CHAPTER 1
Human Communication Processes
Philip Barker
Introduction
The primary purpose of this initial 'foundation' chapter is to 'set the scene' for the material that is to be presented by the other authors in the subsequent chapters of this book. This initial scene-setting activity is undertaken in the four sections that follow this introduction. These make up the main body of this chapter. Each of these sections provides a different, but important, perspective on 'iconic communication'. Additional foundation material is also presented in the other two chapters which, together with this one, make up the first part of this book, which follows immediately after these opening remarks. The second section of this chapter is used to describe a number of simple but powerful 'foundation' models. Together these provide much of the context and framework for the subsequent discussions of iconic communication that are presented in this book. These models have been derived by applying (to human activity systems) some of the graphical techniques that are often used to teach general systems theory and its applications. In using these representational techniques, particular emphasis has been given to the various communication processes in which people become involved.
In order to understand why people communicate with each other, another simple model is needed. Quite naturally, any attempt to explain human communication processes cannot be based on an understanding of technology alone. Consideration must be given to the human participants that are involved. For this reason, the third section of this chapter attempts to explain human communication in terms of two important psychological perspectives. First, the motivational factors that underlie communication processes and, second, the cognitive processes that we believe form the underlying basis for conversational activity. The main topic discussed in this section is the role of mental models – and how they can be used as a basis for explaining human communication processes.
In the opening part of their book, Sassoon and Gaur (1997) suggest that 'the present connects the past with the future – knowing about the past provides a basis from which we can plan'. Because of the importance of earlier work on iconic communication techniques, the fourth section of this chapter reflects briefly on past activities that are relevant to the development of icons and iconic languages. Particular emphasis is given to the growing importance of icons within the graphical user interfaces that are now used in many software packages. Some consideration is also given to the underlying metaphors that are often embedded within these interfaces.
For most people, the future will be far more important than the past. Therefore, following on from the short 'historical perspective', the fifth part of this introductory chapter is given to speculation. Here, an attempt is made to predict some of the potential application areas for (and developments in) iconic communication that we might see in the immediate, short-term future – the next 10 to 20 years. These speculations are based both on our own research activities (see, for example, the descriptions that are given at our World Wide Web site – the address for which is http://www.isrg.co.uk) and on the developments that are taking place in other relevant areas of communication and information technologies.
Finally, in the conclusion to this chapter, an attempt is made to summarise and bring together the important concepts that have been discussed – with a view to providing an appropriate foundation and framework for the other contributions to this book.
Foundation Models
In order to understand the significance and importance of iconic communication within modern-day settings, two important models need to be introduced. The first of these attempts to describe (in a graphical way) the various relationships that exist between people and the technologies that they use to perform the various tasks that they need to undertake in order to realise the goals that they wish to achieve. This model is illustrated schematically in Figure 1.
The model presented in figure 1 places 'people' at the central focus of all the implicit and explicit relationships that exist between the different components of the diagram. Closely 'bonded' to the people component of Figure 1 are the 'interfaces' that people use when they interact with each other and with technology.
Human activity is one of the most fundamental aspects of many important natural and quasi-natural systems. As was stated above, purposeful human activity normally involves the execution of tasks. These can be executed in either an aided or an un-aided way (Banerji, 1995; Beacham, 1998). Aided execution of a task involves the use of some form of technology to facilitate the fulfilment of that task. As is suggested in figure 1, one of our basic premises is that all human interaction must be mediated by suitably designed 'interfaces'. These may be based on the use of hardware and/or software resources, they may involve people and they may be of a procedural or a linguistic nature. These interfaces facilitate any control and communication activities that are necessary for the successful execution of a task – in both aided and unaided contexts. These types of communication and control activity are probably most obvious in situations where some form of technology (such as a computer) is used to facilitate task execution.
The second model that we need to introduce is one which reflects the importance of technology as a framework for providing support for human communication processes. This model is illustrated in a diagrammatic way in Figure 2.
In this diagram there are four different types of communication represented. The directed arc on the left-hand side of the diagram represents human–human communication (HHC). This could involve either 'self-communication' (within the context of an individual) or 'group communication' when it involves two or more communicating partners. The two outermost arcs joining the 'people' and 'technology' nodes of the graph represent various forms of technology-mediated communication (TMC) as might take place through the use of telephones, facsimile machines, electronic mail or video-conferencing equipment. The inner arcs that join together the two nodes represent human–machine (HMC) and machine–human communication (MHC). Examples of these types of communication are: switching on a radio and pressing the buttons on a numeric keypad to select a particular broadcast frequency (HMC) and the various sound effects that a mobile phone makes in order to alert its user to an incoming call or a 'battery low' condition (MHC).
Of course, for communication to take place some form of linguistic framework is necessary. This could be based on simple tactile interaction or the use of spoken utterances. Alternatively, it could be based upon some sort of visual activity such as gestures, head or eye movement. The communication that takes place could also be multimodal – that is, involving the simultaneous or sequential use of two or more communication channels. In all cases, there is usually some form of underlying syntax and semantic rules that control how communicative events are made, controlled and interpreted.
A communication event can be thought of as the passage of a message from one person to another. Naturally, if the communication process that is involved is to be meaningful to its participants, it must embed three basic principles. First, messages must be coded within a suitable linguistic framework with which each participant is familiar. Second, the exchange of messages must be organised and structured according to an agreed protocol. Third, the exchange of information should take place in a purposeful way and be directed at the achievement of some common goal.
The importance of control flow in a dialogue process is illustrated graphically in Figure 3. This shows how two people (A and B) participate in a communication process.
While A is speaking, B listens to what is being said by A. At an appropriate point in the conversation (usually indicated by an embedded signal from A– or an interruption by B), B takes on the role of speaker while A takes a turn at listening. This 'swapping' of roles takes place throughout the dialogue process until the conversation ends.
Of course, as the number of people involved in a conversation increases, so the importance of the control model increases – if the onset of chaos is to be avoided. Depending upon the context in which a conversation takes place, the number of people involved and the modalities that are used, a wide range of control protocols are available in order to ensure the successful exchange of messages between dialogue participants.
The Role Of Mental Models
People communicate with each other in a variety of ways for a multitude of reasons and purposes. They employ numerous linguistic conventions and use many different dialogue protocols. Much of this communication activity is driven by a number of basic, underlying motivational forces which are closely related to the goal-seeking activity that underlies human behaviour. A good example of the effects of this motivational drive are the conversational processes that arise as a result of our desire (or need) to find out more about 'things' that are of interest to us. This type of 'question-based' communication is motivated by our inherent inquisitiveness about the many objects and entities that exist in the environments of which we form a part. The questions that we ask each other in a conversation may be quite explicit or they may be disguised in various ways in order to hide our underlying curiosity.
Of course, there are several other powerful motivational factors that are often responsible for many of our communication activities. Included amongst these are: the need to express emotion or pain; the desire to participate in an argument or a debate; and the need to give instructions to someone. Other examples of motivationally driven communication include: the processes of 'showing' and 'telling' a person something; and exercising control over the various situations in which we become involved.
As was suggested in the previous section, communication involves the generation and/or receipt of messages and/or signals by a group of people who are involved in a conversation with each other. The exchange of messages usually takes place using one or more suitably configured, shared communication channels.
As people engage in conversation with each other (be this in a face-to-face mode or using some form of technology), it is important to consider the effects that received messages have on the cognitive activity of their recipients. A message can be regarded as a stimulus that causes some form of 'mental' processing to take place. The outcome of this processing activity will normally result in some form of action being taken – usually, a response of some kind will be made. That is, the recipient of a message will generate a new message that will be sent back to the relevant dialogue partner(s). In most cases, there will be some form of relationship between the messages that a person receives and the messages which that person responds with – although this need not necessarily be so. The response that a person makes to a particular message will invariably depend upon the knowledge that the respondent has relating to the topic of discourse.
Bearing in mind what has been said above, a useful way of explaining the 'stimulus-response' activity involved in a dialogue or conversational process can be derived by invoking the concept of mental models (Rogers, Rutherford and Bibby, 1992; Seel, 1995; Barker, van Schaik and Hudson, 1998). Essentially, mental models are cognitive structures that encode much of the knowledge that we acquire as a result of the various experiences to which we are exposed.
It is our thesis that all the learning activities in which we engage ourselves lead to the creation, augmentation and/or refinement of mental models (Barker, van Schaik and Hudson, 1998). Once we have acquired these models we use them to solve problems. These mental models also influence the ways in which we behave within the different situations in which we find ourselves. The importance of mental models with respect to dialogue and conversation processes is depicted in Figure 4.
Within Figure 4, there are three basic roles that mental models perform. First, they control conventional dialogue processes (both with self and others). Second, they facilitate the use of technology-mediated communication (telephone, computer, fax and so on). Third, they stimulate and guide teaching/learning processes (both individual and group-based) towards the successful acquisition of skill and knowledge within the bounds set by natural and/or augmented capabilities.
In order for two (or more) people to talk about a topic in a purposeful way, they must have relevant mental models that relate to the topic of conversation. The 'richness' of the mental models that a person has about a particular topic determines the level of discussion in which he/she can become involved. Examples of some of these different levels of discussion can be seen in the types of conversation that take place between: two experts in a given domain, an expert in that domain and a novice, and two novices to the area. We believe that the transition from novice to expert in a given domain is accompanied both by the acquisition of greater skill levels and by the development of richer and richer mental models that are relevant to that domain. As this transition takes place, so the depth of conversation that can be achieved using these models increases correspondingly.
The Evolution Of Iconic Communication
In the previous parts of this chapter, much of what was said referred to conventional human communication as might take place through the exchange of spoken utterances. Of course, another important possibility is that the communication processes depicted in Figure 2 could involve various forms of 'written' expression. These might be based on the use of words, phrases, diagrams and/or sketches. Naturally, it is this type of framework wherein icons are normally used. Although they are important, this book does not consider the use of auditory icons (or earcons).
Bearing in mind the comments that have been made above, as far as this book is concerned, we regard an icon as being a graphical representation of some object or process. The object that is represented could have a concrete existence (such as a traffic signal or an aeroplane) or it could be abstract in nature – such as a thought, a concept or an idea. The use of icons (in conjunction with text or sound augmentation) for communicative purposes is therefore the basic domain with which this book is concerned. Some authors use the term 'iconography' to refer to the study and use of icons. For convenience, in the remainder of this book the terms 'iconic communication' and 'iconography' are used synonymously.
Extensive research into the origin, historical development and evolution of icons as a vehicle for communication has been undertaken both by Sassoon and Gaur (1997) and by Honeywill (1999). As well as their historical perspectives, each of their books also contains a discussion of some of the more contemporary uses of icons – both within conventional computer applications (Sassoon and Gaur) and in systems that are intended for use on the World Wide Web (Honeywill). Another useful treatise on current applications of icons in computer systems can be found in The Icon Book by William Horton (1994).
In their book, Rosemary Sassoon and Albertine Gaur discuss at some length the early origins of iconography. They refer to some of the primitive uses of icons (for formulating and recording thoughts and ideas) that date back to as long ago as 35,000 BC. These authors then trace both the functional evolution of icons and their application within areas such as calligraphy, religion and art.
In his book, Paul Honeywill also makes numerous references to the historical evolution of icons. However, his primary interest seems to be their use within early Mayan communities. His main purposes in introducing the Mayan hieroglyphs within his book is to show the 'ancestry' of icons and to illustrate, from a designer's perspective, how these early icons (along with other aspects of Mayan culture) can be used as an influence on modern design activities. He describes, for example, how Mayan hieroglyphs can be used to influence the development of character fonts and logos for use on printed stationery.
