Glossar-English:Interaction and Communication

Unterpunkt zu: Zeichentheorien: Übersicht

Original: Interaktion und Kommunikation

---

What belongs to a sign action? No object is already a sign by itself. Something becomes a sign only because it is used in a certain way – in a certain social context of action: namely that of communicative interaction. This applies accordingly also to pictures if they are regarded as signs. Communication and interaction, in other words, provide important boundary conditions for the use of images. Figure 1: Outline for embedding interaction and communication in the hierarchy of action concepts When we look at communication, we look at actions. Because only those who can perform actions are able to communicate, exchange information, or even thoughts. Actions with several actors involved are also called interactions (Fig. 1). They often entail interactions in the opposite direction, so that whole chains of interrelated actions can arise. Thus, in a fight between two dogs, each attacking action of one is directed at the other (hence interaction), which immediately reacts to it, for instance with a defensive action, a counterattack, or an action of submission (cf. also [Mead 1968a]Mead, George Herbert (1968): Geist, Identität und Gesellschaft aus der Sicht des Sozialbehaviorismus. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M. Nicht angezeigt: Original: <em>Mind, Self, and Society</em>. Hg. v. Charles W. Morris. Chicago, 1934 : p. 81f.). These interactions form a kind of choreography, which resembles turn-based games: For each “move” of one player, there is a usually narrowly limited set of correct subsequent moves of the other, with which the “game” can continue or be regularly terminated (‘language game’; ⊳ Illocution; cf. [Austin 1972a]Austin, John L. (1972): Zur Theorie der Sprechakte. Reclam, Stuttgart. Nicht angezeigt: orig.: How to do things with Words, 1962 and [Wittgenstein 1971a]Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1971): Philosophische Untersuchungen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M. ). If one of the interaction partners does not behave accordingly, they have to expect sanctions, which in the context of communicative action contexts can mean: They have to expect not to be understood, to reap contradiction, or to be asked for further clarifications of their statements. In general, actions are characterized by the fact that they are purposeful. Acts of communication, very generally speaking, have the prominent purpose of coordinating the further actions of the actors involved. This is obviously not already true for an act of attack or defense. If a dog tries to jump at the throat of the other dog or if the latter tries to avoid the first dog, this cannot (at least not necessarily) be subordinated to the purpose of coordinating the further actions of the two dogs. However, it looks somewhat different with the act of submission (which is accordingly also called submission gesture): This ‘laying on the back and presenting the defenseless throat’ is aimed directly at making it clear to the other dog that further attacks are unnecessary since no more attacks are undertaken. The (successful) submission gesture thus coordinates the further mutual behavior of the dogs. Direct, factual, and communicative interactions The example of fighting dogs also makes it clear that not all interactions are already communicative. In particular, a distinction has to be made between the following three cases (cf. [Ros 2005a]Ros, Arno (2005): Materie und Geist. Eine philosophische Untersuchung. Mentis, Paderborn. ): Direct interactions: This involves an individual attempting to physically affect at least one other individual. This may be an act of grooming (“lousing”) or a bite attack during a fight. Factual interactions: In this case, one being unintentionally familiarizes another being with a certain fact by putting the other being into a situation in which the other being is able to perceive that this and that is the case (showing as indication). Cases of such factual interactions can be found, for example, when one leads by their own drinking the other (e.g. a young animal) to a watering place (i.e. showing the other ‹that one can drink there›). Communicative interaction: This should only be employed in those cases in which an interaction partner tries to present themselves to the other interaction partner in a very specific way as an agent in order to give the other one something to understand (showing as ostentation). This is exactly what happens in the case of the gesture of submission: The submitting one presents themselves as someone who recognizes the dominance of the other one, which they make them understand in exactly this way. While it is only possible with a factual interaction to convey to the respective counterpart insight into such facts that the latter can also perceive, with the help of communicative interactions, insights can also be conveyed into states of affairs that are not directly perceived by the counterpart: namely, insofar as the sender can present themselves to the receiver as someone who is confronted with that state of affairs. This sounds a bit complicated at first, but it captures, for example, exactly the situation in which certain primates use specific warning calls when perceiving snakes or birds of prey. The cry is only uttered when conspecifics are nearby to hear it. In the scream, the screamer presents themselves to others as someone confronted with the presence of a snake (or bird of prey, as may be the case). The reaction to the appearance of such an enemy must be different in each case (in the case of snakes: do not run into the obscure bushes; in the case of birds of prey: take cover in the bushes). It also occurs in individuals who only hear the warning call, without having to have noticed the snake or the bird of prey themselves. Communication, in contrast to factual interaction, is thus always connected with a self-presentation of the sender, who must therefore not only establish a relationship with the receiver but also enter into a certain relationship with themselves and their body (⊳ Interactional, Expressive, and Propositional Angles). Finally, we should speak of sign acts exactly when an object (also body part) is used out of insight into the peculiarities of its communicative situation of use, and for a communicative purpose recognized by the agent themselves. The purposefulness of the interaction in which the sign is used is, thus, not simply determined by phylogenetic developmental processes or individual-historical learning processes, but has become a purpose for the communicators themselves." Bildgebrauch als Interaktion und als Kom­mu­ni­ka­tion Ab­bil­dung 2: Bild­prä­sen­ta­tion als sach­be­züg­li­che In­ter­ak­tion? (John Pugh: «Art im­it­at­ing life im­it­at­ing art im­it­at­ing life», Wand­bild mit rah­men­den Wand­tei­len) Anhand eines trompe l'œils mag es zu­nächst er­schei­nen, als könn­ten Bil­der auch le­dig­lich als sach­be­züg­li­che In­ter­ak­tio­nen wir­ken (sie­he Abb. 2): Denn der Ma­ler des ab­ge­bil­de­ten trom­pe l'œils er­mög­licht es mit der be­mal­ten Flä­che ja of­fen­bar, dass sei­ne Ad­res­sa­ten be­stimm­te Sach­ver­hal­te selbst se­hen kön­nen: Er zeigt ih­nen (im Sin­ne von In­di­ka­tion) ei­nen Raum, in dem un­ter vie­lem an­de­ren zwei Bis­tro-Ti­sche ste­hen, von de­nen ei­ner ei­ner jun­gen, dun­kel­haa­ri­gen, schwarz ge­klei­de­ten Frau, die ganz in sich ver­sun­ken liest, als Arm­stüt­ze dient. Die vi­su­el­le Er­fah­rung scheint ganz un­mit­tel­bar ge­ge­ben (⊳ auch Evi­denz, vi­su­el­le/iko­ni­sche). Doch vernachlässigt eine solche Betrach­tungs­weise den Zeichen­charak­ter des Bildes, da dann ein­fach eine Verwechs­lung vorliegt, das Bild also für das Abge­bildete genom­men wird. Genau das aber tun Bild­nutzer in der Regel beim Bildge­brauch nicht. Viel­mehr ist ihnen der Unter­schied zwischen Bild­träger und Darge­stelltem jeweils (zumindest bis zu einem gewis­sen Grade) bewusst (⊳ dezep­tiver und immer­siver Modus). Auch der Zweck, den sie damit verbin­den, das Bild jeman­dem zu präsen­tieren, ist ihnen in der Regel selbst bewusst. Versteht man den Bildge­brauch als kommu­nika­tive Inter­aktion, ergibt sich unmit­telbar die folgen­de Frage: Wie stellt sich der Bild­nutzer qua Bildge­brauch dem Kommu­nika­tions­partner gegen­über dar (⊳ Inter­aktions-, Selbst- und Sach­bezug) und wer ist im Zweifels­fall der Kommu­nika­tions­partner, wenn etwa einer allein ein Bild betrach­tet (⊳ Bild­rezep­tion als Kommu­nika­tions­prozess)? Auswirkungen auf andere Begriffe Die Handlungsaspekte des Bildge­brauchs werden im Rahmen der Bildpragmatik verhandelt. Dort finden sich auch weitere Gesichts­punkte des Bild­handelns. Dazu zählen insbe­sondere die Bezie­hung zwischen Affekt und Kommu­nika­tion und das Verständnis von Bild­rezep­tion als Kommu­nika­tions­prozess. Die enge Bezie­hung von Zeichen- und Medien­begriff spiegelt sich zudem im Schlag­wort Kommu­nika­tions­medien wider. See also: Affekt und Kommunikation Bildhandeln Bildpragmatik Bildrezeption als Kommunikationsprozess Evidenz, visuelle/ikonische dezeptiver und immersiver Modus Erfahrung / Unmittelbarkeit Illokution Interaktions-, Selbst- und Sachbezug Kommunikationsmedien Körper Zeichen, Zeichenträger, Zeichensystem

Notes Literature [Austin 1972a]Austin, John L. (1972): Zur Theorie der Sprechakte. Reclam, Stuttgart.[Bühler 2000a]Bühler, Karl (2000): Die Krise der Psychologie. Velbrück, Weilerswist.[Kamlah & Lorenzen 1973a]Kamlah, Wilhelm & Lorenzen, Paul (1973): Logische Propädeutik. Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens. BI Wissenschaftsverlag, München.[Mead 1968a]Mead, George Herbert (1968): Geist, Identität und Gesellschaft aus der Sicht des Sozialbehaviorismus. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M.[Ros 2005a]Ros, Arno (2005): Materie und Geist. Eine philosophische Untersuchung. Mentis, Paderborn.[Wittgenstein 1971a]Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1971): Philosophische Untersuchungen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M. Version 1: 2013 Responsible: Schirra, Jörg R.J. Editing: Halawa, Mark Contributions by: Joerg R.J. Schirra und Marcel Lemmes — (Note) Quote as: [Schirra 2013g-l]Schirra, Jörg R.J. (2013). Interaktion und Kommunikation. (Ausg. 1). In: Schirra, J.R.J.; Halawa, M. & Liebsch, D. (Hg.), Glossar der Bildphilosophie. (2012-2026). [bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Interaktion_und_Kommunikation]. Webadresse: bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Interaktion_und_Kommunikation Schirra, Jörg R.J. (2013). Interaction and Communication. (Ausg. 1). In: Schirra, J.R.J.; Halawa, M. & Liebsch, D. (Hg.), Glossar der Bildphilosophie. (2012-2026). [bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Glossar-English:Interaction_and_Communication].