Motley's Case

I am going to begin this paper by stating that I do, in fact, side with Motley. However, because I want to be an attorney, and I enjoy debate, I feel I must explain how exactly I came to this conclusion, as it was not an easy one.
Originally, I was torn between Motley and Anderson. I agreed with both of them in that a sender and receiver is necessary to facilitate communication, thus eliminating Clevenger; however, I struggled with the differentiation they drew in regards to intentionality. Motley is very firm in that intentionality is necessary in order for communication to have occurred. Anderson on the other hand believes that intentionality is not always necessary. This is then where I struggled. In certain instances, I thought communication could occur without intentionality. However, what drew me to side with Motley is the …show more content…
Conversely, had the attorney asked a question and the witness not responded, but inadvertently sneezed or coughed, communication would not have occurred. In this case, the witness unintentionally engaged in an involuntary physiological act (sneezing/coughing); therefore, not communicating. Therefore, this example defends Motley’s postulate that “communication requires a sender's intention to transmit a message.” For, without intention, proper communication cannot occur. Though Anderson may argue that the witness’s unintentional physiological act did constitute communication, Motley would counter with his claims of attributed meaning. As Motley stated in the book, you can attribute some greater meaning to a brick, but it is still a brick, and can’t communicate back to you. Therefore, in this scenario, you can attempt to attribute some greater meaning to a sneeze or cough, but in the long run, they are just that, involuntary physiological reactions that carry no