical presence with their body language and verbal language.[20] It is one of the basic elements of a social system, forming a significant part of socialization and experience throughout an individual's lifetime. It is also central to the development of groups and organizations composed of those individuals. Face-to-face interaction not only allows people to communicate more directly, but has been shown to improve mental health and can reduce various mental illnesses, most commonly, depression and anxiety.

Studies on Face-to-Face Communication

Most research and studies on face-to-face interaction is done via direct observation; the goal is to explain the regularities in the actions observed in these interactions.[21] The study of face-to-face interaction examines its organization, rules, and strategy. It has been of interest to scholars since at least the early 20th century.[22] One of the earliest social science scholars to analyze this type of interaction was sociologist Georg Simmel. He defined a society as a number of individuals intertwined by various interactions. In his 1908 book, he observed that sensory organs play an important role in interaction, discussing examples of human behavior such as eye contact.[22] His insights were soon developed by others, including Charles Cooley and George Herbert Mead.[22] Their theories became known as symbolic interactionism; and have since opened the door to a variety and wide range of other theories.[23] Symbolic interactionists are more concerned with subjective meaning rather than objective structure. They focus on how individuals interpret subjective meaning, which leads them to understand how that individual views the world as well as how the repetition of meaningful interactions among individuals is the groundwork to define the formation of society.[24] By the mid-20th century, there was already a sizable scholarly literature on various aspects of face-to-face interaction.[22] Works on this topic have been published by scholars such as Erving Goffman[25] and Eliot Chapple.[22]

Mediated Communication

Historically, mediated communication was much rarer than face-to-face.[26] Even though humans have possessed the technology to communicate in space and time (e.g. writing) for millennia, the majority of the world's population lacked the necessary skills, such as literacy, to use them.[26] This began to change with the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg that led to the spread of printed texts and rising literacy in Europe from the 15th century.[26] Since then, face-to-face interaction has begun to steadily lose ground to mediated communication.[26]

Compared with Mediated Communication

Face-to-face communication has been however described as less preferable to mediated communication in some situations, particularly where time and geographical distance are an issue. For example, in maintaining a long-distance friendship, face-to-face communication was only the fourth most common way of maintaining ties, after telephone, email, and instant messaging.

Despite the advent of many new information and communication technologies, face-to-face interaction is still widespread and popular and has a better performance in many different areas. Nardi and Whittaker (2002) pointed that face-to-face communication is still the golden standard among the mediated technologies based on many theorists, particularly in the context of the media richness theory where face-to-face communication is described as the most efficient and informational one. This is explained because face-to-face communication engages more human senses than mediated communication. Face-to-face interaction is also a useful way for people when they want to win over others based on verbal communication, or when they try to settle disagreements. Besides, it does help a lot for teachers as one effective teaching method. It is also easier to keep a stronger and more active political connection with others by face-to-face interaction.

In the end, there are both pros and cons to each form of communication. Several studies compared the two groups in order to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each. One group was communicating only through face-to-face communication, while the other was communicating only through computer-mediated communication. These studies found that computer-mediated groups perform better than face-to-face groups on idea generation tasks, while face-to-face groups excel in social emotional exchange. This is because face-to-face groups have more tension release and agreement statements, while computer-mediated groups have a tendency of giving more suggestions, opinions, and formal expressions.[27] There is a greater equality of participation in computer-mediated groups, but there's also a higher rate of uninhibited behaviour because computer-mediated groups induce a greater loss of self-awareness.[28] There is generally a reduced sense of social pressure in computer-mediated groups, but there is a stronger perception and sense of understanding in face-to-face groups.[29]

Face-to-Face Interactions Versus Social Media

Talking to someone face to face gives a person non-verbal cues, such as smiling, physical movement, and body positions that help people communicate. However, since social media lacks face-to-face communication, some individuals have adapted to blind communication when speaking online, seen through texting, commenting, and sending/receiving messages.[30]

By nature, humans are social. Social interaction is essential to survival. With recent advances in technology, such as the Internet, instant messaging, and smartphones, forms many channels and ways to interact with others. However, the human brain has evolved to adapt and keep up with this flood of mass communication. While face-to-face communication is predicted to improve quality of life, Internet and social media communication did not.[31] The Internet opens a new realm of possibilities in connecting with people around the globe with inherent factors in online communication that limit its ability to promote the same level of social satisfaction as traditional face-to-face communication. There are significant differences between online and face-to-face communication, leading to online communication being less emotionally satisfying and fulfilling than face-to-face communication. Social interaction on the internet and through social media platforms makes the interaction considerably difficult to distinguish nonverbal cues.[32] Transitive memory development is also brought by face-to-face communication, which is more effective than online communication.[33]

While technology has been able to bring communities and people closer together, humans have a responsibility to cultivate those connections and nurture them through old-fashioned face-to-face communication. As a human species, continuing to connect with others without hiding behind electronic screens is crucial.

Cross Multicultures

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Although there are increasingly virtual communications in large transnational companies with the development of Internet, face-to-face interaction is still a crucial tool in communication between employees and staff workers. Face-to-face interaction is beneficial to understand underlying truths that are presented through emotion and body language, especially when there are language and cultural differences present amongst individuals.

Cooperation in a multicultural team requires knowledge sharing. Ambiguous knowledge which arises frequently in a multicultural team is inevitable because of the different language habits. Face-to-face communication is better than other virtual communications for the ambiguous information. The reason is that face-to-face communication can provide non-verbal messages including gestures, eye contact, touch, and body movement. However, the virtual communications, such as email, only have verbal information which will make team members more misunderstanding of the knowledge due to their different comprehension of the same words. On the other hand, the understanding of professional standards shows no difference between face-to-face interaction and virtual communications.

Van der Zwaard and Bannink (2014) examined the effect of video call compared with face-to-face communication on the negotiation of meaning between native speakers and non-native speakers of English. Face-to-face interaction provides individuals who use English as the second language both intentional and unintentional actions which could enhance the comprehension of the chat in English. Individuals are more honest in understanding when they are in face-to-face interaction than in video call due to the potential loss of face issues for the non-native language speakers during the video call. As a result, face-to-face interaction has a more positive influence on the negotiation of meaning than virtual communications such as the video call.

Important figures

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c "Origins of Human Communication". MIT Press. Retrieved 2016-02-09.
  2. ^ Clark (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press.
  3. ^ Richmond, Virginia P. (2015-10-14). Handbook of Instructional Communication: Rhetorical and Relational Perspectives (1 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315664064. ISBN 978-1-315-66406-4.
  4. ^ a b Stacks, D.; Salwen, M. (2009). An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research. New York: Routledge.
  5. ^ Fitch, Tecumseh (2010). The Evolution of Language. Cambridge University Press.
  6. ^ Grossi, Franco C. (2014). Human Communication. ACADEMIA. Retrieved 2022-01-14.
  7. ^ a b Hanson, Ralph E. (2016-10-20). Mass Communication: Living in a Media World. SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-1-5063-5857-4.
  8. ^ Hartley, Peter (2002-01-04). Interpersonal Communication. doi:10.4324/9780203019719. ISBN 9780203019719.
  9. ^ Verderber, Rudolph F.; Verderber, Kathleen S.; Sellnow, Deanna D. (2014-01-01). COMM3. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-305-43696-1.
  10. ^ Publishers, HarperCollins. "The American Heritage Dictionary entry: speech". www.ahdictionary.com. Retrieved 2022-04-20.
  11. ^ "Six Benefits of Better Conversation". 2006-10-30. Archived from the original on 30 October 2006. Retrieved 2022-04-20.
  12. ^ "Benefits of Visual Communication - Edraw". www.edrawsoft.com. Retrieved 2022-04-20.
  13. ^ "What Is Writing? | Writing | EnglishClub". www.englishclub.com. Retrieved 2022-04-20.
  14. ^ "Definition of MAIL". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2022-04-20.
  15. ^ "What is Mass Media | IGI Global". www.igi-global.com. Retrieved 2022-04-20.
  16. ^ "Telecommunications", Wikipedia, 2022-03-25, retrieved 2022-04-20
  17. ^ Johnson, J. David (1992-09-01). "Approaches to organizational communication structure". Journal of Business Research. 25 (2): 99–113. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(92)90010-9. ISSN 0148-2963.
  18. ^ "Definition of group dynamics | Dictionary.com". www.dictionary.com. Retrieved 2022-04-24.
  19. ^ Communication, in Cultural; Communication, Intercultural (2014-09-25). "Cross Cultural Communication". Communication Theory. Retrieved 2022-04-24.
  20. ^ Goffman, Erving (1980) [1959]. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books: A Division of Random House, Inc. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-385-094023. [(]face-to-face interaction) may be roughly defined as the reciprocal influence of individuals upon one another's actions when in one another's immediate physical presence
  21. ^ Key, Mary Ritchie (1980). The Relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-90-279-7637-6.
  22. ^ a b c d e Kendon, Adam; Harris, Richard M.; Key, Mary Ritchie (1975). Organization of Behavior in Face-to-face Interaction. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-90-279-7569-0.
  23. ^ Demeulenaere, Pierre (2011-03-24). Analytical Sociology and Social Mechanisms. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-49796-1.
  24. ^ Carter, Michael (2015). "Symbolic Interactionism". sociopedia.isa.
  25. ^ Goodwin, Marjorie Harness (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as Social Organization Among Black Children. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-20618-3.
  26. ^ a b c d Jeffrey K. Olick; Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi; Daniel Levy (2011). The Collective Memory Reader. Oxford University Press. p. 349. ISBN 978-0-19-533741-9. Retrieved 5 June 2013.
  27. ^ Bordia, Prashant (1997-01-01). "Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: a synthesis of the experimental literature". The Journal of Business Communication. 34 (1): 99–121. doi:10.1177/002194369703400106. S2CID 143956324.
  28. ^ Bordia, Prashant (1997-01-01). "Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: a synthesis of the experimental literature". The Journal of Business Communication. 34 (1): 99–121. doi:10.1177/002194369703400106. S2CID 143956324.
  29. ^ Bordia, Prashant (1997-01-01). "Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: a synthesis of the experimental literature". The Journal of Business Communication. 34 (1): 99–121. doi:10.1177/002194369703400106. S2CID 143956324.
  30. ^ "How social media is changing the way people get to know one another | Penn State University". www.psu.edu. Retrieved 2022-04-07.
  31. ^ Lee, Paul S. N.; Leung, Louis; Lo, Venhwei; Xiong, Chengyu; Wu, Tingjun (February 2011). "Internet Communication Versus Face-to-face Interaction in Quality of Life". Social Indicators Research. 100 (3): 375–389. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9618-3. ISSN 0303-8300. S2CID 144489320.
  32. ^ Psychminds (2020-04-13). "Communication: Online vs. Face-to-Face Interactions". Psychminds. Retrieved 2022-04-07.
  33. ^ Griffith, Terri L.; Neale, Margaret A. (2001). "8. Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory". Research in Organizational Behavior. 23: 379–421. doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(01)23009-3. ISSN 0191-3085.

Further reading

Category