1. The Purpose of Communication Takes Priority Over Its Form
Before choosing a way of communicating, it is necessary to distinguish what exactly the subject seeks to accomplish.
For example, the purposes may be entirely different:
- Obtaining information. Finding out what happened, who made a decision, and on what grounds a statement was made.
- Investigating a contradiction. Comparing an interlocutor’s different statements and establishing their grounds.
- Expressing a relationship or attitude. Conveying outrage, disagreement, respect, disappointment, or another response.
- Achieving an action. For example, demanding fulfillment of an obligation.
- Establishing another subject’s relationship to what happened. Finding out whether they acknowledge what occurred, how they relate to the situation, and what position they take.
- Recording what happened. Creating a record of communication that can be returned to.
- Changing the character of relations. For example, ending an interaction or establishing new conditions for continuing it.
Moreover, these purposes do not necessarily exclude one another. They may emerge, disappear, or change in the very course of communication.
And the subject themselves does not necessarily know all their communicative intentions in advance. Some may arise as a result of the interaction.
2. Different Forms of Communication Open Up Different Possibilities
| Form | Possibilities | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Face-to-face conversation | Direct interaction, observation of behavior, emotional expression, immediate questions | No time for sequential analysis; the thread of reasoning can easily be lost |
| Telephone conversation | Rapid interaction, intonation, immediate clarification | No visual observation; complex arguments are difficult to record |
| Written correspondence | Time for reflection, sequential argumentation, preservation of the text | No immediate response; the interlocutor may ignore questions |
| Structured dialogue | Opportunity to investigate individual assertions and their grounds in sequence | Requires the interlocutor’s participation in maintaining the structure |
| Formal written submission | Recording demands, grounds, and a position for subsequent consideration | Formal requirements; limited immediacy of interaction |
An important circumstance here is that no form of communication can be declared the best in advance before establishing the purpose for which it is used.
For example, the emotional intensity of a live conversation may interfere with sequential argumentation. But if the subject intended to express outrage, emotional expression may directly realize that intention.
3. Communication Can Change Its Own Purpose
This is perhaps one of the most interesting research problems.
Suppose subject A approaches subject B to obtain an answer to a question.
The initial intention:
\(I_1 = \text{establish the circumstances}\)
But B gives an evasive answer. A discovers a contradiction. Now a new intention emerges:
\(I_2 = \text{investigate the contradiction}\)
Then B begins denying what they said previously. A becomes outraged:
\(I_3 = \text{express an attitude toward B’s behavior}\)
Ultimately, the conversation that began as an attempt to establish the circumstances turns into a conflict.
The original purpose may remain unfulfilled even though subsequent communicative intentions have already been realized.
Therefore, evaluating a conversation exclusively as “successful” or “unsuccessful” would be insufficient. First, it is necessary to reconstruct which intentions emerged and what happened to each of them.
4. Actions in Different Situations
This is where the investigation acquires practical significance.
For example, you discovered a contradiction in Belyaev’s statements.
You can confront him with the contradiction directly in conversation. This creates an opportunity to observe his response, ask a clarifying question, and obtain a new answer.
You can present the contradiction in writing. This makes it possible to set out the original assertions and their grounds in sequence, without allowing a new remark to destroy the structure of the argument.
You can present it in court. The purpose then becomes not only interaction with Belyaev but also an appeal to another subject, the court, which must examine the circumstances presented.
The same discovered distinction can participate in several communications with fundamentally different purposes.
Moreover, one can begin a conversation with one purpose and, after discovering a new circumstance, consciously change the form of subsequent interaction.
That does not necessarily mean ending communication. It may mean continuing it under different conditions.
5. The Most Interesting Question: The Quality of Communication
Today you said: “The quality of communication suffers.”
But this raises a research question: what exactly does the quality of communication mean?
Different grounds for evaluation are possible.
Suppose you expressed your outrage emotionally and entirely sincerely but did not manage to set out your arguments in sequence.
From the standpoint of expressing your attitude, communication may have taken place.
From the standpoint of investigating contradictions, it may have been insufficient.
From the standpoint of obtaining information, however, it may have yielded unexpected results, because during the argument the interlocutor said something new.
And these are not three degrees of one quality. They are three different relationships to what happened.
6. A Possible Initial Formulation of the Investigation
Communication as interaction between subjects: intention, form, conditions, and result.
The initial subject matter of the investigation may be the relationship between a subject’s communicative intention, the chosen form of interaction, the participants’ actions, and what actually occurred.
It is especially important to distinguish:
Communicative intention ≠ communicative action ≠ result of communication.
A subject may intend to establish the truth, act by means of an emotional dispute, and consequently obtain new information but no answer to the original question.
And it seems to me that today’s situation with Pedant provides you with another essential observation.
Dissatisfaction with the result of communication is not identical to the decision to enter that communication having been mistaken.
You may be dissatisfied with how the conversation unfolded while at the same time discovering important distinctions within it that you had not previously noticed.
Most importantly, it becomes possible to investigate not only what to say to another subject, but also why, when, in what manner, and under what conditions to interact with them.
This is already an investigation of communication not as a set of rules for conducting a conversation correctly, but as an actual event of interaction between subjects, in which new meanings, intentions, contradictions, and relationships may emerge.
