Encoding/decoding model of communication: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:11, 6 June 2020

Revision as of 19:36, 12 July 2020

Line 3:

In simpler terms, encoding/decoding is the translation of a message that is easily understood. When you decode a message, you extract the meaning of that message in ways that make sense to you. Decoding has both verbal and non-verbal forms of communication: Decoding behavior without using words means observing body language and its associated emotions. For example, some body language signs for when someone is upset, angry, or stressed would be a use of excessive hand/arm movements, red in the face, crying, and even sometimes silence. Sometimes when someone is trying to get a message across to someone, the message can be interpreted differently from person to person. Decoding is all about the understanding of what someone already knows, based on the information given throughout the message being received. Whether there is a large audience or exchanging a message to one person, decoding is the process of obtaining, absorbing, understanding, and sometimes using the information that was given throughout a verbal or non-verbal message.

For example, since advertisements can have multiple layers of meaning, they can be decoded in various ways and can mean something different to different people.<ref>{{cite book|first1=Aidan|last1=Kelly|first2=Katrina|last2=Lawlor|first3=Stephanie|last3=O'Donohoe|chapter=Chapter 8: Encoding Advertisements: The Creative Perspective|title=The Advertising and Consumer Culture Reader|editor1-first=Joseph|editor1-last=Turow|editor2-first=Matthew P.|editor2-last=McAllister|publisher=[[Routledge]]|___location=Hoboken, New Jersey|date=2009|ISBN=978-0415963305|pages=133–49}}</ref>

{{bq|1="The level of connotation of the visual [[Sign (semiotics)|sign]], of its [[Contextualization (sociolinguistics)|contextual]] reference and positioning in different discursive fields of meaning and association, is the point where already coded signs intersect with the deep [[semantic]] codes of a culture and take on additional more active [[ideological]] dimensions."|2=Stuart Hall |3=1980, "Encoding/decoding."<ref name="Encoding and Decoding"/>}}

Line 38:

== Three positions upon decoding messages ==

Communication theorist [[Stuart Hall (cultural theorist)|Stuart Hall]] argues that there are three positions that people may take upon decoding a television message. He argues three different positions because "decodings do not follow inevitably from encodings".<ref name="Hall">{{cite book|last=Hall|first=Stuart|title=Media and Cultural Studies: KeyWorks|date=2009|publisher=[[Wiley (publisher)|Wiley]]|ISBN=9781405150309|editor1-last=Durham|editor1-first=Meenakshi Gigi|___location=Hoboken, New Jersey|pagepages=171-74171–74|authorlink=Stuart Hall (cultural theorist)|editor2-last=Keller|editor2-first=Douglas M.}}</ref> Thus, just because a message is encoded on television in a particular way, it does not mean it will be decoded in its intended format. This lays the foundation for Hall's hypothetical positions—he needs multiple positions because there are multiple interpretations that could occur. These positions are known as the dominant-hegemonic position, the negotiated position, and the oppositional position.

===Dominant/hegemonic position===

The first position that he discusses is the dominant-hegemonic code. This code or position is one where the consumer takes the actual meaning directly, and decodes it exactly the way it was encoded. For instance, political and military elites primarily generated the politics of [[The Troubles|Northern Ireland]] and the [[1973 Chilean coup d'état|Chilean Coup]]. These elites created the "hegemonic interpretations"<ref name="Hall"/> Because these ideas were hegemonic interpretations, they became dominant. Hall demonstrates that if a viewer of a newscast on such topics decoded the message "in terms of the reference code in which it has been encoded" that the viewer would be "operating inside the dominant code"<ref name="Hall"/> Thus, the dominant code involves taking the [[Connotation|connotative]] meaning of a message in the exact way a sender intended a message to be interpreted (decoded). Under this framework, the consumer is located within the dominant point of view, and is fully sharing the texts codes and accepts and reproduces the intended meaning. Here, there is barely any misunderstanding because both the sender and receiver have the same [[cultural bias]]es.<ref>[http://juliemartin.org/juliemartin-audiencesreception.pdf "Audiences and Reception Theory."] Julie Martin: Community Manager / Animatrice De Communaute. 2007.</ref> This means that the intended message was created by the dominant class and that the recipient was also a part of the dominant point of view. And there is no misunderstanding between sender and receiver for they have similar cultural biases.<ref name="Encoding and Decoding" />

A modern-day example of the dominant-hegemonic code is described by communication scholar Garrett Castleberry in his article "Understanding Stuart Hall's 'Encoding/Decoding' Through AMC's [[Breaking Bad]]". Castleberry argues that there is a dominant-hegemonic "position held by the entertainment industry that illegal drug side-effects cause less damage than perceived". If this is the dominant code and television shows like ''Breaking Bad'' support such perceptions, then they are operating within the dominant code.<ref name="academia.edu">{{cite book|first=Garret|last=Castleberry|chapter=Understanding Stuart Hall's 'Encoding/Decoding' Through AMC's Breaking Bad|title=Communication Theory and Millennial Popular Culture: Essays and Applications|editor-first=Kathleen|editor-last=Glenister Roberts|publisher=[[Peter Lang (publisher)|Peter Lang Inc.]]|___location=New York City|date=2015|ISBN=978-1433126420|page=90}}</ref> Likewise, a viewer believing such perceptions will also be operating within the dominant-hegemonic code since they are encoding the message in the way it is intended.

Line 59:

==The encoding/decoding model critique==

Hall's encoding/decoding model has left its proponents with three main problems to solve<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Shangwei|last1=Wu|first2=Tabe|last2=Bergman|url=http://www.participations.org/Volume%2016/Issue%201/7.pdf|title=An active, resistant audience – but in whose interest? Online discussions on Chinese TV dramas as maintaining dominant ideology|journal=Participations: International Journal of Audience Research|volume=16|issue=1|date=May 2019|page=23}}</ref> The first problem concerns polysemy. The three positions of decoding proposed by Hall are based on the audience’s conscious awareness of the intended meanings encoded into the text. In other words, these positions – agreement, negotiation, opposition – are in relation to the intended meaning. However, polysemy means that the audience may create new meanings out of the text. The audience’s perceived meanings may not be intended by the producers. Therefore, ‘polysemy’ and ‘opposition’ should be seen as two analytically distinct processes, although they do interconnect in the overall reading process.<ref>Morley, D. (2006). Unanswered questions in audience research. ''The Communication Review 9''(2), 101–121.</ref><ref name="doi.org">Schrøder, K. C. (2000). Making sense of audience discourses: Towards a multidimensional model of mass media reception. ''European Journal of Cultural Studies 3''(2), 233–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/136754940000300205</ref> The second problem relates to aesthetics. TV viewers may take an aesthetically critical stance towards the text, commenting on the paradigmatic and syntagmatic aspects of textual production. Underlying this is the viewers’ awareness of the ‘constructedness’ of the text, which is a different dimension from meaning making in the decoding process.<ref name="doi.org"/><ref>Michelle, C. (2007). Modes of reception: A consolidated analytical framework. ''The Communication Review 10''(3), 181–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420701528057

</ref>. The third problem addresses the positions of encoding. Hall’s model does not differentiate the various positions media producers may take in relation to the dominant ideology. Instead, it assumes that encoding always takes place within a dominant-hegemonic position.<ref name=":0">Ross, S. (2011, May 25th). The encoding/decoding model revisited: ''Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association''. Boston, MA.</ref>.

</ref>. The second problem relates to aesthetics. TV viewers may take an aesthetically critical stance towards the text, commenting on the paradigmatic and syntagmatic aspects of textual production. Underlying this is the viewers’ awareness of the ‘constructedness’ of the text, which is a different dimension from meaning making in the decoding process<ref>Schrøder, K. C. (2000). Making sense of audience discourses: Towards a multidimensional model of mass media reception. ''European Journal of Cultural Studies 3''(2), 233–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/136754940000300205

</ref><ref>Michelle, C. (2007). Modes of reception: A consolidated analytical framework. ''The Communication Review 10''(3), 181–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420701528057

</ref>. The third problem addresses the positions of encoding. Hall’s model does not differentiate the various positions media producers may take in relation to the dominant ideology. Instead, it assumes that encoding always takes place within a dominant-hegemonic position<ref name=":0">Ross, S. (2011, May 25th). The encoding/decoding model revisited: ''Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association''. Boston, MA.</ref>.

Ross<ref name=":0">Ross, S. (2011, May 25th). The encoding/decoding model revisited: ''Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association''. Boston, MA.</ref> suggests two ways to modify Hall's typology of the Encoding/Decoding Model by expanding the original version.<ref name="Encoding and Decoding" /> While presenting the modified typology, Ross stresses that his suggested version doesn't imply to replace the original model but rather to expand it and to let the model work in a new way. Further is the explanation of one of the alternative models suggested by Ross,<ref name=":0" /> which is a more complex typology consisting of nine combinations of encoding and decoding positions (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The reasons why the original model needs to be revisited and the alternative model description to follow.

In line with previous scholarship criticizing Hall's model, Ross<ref name=":0" /> and Morley<ref name=":1">Morley, D. (2006). Unanswered questions in audience research. ''Communication Review 9''(2), 101-121.</ref> argue that the model has some unsolved problems. First, Morley mentions that in the decoding stage there is a need to distinguish comprehension of the text and its evaluation. Comprehension here refers to the reader's understanding of the text in the basic sense and the sender's intention, and to possible readers interpretations of the text (borrowed from Schroder<ref name=":2">Schrøder, K. (2000). Making sense of audience discourses: Towards a multidimensional model of mass media reception. ''European Journal of Cultural Studies 3''(2), 233-258.</ref>). Evaluation is how readers relate the text to the ideological position (also borrowed from Schroder<ref name=":2" />).

Line 133 ⟶ 131:

_b

_-−

_{yo> K 6&/&/&” 3 :2 313732725762 326/ &7’ #8# 0}