Re: Shannon-Weaver Model

[Stuart Selber <sselber -at- MTU -dot- EDU>]

Joseph - Many find the Shannon-Weaver (mathematical) model of
communication problematic in the way it reduces the role readers assume in
meaning making and the role language plays in complicating that meaning
making. I'm sure there are other objections to this one-way, writerly
perspective on technical communication. I remember Dave Farkas and a few
others raising some of them a few threads back.

For some interesting reading on three different models of communication
(transmission, translation, and articulation), try: Slack, Miller, and
Doak, "The Technical Communicator as Author: Meaning, Power, and
Authority" Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Vol 7, No 1,
January 1993, pp. 12-36.

Stuart
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 *   Stuart A. Selber                                                    *
 *   Department of Humanities             906-487-3252 (voice)           *
 *   Michigan Technological University    906-487-3347 (fax)             *
 *   Houghton, MI 49931-1295              sselber -at- mtu -dot- edu                *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


> I'm really a fan of the Shannon-Weaver communication model.  I
> just recently learned of it and realized that my own definition
> of tech comm was nearly identical to the view given by S-W.
> Coming from an engineering background, I can see why.

> However, my rhetoric professor thinks my definition of tech comm
> as a science of transmission is weak.  He believes (I think) that
> I'm slighting tech comm by defining it in this 'passive' manner,
> and should be emphasizing more on the audience rather than the
> information being transmitted.  I can see his point, and I agree
> that a transactional process exists between the communicator
> and the audience--however, I also believe the communicator has
> some responsibility to the body of knowledge he/she's transmitting.

> So, my question is this:  Who feels the Shannon-Weaver model is
> a good model for technical communication?  Why?  Who does not?  Why?
> Who believes that, with a few small modifications, the Shannon-Weaver
> model would be a good model for tech comm?  What would those
> modifications be?

> Thanks for any replies.

> --Joe from the U of MN.