Inferential model of communication. Chapter 5: The Inferential Model of Human Communication 2022-10-26
Inferential model of communication
The inferential model of communication suggests that the process of communication involves more than just the transmission of a message from one person to another. It involves the interpretation and inference of meaning by the recipient of the message, based on their own knowledge, beliefs, and experiences. This model highlights the role of context and background information in the interpretation of a message and the importance of considering the perspective of the sender and the recipient in the communication process.
According to the inferential model, the transmission of a message is just the beginning of the communication process. The recipient of the message must then interpret the meaning of the message, using their own knowledge and understanding of the world to make sense of it. This interpretation is not a simple, straightforward process, as it involves taking into account various factors such as the context of the communication, the tone and nonverbal cues of the sender, and the goals and motivations of the sender.
One key aspect of the inferential model is the role of context in communication. The meaning of a message can vary significantly depending on the context in which it is received. For example, the phrase "I'm hungry" could be interpreted very differently if it is said by a child in the middle of a meal versus if it is said by an adult at the beginning of a long car ride. In the first case, the child might simply be expressing a desire for more food, while in the second case, the adult might be implying that they need to stop and get something to eat soon.
Another important aspect of the inferential model is the role of the sender and recipient in the communication process. The sender's goals and motivations, as well as their perspective and background knowledge, can all influence the way they communicate a message. Similarly, the recipient's own perspective and knowledge can shape the way they interpret a message. It is important to consider both the sender and the recipient in order to fully understand the meaning of a message and to effectively communicate with one another.
In conclusion, the inferential model of communication emphasizes the complex and dynamic nature of the communication process. It highlights the importance of context, the perspective of the sender and recipient, and the role of interpretation and inference in the transmission of a message. Understanding this model can help us to communicate more effectively and to better understand the messages that we receive from others.
Because they offer established and reliable associations between memes and stimuli, they drastically reduce the uncertainty associated with inference-making, allowing communicators to make inferences more quickly and be more sure of the inferences they are making. To determine these an agent needs to categorise the action with a large set of Natural Categories interrelated with Conceptual Metaphors. This chapter concludes with a summary of how inferential and code models differ in their explanation of human communication. For example, in this view the reason why we are constantly playing with different layers of meaning when we communicate is simply for communicative economy. This paints a quite different picture of communication: following the inferential model, communication is deeply and fundamentally social, as well as cognitive, in nature.
In this context it is striking that actual infinity is not assumed. Leaf nodes, in turn, will execute a behaviour, and return a binary outcome. In the previous chapter, we reviewed traditional models of communication, with a focus on the code model. Plant image from The second type of cooperation, informative cooperation, consists of activating meme states, or providing evidence for inferences, in a honest and truthful manner. Vocabulaire de sciences cognitives Vocabulaire de sciences cognitives. Appendix A Theorem proofs a. For example, when walk down the street, your legs and arms move as you propel yourself forward and your gaze moves around taking in your surroundings , but this nonverbal behavior is not necessarily intended to activate any specific meme states in anyone.
What is inferences in communication?
A says: I am out of petrol. We are essentially playing an ongoing social guessing game, doing the best we can to make informed deductions based on the evidence at hand. Thus, communication depends on two distinct intentions being present and recognized: first, a communicator must intend to communicate communicative intention , and others must recognize this. Which is an example of an inferential intention? However, current artificial cognitive systems do not learn to generalise a predicate beyond the domain of standard examples on which it is trained. Mutual Cognitive Environments and Recursive Mindreading As you read this, you might be wondering how it is that we manage to successfully communicate—that is, create understanding—through inferences, given the wide range of things that a single stimulus could potentially activate. In addition, the inhibitory input function was determined beforehand, i. These are common definitions of this word, and these can describe what people engage in when they communicate.
MaTIC: a Mathematical Theory of Inferential Communication
Radically elementary probability theory Radically elementary probability theory. As will be shown in the article, this theoretical claim is valid for any type of ostensive communication in which communicators intend to make mutually manifest to the addressee some information , humorous utterances included. This has several implications, for both studying communication and the act of communicating itself. The transition from standard existence to general existence will be discussed in detail in later sections. How do we know how other entities intend for us to interpret the stimuli they provide? The perspective adopted here questions the relevance of addressing actual commitment as a speaker category and shifts the focus of the discussion from properties of speaker commitment to processes of commitment attribution.
Chapter 5: The Inferential Model of Human Communication
Moreover, we can render interactive performances using Virtual or Augmented Reality headsets, thus recreating a communication scenario that, despite being technologically mediated, can be quite similar to spontaneous natural communication. The previous implies that a communicative event is not one in which a maximum amount of information is given, but rather one in which a maximally relevant information is given. What is the most important model of communication? These inferences take the form of Conversational implicatures and they are based on Relevance principles shared among the agents. Set theory and the continuum hypothesis Set theory and the continuum hypothesis. It is somewhat a principle operating at a second level: it implies any event triggered will aim at giving the minimal information but with the maximal relevance. For example, we typically use words that we believe others know and avoid words they do not , and we use those words to signal memes or concepts that we believe they know in conversation. The Inferential Model The inferential model proposes that communication consists of communicators making inferences hence the name about what the other is thinking or intending based on evidence provided in context.
(PDF) Linguistic Structure and Inferential Communication
We review notions such as predication, natural categories, conceptual metaphors, and competence acquisition. The nervous tissue constantly balances inhibitory and excitatory signals Buzsáki p t , and excitatory pathways correspond to n t. This is an important feature of the inferential model, and one that clearly distinguishes it from the code model. Thus, the theory ofrelevance developed by these authors does not only intend to account for human verbal communication but aims to be an integrating theory of communication, as it tries to explain not only utterance comprehension but also non-verbal i. Besides, the steps involved in this interpretive procedure may be predicted to a greater or lesser extent, which provides communicators with the key to the necessary control over the eventual interpretation of their humorous discourse. Alternative Axiomatic Set Theories Alternative axiomatic set theories. It is common in modern communication systems to interact with chat-bots, virtual assistants, and different sorts of More dramatically, modern virtual reality systems enable us to capture, stream and render full three dimensional representations of human actors, across the auditory and the visual domains.
Code and inferential models of communication : communication, message theory, inferential theory, relevance theory
In both cases, when they receive information in the form of events, inferential agents associate an interpretative meaning to these events. You can probably answer yes for one, if not all, of these situations. For example, when walk down the street, your legs and arms move as you propel yourself forward and your gaze moves around taking in your surroundings , but this nonverbal behavior is not necessarily intended to activate any specific meme states in anyone. Yet it is argued that a pragmatic explanation of meaning provides all the elements that discourse analysis describes. Understanding that others have minds, and that others experience the world in terms of their mental states, is fundamental to human social interaction. However, the language that most readily comes to us, and the interpretation of the situation that is most accessible, is often framed in terms of agents, intentions, and mental states.
Chapter 6: The Inferential Model of Human Communication
The process by which we go from what is said to what is meant is determined not only by the meaning of the words and in what situation the communicative action is performed, but also by implicit assumptions in everyday interaction. Second, and related, the inferential model gives codified communication systems a different role in the communicative process. Of course, this occurs spontaneously in humans and other animals. A classical example adapted from Grice A is standing by an obviously immobilised car. You can probably answer yes for one, if not all, of these situations. All these are part of the context. In this, it succeeds: the inferential model is able to address and explain situations that code model could not: when inferences are the mechanism by which communication occurs, it is possible to communicate successful when there is not a shared, established code, stimuli are ambiguous, or signals are being improvised.
(PDF) An inferential model of communication, as envisaged in relevance theory
It is even possible to be informatively and materially cooperative, but communicatively uncooperative: this can happen, for example, when a technician or specialist offers accurate and truthful advice for fixing a problem, but does so using jargon or terminology we do not know. This cognitive process, that we call interpretation, consists in associating the events with communicative intentions, within a context that includes a given situation, and a cultural background assumed as shared among the different agents. To denote an event with standard existence we call it a standard event. Active inference, enactivism and the hermeneutics of social cognition Active inference, enactivism and the hermeneutics of social cognition. This includes but is not limited to exhibiting and observing stimuli in interpretable or conventional ways, or using established codes. Although this might sound obvious, it considerably constrains the possible inferences one could make based on a given stimulus even an ambiguous one , which is a major issue this way of modeling communication has to address.
Recent systems have demonstrated super-human features in classical games such as go or chess. The third type of cooperation, material cooperation, consists of acting in ways that pursue or promote prosocial goals. In inferential model communication, it is the recognition of intentions, not the application of codified communication systems i. Because meaning depends on inferences about mental states, the use and interpretation of stimuli can be much more flexible. However, it is difficult to see how we may implement in an artificial agent the notion of conceptual metaphor to interpret the events involved in everyday communication.