Communication Defined: Exploring Shared Meaning and Interaction

Communication shapes our relationships, builds communities, and connects us across differences. Yet beneath this everyday activity lies a rich history and depth of meaning that scholars have explored for decades. Understanding what communication truly means-beyond simply talking or sending messages-reveals how we create shared understanding and build social bonds.

The roots of communication: from Latin to modern meaning 🔗

The word communication derives from the Latin term “communis,” which translates to “common” or “shared.” This origin reveals something fundamental: communication is not merely about transmitting information from one person to another. Instead, it centers on creating commonality between people.

The Latin verb “communicare” means “to make common” or “to share,” emphasizing that communication involves establishing shared ground. When we communicate, we’re not just exchanging words-we’re working to create mutual understanding, shared perspectives, and common experiences. This etymological foundation reminds us that effective communication requires finding or building common ground with others.

Think about everyday interactions. When you explain a concept to someone unfamiliar with it, you search for references, examples, or experiences you both understand. You’re creating that “common” space where meaning can be shared. The very structure of the word points to this essential quality: communication brings people together through shared meaning.

Expert perspectives on defining communication 🔗

Scholars across disciplines have worked to capture the essence of communication. Their definitions highlight different aspects of this complex process, yet all emphasize the interactive, shared nature of human connection.

Denis McQuail’s emphasis on commonality 🔗

British communication theorist Denis McQuail offered a particularly insightful definition. He described communication as “a process which increases commonality-but also requires elements of commonality for it to occur at all.” This definition captures a paradox at the heart of communication: we need some shared understanding to communicate, yet communication itself creates more shared understanding.

McQuail’s perspective reveals that communication is both a prerequisite and an outcome. Before two people can communicate effectively, they must share something-perhaps a language, cultural context, or common experience. Yet through the act of communicating, they expand what they hold in common. They develop shared knowledge, mutual understanding, and collective meaning.

This cyclical process explains why communication can be challenging across cultural or experiential divides. Without sufficient commonality as a starting point, establishing meaningful communication becomes difficult. However, once initial connection is made, communication itself generates more common ground, making future interactions easier and richer.

Theodore Newcomb’s social equilibrium model 🔗

American social psychologist Theodore Newcomb approached communication from a different angle, focusing on its role in social relationships. Newcomb introduced his ABX model in 1953 to explain how communication functions within social systems.

Newcomb viewed communication as a tool for maintaining social equilibrium-the balance and harmony in relationships. His model involves three elements: two communicators and a shared topic or environment they both orient toward. When these parties hold similar attitudes about their shared focus, equilibrium exists. When their views differ, communication increases as they work to restore balance.

This perspective emphasizes that we don’t communicate in isolation. We communicate about things within a shared environment, and our communication serves to align our perspectives with those around us. Newcomb’s contribution highlights the social purpose of communication: it helps us maintain stable, harmonious relationships by working through differences and building consensus.

For instance, when colleagues disagree about a project approach, they engage in communication not just to exchange information but to find common ground that restores their working relationship’s equilibrium. The shared environment-their workplace and project-provides context for their communication.

Charles Morris and symbolic interaction 🔗

Philosopher and semiotician Charles Morris contributed to understanding communication through his work on signs and symbols. Morris examined how we use symbolic systems-language, gestures, images-to convey meaning. His framework divided the study of signs into three dimensions: syntactics (how signs relate to each other), semantics (how signs relate to what they represent), and pragmatics (how signs relate to their users).

While Morris focused primarily on semiotics rather than communication theory per se, his insights reveal that communication fundamentally involves symbolic exchange. We create and interpret symbols to share ideas, emotions, and information. Understanding communication requires recognizing that we constantly engage with symbolic systems that carry shared cultural meanings.

Communication as interaction and community building 🔗

Beyond individual definitions, scholars have recognized communication as a fundamentally social process-one that creates and sustains human communities.

Ashley Montagu’s vision of human connection 🔗

Anthropologist Ashley Montagu eloquently captured this dimension of communication. In his work “The Human Connection,” Montagu and co-author Floyd Matson wrote that “communication is the ground of meeting and the foundation of community. It is, in short, the essential human connection.”

Montagu’s perspective emphasizes that communication goes beyond information transfer-it creates the very fabric of human society. Through communication, we establish relationships, build communities, and develop shared identities. Communities exist because their members communicate, creating bonds through shared symbols, stories, and meanings.

This view aligns with communication’s etymology. Just as “communis” relates to “common,” it also connects to “community”-those who share commonality. Communication doesn’t just occur within communities; it actively creates and sustains them. Every conversation, every shared story, every collaborative discussion strengthens the ties that bind people together.

The dynamic nature of shared meaning 🔗

Communication operates as an ongoing, dynamic process rather than a simple transmission of fixed messages. When people communicate, they continuously create, negotiate, and modify meaning together. A speaker may intend one message, but the receiver interprets it through their own experiences, culture, and context. True communication happens when these interpretations align-when meaning is truly shared.

This process requires active participation from all involved. Effective communicators don’t just broadcast messages; they engage in dialogue, seeking feedback, clarifying misunderstandings, and adjusting their approach based on responses. They recognize that communication is interactive, requiring mutual effort to establish and maintain shared understanding.

Symbols-whether words, gestures, or images-serve as tools in this process. But symbols only work when communicators share their meanings. A word in one language means nothing to someone unfamiliar with that language. A gesture considered friendly in one culture might offend in another. Effective communication requires navigating these symbolic systems with awareness of what’s genuinely shared.

From theory to practice: understanding communication’s essence 🔗

These scholarly perspectives converge on several key insights. Communication is fundamentally about creating commonality-shared meaning, mutual understanding, and collective experience. It operates as a social process, embedded in relationships and communities. It requires both common ground to begin and active participation to develop. And it serves essential functions: maintaining social equilibrium, building communities, and enabling human connection.

In our increasingly connected yet divided world, understanding communication’s true nature matters more than ever. Whether bridging cultural differences, resolving conflicts, or building collaborative relationships, success depends on recognizing that communication isn’t about winning arguments or transmitting information. It’s about finding and expanding common ground, creating shared meaning, and building the connections that make communities possible.

The next time you engage in conversation, consider the deeper process at work. You’re not just exchanging words-you’re participating in the ancient human practice of creating commonality, building connection, and sustaining community through shared meaning.

What do you think? How does understanding communication as a process of creating commonality change your approach to difficult conversations? In what areas of your life could you focus more on building shared understanding rather than just transmitting your message?

References

1. https://www.etymonline.com/word/communication
2. https://testbook.com/question-answer/denis-mcquail-defines-communicationas-lsquo–5f8ac473e834e2f7f87cc759
3. https://www.communicationtheory.org/the-newcomb's-model/
4. https://journalism.university/introduction-to-journalism-and-mass-communication/newcombs-communication-model-social-equilibrium/
5. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-9056-2_24
6. https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/912585-the-human-connection