ðB (’Ó)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "ðB (’Ó)"

ふじよしあんさい
5 years ago
Views:

1 The Development of the Concept of Communication as the Basis for an Academic Discipline: A Personal Review KURATA Keisuke The concept of communication as an academic discipline is not always clear and stable. This is due, in part, to the fact that when using the word communication, we may mean both the subject and object of study. Thus, we may use this term without making a distinction between its various interpretations. Since communication as an object of study is almost synonymous with human behavior in general, the scope of research is extremely wide and varied. As a result, approaches are many and tend to be interdisciplinary. The key questions are what are the subjects of study and how we should establish communication studies as an academic discipline. We may construct the conceptual framework by defining three factors: (1) Signs, a minimum unit of communication structure; (2) Interaction, what one does in communicating; and (3) Relationship, the implicit meaning of what is communicated. Using Gregory Bateson s theory for notions of interaction and relationship, together with a semiotic interpretation of the concept of sign, these three factors constitute the basis of the communication discipline. This system is not closed, but should be open to other fields, thus contributing to a meta-science such as Bateson s epistemological postulates. : 19

2 14 (2002 ) I (NCA) Spectra ( ) O. L. ( ) ( ) ( ) NCA 20

3 II 1960 M. 20 eclecticism ( / ) 1) 1962 VOA 30 21

4 14 (2002 ) 2) 2 3) L. ( ) SD C. ( ) I. N. C. P. ( ) J. ( ) I. ( ) scientize 22

5 70 4) 60 5) ( ) ( ) The medium is the message

6 14 (2002 ) ( ) 6) (lineality) ( ) (?) 7) ( ) The global village ( ) ( ) 24

7 III symbolic action 8) Act Agent Scene Agency Purpose Dramatistic pentad ( ) A B (sceneact ratio) (agent-act ratio) ratio / 25

8 14 (2002 ) 9) : ( ) ( ) ( ) (writing) (speech) 10) 26

9 ( ) J. R. ( ) 11) (1) (2) (3) 12) 27

10 14 (2002 ) IV ) ) (analogies) (the game analogy) (the drama analogy) (the text analogy) V. (communion) 28

11 15) ( ) ( ) ( ) 29

12 14 (2002 ) Technê Rhêtorikê (dialektikê) (epistêmê, science) (1354a) V (a subject of study) (an object of study) 16) (subjects) (objects) One cannot not communicate. 17) 30

13 (1) (2) (3) (1) signs (2) interaction (3) relationship relatedness 18) A B A B 19) A B B A ( ) 20) 31

14 14 (2002 ) A B A B (Bateson, 2000, p ) B. P. ( ) 21) A B A B A B A B complementary relationship A B symmetrical relationship schismogenesis 22) 32

15 VI 1980 R. 20 (connections) 23) ( ) 33

16 14 (2002 ) The pattern which connects 24) ( 528 ) ( ) rigor and imagination ( ) ( ) ( 24 ) 34

17 1) McAnany, E. G. (1988). Wilbur Schramm, : Roots of the past, seeds of the present. Journal of Communication, ) Schramm, W. (1963). Communication research in the United States. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The science of human communication: New directions and new findings in communication research. New York: Basic Books, p. 1. 3) ibid., p. 5. 4) Wilder-Mott, C. (1981). Rigor and imagination. In C. Wilder-Mott & J. H. Weakland (Eds.), Rigor and imagination. New York: Praeger, p ) McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. University of Toronto Press. ( 1986) McLuhan, M. (1965). Understanding media: The extension of man. New York: McGraw-Hill. ( 1987) Understanding media (p ) 6) : Lord, A. B. (1960). The singer of tales. Harvard University Press. Havelock, E. A. (1963). Preface to Plato. Harvard University Press. 7) : McLuhan (1965), pp ( ) 8) Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. University of Calfornia Press. (First Edition, 1945.) Burke, K. (1967). Dramatism. In L. Thayer (Ed.), Communication: Concepts and perspectives (pp ). Washington, D.C.: Spartan Books. Burke, K. (1968). Dramatism. In International Encyclopaedia of Social sciences (pp ). New York: Macmillan. 9) Burke, K. (1973). Language as symbolic action. University of California Press (pp ). Burke, (1967), in Communication: Concepts and perspectives (pp ). 10) McLuhan, (1965), p ) Burke, K. (edited by Gusfield, J. R.) (1989). On symbols and society. The University of Chicago Press, pp

18 14 (2002 ) Gusfield, J. R. (1989). The bridge over separated lands: Kenneth Burke s significance for the study of social action. In H. W. Simon & T. Melia (Eds.), The Legacy of Kenneth Burke. The University of Wisconsin, p ) Burke (1969), p ) Wider-Mott (1981), pp ) Geertz, C. (1980). Blurred genres: The refiguration of social thought. The American Scholar, ) 1984 Critic-at-Large (The Legacy of Kenneth Burke, vii) S. Hyman, S. E. (1955). The armed vision. New York: Vintage Books, p ( ) 16) Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of criticism: Four essays. Princeton University Press, p. 11. ( ) 17) Watzlawick, P. (et al.) (1968). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ( 1998 ) 18) Ruesch, J. & Bateson, G. (1951). Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton, p. 21, ) Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. The University of Chicago Press, p (First Edition, 1972; Ballantine Edition, p. 402.) ( ) 20) ibid. 21) Keeney, B. P. (1983). Aesthetics of change. New York: The Guilford Press, pp ) Bateson, G. (1980). Mind and nature. Bantam Books, pp ( ) 23) Bateson, G., ed. by R. E. Donaldson (1991). A sacred unity: Further steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Harper Collins, ix. 24) Bateson, G. (1980), p. 11. ( 13 ) 36

(’Ó)”R

(’Ó)”R PAC Facework from the Perspectives of Interactions between Members: A Case Study of a Japanese Language Classroom by PAC analysis YOKOMIZO Tamaki The purpose of this study is to investigate how facework