Communication Failure as Communication Power

Vlăduţescu, Ştefan

doi:10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.18.8

ILSHS > ILSHS Volume 18 > Communication Failure as Communication Power

< Back to Volume

Communication Failure as Communication Power

Removed due to low scientific level

Full Text PDF

Abstract:

After all communication remains a bitter idea that one could communicate properly, and better, and more efficient, and lower overall costs. The idea that persists after any communication is that the communication was imperfect. Being imperfect, any communication is also a failure. The power of communication is the communication failure. The failure is to not express your-self perfect, or speak more or less than you should, or could not say everything, or being misunderstood. In essence, the failure and the primary means of communication to improve the communication would be expression, speech, discourse. Discourse can be verbal or non-verbal. In linguistic communication works the principle of general expression, the principle of strong effability (J. J. Katz). The range of expression through language we record influence of idea of ineffable: it is thought, content, feeling, feelings, expressiveness that cannot be expressed. Ineffable principle seems to be secondary. In fact, the natural state of the world is ineffability. Effability and Ineffability of communication are complementary principles. The power of communication is in communication failure. Perfection communication cancel communication, perfection does not allow self-reproduction of communication and therefore stimulate its implosion. Deficient communication process development support communication; communication failure is the communication power. Communication failure is a relatively late theoretical discovery of communication discipline. It follows that in a subsequent paper to investigate ”the principle of communication failure” that emerges from the research of several renowned experts in General Science Communication (C. R. Berger -1997; J. D. Peters; Noemi Marin - 2007).

Info:

Periodical:

International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences (Volume 18)

Pages:

8-13

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.18.8

Citation:

Ş. Vlăduţescu, "Communication Failure as Communication Power", International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, Vol. 18, pp. 8-13, 2014

Online since:

December 2013

Authors:

Ştefan Vlăduţescu

Keywords:

Communication Failure, Communication Power, Principle of Effability, Principle of Expressibility, Principle of Ineffability

Export:

RIS, BibTeX, Text

Distribution:

Open Access

This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References:

[1] Arhip O., Philologica Jassyensia VIII/2 (16) (2012) 123-127.

[2] Asher, N., Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[3] Berger C. R. (1997). Planning strategic interaction: Attainig goals through communicative action. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[4] Dima Ioan Constantin, Vlăduțescu Ștefan (2012). Persuasion Elements Used in Logistical Negotiation: Persuasive Logistical Negotiation. Saarbrucken: LAP Lambert.

[5] Dumitru M. (2004). Explorări logico-filozofice. Humanitas.

[6] Ghenea V. (2006). Language and reality. Some aspects of realism in the philosophy of language. Analele Universitatii din Craiova, Seria Filosofie, (17), 157-165.

[7] Ionescu A. (2008). Modalisateurs illocutoires et argumentation. Craiova: Editura Universitaria.

[8] Iorgulescu A. (2009). Seneca, poet dramatic. Analele Universităţii din Craiova. Seria Ştiinţe Filologice. Limbi şi Literaturi Clasice, 6(1-2), 64-68.

[9] Katz J. J. (1978). Effability and translation. In F. Guenthner & M. Guenthner-Reutter (Eds.), Meaning and translation: Philosophical and lingiustic approaches, (pp.191-234). London: Duckworth.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2219461

[10] Keenan E. L. (1978). Some logical problems in translation. In F. Guenthner & M. Guenthner-Reutter (Eds.), Meaning and translation: Philosophical and lingiustic approaches (pp.157-189). London: Duckworth.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2219461

[11] Kolaiti P. (2010). The Limits of Expression : Language, Poetry, Thought. London: University College London (University of London).

[12] Kukla A. (2013). Ineffability and philosophy. Routledge.

[13] Marin N. (2007). After the fall: Rhetoric in the aftermath of dissent in post-communist times. Peter Lang.

[14] Neacșu A. (2006). Arheologia şi evoluţia conceptelor filosofice. Editura Universitaria.

[15] Nirenburg S., Beale S., Mahesh K., Onyshkevych B., Raskin V., Viegas E., ... & Zajac, R. (1996, April). Lexicons in the Mikrokosmos project. In Proceedings of the Society for Artificial Intelligence and Simulated Behavior Workshop on Multilinguality in the Lexicon, Brighton, UK.

[16] Ogarkova A., Soriano C., Lehr C., Lodz Studies in Language 24 (2012) 3-35.

[17] Recanati F. (2003). The Limits of Expressibility. In B. Smith (ed.), John Searle (pp.189-213). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511613999.009

[18] Searle J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[19] Shopovski J., European Scientific Journal 10 (2011) 98-104.

[20] Shopovski J., Bezzina F., Zammit M. M., European Scientific Journal 9(7) (2013) 14-31.

[21] Strechie M., Analele Universității din Craiova (2009) 92.

[22] Traistaru Aurelia, Jokull Journal 63(9) (2013) 125-135.

[23] von Fintel K., Matthewson L., The Linguistic Review 25(1-2) (2008) 139-201.

[24] Vlăduțescu Ștefan (a). Jokull Journal 63(8) (2013) 186-197.

[25] Vlăduțescu Ștefan (b). Jokull Journal 63(9) (2013) 301-318. ( Received 25 November 2013; accepted 29 November 2013 ).

Show More Hide

Cited By:

This article has no citations.