5. Developing an Alternative 215
Berge’s discussion of these various types of models provides a useful summary. Unfortunately, metonymy in the literature can make the general discussion somewhat
difficult to follow. The discussion is confused by three closely related senses of the term communication. Berge mentions two of these, process and content, in his introduction.
He does not, however, consistently employ these modifiers in addressing the issue. The senses of communication involved are as follows:
a. Communication the process b. Communication the content of communication the process
c. Communication the psychological-emotional-social effect of communication the content and communication the process
Literature on communication may address one or another of these senses, or sometimes all three, but rarely explicitly differentiates the three senses.
5.3.4. Dance’s helical model
In a 1970 article titled “A Helical Model of Communication,” Frank Dance introduced his helical model
Dance 1970 :103–107. Dance and Larson
1972 :184
summarize the major concerns of that model as follows:
Varying geometric models have been suggested to represent the speech communication process. The process is neither linear nor circular. Obviously, one’s future speech commu-
nication is affected by one’s past and present speech communication—there is some feedback, not just a simple progression. Just as obviously, our speech communication never concludes
exactly where it began—there is some forward movement. The geometric model which may be most helpful is the helix, similar to the thread of a screw, or an extended “slinky” toy held
upright. When viewed as helical, one’s speech communication at one and the same time moves forward and yet gracefully curves back on itself in progressive motion. The intertwining of
two or more helices, as in interpersonal or person-to-persons speech communication, is remi- niscent of the double helix of genetic structure and testifies to the fantastic and fascinating
complexity of human speech communication. An individual’s speech communication is never truly discontinuous; there is always the connecting thread of individual being. This filament of
sameness mirrors the dynamic interrelationship of levels, functions, and modes in role.
Dance and Larson 1972
:184
Concerning their notion of role, Dance and Larson write:
Throughout life a person moves through varying roles, displaying in each a slightly dif- ferent constellation of speech communication levels, functions, and modes. When the
constellation exhibits what we consider an appropriate or acceptable balance, we tend to accept the individual’s speech communication behaviors as falling within the range called
average or normal. When the constellation seems warped or incongruent, we often question,
marginalization by Jacques Derrida 1930– . For Saussure, writing is not language, but a separate entity whose only ‘mission’ is to represent real spoken language. The ‘danger’ of writing is that it creates the
illusion of being more real and more stable than speech, and therefore gains ascendancy over speech in the popular mind. Derrida demonstrated the irrationality and internal inconsistency of this extreme
phonocentrism; in his deconstructionist wordplay, all language is a kind of ‘writing’ in a sense that is unique to Derrida.
Joseph 1994 :3665
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
