Thursday, February 12, 2009
Chapter 2 Discussion Question 2
The pragmatic view believes that communication consists of a system of interlocking, interdependent behaviors that become patterned over time. I believe it does make sense to think of communication as patterned interactions. The book gives some great examples of these interactions, such as the chess game in which you become interdependent on your partner in order to make a move and continue on with the game, if you don‘t you are forfeiting and thus the game ends, which is essentially ending that link in the communication chain. Communication is like a game because it depends on two independent behaviors that have become interdependent to continue. The ways it differs from a game is that it can be applied to many different aspects of communication like relationships. My relationship with my husband could sometimes be considered similar to the chess game. There is an interdependence on one of us making the next move in order to communicate. And like the book states sometimes silence or no reaction can speak volumes. Unfortunately silence isn’t in my game book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Capone’s Mom,
ReplyDeleteI found your post interesting in that you mentioned, “I believe it does make sense to think of communication as patterned interactions.”
According to Sarah Trenholm, “In a pragmatic model, communication is seen as a game of sequential, interlocking moves between interdependent partners. Each player responds to the partner’s moves in light of his or her own strategy and in anticipation of future action” (Trenholm 2008, pg. 33).
When I read this, I thought of the time I negotiated with a car salesman and bought my brand new 1999 Nissan Altima for $11K. I walked into the dealership knowing the highest and the lowest amount I would pay for a car. I think the sticker price was $15K. I just laughed (to myself) as I started negotiating with this man. After going back and forth, I stood up and said, what is the best price you can sell this car to me? He told me a price. I then said, “Ok, this is my final answer of $11,000, otherwise I am walking out.” In this situation, we both had played the game of interlocking moves between interdependent partners. We both set up each other in moving towards the negotiations of our anticipated future action. He was bound and determined to make a profit and I was bound and determined to get this car for the cheapest price.
Very interesting post I enjoyed reading it. The way I look at this is like in a game of basketball you make moves crossover dribbles and stuff like that and you see your opponents reaction and from that reaction you make your next move. Sort of like here were interaction is going back an forth with two people and people make moves based on the reaction. For example if a defender is going for an pump fake I use that reaction to set up my next move. Like in communication and I believe when trying to be persuasive you try to say things to get certain reactions so you can build your moves up and accomplish your goal.
ReplyDelete