Can one not communicate? A conflict of models

Abstract

During this past quarter century, the statement that it is impossible not to communicate has become an established tenet of interpersonal communication. The Andersen and Motley papers are the latest contributions to a debate whose current round began with Motley's earlier challenge to the axiom. The present papers will not end the debate since the resulting issues reach beyond the scope of a single inquiry. This article considers how the debate thus far has advanced our understanding of human communication. It first notes what can be learned about the present dispute by examining the axiom in its original context. Second, it compares two contrasting models of communication that underlie the debate. Third, it examines the debate in terms of those models. Finally, it explores a possible bridge between models that might reduce the conflict. The analysis makes the following points: First, writers about communication have generalized the axiom beyond its original context in relational communication. Second, the crux of the debate is the differing preferences for two models of interaction, a behavioral model and a communication‐process model. Third, the two models are nearly isomorphic and therefore easily confused but on close examination display crucial differences. Finally, the hybrid construct of communication behavior presents a possible bridge between the two models.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.