NON-DELIVERY of: summary: terms for communication

[Lotus -dot- M -dot- a -dot- i -dot- l -dot- Exchange -at- TESSPO-VA -dot- SMTRW -dot- LANGATE -dot- SPRINT -dot- COM]

--46upcaPmYgWLj4E6fniJA5pPu7qqRxxg
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


                           Delivery Failure Report

                               Your document:
                       summary: terms for communication
                         could not be delivered to:
                   Ronni Perry -at- CRWMS at DL-Notes -at- DL_CCMAIL
                                  because:
                   MailEx0010: cc:Mail user name too long.
                                Routing path:
                           DLLN2,DLLN2,DLLN2,DLLN2


                          ________________________




--46upcaPmYgWLj4E6fniJA5pPu7qqRxxg
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

RFC-822-Headers:
Comments: To: TECHWR-L -at- vm1 -dot- ucc -dot- okstate -dot- edu

--46upcaPmYgWLj4E6fniJA5pPu7qqRxxg
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Two responses to last week's query on general communication terms
for writer/speaker and reader/hearer concepts that can extend to
the various modes of communication (video, film, online, speech,
etc.).

Both described communication terms from a different angle.


>From: Nancy Hayes <nancyh -at- pmafire -dot- inel -dot- gov>
>Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 14:27:43 -0600
>Subject: Re: terms for communication

>In article <2fe134291b55002 -at- gold -dot- tc -dot- umn -dot- edu> you write:

>>Text can then be described as written or spoken, read or heard.
>>I would appreciate suggestions for general terms regarding
>>writer/speaker and reader/hearer concepts.

>My kneejerk reaction:

>writer/speaker:                "presenter" "author" "communicator"
>reader/hearer:         "audience" "user"

>Nancy Hayes (nancyh -at- pmafire -dot- inel -dot- gov)


>From: James Mathewson <math0038 -at- gold -dot- tc -dot- umn -dot- edu>
>Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 16:12:24 -0500 (CDT)
>Subject: Re: terms for communication

>Ronald
>I'm not sure this is what you're asking for, but...

>In communication research, we usually give speakers/hearers
>(interlocutors) common names like 'Fred' and 'Wilma' and then we tell a
>story about the subjects, using their given names.  Other strategies
>(like using 'Subject A', 'Subject B' or 'the speaker', 'the hearer')
>work less well with most audiences.


Maybe 'communicator' and 'audience' are the most general terms
for denoting speaker and hearer analogues. The term 'communicator'
seems like a good general term here, and 'audience' will sometimes
make a good one too. Yet the latter term is often used for other
concepts related to the text and the communicator. The term
'interlocutor' however, may be useful in exploring the
interrelations among 'speaker' and 'hearer' analogues.

What prompted this thread was a question on whether such terms
may be used free of any contextual implications. Terms such as
'speaker' and 'hearer' and their counterparts often are used in
a general sense, yet in using these terms so, it seems that some
explanation is required at times.

Maybe this is just the current state of the language. Perhaps there
are no superlaterally general terms for these concepts. This is
only a brief search however, and so I may have missed some
superlateral terms for these concepts.

Any other ideas on general terms for communication may be posted
to the list or me directly.

Until later,

Ron

Ronald L. Stone  :  ston0030 -at- gold -dot- tc -dot- umn -dot- edu  :  (612) 644-9706
  listowner-administration  :  (subscriptions, filelist, general)
     RADIO-L  :  discussion of Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB)


--46upcaPmYgWLj4E6fniJA5pPu7qqRxxg--