The code model as a concept

25

3. The Code Model Decoded

3.1. The code model as a concept

The discipline of linguistics has not always ascribed to the code model. The model did not appear on the linguistic scene until the mid-1950s, following the appropriation of Shannon’s information theory Shannon 1948 ; Shannon and Weaver 1949 ; Weaver 1949a . An adjusted version of information theory was then integrated with an already existent model, an integration of the ancient conduit metaphor Reddy 1979 and Saussure’s speech circuit Saussure 1983 , 1985 . This chapter addresses each of these three constituent models in turn, as well as addressing their contemporary integration in the code model. While this study addresses the impact of a single model of communication, it would be at best naïve to regard that model as the only model available. Indeed, as K. L. Berge 1994 points out, communication-relevant literature demonstrates the existence of several models. This is evident even though the adherents to various models do not always directly or explicitly refer to those models. As stated previously, theoretical dependence upon a particular model may, in many cases, be most evident in the choice of metaphors employed by the respective theoreticians, rather than in explicit statements offered by those theoreticians. As Berge states it: “The trends [in communication- relevant research] can be classified according to the basic models of communication they have adopted. Or rather, according to the different metaphors that linguists use in order to try to illustrate or make explicit the phenomenon of communication” Berge 1994 :614. The present study differs from that offered by Berge, but it does follow a similar pattern in emphasizing the role of metaphors for communication. It is useful to note Berge’s use of the term “adopted.” The term suggests two premises, both of which are instrumental in an historical review of the code model, its development, and influence: 1. There is more than one way to view communication. 2. The use of a model correlates with presuppositions held by linguists using the model. Coupled with a truism offered by the diffusionist Torsten Hägerstrand, these two premises support a third. Hägerstrand writes, “It is self-evident that nobody can adopt an innovation without first having gained knowledge about its existence” Hägerstrand 1965 . 19 In other words, if linguists employ the same jargon and similar models, it is 19 Of course, this is not to suggest that parallel invention does not or cannot occur. It is simply to suggest that, in observing instances where multiple communities employ an identical or closely similar artifact tool, clothing style, or, in this case, theoretical model of communication, the diffusionist view will initially hypothesize adoption, rather than parallel invention. 26 3. The Code Model Decoded quite likely that these linguists did not develop these terms and models in isolation. The third premise may then be stated: 3. Linguists work in community; they share presuppositions and models. Why are these premises important? Namely because of the reification that has taken place regarding the code model, so that for most linguists the model has become the way to view communication, rather than simply a way. There is a risk that linguists fail to identify the code model as simply a metaphorical tool, as a model. Thinking of it as a literal account of reality almost precludes a realization that communication has not always been described in such terms. Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson comment, “The view of linguistic communication as achieved by encoding thoughts in sounds is so entrenched in Western culture that it has become hard to see it as a hypothesis rather than a fact” 1986 :6. If indeed communication has not always been described in such terms, then it is likely that those employing the terms share, in some sense, a relationship or network whereby they came to employ the term. This will prove important in subsequent discussion, but for now, the point is relatively simple: being a conceptual metaphor, the code model is an assemblage of concepts, and as such, it had a beginning. In his 1951 volume titled The Art of Clear Thinking, Rudolf Flesch discusses the importance of remembering that every concept had a beginning. In his opinion, remembering this little fact helps to keep one from falling victim to the belief that “concepts are things.” Flesch recounts the origins of several concepts, such as national sovereignty, the chair as a household implement, and zero—concepts which are now so common that, like the code model, they are rarely under consideration. Having listed their dates of origin, he writes: “I think that if you keep this little table [of innovations and dates] in mind, it will be difficult for you ever to fall into the error that concepts are things. They are not; they are vague references to certain qualities a number of unspecified things have in common” Flesch 1951 :34. 20 With the three premises established and Flesch’s illustration as a backdrop, the chapter now turns to an account of the origins of the code model. The chapter also addresses each of the constituent models in detail, as well as discussing their integration and implications which have arisen from that integration. 20 Flesh’s 1951 :34 table is as follows: Zero ca. 500 Romantic Love ca. 1150 Chair ca. 1490 Corporation 1553 Sovereignty 1576 Opera 1600 Novel 1678 Progress 1683 Success 1684 Gravity 1687 3. The Code Model Decoded 27

3.2. Origins of the code model: The integration of three constituent models