Computersight -

There have been several attempts by scholars to explain the process of communication. Among the most influential are the mathematical model proposed by C Shannon and W weaver and the one by WL Schramm. Depending on their background and objectives, different scholars have viewed the process of communication differently and have developed different models. It would have been surprising if a central and complex process such as “communication” did not attract different explanations. For the sake of economy, we can collapse several of those familiar explanations somewhat unfairly into a generalized model.

There is general agreement that we can not share our thoughts and ideas directly with others. We adopt a process of coding and decoding. It goes like this. I feel like eating jelebies. How do I communicate this to my mother? I put this thought into a verbal code and transmit it through the oral channel “Momma, can you make some roundies? “ Momma is the code accepted by everyone at home for mother. So when I say Momma my mother knows I am calling her rather than father or sister or brother. When I say can you make I am using one of the codes available to stand for a polite request. And “roundies” is the code we have at home for for jelebies. So mother decodes my request accurately. If a guest happens to be around, he will be able to decode only a par tof ti, that is, I am asking my mother to make something. He can not go much further than that with any certainty because he does not know what roundies is a code for at time.

Knowledge of the code – usually language – helps one code one’s messages for others and decode others’ messages. Poor knowledge of the code can make the process of coding and decoding defective. This will impair communication.

To take another example, imagine that a speaker believes that the word “gay” is the code for “happy”. He may describe a cheerful male colleague as gay. The listener may, however, take the word to be a code for homosexual and conclude that the speaker was referring to the colleague’s homosexuality. Similarly, the speaker may describe a colleague as gay to refer to his deviation from the norm in sexual behaviour; the listener might, however, take gay to be a code for “happy” or “fun- loving” and completely miss the speaker’s intent.

This coding and decoding process is similar to what we come across in many spy stories. So when a spy sends a telegram (or a fax or e-mail these days), “car broken down; please send mechanic”, people who happen to read it might decode it as a request by someone for a mechanic’s help to repair his car. For the people who know the code that the spy has used, the message could be, “My assistant is killed; please send a new one. “Thus, whether you can make your ideas and intentions clear to others depends on whether you and they share a common code, generally language. The code could be nonlinguistic such as dropping a handkerchief at a particular place and time or wearing a saree of a particular colour. Anything can be a code for any idea provided the parties involved agree.