Abstract
The author of the paper highlights that McQuail’s typology of communication, which is most commonly applied in Polish science, and quoted as a whole by Tomasz Goban-Klas, among others, refers to levels of communication discerned by means of a quantitative criterion. In the author’s opinion, however, a type cannot be solely by quantitative differences. Therefore, he suggests that two types of communicative relations be directly referred to: obedience and covenant, which can in his opinion, alread btered in the Old Testament. He identifies two fundamental types of communication on this basis: an advanced type, where the sender is simultaneously a recipient, and the recipient is a sender; and a reduced type where the sender is only a sender, and the recipient only a recipient, which is a result of a significant disproportion of power between the parties.
Highlights
The author of the paper highlights that McQuail’s typology of communication, which is most commonly applied in Polish science, and quoted as a whole by Tomasz Goban-Klas, among others, refers to levels of communication discerned by means of a quantitative criterion
He identifies two fundamental types of communication on this basis: an advanced type, where the sender is simultaneously a recipient, and the recipient is a sender; and a reduced type where the sender is only a sender, and the recipient only a recipient, which is a result of a significant disproportion of power between the parties
Summary
Problem typologii komunikowania nie nale¿y do zagadnieñ, ¿ywo interesuj1cych teoretyków komunikacji masowej. Najszersz[1] z obecnych w polskim obiegu naukowym klasyfikacj[1] wydaje siê zaproponowana przez McQuaila i przytaczana w ca3oœci m.in. Przez Tomasza Goban-Klasa[1] piramida, ukazuj1ca poziomy komunikacji, wyodrêbnione wedle kryterium iloœciowego: zale¿nie od tego, ile osób uczestniczy w procesie komunikacji – jedna, dwie, kilka czy du¿o – wyró¿nia siê komunikowanie intrapersonalne, czyli wewn1trzosobowe, interpersonalne, grupowe, instytucjonalne oraz komunikowanie masowe. Mo¿na wprawdzie domniemywaæ, ¿e pomiêdzy wyró¿nionymi poziomami komunikowania s1 równie¿ jakieœ ró¿nice istotne, ró¿nice jakoœciowe, nie one jednak stanowi[1] podstawê tej klasyfikacji. W polskojêzycznej literaturze kwestia typologii relacji komunikacyjnych nie jest 31czona z problemem definicji samej komunikacji[2]. Gwoli sprawiedliwoœci trzeba odnotowaæ, ¿e choæ ostatecznie autorzy decyduj[1] siê na „zachowanie”, niejako „po drodze” definiuj[1] równie¿ komunikacjê jako „interakcjê dokonuj1c1 siê przy u¿yciu symboli”, co, w przeciwieñstwie do „zachowania”, terminu prowadz1cego nieuchronnie do redukcjonizmu, otwiera pewne perspektywy teoretyczne
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
