They argued that many people give a different meaning to a message than was intended,

but why should that be wrong?

Instead, they focused on the recipients of communication

and how they give meaning to a message, using their own unqiue toolkit

with their own backgrounds and experiences, knowledge, emotions, et cetera.

So in this model, this non-linear model, there is no wrong outcome,

there is no wrong communication

Everyone gives meaning to a message in there own unique way

This idea was hardly new.

Scientists had studied the phenomenon of polysemic messages for a long time.

Polysemic meaning exactly that, different people interpreting a message in a different way.

According to these scientists each act of communication relies

on a communication system, without which we wouldn't understand each other.

The study of these systems is called semiotics or semiology,

the so called study of ‘signs’ and ‘signification’.

A sign is basically everything that communicates something.

A spoken word, a gesture, a glance, a photo, a cartoon,

a written sentence, a hieroglyph, they are all signs.

The process of giving meaning to these signs is called signification.

Without going to deep into this fascinating topic, it’s important to briefly discuss

the influence of semiotic theories on mass communication theory.

This approach views communication not as a linear process but as an exchange of meaning.

The sender puts meaning in a message and the receiver takes meaning from a message.

Under influence of semiotic theories,

communication scientists became more interested in the reception of a message

and acknowledged that communication can indeed have multiple valid outcomes.

Let’s look at this classic model for example,

proposed by linguist Roman Jacobson in 1960.

He starts with familiar elements from Shannon and Weavers transmission model:

An addresser sends a message to an addressee using a channel.

He added to the model elements from semiotics

Like the idea that every message refers to something outside of the message,

which he called context.

Also, the specific form that our communication takes, for instance a written word,

made up of letters, is called a code.

Successful communication, according to Jacobson,

can only exist when all of these elements are in place.

Also, each act of communication has one dominant function

that relates to one of these elements in this model.

Let's review these functions that Jacobson identified.

When the primary purpose of a message is to communicate

the emotions and attitudes of a sender, this is called the emotive function.

For instance when I write a love letter to my girlfriend.

The second function is conative.

If a receiver is directly addressed to do something specific.

An example is a commercial that tells us to “buy this flavour of ice cream!”.

The referential or descriptive function corresponds with the context

and happens when a message primarily describes a situation.

Perhaps a news report is a good example for this.

Sometimes the main purpose of communicating is to keep the lines open,

when we have coffee each week with a friend for instance.

This is called a phatic function and relates to the channel.

A poetic function means that the message is an end in itself,

a painting for example that aims at being a beautiful and aesthetically pleasing piece of art.

And finally there is the metalingual function,

when we use communication to explain the codes that we use.

For instance a dictionary.

Another example is the explanation I’m giving right now,

in which we are discussing concepts from the field of semiotics.

By focusing on the meaning of a message,

signs, signification and the main function of a message,

Jacobson has given us a model that is very different from the transmission model.

It’s also a good starting point to discuss a third perspective

that offers again a new angle with which to view our field.