SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

SEMESTER 1 – 2020/2021
YSK 501
ADVANCED COMMUNICATION THEORY

FIRST SEMESTER EXAMINATION

ACADEMIC SESSION 2020/2021
FEBRUARI 2021

S-KOM0075/20

PROF. DR JULIANA BINTI ABDUL WAHAB

THE SEMIOTIC TRADITION

The semiotic tradition originated from the academic disciplines of semiotics and

linguistics, and was significantly influenced by the parallel disciplines of rhetoric and philosophy

(Craig 1999: 136). Semiotics is concerned with signs, signs, their meanings, and how these

meanings are shared and interpreted through communication (Fourie 1998: 2; Littlejohn & Foss

2008: 35). Therefore, this tradition draws on a variety of theoretical perspectives on signs and

signs, language, discourse, and interpretation (Leeds-Hurwitz 1993: xvi; Craig 1999: 136), which

is characterized by the study of the use of signs in human interaction (Leeds-Hurwitz). 1993: 3;

Cooren 2012: 7) and "How people convey meaning" (Leeds-Hurwitz 1993: xv) through the sign

system. The core of the semiotic tradition is the symbol, which is "all things that can be regarded

as a substitute for other things" (Eco 1976: 7).

Symbols are abstract in nature because they are only linguistic or symbolic

representations of objects or ideas (Jansen & Steinberg 1991: 66). Symbols can also be arbitrary

because they have no natural relationship with the object or the object represented by the object,

and the meaning of the symbol is ambiguous and subjectively determined by the user (Jansen &

Steinberg 1991: 64-65; Weigand 2010: 537). Therefore, the meaning of the symbol is in people,

not in the symbol itself (Wood 2004: 79), which explains why people have different meanings

for the same symbol (Littlejohn 1983: 96). Symbols and symbol systems are often used in

interaction, and understanding can only be achieved when their meaning is shared socially

(Cunha & Salgado 2008: 165; West & Turner 2014: 29).
 According to this tradition, communication is "intersubjective mediation of signs" (Craig

1999: 136). As explained, the symbol system is the "productivity of thought" in society (Craig &

Muller 2007: 163), so people rely on the communication process to bridge the gap between the

two ideas. Through communication, language and symbolism have a common meaning in

society, so communication is regarded as an "intermediary" of understanding between

individuals (ibid.). Therefore, considering the communication theories such as "the structure of

language and other sign systems, the relationship between language and thought, and the

communication and use of signs" (ibid.), it is easy to classify within the scope of semiotic

tradition.

From a semiotic point of view, the problems or uncertainties commonly encountered by

communicators involve the misunderstanding and misunderstanding of common thoughts,

thoughts, and feelings by the semiotic system (Craig & Muller 2007: 163; Garcia Jimenez 2014:

90). Regarding misinformation, the failure of meaning transmission, and subjective meaning,

there are many misunderstood theories of communication (Craig 1999: 136; Macguire 2006: 89).

Therefore, all these theories are usually classified as semiotic traditions.

The important concepts in the semiotic tradition are the terms "symbol", "symbol" and

"meaning". Other terms also frequently used in semiotics include "icon", "index", "language",

"in", "understanding" and "misunderstanding" (Craig 1999: 133). The construction of meaning

triples is also unique to semiotics, referring to the ternary relationship between objects, signs and

their meanings, which was proposed by Peirce (Fabbrichesi & Marietti 2006: x; Littlejohn &

Foss 2008: 35). Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of the semiotic tradition.
Table 1: Summarized characteristics of the semiotic tradition

Summary of the characteristics of the semiotic tradition

Communication is the intersubjective mediator of socially shared meanings of signs necessary

for common understanding and effective social interaction.

Signs and symbols are the productive agents of thought in society and are used to convey

meaning during interactions.

Sign systems are abstract representations of phenomena with arbitrary and ambiguous

meanings that are different from person to person, which creates misunderstandings.

Meanings of signs and symbols must be shared and interpreted socially through

communication during interactions to eliminate misinterpretation and ensure effective social

interaction.

It has been shown that in addition to the disciplines of semiotics and linguistics, the

semiotic tradition is also influenced by rhetoric and philosophical theoretical viewpoints, so there

are similarities and differences. Because of the common concept of the system, semiotics and

cybernetic traditions can also be linked. For example, language is conceptualized as a semiotic

system by semiotics, although the semiotic tradition ignores the strict functionalist interpretation

of the cybernetic tradition of functional parts, because semiotic linguistics believes that there can

be subtleties and differences in semiotic systems (Craig 1999: 134).

STRENGTHS OF SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS

Semiotics can help us understand the things that are taken for granted that represent the

world, thus reminding us that we have been dealing with signs instead of dealing with

unmediated objective reality, and the sign system is involved in the construction of meaning. As

Valentin Volosinov declared: "As long as there are signs, there is ideology" (Gardiner 1992: 14).

The basic laws of social life "naturalize and strengthen a particular view of reality" (Gardiner

1992: 147). For Roland Barthes, such codes help reproduce the ideology of the bourgeoisie,

making it appear natural, appropriate and inevitable (Hawkes 1977: 107). There is no need for

Marxists to realize that it can be emancipatory in order to know who is privileged to the view of

reality in the process.

In the study of mass media, semiotic methods can draw our attention to recognized

customs such as the classic Hollywood "invisible editing" convention, which is still the main

editing style in popular movies and television. Symbolic therapy can make us realize that this is a

manipulation convention, we have learned to accept the "natural" habits of the film and

television industry. Also, in mass media, semiotics has also made a unique theoretical

contribution. Combined with psychoanalysis, semiotics also introduces the theory of "topic

positioning" (audience) relative to film text (Hayward 1996: 19, 312, 353).

As a communication method focusing on meaning and interpretation, semiotics poses a

challenge to the reduction transmission model, which equates meaning with "message" (or

content). Semiotics emphasizes the "infinite richness of open interpretation of signs" (Sturrock
1986: 101). Although the emphasis on the role of the text interpreter helps to reduce the romantic

obsession with the author's role (such as the director in a movie), the semiotic concept of

intertextuality emphasis on the attribution of the myth of 'originality'.

Semiotics attempts to study any form of cultural artifacts and practices on the basis of

unified principles, so as to maximize coherence for media and cultural studies. It encourages the

"decoding" of various pop culture phenomena with the same seriousness traditionally reserved

for literary, artistic and musical classics. Semiotics may encourage us not to ignore one medium

because it is less valuable than another: literary and film critics often believe that television is

less valuable than prose fiction or "art" film. For elite literary critics, this is of course a weakness

of semiotics. Semiotics may help us understand the differences and similarities between various

media.

Semiotics can also help us to realise that whatever assertions seem to us to be 'obvious',

'natural', universal, given, permanent and incontrovertible are generated by the ways in which

sign systems operate in our discourse communities. Art historian Keith Mosley comments that:

Semiotics makes us aware that the cultural values with which we make sense of the world

are a tissue of conventions that have been handed down from generation to generation by the

members of the culture of which we are a part. It reminds us that there is nothing 'natural' about

our values; they are social constructs that not only vary enormously in the course of time but

differ radically from culture to culture. (cited in Schroeder 1998, 225)

Whereas both 'common-sense' and positivist realism insist that reality is independent of

the signs which refer to it, semiotics emphasizes the role of sign systems in the construction of

reality. Although things may exist independently of signs, we know them only through the
mediation of signs. We see only what our sign systems allow us to see. Although things may

exist independently of signs, we know them only through the mediation of signs. We see only

what our sign systems allow us to see.

CRITICISMS OF SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS

Sometimes semiotics treats their analysis as a purely objective "scientific" explanation,

rather than a subjective explanation. However, few semiotics seem to be desperate to provide

empirical evidence for a particular explanation. Jack Solomon pointed out that the central

principle of semiotics “prevents it from becoming a science, that is, a thing of universal validity”

(Solomon19)

In some cases, semiotic analysis may be just an excuse for interpreters to prove their

proficiency in semiotic terminology, which excludes most people. Structural semiotics tend to

think that their own interpretation reflects a general consensus: they do not allow other readings.

Semiotics who refuses to investigate the interpretations of others enjoy the privilege of so-called

"elite interpreters," although social-oriented semiotics will insist that the exploration of people's

interpretation practices is the basis of semiotics.

Some semiotic analyses have only been criticized as "arid formalism". Susan Hayward

declared that structuralist semiotics can lead to "undermining aesthetic responses through the

suppression of theoretical frameworks" (Hayward 1996: 352). In structural semiotics, the

emphasis is on language rather than parole (Saussure's term), and formal systems rather than use

and production processes. Valentin Volosinov believes that the main determinant of a symbol is

not its relationship with other symbols, but the social background in which the symbol is used
(Fiske 1992: 299). Semiotics seems to imply that meaning is purely interpretable in determining

the structure of the text.

Pure structuralist semiotics does not involve the production process, audience

interpretation or even creative intentions. It ignores specific practices, institutional frameworks,

and cultural, social, economic, and political environments. Even Roland Barthes believes that

texts are compiled to encourage reading to benefit the interests of the dominant class. He also

focuses on internal text organization without participating in the social background of

interpretation (Gardiner 1992: 149- 50). It cannot be assumed that the preferred reading will not

be challenged (Hall, 1980). David Buxton commented that structuralists tend to "deny...social

determination", insisting that "the text must be related to something other than its own structure:

in other words, we must explain its structure" (Buxton 1990: 13).

John Sturrock pointed out that some semiotics such as Mikhail Bakhtin have used

semiotics for the "revelatory" political purpose of "discovering" society. And this method may

cause the "loading" of "reading materials" by society to be merely an ideological conspiracy.

Social classes that oppose other classes (Sturrock 1986: 91). Stroke favored the "more or less

neutral" approach, but few theorists would accept this possibility of neutrality.

Some contemporary theorists have rejected a purely structuralist semiotics. But such a

rejection need not involve a wholesale rejection of semiotics. Influential as it has been,

structuralist analysis is but one approach to semiotics. Many of the criticisms of semiotics are

directed at a form of semiotics to which few contemporary semioticians adhere. Whilst some

semioticians have retained a structuralist concern with formal systems (mainly focusing on

detailed studies of narrative, film and television editing and so on), many have become more

concerned with 'social semiotics' (Hodge & Kress 1988). A key concern of social semioticians is
with what Stephen Heath calls the 'specific signifying practices' (see Lapsley & Westlake 1988,

55). Such 'reformed' semioticians practice 'poststructuralist' semiotics, focusing on what one has

called 'situated social semiosis' (Jensen 1995, 57). This at least is the rhetoric of social

semioticians, but the extent to which social semiotics has so far met the concerns of sociologists

is debatable. However, it is early days: 'social semiotics' is still under construction.

Contemporary theorists who have associated themselves with this development include Gunther

Kress, Robert Hodge, Theo van Leeuwen, Klaus Bruhn Jensen, Paul J Thibault and Jay Lemke

(Hodge & Kress 1988; Jensen 1995; Lemke 1995; Kress & van Leeuwen 1996; Thibault 1997)

Specific context in the communication field that can be linked to Semiotic Tradition

The annual employee commendation lunch was filled with various signs and symbols. In

addition to the many words used, common meanings were created through the symbols for

awarding certificates and plaques, through beautifully printed cursive writing programs, through

cakes and balloons with congratulatory messages, and through round tables set up. Instead of the

usual meeting seats in the meeting room, holiday decorations on the table, company posters and

slogans posted on the wall, the official business attire of the award-presenting executives and the

hanging large company logo on the podium, and printed on the Napkins to T-shirts and other

items. All these symbols make important meanings (about company value, about employee

loyalty, about labor relations) can be communicated and shared by dozens of people, even if

everyone brings their own subjective thoughts into the event.

In the end, the company itself becomes a symbol of a unique company image. Roland

Barthes equated this "second-order" symbol with mythology and used the French flag as an
example. Bart (R. Barthes) (1972). Myth (A. Lavers, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.

Similarly, Apple also symbolizes high-tech innovation. This corporate image gives employees a

strong sense of organizational identity. In contrast, government agencies are often seen as

bureaucratic and wasteful agencies, so managers must work hard to give their employees a

counterproductive public service image. It is the same as the semiotic process of your college or

university trying to symbolize learning (if emphasis on teaching), discovery (if emphasis on

research), opportunity (if emphasis on vocational training) or promotion (if not traditional

student).

Semiotic Analysis: Advice

Semiotics can be applied to anything which can be seen as signifying something. Even

within the context of the mass media you can apply semiotic analysis to any media texts,

including television and radio programmes, films, cartoons, newspaper and magazine articles,

posters and other ads. I strongly recommend detailed comparison and contrast of paired media

texts dealing with a similar topic: this is a lot easier than trying to analyse a single text. It may

also help to use a good example of semiotic analysis by an experienced practitioner as a model

for your own analysis. John Fiske offers a valuable account of 'semiotic methods and

applications' (Fiske 1982: 103-117).

THE CYBERNETIC TRADITION

The philosophy does not originate from a specific discipline, but from biology,

mathematics and engineering Interchange between domains and Shannon and Weaver's

information processing theory and general system theory. However, the tradition of cybernetics

is broader than Wiener's theory. It not only incorporates this cybernetic theory, but also all

theoretical viewpoints related to system thinking into cybernetics (Craig 1999: 141; Littlejohn &

Foss 2008: 39).

The core feature of the cybernetic tradition is the system. A structure composed of

interdependent parts that cooperate to create a function whose value exceeds the sum of the parts

(Monge 1977: 20; Littlejohn & Foss 2008: 39). The system interacts with the environment to

receive or return from the environment (Monge 1977: 20). The system also accepts circular ideas

in the form of causality between the various parts of the entire system (Krippendorff 1989:443).

Cybernetic methods have inspired theorists to study issues beyond the basic components

of the system, such as the organization of system components, the network formed when various

systems interact, how the system self-regulates, and maintains order and balance with the

environment through feedback (Monge 1977).: 20; Krippendorff 1989: 443; Jansen & Steinberg

1991: 40-41; Littlejohn & Foss 2008: 40). Although communication itself can be theorized as a
system with interconnected components, such as communicators, messages, media, and

feedback, theorizing of communication from a cybernetic point of view means that the

communication process must be viewed in a systematic and holistic way, Not just in the

individual components. Process (Craig 1999: 142; Cooren 2012: 8).

From a cybernetic point of view, communication is conceptualized as an "information

processing system" (Craig 1999: 141). It is seen as an important link connecting the

interconnected parts of the system, allowing information to flow back and forth between system

elements, thereby enabling the system to operate effectively (Craig 1999: 141; Griffin et al.,

2015: 39). Therefore, the goal of communication in the system is to ensure that the flow of

information is almost without interference (Macguire 2006: 89).

From a cybernetic point of view, the communicator will encounter uncertainty and

problems, because if there are communication problems, such as interrupted information flow,

information overload or other forms of noise, the information will lead to incorrect

understanding, the communication system may It will malfunction or crash (Craig 1999: 141).

Table 2 shows the main characteristics of the cybernetic tradition, usually focusing on

"system", "information", "processing", "feedback", "channel", "interconnectivity", "network",

"sender", "Receiver" and "Noise" (on theorization of communication) (Craig 1999: 133; Craig &

Muller 2007: 261; Garcia-Jimenez 2014: 91). The cybernetic tradition can be used to classify

theories about physical, biological, social or behavioral systems, in which theories communicate

influence, shape and control the characteristics of the entire system to achieve balance and

change (Littlejohn & Foss 2008: 39). For example, interpersonal relationships are complex social

systems based on interaction, which can only be created and maintained through meaningful

communication (Mascareῆo 2008: 200; Garcia-Jimenez 2014: 91).

Table 2 : Summarized characteristics of the cybernetic tradition

Summary of the characteristics of the cybernetic tradition

Communication is a vital process that allows information to flow between system parts,

allowing the system to function effectively with little or no interference.

Systems are social structures comprising interdependent parts that work together to create a

function that is worth more than the sum of the various parts.

Systems interact with their environment to regulate themselves and maintain order and balance

with the environment through feedback.

Communication influences, shapes, and controls the character of the overall system and helps

the system achieve both balance and change.

Systems can malfunction or break down should there be a problem with the communication.

Systems occur in various contexts, including sign systems, language systems, cognitive

systems, and societal systems.

Due to the universality of cybernetics, the traditional principles of cybernetics and

semiotics, social psychology and social cultural traditions are shared. Cybernetics and rhetoric

traditions also have important points in common, because in both traditions, human activities are

based on "basic or overall symbol processing systems" (Craig 1999: 142). The difference

between these two views is that, despite the rhetorical view of communication as a cunning
enterprise, cybernetics treats it only as a mechanism for processing information (Craig 1999:

134).

Advantages and Disadvantages of Cybernetic Tradition

Cybernetic Tradition has many advantages and disadvantages. For more detailed

information, see the discussion below:

ADVANTAGE

 It can be applied in groups according to the instructions in the course.

 More enables teachers to understand some of the existing basic mechanisms and control

the learning process.

 Able to provide basic education for yourself.

 To develop repetitive teaching, use the principles of cybernetics.

 The teacher’s behavior can be improved by establishing a feedback mechanism to

develop teacher education plans.

 In the case of innovative practice in the education plan, based on feedback theory to

stimulate social teaching skills and interactive analysis

 To allow teachers to understand and scientifically analyze teaching with various elements

in the teaching system, namely input, process and output.

 Rental activities will make learning goals more organized and organized.

 The process-oriented way of thinking is more prominent.

 The presentation of knowledge meets the economic aspect.

  Learning capabilities can be presented more fully.

 There is an intensity of all learning activities to the goal to be achieved.

 There is a transfer of learning in the real living environment.

 Learning control allows learning to suit the rhythm of each individual.

 The informative return provides clear signs of the level of performance achieved compared

to the expected performance.

DISADVANTAGES

This kind of network learning theory has a shortcoming, because it cannot directly

discuss the learning process, so it is difficult or difficult to apply in the learning process. While

the disadvantage of cybernetic theory is that it emphasizes the information system learned, and

pays less attention to the learning process. According to cybernetic theory, learning is

information processing. Another assumption of cybernetic theory is that no single learning

process is ideal for all situations, and suitable for all students. Learning Theory According to the

Netherlands with its model of approach called algorithms and heuristics says that algorithmic

learning requires students to think systematically, step by step, linear, towards specific goals,

while learning heuristics requires students to think divergently, spreading to several goals at

once. The downside of cybernetic theory is that it places too much emphasis on the information

system being studied, and pays little attention to how the learning process

Specific context in the communication field that can be linked to Cybernetic Tradition
 According to the cybernetic tradition of communication, when two people communicate,

they define their relationship through interaction (Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson), 1967. Inside

Cybernetic method, the relationship generated in a group is composed of interactive standards,

Which words and actions of a person affect the response of others (Littlejohn & Foss, 2012).

People belonging to a certain group will constantly adjust their behavior to adapt to the

reaction of "others" according to the following situations: The feedback they received from them.

Therefore, in the field of cybernetics, communication refers to a mutual influence, shaping and

control. The temperament of the entire system, with the balance of each organization/entity,

change.

Based on the above points, we can understand the focus of the communication is not on

the same message, but the goal is it is pursued by its dissemination (McQuail & Windahl, 1993),

and the relationship formed by the realization of goals between communication groups. Based on

the above we it can be said that cybernetics is composed of the backbone of identification, either

alone or collectively.

Adjustments are made through feedback loops that connect various parts of the system to

the network. We took the employee reward lunch as an example to illustrate some of these

networks. Senior managers who want to recognize loyal employees every year must obtain

feedback from the human resources department to obtain a list of qualified personnel. To

organize events, the human resources department must obtain feedback on room settings from

the maintenance department, feedback on audiovisual equipment from the IT department, and

feedback on the catering budget from the accounting department. In order to promote the event,

the corporate communications department must obtain feedback from senior management on the

tone or topic of the press release. In addition, the system cannot survive on its own. Collect
inputs and resources from the surrounding environment, for example, by consulting local

catering service providers, and discussing possible news and storyline perspectives with local

media. Through all these avenues of organizational communication, the system processes the

information it needs to keep on going.

THE CRITICAL TRADITION

Critical research originated from Marxist principles and became the main philosophy of

the Frankfurt School. (Craig 1999:147). The premise of the critical view is that "conflict,

distortion, injustice and domination" are inherent components of human society (Garcia-Jimenez

2014: 91). Critical theorists therefore openly question and criticize instances of oppression, abuse

of power, and discrimination, with the aim of exposing social injustice and establishing

awareness that ultimately leads to change (Roy & Oludaja 2009: 255; West & Turner 2010: 31;

Garcia-Jimenez 2014: 91).

Critical tradition has a ubiquitous feature that makes it applicable to all social sciences

and humanities including communication sciences. It is important to note that in this tradition,

communication is both the object of criticism and a means to achieve critical thinking and

change (Roy & Oludaja 2009: 269; Cooren 2012: 11); in social discourse "promote domination,

exclusion, isolation or In the context of “marginalization”, communication is often the cause of

social inequality (Garcia-Jimenez 2014: 91). However, communication also provides the

necessary techniques to "resist or overcome" these social injustices (Craig & Muller 2007: 430).

One way that critical tradition conceptualizes communication is to enable critical

reflection, which is necessary for understanding social distortions and restoring social justice

(Macguire 2006: 90; Roy & Oludaja 2009: 269). This view of communication is a potential
solution to social inequality. The so-called "discourse reflection" (Craig 1999: 133). Discourse

reflection refers to the communicative discourse of "freely reflecting on possible distorted

assumptions", which can conduct critical research on the habits, beliefs and power structures that

are not usually challenged in society. In the process of discourse reflection, communication must

be true and honest, otherwise liberation and justice cannot be restored (Craig 1999: 147). The

critical tradition also recognizes that communication itself may be the cause of social inequality

(Garcia-Jimenez 2014: 91), and therefore, when conversation, interaction and even language

support and promote these social distortions, communication becomes a problem (Craig 1999:

147)

From a critical point of view, the important concepts of communication are "ideology",

"dialectics", "oppression", "resistance", "liberation", "truth", "deception" and "power" (Craig

1999: 133). Craig & Muller 2007: 425). Table 3 summarizes the characteristics of the critical

tradition. Communication theories that take a critical attitude towards such social injustice or

inequality are usually classified as this tradition.

Table 3 : Summarized characteristics of the critical tradition

Summary of the characteristics of the critical tradition

Communication is critical discourse that provides the means for discursive reflection on

recognized social distortions and injustices.

Discursive reflection refers to honest communication that freely reflects on and critically

examines habits, beliefs, and power structures that are usually unchallenged in society.

Critical theorists openly question and criticize instances of oppression, power abuse, and
 discrimination with the goal of exposing and changing social injustices

Conflict, distortion, injustice, and dominion are inherent parts of human society.

Communication can also be the cause of social inequalities in cases where social discourse

promotes domination, exclusion, segregation, or marginalization.

According to Craig (1999: 147), “any mode of communication theory can take a self-

reflective, critical turn” and thus it is possible that all seven of the communication traditions can

adopt a critical perspective, which allows for hybrid varieties such as critical semiotics, critical

phenomenology, and even critical sociopsychology (Craig 1999: 134).

STRENGTHS

The significant advantage of the critical theory paradigm is that it combines theory with

practice and tries to create practical changes from the development of theory. Critical theory is

not seeking prediction and control, nor is it seeking explanation and understanding, but seeking

positive social change. The purpose behind these theoretical views is to help empower those who

have not yet discovered an equal worldview and ideology in the world society. In the best case,

critical theory has the potential to implement large-scale social changes for people large and

small.

WEAKNESS
 The potential weakness of critical theories is their dependence on social values. The rule

of thumb theory seeks objective reality, while the critical theory emphasizes the subjective value

of guiding communication behavior. When values conflict, "who has better values?" appears.

Because values are subjective, answering this question is usually full of conflicts and arguments.

The example of same-sex marriage highlights the current debate about ideological values. How

do we define marriage? And, whose definition is best?

Specific context in the communication field that can be linked to Critical Tradition

Then, a critical theorist will also point out how the award luncheon actually silences the

voices of traditionally marginalized workers by celebrating only those long-serving employees.

Historically underrepresented groups (women, people of color, the disabled, the working poor)

often lack access to skills that will enable them to be promoted in the corporate world. Because

they are disproportionately placed in low-paying jobs, they are the first to be laid off or assigned

to temporary jobs. But they can indeed meet the company's needs. Why is there no event to

celebrate their contribution? On the contrary, the emphasis on longevity will only further

marginalize them.

All of this is because the system follows an ideology that constructs power relations in a

seemingly natural and inevitable way, in order to benefit the interests of some people at the

expense of others. Stanley Deetz described "management’s" as an ideology that systematically

distorts communication, resulting in a kind of "recursive closure" that makes it difficult to

express or even think about alternative views. (Deetz, 1992, op. cit. The task of critical scholars

is to "intellectualize" the unjust ideologies and structures that are taken for granted, subjecting
them to resistance and discussion, and thus reopening the cancelled options and possibilities of

the system. Therefore, critical Sexual scholarship puts action into practice.

REFERENCE

Anderson, M.P. 1959. What is communication? Journal of Communication 9(1): 5-7.

Angelo, R.W. 1998. The Origins and Branches of Philosophy. [Online]: Retrieved from:

http://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/philosophy-origin.html [Accessed May 2016].

Applebaum, H. 1987. Perspectives in Cultural Anthropology. State University of New York

Press: USA.

Babbie, E. 1983. The Practice of Social Research. 3rd edition. Wadsworth: USA.

Bates, P. & Gilbert, P. 2008. “I wanna tell you a story”: Leaders as Storytellers. The

International Journal of Leadership in Public Services 4(2): 4-9.

Beniger, J.R. 1990. Who are the most important theorists of communication? Communication

Research 17(5): 698-715.

Berelson, B. & Steiner, G.A. 1964. Human Behavior. Harcourt, Brace and World: New York.
Berg, B.L. 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 4th edition. Allyn &

Bacon: Boston.

Berger, A.A. 2011. Media and Communication Research Methods: An Introduction to

Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 2nd edition. Sage Publications: London.

Berger, C.R. 1991. Communication theories and other curios. Communication Monographs 58:

101-113.

Bergman, M. 2012. Pragmatism as a communication-theoretical tradition: An assessment of

Craig’s proposal. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy IV(1): 208-

221.

Bodie, G.D. & Crick, N. 2014. Listening, hearing, sensing: Three modes of being and the

phenomenology of Charles Sanders Pierce. Communication Theory 24: 105-123.

Boromisza-Habashi, D. 2013. Which way is forward in communication theorizing? An interview

with Robert T. Craig. Communication Theory 23: 417-432.

Chung, C.J., Barnett, G.A., Kim, K. & Lackaff, D. 2013. An analysis on communication theory

and discipline. Scientometrics 95: 985-1002.

Cragan, J.F. & Shields, P.C. 1998. Understanding Communication Theory: The Communicative

Forces of Human Action. Allyn & Bacon: Boston.

Craig, R.T. 1993. Why are there so many communication theories? Journal of Communication

43(3): 26-33.

Craig, R.T. 1999. Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory 9: 119-160.

Craig, R.T. 2005. How we talk about how we talk: Communication theory in the public interest.

Journal of Communication 55(4): 659-667.

Craig, R.T. 2007. Pragmatism in the field of communication theory. Communication Theory 17:

125-145.

Craig, R.T. 2008a. Communication as a field and discipline. The International Encyclopedia of

Communication. Volume 2. Blackwell: Oxford.

Craig, R.T. 2008b. Communication in the conversation of disciplines. Russian Journal of

Communication 1(1): 7-23.

Craig, R.T. 2015. The constitutive metamodel: A 16-year review. Communication Theory 25(4):

356-374.

Craig, R.T. & Muller, H.L. 2007. Theorizing Communication: Reading Across Traditions. Sage

Publications: London.

Creswell, J.W. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five

Approaches. 3rd edition. Sage Publications: Los Angeles.

Cunha, C. & Salgado, J. 2008. Being human: Experiencing and communicating. Integrative

Psychological & Behavioural Science 42: 164-170.

Dance, F.E.X. 1982. Human Communication Theory: Comparative Essays. Harper & Row: New

York.

Deetz, S. 1978. Conceptualizing human understanding: Gadamer’s hermeneutics and American

communication studies. Communication Quarterly 26(2): 12-23.

De Wet, J.C. 2010. The Art of Persuasive Communication: A Process. 3rd edition. Juta:

Claremont.

De Wet, J.C. 2011. The Outsider: Making the existential tradition of communication theory

come alive. Communitas 16: 95-111.

Du Plooy-Cilliers, F., Davis, C. & Bezuidenhout, R. 2014. Research Matters. Juta: Cape Town.

Eco, U. 1976. A Theory of Semiotics. Indiana University Press: Bloomington.

Eisenstadt, S.N. 1990. Functional analysis in Anthropology and Sociology: An interpretative

essay. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 243-260.

Emanuel, R. 2007. Communication: Humanities’ core discipline. American Journal of

Communication 9(2): 4-7.

Eriksen, T.H. & Nielsen, F.S. 2013. A History of Anthropology. 2nd edition. Pluto Press:

London.

Fabbrichesi, R. & Marietti, S. 2006. Semiotics and Philosophy in Charles Sanders Peirce.

Cambridge Scholars Press: UK.

Fisher, W.R. 1987. Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value and

Action. University of South Carolina Press: South Carolina.

Fourie, P.J. 1998. Introduction to Communication. Course Book 3: Communication and the

Production of Meaning. Juta: Kenwyn.

Fourie, P.J. 2011. Thinking about mass communication research. Communitas 16: 1-14.

Franzosi, R.P. 2004. Content Analysis. In Handbook of Data Analysis, edited by M. Hardy & A.

Bryman. Sage Publications: London.

Gamble, T.K. & Gamble, M. 2013. Communication Works. 11th edition. McGraw-Hill: New

York.

Garcia-Jimenez, L. 2014. The pragmatic metamodel of communication: A cultural approach to

interaction. Studies in Communication Sciences 14: 86-93.

Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A. & Sparks, G. 2015. A First Look at Communication Theory. 9th edition.

McGraw-Hill: New York.

Hoben, J.B. 1954. English communication at Colgate re-examined. Journal of Communication 4:

76-86.

Hogan, J., Dolan, P. & Donnelly, P. 2011. Approaches to Qualitative Research: Theory and its

Practical Application – A Guide for Dissertation Students. Oak Tree Press: Cork.

[Electronic]. ProQuest ebrary.

Hope, J. 2015. Heidegger and the signs of history. Semiotic a 207: 567-581.

Krippendorff, K. 1989. Cybernetics. The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Volume

1. Blackwell: Malden.

Kumar, R. 2011. Research Methodology: A Step-by-step Guide for Beginners. 3rd edition. Sage

Publications: London.

Layton, R. 1997. An Introduction to Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge University Press: UK.

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. 1993. Semiotics and Communication: Signs, Codes, Cultures. Lawrence

Erlbaum: New Jersey.

Littlejohn, S.W. 1982. An overview of contributions to human communication theory from other

disciplines. In Human Communication Theory: Comparative Essays, edited by F.E.X.

Dance. Harper & Row: New York.

Littlejohn, S.W. 1983. Theories of Human Communication. 2nd edition. Wadsworth: Belmont,

CA.

Littlejohn, S.W. 1996. Theories of Human Communication. 5th edition. Wadsworth: New York.

Littlejohn, S.W. & Foss, K.A. 2008. Theories of Human Communication. 9th edition.

Wadsworth Cengage: USA.

Lyne, J.R. 1980. Rhetoric and semiotics in C.S. Pierce. The Quarterly Journal of Speech 66: 155-

168.

Macguire, K.C. 2006. Making sense of the seven communication traditions. Communication

Teacher 20(4): 89-92.

Maniglier, P. 2012. What is a problematic? Radical Philosophy 173: 21-23.

Miller, K. 2005. Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes and Contexts. 2nd edition.

McGraw-Hill: New York.

Milliken, P.J. & Schreiber, R. 2012. Examining the nexus between grounded theory and

symbolic interactionism. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 11(5): 684-696.

Murphy, M. 1991. No more “What is communication?” Communication Research 18(6): 825-

833.

Myers, D. 2001. A pox on all compromises: Reply to Craig (1999). Communication Theory 11:

218-230.
Petrilli, S. & Ponzio, A. 2010. Semiotics and philosophy: Working for a historical reconstruction

of human understanding. Semiotica 179(1): 33-45.

Redpath, P. 2010. Platonic reflections upon four ages of understanding. Semiotica 179(1): 83-

101.

Richmond, V.P. & McCroskey, J.C. 2009. Human communication theory and research:

Traditions and models. In An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and

Rogers, E.M. 1994. A History of Communication Study: A Biographical Approach. The Free

Press: New York.

Roy, A. & Oludaja, B. 2009. Hans-George Gadamer’s Praxis: Implications for connection and

action in communication studies. Communication, Culture and Critique 2: 255-273. Short,

J.C. & Reeves, T.C. 2009. The graphic novel: A ‘cool’ format for communicating to

Generation Y. Business Communication Quarterly 72(4): 414-430.

Steinberg, S. 2007. An Introduction to Communication Studies. Juta: Cape Town.

Treadwell, D. 2011. Introducing Communication Research: Paths of Inquiry. Sage Publications:

Los Angeles.

West, R. & Turner, L.H. 2010. Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Applications.

4th edition. McGraw-Hill: New York.

West, R. & Turner, L.H. 2014. Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Applications.

5th edition. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Wimmer, R.D. & Dominick, J.R. 2014. Mass Media Research: An Introduction. 10th edition.

Wadsworth Cengage Learning: USA.

Wood, J.T. 2004. Communication Theories in Action: An Introduction. 3rd edition. Thomson

Wadsworth: USA.

Zelizer, B. 2015. Making communication theory matter. Communication Theory 25: 410- 415.