Modelling Human Communication: Mediality and Semiotics

  • Lars ElleströmEmail author
Part of the Numanities - Arts and Humanities in Progress book series (NAHP, volume 6)


The article delineates a model of communication among human minds that is designed to work equally well for all kinds of nonverbal and verbal significance. The model thus allows for detailed analysis of and comparison among all varieties of human communication. In particular, the transitional stage of communication, which is termed the media product, is thoroughly developed and conceptualized in terms of mediality and semiosis. By way of mapping basic media dissimilarities that are vital for differing communicative capacities, the model explains both how various sorts of significance can be transferred among minds, and why they cannot always be realized. The article furthermore suggests a semiotic framework for conceptualizing the familiar notion that communication is also strongly predisposed by surrounding factors such as earlier experiences and cultural influence.


  1. Bergman, Mats. 2009. Experience, purpose, and the value of vagueness: On C. S. Peirce’s contribution to the philosophy of communication. Communication Theory 19: 248–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berlo, David K. 1960. The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  3. Bolchini, Davide, and Amy Shirong Lu. 2013. Channel. In Theories and models of communication, ed. Paul Cobley and Peter J. Schulz, 397–410. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Brewer, William F. 1987. Schemas versus mental models in human memory. In Modelling cognition, ed. Peter Morris, 187–197. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clüver, Claus. 2007. Intermediality and interarts studies. In Changing borders: Contemporary positions in intermediality, ed. Jens Arvidson, Mikael Askander, Jørgen Bruhn, and Heidrun Führer, 19–37. Lund: Intermedia Studies Press.Google Scholar
  6. Crowley, David. 2013. Mediation theory. In Theories and models of communication, ed. Paul Cobley and Peter J. Schulz, 309–325. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Elleström, Lars. 2010. The modalities of media: A model for understanding intermedial relations. In Media borders, multimodality and intermediality, ed. Lars Elleström, 11–48. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elleström, Lars. 2014a. Material and mental representation: Peirce adapted to the study of media and arts. The American Journal of Semiotics 30: 83–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elleström, Lars. 2014b. Media transformation: The transfer of media characteristics among media. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elleström, Lars. Forthcoming a. A medium-centered model of communication. Semiotica.Google Scholar
  11. Elleström, Lars. Forthcoming b. Coherence and truthfulness in communication: Intra-communicational and extra-communicational indexicality. Semiotica.Google Scholar
  12. Hall, Stuart. 1980. Encoding/decoding. In Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972–79, 128–138. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  13. Innis, Harold A. 1950. Empire and communications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Style in language, ed. Thomas Sebeok, 350–377. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Lanigan, Richard L. 2013. Information theories. In Theories and models of communication, ed. Paul Cobley and Peter J. Schulz, 59–83. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  16. McLuhan, Marshall. 1994/1964. Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge MA, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Müller, J.E. 1996. Intermedialität. Formen moderner kultureller Kommunikation. Münster: Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
  18. Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1932. The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 2, ed. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1958. The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 8, ed. Arthur W. Burks. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ryan, Marie-Laure. 1980. Fiction, non-factuals, and the principle of minimal departure. Poetics 9: 403–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ryan, Marie-Laure. 1984. Fiction as a logical, ontological, and illocutionary issue. Style 18: 121–139.Google Scholar
  22. Schramm, Wilbur. 1971. The nature of communication between humans. In The process and effects of mass communication, revised ed, ed. Wilbur Schramm and Donald F. Roberts, 3–53. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  23. Shannon, Claude E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 27 (379–423): 623–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weaver, Warren. 1998/1949. Recent contributions to the mathematical theory of communication. In The mathematical theory of communication, 1–28. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linnaeus UniversityVäxjöSweden

Personalised recommendations