Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1973
Recommended Citation
Dixon '73, Gail, "Communication Theory and Interpreters Theatre: Toward a Model for the Form" (1973). Honors Projects.
Paper 15.
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/theatre_honproj/15
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Theatre Arts, School of at Digital Commons @ IWU. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ IWU. For more information, please contact
sdaviska@iwu.edu.
Copyright is owned by the author of this document.
Univ. Libra
61701
.
W e Bl
l111noiB
ton.
lIlooming
1'1e&
SPECIAL COLLECTIONS
?N.
:<0 JLc:<
7)56'
Submitted for consideration to
The Department of Speech
Illinois Wesleyan University
As a Departmental Honors Project
Gail
ay ,
M
ff
II '
xon
1973
CONTENTS
Introduction
..
..
..
page 1
..
..
page 5
..
..
page 21
..
..
..
Interpretation As Communication.
..
..
..
Interpreters Theatre:
..
..
..
..
page 29
INTRODUCTION
For too long and for too many people the field of speech
has been characterized by fragmentation of rather than unity
between its various areas of concentration.
Interpretation,
These areas,
wthin
the field
Thedebat'r is well
Inter-
It is the purpose
However, of necessity,
..
,,
'
It
Animals
sirig
meaningful words.
"
.
,
"1
. the, individual.
The
Thus
..
variety
The gen-
Though
There are
Intrapersonal
'.
In an act
3'
In an interpersonal situation
Feedback,
through an agent.
communication.
culture.
Culture here is
our
These cues
w hich
5
the individual uses to communicate.
This
Let us
10
It
This is
'
easy to understand when we realize that a model coupled with
a verbal explanation provides the ,observer with two sets of
,,'
The
1 1
----
We
ask why are no provisions made for the factors, both interna
and external, which affect the speaker and his audi e nce
members?
12
Aristotle
This is Newcomb's
-model:
----
----.---
--
----
to
All of these
10
13
Transactional Model.
is the transactional.
transactional model.
ffcommunication:. postulates. n
It is
Walter coutu,says,
uSince
We would
14
Communication is circular.
circular.
Communication is unrepeatable. Barnlund draws a distinc
tion between systems which are deterministic and mechanical
and those which are spontaneous and directionarY.
In a
.'.
Since
'
A person decodes
The
....
15
:C"o
va1,ences.
Iii
The cues
will not be the same for the two communicants, nor will they
carry the same valences.
be involved, however.
We need to
They are
A public cU.e
Private
16
Having the
ic ones.
cues may also be converted into publ
NV'oA
CPR
CPR
. i
P
D
E
CPR
iilli{r.::.;.:..-tc:Hlu"._.
:;t: \r PR
?::.; 'A;CPR'
CBE
,
I
I
1;,'E:i'HN.
,
. 1
Cpu
..........
RNY
I
NWo./
\ \' .....
'"
\, " ..... .... __ ...
CBEHV
\
"
......
"
.....
"
.... - ____ ':'cBERV
"
\
\
\
\
.
C B;EHv
"
.....
'...
CPU
",,- - - ....
I
I
- _ _
.....
.....
cia'
'\
" " \\
""
CBEHN V
CPR
CBBHV
..... -
'
I
I
I
CBEHN
V
--+
Cpu
Cpu
Cpu
Cpu
CPU
Cpu
CPU
CPU
-l
'"
"' .. .....
C PU
CPU
CPU
. :, :"
receiver"-
B represents behavioral sy stem roles--"the
and uses
a personality or social system which requires
ronment
communications abnut the condition of the envi
for need satisfaction and problem solution.
g and
C is channel roles--agents of B in selectin
rmation
info
ed
need
the
ely
osiv
transmitting non-purp
to B.
17
"'-'
,:
. In
and ab
.,
In
the
13
This is Westley
18
If we label communication a
To make it anything
19
''-. - ;
sake.
come across the notion that verbal elements and their manner
of llse are embellishments for tb,e purpose of the speaker.
We
is:the tool, the device, rather than the cause or the origind.' tor, of a certain type of communicative behavior.
Thayer tells us that one of our largest problems is
our "physical sciences thinkingf1 which pervB;des
world.
;.
OUT
intellectual
Thayer contends
that to be useful, theories must accomodate the selforganizing aspects of the organism, interpersonal encounters
and organizations.
20
concentrates on the elements which are c:msidered "countable."
Some of these elements are senders, receivers, messages,
words, nOise, and feedback.
We build
Often, he says,
1
we confuse the word with the thing. 4
Thayer's comments are valuable for reminding us that
any model is merely a symbolic representation of a general
type of communicative situation, rather than any specific
communicative act.
'.
INTERPRETATION AS COMMUNICATION
22
John w.
as communication.
a s a idiscipline
concerned
"process view.1t
dealing with oral
1960
in many ublic
speaking textbookso
diction.
:;
mayalso .be seen
in.
literary structure,
:""
bodily action-,
empathy,
and
and
tone color,
If we
author"s intent.
it is easy to
We have,
says Gray.
however,
15
scientific
be a
then,
examination0
However,
such scientific
study may
This,
art form:
23
16
'
David Berlo, discussin g the human communicative process
states that once we accept a phenomenon as a process, we
must accept its events and relationships as Hdynamic, ongoing,
everchanging,
end,
We find it impossible to
it is difficult to list ,,
are
remin ded
of the postUlates
Barnlund presented.
An example to
It is certain that
this audience
24
We can
communication as transaction.
The theory that communication is dynamic is readily
applied to oral i nterp ret ati on.
Yet, it--
With the
become part of his p er ceptual field and thus yield an influence over some future i nter naliz at io n of meaning.
Barnlund also speaks of communication as circular and
we may quickly
25
phenomenon.
a one-of-a-kind
in Barnlund's terms,
and underlies
the thesis
applied here.
for
reversal is
Barnlund's
is easily seen.
Looking back,
indeed,
well as to communication.
of communicating
This argument,
says Gray,
He does acknowledge,
verbalized it becomes an
the event itself.
What may be
26
argued is that it is
i nterpretations
,i;)
.::::,;
8
When speaking of the
19
Hunsinger
27
(the audience) .
and finally,
that the
20
...-
;.
of interpret'ation and
that
and
those of
communication.
not:the i)riginator,
21
Hunsinger
. In
give
the
describing
us three :.'
certain definite
the
With
he may be
28
22
specialized
INTERPRETERS THEATRE
AN ANALYSIS AND A MODEL
,.. ,
30
I.iill in 1951
Th ough
not. a great deal has been written about the form, both
Joanna Hawkins Maclay and Leslie Irene Coger have been
instrumental in establishing written theory for Interpreters
Theatre.
Maolay defines theatre as a medium characterized by
the two features of a text and a performance.
Interpreters
Maclay
23
When speaking of
She
This
31
If,
.;
If,
That space,is
The aural
."
32
This
'.
emotional,
ri26
27
Wallace
33
implied.
i'8 present.
between performer
34
We
In light of this,
acLean's
Let us
'.
35
Certainly
In addition,
to
It is the meaning
In
It
36
word.
And it
In
In this
37
--
._-
------------
J)
"'.
/
J;
(j)
The large circled T is the written text.
interpretation of the text.
is the director's
As we see the
(I), and the audience collectively (A) exist in the 'same plane
while the written text is outside that plane, or on a different
level.
38
The
interpret"ations
the total communicative process taking place in Interpreters
Theatre.
We can see through the model and its explanation that the
interpreter in Interpreters Theatre considered a channel or
a creator.
His is the
This
'.
39
NOTES
1
Kenneth C. Anderson, 'ariant Views of the Commun
icative Act," in S eech Communication:
Anal sis and Readin s
(Boston: Allyn an Bacon, 19
Speech--Interpersonal
Gordon Wiseman and Larry Barker.
Communication (Scranton:
Chandler, 1967) p. 90.
llli. . p. 1 0 7.
Edward T. Hall.
1959) p. 56.
Fawcett,
__
110.
Harper and Row, 1970) p. 8 3.
15
16
. p. 19.
17
ill., . p.
i8
(Boston:
19
20
(Dubuque:
22.
Cha.rlotte Lee.
Oral Interpretation fourth edition,
Houghton, Mifflin, 1971) p. 2.
@r"
p.
24
Paul Hunsinger.
Communicative Interpretation
Brown, 1967) p. 104.
21
22
23
p.
96.
p.
57.
Toward a
Readers Theatre:
Joanna Hawkins Maclay.
Grammar of Practice (New York:
Random House, 1971) p. 4.
24
25
p.
196
26
Readers
Leslie Irene Coger and Melvin R. White.
Theatre Handbook (Glenview:
Scott, Foresman, 1967) p. 19.
27
28
29
ll1.!!.
p.
27.
Ibid.
p.
29.
Ibid. p. 30.
-
30
p.
36.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ayer, A. J.
Studies in Communication (London:
Secker and Warburg, 1955).
Martin,
Anderson, Kenneth C.
"Variant Views of the Commun
icative Act, " in S eeCh Commupicatiop :
Analysis and R eading s
(Boston:
Allyn an Bacon, 168) pp.<Z -23 .
Barnlund, Dean C.
in
ancL C. Dav
82-95.
Berlo, David K.
Stu dies in Communication (NewUYark:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960).
Coger, Leslie Irene and Melvin R. White.
Theatre Handbook ( Glenview:
Scott, For esm an,
Readers
1967).
Gray, John W.
EssaysCand Readings
,
1959)
Hall, Edward T.
(, Greenwich:
Fawcett,
Hunsinger, Paul.
Brown, 1967).
( Dubuq ue:
Toward a
1971).
Speech Communication:
Martin, Howard H. and Kenneth Anderson.
Analysis and Readines (Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, 1968).
Nilsen, Thomas R.
"Interpersonal Communicatio n ft in
Central States Speech Journal XV (February, 1964).
Sereno, Kenneth and C. David Mortenson.
Foundations
Harper and Row, 1970).
in Communication Theory (New York:
Westley, Bruce H. and Malcom S. Maclean, Jr.
flA
Conceptual Model for Communications Research" in Foundations
in Communicative heory ed. , Kenneth Sereno and C. David
Hortenson.
(New York:
1970)
pp.
73-86,.
eeCh--Interpersonal
Wiseman, Gordon and Larry Barker
Communication-(Scranton:
Chandler, 1967