Compendium of theory of the communication

1. The history and the main theories of the communication

 1.1. The communication  

Karl Erik Rosengren in “Introduction under consideration of the communication” illustrates us the etimologia of the term to communicate:

… an observable interactive exchange between two or more participants, equipped than mutual intenzionalità and of a sure level of knowledge, in a position to making to second share a determined one meant on the base of symbolic and conventional systems of significazione and signalling the reference culture. (Anolli, 2002, p.26)

Luigi Anolli in “Psycology of the communication” defines the communication like:

For Anolli it always must make attention to distinguish the communication, from the behavior, the information and the interaction.

In fact the behavior in existence corresponds to one whichever put motoria action from an individual, for varied reasons also of reflected nature, and percepibile from an other.

And while every communication presupposes a behavior, it is not true the inverse one.

For this Anolli it emphasizes like Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson, overlapping the concepts of communication and behavior have inficiato the possibility of understanding of the specificity of the communication.

On the other hand, the information is a process of acquisition of acquaintances, inferred independently from who elaborates to them, based on its ability, respect a sure object or subject.

The interaction is instead that contact, also involuntary, between individuals, that it goes to modify the preesistente situation of the things between they.

The interaction is not necessarily intentional and therefore communication does not imply one necessarily.

The interaction finds in middle position between the communication and the behavior.

The communication is characterized, for Anolli, from two main dimensions:

• the proposizionale function, in how much the acquaintances are organized and transmitted under shape of proposizioni and therefore she is rerun to the language for being able concettualizzare, to mean and to communicate just the thought;
• the relational function, in how much the communication generates and renews the relations generating that dialogica intersoggettività that concurs to negotiate means to you and to share scopes.

… the communication is not a phenomenon self-sufficient person, but it represents a development of the interactions not still comunicative that have place in the perception… The PERCEPTION constitutes, in this hypothesis, the foundation of the communication. The communication, in how much natural phenomenon, would not be other that to semiotico general and the transposition level most ancient (evolutionarily) not semiotica ability to perceive and to move themselves in the space; with the difference that, in the communication, the physical space becomes a mental space. (Cimatti, 1999, p.86)

We can also say with Consonni (1971) that the communication implies a participation idea, a plan in which the interlocutors have the same weight and the adressees can act also like issuing.

It is moreover from remembering that the text can contrapporsi to its meaning manifestation and the comunicative traces of intenzionalità that are present.

Gianfranco Bettetini in “Semiotica of the communication of enterprise” (1993) gives a directory to us of the individualistic elements to varied level in the communication, to beyond the single ones ambles to you disciplinary:

• open or bidirectional characterization (sometimes pluridirezionale) of the exchange;
• possibility of reversal of the roles between issuing and adressee;
• valorization of the partecipativa activity of the adressee, also in the cases in which it covers the simple role of receiver;
• attention to the effects of the comunicativa action;
• tendential availability to consider the relationship of communication like a joint interaction and, therefore, as a conversation shape at least upgrades them.
  (Bettetini, 1993, p.13)

The elements that mainly contraddistinguono the communication from a simply informative activity are: the parity of role between the interlocutors and the participation to the exchange.

That that would have to be put in existence is of fact one conversation.

It has been assisted but in the time to the phenomenon of the appiattimento of the communication on the information.

As Bettetini (1993 says):

It has been rinunciato to hold account of the compartecipativo contact between the interlocutors, of the fact that every comunicativo exchange implies and is involved their “personality” (characterizes them or collective), it puts them in game subjective in the crossing that their relationship goes constructing, to beyond the data and of the objective scambiabili contents. (Bettetini, 1993, p. 14).

Bettetini finds also that often it is stretched to confuse the ends of the communication with requests of single persuasiva nature and, consequently, to enroll its articulations in the modalities of the rhetorical (Bettetini, 1993, p.15).

In the message functional constructed for Bettetini (1993) there will be space for three aspects:

• the ethos, meant as credibility of who speaks;
• the pathos, meant like stimulus of the passions;
• the logos, meant like ordering of the reasons.

 1.2. The origins of the reflection on the communication 

The reflection on the communication has ancient origins.

In the ancient world one watched to the existing tight relationship between the thought and the language.

More problematic it turned out to be the relationship with the things for the theory of the signs of the stoici.

Platone, in the dialog “Cratilo” extension the points of view of Cratilo, Ermogene and Socrate care the sussistente tie between sign and truth.

For Cratilo the names express the things authentically picking some the universal giustezza.

For Ermogene the name is inherent to the thing only for custom and the use protratto in calling the things in a sure way.

At last for the megaphone of Platone (Socrate) the extreme naturalismo is not sostenibile, to know the names of the things does not concur the access with the truth and it must be prescinded from the language in order to rise to the authentic contemplation of the ideas.

Aristotle in the “De interpretatione” distinguishes between entity acoustics, things and concepts (the things that are in the spirit).

According to Stefano Gensini, there is in Aristotle one movement of the attention from the relationship between sound and truth to the relationship between the sound of the voice and a psychical content (Gensini, 1999, p.34).

The issue of the arbitrariness of the sign will become one centers them semiologica issue.

Aristotle has studied also the rhetorical, art of the persuasion, that he has the aim pragmatically to move the passions of the adressee through the use of sillogismi.

To know to communicate and to persuade has been always fundamental for the holders of the power.

Sant'Agostino, in the “De christiana doctrina”, reflects on what is the signs and the words (that they are signs in tight sense since they only serve to mean, but also “things” because they need of a material support).

For Augustin the sign is born from the association of an sensitive object with meaning.

As it supports Stefano Gensini in its “Handbook of the communication”, in Augustin the perception of the triadica relation of the sign is already present for which “something it is for qualcos'altro for someone in sure circumstances” (Gensini, 1999, p.29).

Medieval disputes have been had on the nominalismo, than it was interrogated on the nature of the universal ones.

In the 1500's in France and Germany studies already bloomed on the communication to historical character as a result of the appearance of first newspapers prints to you.

In modernity for communication the mass media often agrees.

For along time the communication it has been tied to the metaphor spaces them and territorial.

The studies on the communication in the early 1900s have often made reference to one perspective humanistic theoretical and more than empiricist.

With the second world war the perspective of social sciences and the behavior was only strengthened.

 1.3. The various approaches under consideration of the communication 

 1.3.1. The approach mathematician-cibernetico 

In the 1900's it has been begun to speak about transmission of information.

In the mathematical approach the information like difference between two or more elements or data is considered.

The theory of the information, ingegneristico character, has been elaborated from Claude Shannon (1949) and Warren Weaver (1958) to the end of years Forty and has mainly analyzed to the shipment and the transport of the information.

It marks them (message) passes from issuing (a sender), through an emitter, to an adressee (receiving), through a receiver, along a physical channel (material support).

The message (compound of signs) must be codified (constructed and arranged sure rules second, a code) from who emits it and decoded from who it receives it.

The context more plays a role or little important to second of the type of used code.

Being us of the noise along the channel it is necessary that it marks them possegga a sure intensity that concurs it to catch up the destination, so that the information effectively turns out transmitted.

The information is not therefore that that has been communicated, but that that has good probability to catch up the destination, exceeds the impediments to you long the channel.

The communication is such only where is a issuing passage of information between and receiving and one answer.

For Shannon it is important that there is a feedback, marks them of return, from receiving to the issuing one, than servants to verify that the message has arrived to destination.

The feedback concurs with the issuing one to verify the intenzionalità of receiving to recepire the message, to the ends to preview the continuation that it will be able to have the communication.

In this model they are privileges the machine and the mass media to you.

In case the model given inside of human the comunicativo process is considered, to the cibernetico level it already goes put in evidence that the formula used from Winner and Shannon is valid single if issuing and receiving decides of a common repertorio of symbols, experiences, atmosphere and culture.

The found main defect from this concettualizzazione is that one not to give account of the interpretation process, and therefore of the subjective and psychological problems of the individuals that communicate.

The human communication is in fact irreducible to a linear process, is rather an interactive process and more plans.

As they support Pettigiani and Sica in “interumana communication” (1993):

It can be asserted that the cibernetico outline renders reason not as well as of the processes communicated to you, how much of those informed to you, from the moment that draft essentially of the information to its two levels and that is like operation - the action to inform - and like contained - that that informs -. (Pettigiani and Sica, 1993, p.24)

 1.3.2. The semiotico approach 

The semiotica is taken care of signs: phenomena that they mean qualcos'altro regarding the same phenomenon.

In the semiotico approach the significazione process is the ability to generate means to you and implies the ability to a message of being equipped of sense for communicating.

In the diagram of the significazione of Ogden and Richards the linguistico term is puttinges in relation a symbol (), referring (the communicated object) and the reference (the concept of the object).

The symbol does not have relationship directed with the referring one, but only with the reference, therefore it is be a matter of a cultural product.

The Genevan linguista Ferdinand De Saussure, with its “Course of general linguistica” (1916) has begun to start the speech on the operation of the language, approval in a sincronica optical.

De Saussure considers langue (language) the code or system that comprises the signs and their rules of logon and considers words (word) the use that is made individually of the code.

According to Gensini the level of the language or arranges is constituted from “classification procedures (is of the phonetic executions, is of the significazioni) which form the linguistico patrimony shared from one community and deposited in the brain of speaking”.

In the structural perspective (of de Saussure), the sign is the meaning union of (an acoustic image) and of meant (a mental image).

The semiotica function of the sign is fruit of a meaning relation between and the meant one, and it is placed therefore beyond the physical truth.

The sign is constituted from an equivalence between contained expression and and is arbitrary and conventional, in culturally denoted how much.

It is oppositivo, in how much does not correspond to no other sign of the system of reference communication.

The sign as equivalence implies the notion of code or structure.

For the pragmatista philosopher North American Charles Sanders Peirce the sign is something that is for something of other for someone, under some respect.

It is a substitute meaning of something, that not necessarily he must exist.

Not there is relationship with the things.

Of the thing the sign represents only a sure point of view, with determines to you fine prati to us.

The acquaintance is abduction, or hypothetical inference.

Process of semiosi has start from perception, but object immediate, that it is the object like the sign if represents it, is distinguished from the dynamic, real object, than is not immediately present.

The meant one of a sign is translate by means of interpreting, that it is the sign that interprets the sign.

Therefore a translation has place, that it is exactly an interpretation process.

As it is continued in the process it discovers always something in more.

The significazione process happens to psychical level.

Meaning and meant they constitute the two faces of the same truth of the sign.

Peirce characterizes three types of signs:

• the icone, when there is a sure comunanza of meaning quality between and have been meant (as an example marks them street are icone),
• the indices, are had when there is contiguità and logon between the sign and the facts (the sign here is directly caused from that it means, as an example marks them of smoke indurrà to us to escape from a fire)
• the symbols, are had when the logon with the facts is arbitrary or conventional (is the fruit of a more or less explicit agreement, than one mental association).

Only the symbols constitute of the segniche relations to full load tito it, that is are signs generate them.

In any case for Peirce a determined concrete sign can be is index that symbol: the cited classes disgiunte of necessity.

The sign as inference sends back to one context notion.

The acquaintance is abduction, that is consists in the assumption of a hypothesis.

The inference is an indication from which drawing one consequence.

The abduction differs is from the deduction (that it proceeds from the rule to the particular cases) is from the induction (than inversely proceeds from the many particular cases to the rule).

The previous thought sends back to the successive one in an always opened interpretativo process.

It is attempted to fix a rule, that it can subsequently be confirmed from the data or refutation, giving place to one new hypothesis.

Draft after all of a search of points of reference in order to give place to the communication.

In the within of the semiotici studies we can lead back the linguista and Russian semiologo Roman Jacobson and the circle of the communication, based on the following elements: sender, adressee, context, message, channel, code.

For Jacobson to every element of the language function corresponds one.

Like precise Eleonora Fiorani in “Grammar of the communication”, referring to the observations of Jacobson, in a text they will emerge of time in time like main the expressive, conativa function, referenziale, metalinguistica and poetica (or esthetic hard work):

• The function expressive, or affective, regards the ability to a sender to manifest if same, to communicate its affectivity, the own states of mind, feelings and emotions, for that it says and as says it.
• The conativa function tries to influence the adressee, imponendogli of the orders for indurlo to a way to feel or to make, or to assume determined behaviors or to complete some gesture or action
• The function hard work verification the functionality of the channel, but maintains also the contact and regards all as an example the convenience and passage conversations, that they have only the scope to maintain the thread of the communication open, or those conversations of pure affective presence that elapse as an example between the sweethearts.
• The referenziale function addresses to the context of the message and it allows to report us us to the truth, to speak about the world and to put to us in relationship with it.
• The metalinguistica function regards the language directly, gives on it information and allows to speak about the same language, in how much defines the code.
• The poetica function is connected to the message properly and particularly in the formal structure, in its inner organization.
  (Fiorani, 1998, pp. 17-18)

While Jacobson underrates the role of receiving in the comunicativo within, Greimas (pertaining to the tradition of the generative semiotica) revalues it.

It proposes in fact an idea of communication like exchange in anthropological sense.

For he the subjects of the communication are both competent and assume the assigning name of and adressee.

Beyond the production process and poietico of the work the estesico process is taken in consideration also, that it regards the perception that of the work has the fruitore.

For Eleonora Fiorani:

In the “generative semiotica” the communication involves is the semantic, regarding competence the contents of the knowledge that come exchange to you, is the modale competence, turns to the manipulation and the persuasion. The language servants not to only communicate, but above all to transform, to manipulate, through the formal organization of the speech. The communication comes understanding like interactive process between subjects that exchange valuables from they same puttinges in circulation. A value… represents one considered condition desirable, a objective to catch up, one favorable quality and worthy deduction of investment, a shared aim. The communication is an action that transforms the attanti (or personages) of the intersoggettivo relationship, dumb the being of the subjects in game, is action of the man on the things, but also contractual action and controversy of a man on an other man… (Fiorani, 1998, p. 168)

 1.3.3. The ermeneutico approach 

The ermeneutica is the communication assumed like interpretation.

Draft of meaning intentional that derives from one preunderstanding.

Inside of the ermeneutico circle the autoreferenzialità is used, for which in order understanding it must have already comprised.

The detail is comprised leaving from the entire one, constituted from an action of intuitiva understanding.

Supporters of this type of debate have been Schleiermacher, Heidegger and Gadamer.

 1.3.4. The pragmatic approach 

The pragmatic one is taken care of the relationships that elapse between a text and its context of reference.

With the pragmatic approach the implicit processes of the communication are taken in consideration, that they serve to infer from the context that that the text says.

The communication is seen like a process.

For Austin to say something is to make something.

Austin distinguishes the actions in:

• locutori, that is actions to say something (the contents and their shapes),
• illocutori, that is actions in saying something (the action that completes who communicates),
• perlocutori, that is actions with saying something (the concrete outcome of the action-communication on the interlocutor).

Austin distinguishes between linguistici actions directed, in which the force attributed to the enunciated one she comes made to derive from literal meant its, and indirect linguistici actions, in which the illocutoria force drift from the not oral modality of communication.

Searle in the test “That what is a linguistico action” (1973) support that:

The unit of the linguistica communication is not, like has been generally supposed, the symbol, the word, the phrase or also the enunciated one of the symbol, the word or the phrase, but the production of the enunciated one in the execution of the linguistico action is rather that constitutes the fundamental unit of the linguistica communication. More just, the production of the enunciated one of the phrase under sure conditions constitutes the illocutivo action and the illocutivo action is the minimal unit of the linguistica communication. To execute of the illocutivi actions means to engage itself in a shape of behavior governed from rules. (Searle, 1973, p.90)

For Searle (1973) the rules can be distinguished in:

• constituent rules, that constitute and regulate an activity the whose existence are logically employee from those rules,
• normative rules, that they regulate a already existing activity, whose existence is logically independent from the existence of those rules.

Searle assumes that “the semantic one can be considered like a series of systems of constituent rules and that the illocutivi actions are actions second execute this with of constituent rules” (Searle, 1973, p.93).

The allocutivo action from the proposizionale content of a allocutivo action can be distinguished.

Searle emphasizes in fact that the phrase possesses two parts: the indicating element the proposizione and the pointer of function.

“The function pointer extension as the proposizione must be understanding, or, in order to say it in an other way, which allocutiva force must be attributed to the enunciated one, that is which allocutivo action speaking executes in producing the phrase” (Searle, 1973, p.95).

The signs produced in the execution of a linguistico action have meaning.

A person means to mean something with these sounds and signs.

For Searle:

In the execution of a allocutivo action speaking means to produce a sure effect making to recognize to the listener its intention to produce such effect and moreover, if he is using the words literally, it means that such acknowledgment happens in virtue of the fact that the rules for the use of the expression from formulated he associate the expression to the production of such effect. (Searle, 1973, p.98)

For Bostrom (comportamentista approach) the illocutiva force recalls the intensity concept: “the main method with which the language it influences the change of attitude (Bostrom, 1990), than also inerisce to the perlocutivo level.

Always for Bostrom, the style (organizational modality of the expressive member of a text) is connected to the persuasiva force of the message and it is placed in the within of the functionality of the message and therefore of the perlocutorio level of the communication (not semiotico).

The style, that it puts in evidence the personality of the transmitter, goes according to analyzed also receiving, of its perceptive dimensions, its emotionality and its way to approach itself the contents.

The stilistica choice must be founded, therefore, on a job of “location” of the public with which it agrees to enter in relation (Bettetini, 1993, p.118).

 1.3.5. The semio-pragmatic approach 

Grice, in the semio-pragmatic perspective, trace a distinction in the natural and conventional meant communication between, where this last one is given from wanting to say something from part of speaking to qualcun other.

To the informative intenzionalità it comes added therefore the comunicativa intenzionalità.

While in the communication the element of the intenzionalità appears, in the information all that re-enters also that comes independently transmitted from the will of a subject.

The happened one of the communication I found on the principle of cooperation (or collaboration), that is on the debit just the contribution in the opportune way in reference to the scopes and the guideline of the conversation (Grice, 1975).

The collaboration principle makes reference to four categories of principles that regard: Amount, Quality, Relation, Way.

If we consider the witnesses like communication object-plans, will at the same time have a enunciatore, producing subject and product of the text, and a enunciatario subject, produced from the enunciatore subject and the text: draft of an image of the receiver, than is constructed in the time of the enunciation with progressing of the text (Bettetini, 1993).

The principles of the Quality (“Try of giving a contribution that is true”, “not to say that that creeds to be false”, “not to say that for which you do not have adequate tests”) they refer to the truth judgment and are focused on the intenzionalità and the epistemica competence of the interlocutor.

The meant one is constructed from the point of view of speaking, without that there is a tie of meant to the traditional concepts of truth and the falsità (Grice, 1975).

It is the enunciatore that constructs the enunciatario, that it becomes witness of the veridicità of the enunciatore.

That produces an effect of veridizione in the comparisons of the receiver.

Naturally violation of the principles of the Quality, intentional is possible one or less.

The enunciatario can be constructed in joint way, with assumption of a true conversazionale role, but it can also come subjected to the ambiguities of the text, or quite tricked.

The spectator will be able living the tipologia of the enunciatario in a complete optical of soggiacenza-mimesi, but also in most radical refusal-alternatività (Bettetini, 1993, p.32).

For how much he concerns to the other principles, he can himself be said with Bettetini that “they are finalized to the attainment of a efficient exchange of information, therefore, to the happened one of the conversation, the happened one of the passage of values and knowing from the text the reader-spectator-consumer” (Bettetini, 1993, p.24).

Sperber and Wilson propose a inferenziale ostensivo model.

They distinguish between informative intention and comunicativa intention, laddove before ago the reference to the intention to inform the adressee of something, and the second one refers to the intention to inform the adressee on the own informative intention.

Because there is communication a fact must be manifest, that is the subject must be able to mentally represent the fact and to accept its probably true rappresentazione as.

In the cognitive ambient mutuum the hypotheses are mutual manifest and there is therefore cooperation possibility.

That that currency is the pertinenza of the hypotheses to the context.

 1.3.6. The relational pragmatic approach 

The School of High Pole, in controversy with the mathematical theory of the communication, has adopted one relational vision of the communication.

Here the communication is seen like dialog and is bidirectional.

For Watzlawick (1971) the communication is a “process of interaction between the various persons who are communicating” For the student “cannot themselves not be communicated” (Watzlavick, 1971, p.44).

A not-communication cannot exist, in how much cannot exist a not-behavior.

Because there is communication not is need therefore of intenzionalità.

Watzlawich has developed the pragmatic one of the communication, where the supremacy is up exactly to the relation.

For he the communication can be subdivided in three fields:

• the sintassi: that it comprises the relative problems you to the transmission of the information,
• the semantic one: that it centers the attention on means to you symbolic of the message,
• the pragmatic one: that it inquires on the infuence that the communication has on the behavior.

To High Pole it is intentional to give also prominence to the paradoxes and to the perturbations of the communication.

 1.3.7. The relational psychological approach 

Bateson, in years Seventy, has emphasized as the individuals through the communication play the own identity.

In the psychological approach, it can be noticed as through the communication the own net of relations is constructed.

For Bateson (1951) two distinguished levels are had in every comunicativo action: that one of the news, that it regards the content of enunciates produced to you, and that one of the commando, that it constitutes an indication for the interlocutor of the way in which meaning the said things.

The communication turns out therefore to be constituted of two parts: the communication that regards the contents exchanges and the metacommunication to you, that it is comunicativo sovrastrato that has for object the communication of contenutistico type.

In this way the metacommunication supplies a picture of reference for the communication.

Through the communication the interpersonal relation is defined and it defines himself and the other.

The messages constitute an uninterrupted sequence of stimuli, answers and reinforce, that it gives place to a comunicativa modality of which it is difficult to characterize the origin.

The flow of the communication can give to place to conflicts in how much the individuals stretches to linearizzare and segmentare the continuous process arbitrarily circular and of the communication.

Bateson has characterized that there are two types of possible relations: that symmetrical one, than I found myself on the perception of equality in the relationships, and that complementary one, than I found on the perception of one difference.

Bateson has developed to the theory of the double tie, one paralyzing situation that door to the schizophrenia, putting in prominence the possibility of the communication to introduce multiple messages simultaneously.

The communication therefore only is not constituted from voluntary oral actions, but it implies a multitude of corporei behaviors, studies to you from the cinesica and the prossemica, that they influence on the oral content.

 1.3.8. The sociological approach 

In sociological within, the use of the term communication is reported to the transmission of meant between man and man.

The human societies are integrated on the base of the symbolic interaction.

The human communication, for Reimann, stands on the exchange of symbols, “whose meant it is learned in the course of the process of socialization and specific inculturazione of one culture” (Reimann, 1982, p.197).

In sociology of the communication the main one presupposed to which it is made reference is that one of the social construction of the truth.

The rationality, fruit of historical reconstruction, based on the contingent and to the premises, is considered a posteriori.

The communication is come true through the oral and not oral exchange, and is necessary a comunicativa competence so that every individual can become partecipe to the communication process.

The social systems can be born and develop single thanks to the communication.

The social phenomena can be consider you as it sets in action intentional executed in social contexts structured (Thompson, 1998).

The development of the mass media, for Thompson, consists in:

… a rework of the symbolic character of the social life, a reorganization of the ways in which the symbolic information and contents they are produced and exchanges to you in the social world, and one restructure of the ways in which the individuals rapportano one to the other and if same. (Thompson, 1998, p. 22)

The mediated communication always goes considered a contestualizzato social phenomenon.

The inner communication to a society or a group can be defined intrasistemica, while the communication that has place between society and various groups can come defined intersistemica.

According to Reimann, “the comunicativa structure is the exact reproduction of the enforced relationships of dominion in society” (Reimann, 1982, p.209).

For Thompson, the position of an individual inside of an interaction field closely is tied to the power that possesses, that it indicates the ability to act in sight of the own ones objects to you and to influence on the course of the events (Thompson, 1998, p.25).

According to Mann (1986), four main shapes are had to be able: the economic, the politician, coercive and the symbolic one.

The cultural power or symbolic drift from the production, transmission and reception of equipped symbolic shapes of meant.

The symbolic power allows to influence the other people's actions and to create events.

Through the religious institutions, educational and of the communication the symbolic contents are produced and made circular in the social world.

In order to produce and to transmit to symbolic shapes the individuals they employ of technical means, that they determine a sure degree of fixation of the symbolic shapes.

Thanks to the ability to storing of technical means, it is possible to make available the information for uses succeeded to you.

In this way the technical means constitute an important resource for the exercise of the shapes to be able.

The technical means concur also the reproduction, that is the production more copies than a symbolic shape (base of the exploitation trade them of technical means of communication).

Normally the originality of the work increases its value on the market of the symbolic assets.

With the invasive phenomenon of the controlled reproduction the originality but has been scissa from the oneness.

The technical means concur also the distanziazione space-thunderstorm, that is the separation of the symbolic shape from the context of its production (Thompson, 1998, pp.31 - 39).

The sociological perspective can be distinguished in macrosociology and microsociology.

The macrosociology is taken care of the processes generates them that they regard the complex institutions and organizations.

In order to analyze it uses them quantitative methods you, statistical and searches collections of samples.

One has been interested to the massmedia and new the media.

The microsociology is taken care of the processes of the daily life.

In order to study it mainly makes them use of the methods of the etnografia and the observation.

Goffman has studied the necessary conditions of the social organization for the circulation of the information.

It has elaborated the sociology of the occasions and the organization of the conversation in its social dimension.

The interest of Goffman has been pined in particular on the structure of the interaction, unit base of the social life.

Goffman distinguishes between social situations, social occasions and social encounter.

The definition of the situation helps to identify which structure to give to the interaction.

Much importance has the rules, the rituali and frame (the frame or context of the communication that helps to decipher the events of the daily life) so that the comunicativo exchange has place.

Goffman has been stopped on the communication strategies and has analyzed through the drammaturgica metaphor the exchanges that have place in the daily life.

The encounter of the social actors are interpret to you as true and own social rituali (are rituali of access, confirmation, repair…

For Goffman (1974, p.69) every individual possesses a sure image of same rivendica himself and for if the identity that thinks more congenital.

The image of himself exposed to the other (Face) has the scope to defend just the territory and to propose of himself an valuing image, but in its turn it is defined from the identity manifested from the other actors.

To make to accept a positive image of I is the continuous challenge of the interaction.

In sociological within one has been developed in recent times postmodern current that opposes to great myths of the modern age like the reason and the progress.

The communication and the information are seen like exchange goodses, but also occasions of social reflectivity and characterize them.

The glocalizzazione becomes instead one hybridization of new and total cultural shapes with old and local cultural shapes.

It implies the opening to the pluralismo of the points of view and the interrogation on the own identity and the own limits, making to emerge one greater reflecting ability.

The glocalizzazione indicates the simultaneous deepening of the two dimensions total and local.

 1.4. The communication in the organizations 

According to Pettigiani and Sica (1993) we can define the organization as “a system complex composed of individuals and groups of individuals in mutual interaction and with object to you productive common”, let alone as “a opened system, that is in continuous interaction with the surrounding atmosphere and other organizations”.

The processes communicated to you are carried out to all the levels, approval the elevated number and the disparity of the real interlocutors and upgrade them.

The interlocutors are are exteriors that inner to the organization and defer for position and status.

Every group or individual of the organization follows an own strategy of power.

For Pettigiani and Sica (1993) the word “communication”, inside of the organizations, can come understanding in at least five various ways:

• in technological sense, in case one speaks about the vehicles of the information (telecommunicationses),
• in administrative and managerial sense, in case the systems informed to you agree used for dealing the necessary data to the exercise of the functions,
• in structural sense, in case one refers to the vertical hierarchical connections or to the cross-sectional connections of the organization,
• in psicosociologico sense, in case it is watched to the relationships elapsing between head, groups and single collaborators (in term of communication of ideas and feelings),
• in social sense, for how much it concerns the information that the direction diffuses at home and abroad and in relation to the nature of the relationships with the job community.

The groups that form the organization can be classify to you in:

• homogenous groups, whose members have a formation and carry out of the similari tasks,
• heterogenous groups, whose members work daily together, also differing to hierarchical level and work them for the nature of the carried out task,
• cross-sectional groups, than form in occasions of initiatives or reunions, puttinges in existence in order to agree plans, strategies and object to you common.

The activated nets of communication will vary in these groups to varying of the hierarchical structures and to varying of the amplitude of the number of theirs members.

The lack of information normally generates dependancy in the comparisons of who has more information and than better quality.

The formalized nets are necessary to the circulation of the information, that it concurs with the organization to maintain its effectiveness.

For Petit (1979) the real nets and channels are constituted with from the nets and from the channels form them and you inform them.

According to Jaques (1978), the circulation of the information inside of the channels depends on the infuence of “portieri”, that they possess the control of the sections of the channels.

Allport and Postman, according to wings they studies, have found that the communication, in the passage through several the portieri, endures a process of quantitative reduction, loss and of accentuation of some you leave informative, that because of the phenomenon of the assimilation that turns out “from the force exercised from the habits, the interests and the feelings of those people to which the information addresses” (Allport, Postman, 1974, p.180).

With the consolidation process the portieri restructure the messages adapting them to their personal needs (that the power on the information).

For March and Simon (1971) verification also a process of “absorption of the uncertainty” when the consequences, deducted from tests, come communicated to the place of the same tests.

It achieves some, for the interlocutors, one be of dependancy and confidence come to an agreement to he who work the absorption process.

 1.5. Communication, culture and organizational identity 

For Shein the organizational culture can is defined like:

… with coherent of fundamental tasks that a data group has invented, uncovered or developed learning to face its problems of external adaptation and inner integration, and that they have worked enough well from being able to be considers you valid and therefore such to be taught to the new members like the correct way to perceive, to think and to feel in relation to those problems " (Schein, 1986, p. 396)

According to Berg and Gagliardi, the organization alive in the tension between location processes and processes of accreditation, where first they stretch to the symbolic aggregation and the second ones to the acceptance from part of the society.

The location would involve, of for himself, the construction of a semantic system, strongly explicit, the reference to one culture very defined and destined to dominate to all the expressive activity of the organization; the accreditation instead indurrebbe to hide the own cultural identity outside and to the reduction to surface values “”, subordinates you to the expectations of the context and the adressees (Berg and Gagliardi, 1986, pp.333 - 335).

Between the organization and the atmosphere relationships of factual nature are had, but the symbolic rappresentazioni of the assets are exchanged also object of the interactions, generating the creation of immaterial values added to you and.

Normally the organization communicates outside to produce something, second sure qualities.

The organization introduces the final elements of its activity, signaling some value, effectiveness, usefullness and rendering (Bettetini, 1993, p.64).

<<< Introduction | History, theories and currents of media >>>