Essay and referencing

The three parley theories I collect applied to contri neverthelesse the most insight into judgement the dynamics of the observed communion between 2 people be the infection dumbfound (Shannon & weaver finch 1949), Fullers bionomic model (Fouler 2004), and an expanded model of colloquy (Munson 2012). In this essay I pay off utilize a colloquy I had listened to which was between my colleague (from here on will be named George) and his coadjutor (from here on will be named congeal). Problems t get into arose during the conversation will be explained as well as how George and start overcame them.From there the essay will match and contrast the three communicating theories and decide which of these best simplify the conversation. Complexities of the conversation I was asked by George to tell apart him d give birth to the pub to meet up with dog for a couple of games of pool, whilst chatting over a cool beer. George is nearly completely illiterate cod to him go for th school at the age of 12, moving to the northerly territory and working on a cattle farm up until the age of 19, where he because moved back to Lis somewhat.Mark is completely deaf and has future(a) to no ability to lip read (this I had not known until I met him). Both George and Mark do not know sign sound communication of any kind. George and has learnt to use abbreviations in text cognitive contents, which is near the extent of his indite language capabilities. Problems that arose George had been avoiding this meeting because he finds the conversations real difficult, and this usually leads to heated discussions, especially when the conversations center on Marks granddaughter (which George has al federal agencys had affectionate feelings for but neer acted upon).Both George and Mark have their own perceptions on what is issue on in her life, which has, and still causes either Mark or George to have expectations from the other, and creates selective perceptions (With es 2009). This introduces psychological interference and detracts from the meanings of some of the centres in the conversation. A one way lack of tone and inflection in the voice to communicate feelings and emotions much clearly eject provide misunderstanding in the meaning of some messages. wording hindrance from non-literate to literate people poses the greatest barrier to messages both to and from each other.Feedback is restricted to kinesics emblems, regulators, and illustrators (De Vito 2001). George aged 2 and Mark aged 64 both have different educational backgrounds in which written communication differs. Text messaging or testing (Shaw et al. 2007) whoremonger be a major source of misinterpretation, though Mark has been exploitation his mobile phone for some time now. This leads to the conclusion that this increases the communication abilities of how Mark can interact with George, though there is still the written language barrier between them (Kumara et al. 2011).Ho w George and Mark curb these problems The over emphasis of kinesics emblems, regulators, and illustrators (De Vito 2001) had o be utilize as feedback due to the lack of language macrocosm used by George. Facial expressions become very meaning(a) for Mark and George to try to convey their own, and get the picture each others emotions, from understanding to frustration. Increased eye fulfill which would make most people more dying(p) and defensive (De Vito 2001) become a highly prized imaging for feedback as well it had helped regulate the control of the conversation.Shannon and Weavers transmission model (Shannon & Weaver 1949) seems to be the simplest model, and therefore possibly the est. for most situations however, it lacks the detail in which the coordination compoundities of this particular conversation pose, and that need to be addressed, in particular the noise sources. Figure 1 Transactional model (Source Shannon & Weaver 1949) Fullers ecological model is an elabo ration of (Alleles 1948) model of Who, says what, in which channel, to whom, with what force play (Fouler 2004) though it takes into account of the use of different languages using modern mediums.This model is an excellent model but focuses on more of the use of the language and the media it is conveyed in and to so much on person to person communications. Figure 2 An Ecological Model of the parley (Source Fouler 2004) Unions expanded model of communication is more complex than Fullers as well as Shannon and Weavers models, though it is more appropriate to this conversation had between George and Mark due to the fact it shows that in order for the communication to recover the sender must pre-edit and whence encode the message pass the message onto the receiver where he decodes and edits the message.Munson excessively takes into account the use of mechanical, behavioral and semantic actors of encoding, and understands that if the message is to be unders tood the receiver must b e able to decode the message. This is particularly relevant, and highly important to this conversation between George and Mark due to the factors mentioned originally. consideration Figure 3 An expanded model of communication (Source Munson 2012) Conclusion I have found Shannon and Weavers transactional model too simple and cannot evaluate the complexities of this situation, and that Fullers model too broad and not able to focus on the problems that need to be addressed.Therefore, I believe hat Unions expanded model of communication is the most decorous to use out of the three models that were written active because Unions model has shown how a message from George is first pre-edited (thoughts), then encoded (written on paper), passed on through noise (physical, psychological as well as expectations and selective perception), decoded by the receiver (reading Georges writing) and then finally edited to Marks own meaning and interpretation.This explains how there was some heated d iscussions in the past, and will continue to be so until they are able to actively listen to each other before they place their own selective perceptions and expectations on their conversation.