Theory of Communication

In every act of communication, there is a risk of being misunderstood. We can view misunderstandings as communication failures. Failures occur in both private and work life, with varying consequences but when work-life is at sea, communication failures can have catastrophic proportions. Many failures and their consequences, can be avoided with the help of a shared idea on how to communicate, by using a shared and basic language. 

Before we reach the language part, let’s explore where and why communication failures happen. Look at this simple and widely used communication model:

The directness of this model makes us believe that this is enough to understand communication. The model suggests that one party (the 'sender') has a 'message' – for instance, I need help! – and therefore transfers the message to another party (the 'recipient'). The message is intact, 100% transfer complete, but this is implying that the recipient understands the message in the manner that it was intended by the sender. 

What the Simplified Communication Model Fails to See

The model says nothing about what form the communication should take. We can look at this as what channel is being used for communication (face-to-face, radio, video, cell phone, flags, lights, etc.). This is essential information since every channel comes with certain conditions. An example; communicating face-to-face is very direct and allows for quick feedback. On the other hand, face-to-face requires a short distance between parties, a shared language and the recipient's attention. If there is a long distance between the communicating parties or extreme noise environments, flag signals and lights are very useful. On the other hand, both are limited to very few standardised messages and are not understood by non-seafarers. When it comes to radio communication, a message is better understood if the quality of the carrier is good. 

• The model ignores the quality of the message. Can the message be interpreted in one way only or is there a risk for misunderstandings? Is the message enough in itself or is more information needed? 
• In the example of  ”I need help”,  the message does not contain enough information. Help with what? What kind of situation are you in, could it be dangerous for others? Where are you located? 
• Finally, the model ignores the relationship between sender and recipient. Are they communicatively equal in the sense that they share a language and references? A message is useless if it is not made up of a common understanding shared by the sender and receiver. Here of course enters the issue of inequalities in language skills. 

What the information above reveals, is that messages are not simply transferred. Rather, messages are formed (encoded) and understood (decoded). When messages are sent using standardised encryption e.g. flag signals, the encoding/decoding part is obvious to us. The same is true for any communication, even face-to-face. Let’s form a comprehensive communication model, including all the factors identified above:

The sender here encodes a message and uses a channel to transfer it. Before action can be taken, the recipient needs to decode the message. As stated above, misunderstandings can be seen as communication failures or as disturbances, sources for those can be easier identified in this model. Various levels of noise or disturbance can occur within and in between every box in the model.

Possible Sources for Disturbance

To minimise the impact of sources of misinterpretation a shared language plays a very important role. This course deals with communication using such a shared language, a simplified English (or a subset of English) called Maritime English. The channels we will focus on are limited to radio communications and face-to-face interactions, but the latter with the support of body language. Let’s explore possible disturbances to radio versus face-to-face communication. 

Radio Communication - The Technical Element: 

• A disturbance within the system.
• Malfunction of equipment.
• Poor propagation (≈transfer) conditions.
• External noise.
• Environmental interferences (macro-level).

Radio Communication - The Human Element: 

• Incompatible Maritime English competence between sender & recipient.
• Accents/dialects.
• Neglecting Radio Regulations.
• Ethnic-cultural interferences.
• Error in operating the equipment.
• Deficiencies in education/training.
• Emotiv-psychic stress.
• Environmental interferences (micro-level).

Source: The IMO Standard Maritime Communication Phrases – Refreshing the Memories to Refresh Motivation (Prof. Dr Peter Trenkner, Wismar University, Dept. of Maritime Studies Germany).

Decrees such as VHF Radio Regulations are essential to handle many of the disturbances that can occur in radio communication. Technical disturbances, like noise and distortion, are met by regulations such as formalised turn-taking, closed-loop communication (you will learn more on that soon) and tools for orally spelling numbers and letters so that they can be distinguished even over a weak link (= poor propagation). 

The seemingly straightforward message above – I need help! – can suffer badly from technical disturbance. The receiver on a noisy and static connection may ask herself, ”Why call out that you need kelp, when the sea is full of it?”

Human sources for disturbance over radio communication, such as stress or deficiencies in language skills or pronunciation, are met by providing a shared set of message markers & procedures that can be practised and rehearsed. This will be explored in the following lessons.

Face-to-Face Communication - The Technical Element: 

• Noise.
• Distance between communicators.
• Environmental interferences (macro-level).

Face-to-Face Communication - The Human Element: 

• Incompatible Maritime English competence between sender & recipient or vice versa.
• Accents/dialects.
• Ethnic-cultural interferences.
• Deficiencies in education/training.
• Emotiv-psychic stress.
• Environmental interferences (micro-level).

Source: The IMO Standard Maritime Communication Phrases – Refreshing the Memories to Refresh Motivation (Prof. Dr Peter Trenkner, Wismar University, Dept. of Maritime Studies Germany).

Maritime English and specifications such as the SMCP, address all oral communication (face-to-face or via other channels) at sea in a somewhat similar way that VHF Radio Regulations do. In that sense, it can be helpful to regard face-to-face communication as radio communication to avoid misunderstandings. 

Communication Is a Shared Responsibility

In work-life communication, the responsibility of being understood and helping understand is shared. It is essential to take the other party’s view – is the message I am “sending” clear? Perhaps I can express myself in a more direct and easy-to-understand way. It is equally important to ask and ask again if something seems uncertain. There are even formal ways of doing so, which we will explore later on in this course. Let’s stress this one more time:

Be sure to raise your voice if you don’t understand or if any disturbance makes it challenging to be sure of what is said to you. The lives of people and the well-being of our environment may depend on you doing so.

The responsibility has to allow shared results, highly skilled or native English speakers have to adjust or “downsize” their vocabulary to ensure successful communication. At the same time, the shared responsibility puts extra weight on not as proficient speakers to practice their skills and take advantage of the limitations of Maritime English being a standardisation and simplification of language.