Reddy’s toolmakers paradigm

216 5. Developing an Alternative either covertly or overtly, the appropriateness of that person’s speech communication behavior. Dance and Larson 1972 :183 Various linear and circular models have incorporated a simple feedback loop in order to allow the speaker to hear himself. Dance’s model also accounts for that type of feed- back, which may be called “momentary” feedback. But in contrast to linear and circular models, Dance’s helical model describes the interaction of past and present communi- cative events, all the while moving the present event forward. Readers should be careful not to read too much into his characterization of two or more helices as being intertwined, as in the “double helix of genetic structure” Dance and Larson 1972 :184. The double helices of genetic structure are linked, as are the rungs of a ladder. But readers should not assume that Dance is suggesting that the communi- cative partners are so linked. Unfortunately, his analogy can evoke the familiar notion of conduit-type linkage, albeit a spiraling one. If such linkage were in place, then the notion of intertwined, linked helices would seem to suggest a complex, corkscrew version of the code model. That does not seem to be Dance’s intention.

5.3.5. Reddy’s toolmakers paradigm

As discussed in chapter 3 , and by Berge as addressed in the previous section, Reddy 1979 provides a review of the conduit metaphor of communication and its impact on understanding of the communicative process. Reddy recognizes that communication demonstrates adherence to the second law of thermodynamics, upon which Shannon’s information theory depends. Reddy suggests that an analogy of his own making may better account for that law, and that the conduit metaphor is at odds with the law. Reddy calls his model the “toolmakers paradigm.” He describes that model via an analogy built around a wagon wheel arrangement of cells, each of which houses some- what distinct environments and a single human participant. The participants are isolated from one another, so that they have no direct interaction. They are aware of each other’s existence, but are not aware that the different cells house distinct environments. At the hub of the wheel-shaped affair, the cells have a small slots through which the participants can pass slips of paper. They cannot, however, pass anything else, and they cannot speak through the doorways. Exchange of these slips of paper is the only means of communication between the participants. None of them are literate, however, so instead of writing, they can only draw pictures. Working within his cell, one of Reddy’s captives invents a tool, a rake-shaped imple- ment made of sticks. Thinking that his neighbor may benefit from his invention, he draws plans for the contraption and passes them through the slots to his neighbors. What the inventor doesn’t know is that, whereas he lives in a forested cell, his neighbor’s cell is more barren and rocky. The neighbor has fewer sticks available, and he mistakenly interprets the drawings, so that he makes the head of the “rake” from stones. Working with his own materials, the neighbor sets about making his own tool, which turns out something like a hoe, which he finds unwieldy. Accordingly, he modifies the tool into a 5. Developing an Alternative 217 two-forked spade. The process continues, with each participant interpreting the instruc- tions in a different manner and producing a somewhat different tool. Concerning this analogy, Reddy writes: In the analogy, the contents of each environment, the “indigenous materials,” represents a person’s repertoire. They stand for the internal thoughts, feelings, and perceptions which can- not themselves be sent to anyone by any means that we know of. These are the unique material with which each person must work if he is to survive. The blueprints represent the signals of human communication, the marks and sounds that we can actually send to one another. We shall have to ignore the question of how the system of instructions became established, even though this is an interesting part of the story. We shall simply assume that it has reached some sort of steady state, and shall watch how it functions. Reddy 1979 :293 Applying the basic principles of his model to a more realistic situation, he writes: There are no ideas whatsoever in any libraries. All that is stored in any of these places are odd little patterns of marks or bumps or magnetized particles capable of creating odd patterns of noise. Now, if a human being comes along who is capable of using these marks or sounds as instructions, then this human being may assemble within his head some patterns of thought or feeling or perception which resemble those of intelligent humans no longer living. But this is a difficult task, for these ones no longer living saw a different world from ours, and used slightly different language instructions. Reddy 1979 :309 Following Reddy’s analysis of the conduit metaphor, it is quite apparent that ideas aren’t literally stored in libraries. His toolmaker analogy is useful to the extent that it can be used in pointing out weaknesses of the conduit metaphor view of communication, and that seems to be Reddy’s objective. However, his explanation of the analogy suffers from two oversights. First, he refers to the drawings as instructions, writing of “using these marks or sounds as instructions,” “slightly different language instructions,” and so forth. In so doing, he violates his own principle. The drawings are raw information, simply dark marks on a page. Secondly, in describing the scenario for his toolmaker’s paradigm, Reddy describes the model as a steady state: “We shall have to ignore the question of how the system of instructions became established, even though this is an interesting part of the story. We shall simply assume that it has reached some sort of steady state, and shall watch how it functions ” Reddy 1979 :293, italics added. But in his subsequent discussion of the library example, he notes the effect of language change, i.e., that real world commu- nication is not a “steady state” process: “But this is a difficult task, for these ones no longer living saw a different world from ours, and used slightly different language instructions” Reddy 1979 :309. In essence, his “steady state” suggests a synchronic, fixed-state system. Not a shared-code system, but nevertheless a fixed-state system. And yet he later suggests that diachronic change can inhibit effective communication. A model of language and communication should be able to account for language variation across both space and time, without requiring the theoretician to make a subjective judgement concerning the 218 5. Developing an Alternative potential significance of that variation. 102 The requirement of interpretation is the same regardless if the text was written by your next-door neighbor yesterday or by an Egyptian scribe four thousand years ago. The difference is only one of degree, and not of kind. Only the author himself knows exactly what was “meant” in the recording of the dark marks on the page. As Locke points out, tomorrow even the author may not mean by these same words what he meant today see section 3.2.2.2.3 .

5.4. An alternative model of communication