The phrase “I love you” has a substantial amount of meanings simply depending on the context in which it is used. The way one says “I love you” to a parent, a significant other, or a friend all elicit different meanings and connotations. One may treasure and appreciate all a parent has done for him/her but not want to spend the rest of his/her life living with this parent as one would with a significant other. Moreover, one may want to be romantically involved with a significant other but only seek a platonic relationship with a friend. While “I love you” is typically said in all of these relationships, the understanding of this phrase in a specific context requires each person to know one another’s behavior and be meaningful to their communication
…show more content…
This refers to a communication event with a beginning and end in which a specific set of rules are used. The greeting one would use at a job interview would be much different from the greeting one would use when seeing a group of friends. How one assigns meaning to a specific episode, and even a specific time within an episode, will determine what kind of behavior is appropriate. According to Pearce and Cronen, the next context, sometimes called life scripts or self-concept, refers to statements each communicator believes fits his or her self-concept at a particular point in time (p. 120). These statements achieve social purposes, and their meaning is in the impact they have in a specific relationship. The final context in the Coordinated Management of Meaning theory is archetypes, which offer a “fundamental logic that interactants can use to frame or define experiences” (p. 120). They are the large, universal patterns of behavior that are addressed by every culture. For example, every culture has a way of assigning meaning to birth, death, and marriage, among many other things. These six contexts of interaction allow communication partners to give meaning to a particular situation and explain why people act and interact the way that they do. Conventionalizing communication allows people to have a better understanding about the meaning of an …show more content…
Though there are specific contexts and rules involved in this theory, they, as well as their importance and interconnectedness, differ from person to person. The independent variable in this theory is meaning, and the dependent variable is action, with contexts and rules being the mediators. However, because of the nature of this theory, there are no true variables since the theory mainly “offers analytical tools to promote a better understanding between people in patterned communication” (Lee,
This refers to a communication event with a beginning and end in which a specific set of rules are used. The greeting one would use at a job interview would be much different from the greeting one would use when seeing a group of friends. How one assigns meaning to a specific episode, and even a specific time within an episode, will determine what kind of behavior is appropriate. According to Pearce and Cronen, the next context, sometimes called life scripts or self-concept, refers to statements each communicator believes fits his or her self-concept at a particular point in time (p. 120). These statements achieve social purposes, and their meaning is in the impact they have in a specific relationship. The final context in the Coordinated Management of Meaning theory is archetypes, which offer a “fundamental logic that interactants can use to frame or define experiences” (p. 120). They are the large, universal patterns of behavior that are addressed by every culture. For example, every culture has a way of assigning meaning to birth, death, and marriage, among many other things. These six contexts of interaction allow communication partners to give meaning to a particular situation and explain why people act and interact the way that they do. Conventionalizing communication allows people to have a better understanding about the meaning of an …show more content…
Though there are specific contexts and rules involved in this theory, they, as well as their importance and interconnectedness, differ from person to person. The independent variable in this theory is meaning, and the dependent variable is action, with contexts and rules being the mediators. However, because of the nature of this theory, there are no true variables since the theory mainly “offers analytical tools to promote a better understanding between people in patterned communication” (Lee,