Improving Unhealthy Patterns

According to the pragmatic approach, the best way to understand and improve communication is to describe the forms or patterns that the communication takes. If these patterns are destructive, then the players should be encouraged to find more productive ways of playing the communication game. Let’s say that Bill and Laura are having problems communicating and decide to go to a communication counselor for help. The counselor taking a pragmatic approach will try to uncover the communication patterns that are the root of George and Martha’s problems.

In the beginning, Bill may explain the problem by blaming Laura. “Her need for attention is so great,” he may say, “that I’m forced to spend all my time catering to her. This makes me so mad that I have to get out of the house. She can’t seem to understand that I need my privacy. She’s demanding and irrational.” Of course, Laura has her own version of events, which may go something like this: “He’s so withdrawn, I can’t stand it. He never pays any attention to me. I have to beg to get a moment of his time, and when he does give it, he gets angry. Bill is cold and unreasonable.” Without help, Bill and Laura will each continue to blame the other. Laura may blame Bill’s mother for making him the way he is. Bill may decide that Laura has a personality flaw.

The pragmatic therapist isn’t interested in exploring background issues. Instead, the therapist tries to identify the behavior pattern that is causing the problem. In this case, Bill’s and Laura’s responses to one another are inef­fective and are exacerbating the problem. The therapist will help Bill and Laura work out a more effective set of moves that will make them both happy.

Perhaps the most important thing the pragmatic theorist tells us is that to understand communication, we should focus on interaction rather than on per­sonality. When you get into an interpersonal conflict (and it’s in the interper­sonal and small-group arena that the pragmatic model seems to fit best), how often do you examine the pattern of events that led up to the conflict? Chances are, you don’t do so very often; instead, you look for a personality explanation. When you and your roommate have problems communicating, you probably don’t ask yourself, “What do I do that causes her to respond the way she does?” Instead, you try to figure out what’s wrong with her. This is not the most productive solution to the problem.

Criticizing the Pragmatic Perspective

The principal problem with the pragmatic viewpoint is that it holds that both personality and culture are irrelevant. Pragmatists steadfastly refuse to ask why people act as they do. They dismiss factors such as intentions, desires, needs, and so on. They are interested only in how sets of interacts pattern themselves. They also have little to say about the cultural context surrounding interaction. Look again at Figure 2.3, and notice that only what happens on the board is im­portant. What happens outside the world of the game is never considered. Who the players are, where the game is played, and what other players are doing are all irrelevant questions.

Summary and Additional Perspectives

The three communication models we’ve reviewed, al­though they are different, all contribute to our understanding of communica­tion. They show us that to understand communication, we must look at three factors: the individuals with whom communication originates, the social con­text within which communication arises, and the interaction through which communication is realized.

What to Look for When You Look at Communication

There is one more communicative model to consider. This model, developed by Dell Hymes, is a kind of field guide for describing communication. Communication teachers often ask students to develop sensitivity to different speech communities. Students may be asked to describe “locker room talk” or “children’s playground talk”. Or they may be asked to compare the rules governing female speech with those governing male speech; the student must do what is called ethnography of communication. Hymes presents a systematic way to undertake this kind of observation. Figure 2.4 presents Hymes’s model.

Hymes begins by giving a general overview of the context in which communication occurs. When people share common ways of thinking about communication and common styles of talk, they have formed a speech community. These communities may be large (as when we describe “women’s speech”) or small (as when we examine the way athletes of a particular team engage in locker room talk). The first step in doing an ethnography is identifying a speech community. Next, you need to catalog speech situations within the community. A speech situation is a clearly marked occasion that calls for a specific type of speech. Each situation consists of a series of speech events, or identifiable sequence of speech. Speech events can often be broken down into speech acts, or individual, purposeful acts of communication.

Figure 2.4 – Hymes’s Model of Communication

Contexts for Observing Communication

Speech Community

People who share common attitudes toward speech

Speech Situations

Clearly marked occasion that calls for speech

Speech Events

Identifiable sequence of speech activity

Speech Act

Purpose served by forms of talk

Elements of Communication
S ituations P articipants E nds A ct Sequence K eys I nstrumentalities N orms G enres	Setting and scene of interaction Who speaks, who is addressed Goals and outcomes of interaction Content, means of expression Tone or spirit of interaction Channels, or media of interaction Rules regulating interaction Type of communication enacted

Hymes lists a series of specific items that an ethnographer of communica­tion observes (see Figure 2.4). Conveniently, the first letters of these items spell the word speaking. Hymes believes it is important to describe the specific situation, or the environment in which communication takes place (including the time, place, and physical circumstances), as well as the psychological weight a given situation carries. He also believes it is important to describe the partic­ipants who take part in a given form of speech, as well as their goals, or ends. In describing act sequences, the ethnographer carefully records communica­tion content and form, noting not only what is said or done but also how it is expressed.

Key is the tone or spirit (for example, joking, aggressive, or ecstatic) in which a given activity is undertaken. Instrumentalities are the channels of transmission used (for example, verbal or nonverbal, written or spoken). In looking at norms, the observer indicates the values and beliefs attached to a given form of communication, as well as the rules that regulate its use. Finally, a genre is a specialized type of encoded message. Examples of genre include prayers, orations, curses, and so on. Hymes believes the conventions governing each genre should be carefully described to gain a true understanding of com­munication in a given speech community. Observing communication behavior often seems to be an overwhelming task. By breaking communication down into smaller units, Hymes helps make that task more manageable.