Information Theory Research

By: Sara Anderson

Equivocal Communication Bavelas, J.B., Black, A., Chovil, N., and Mullet, J. (1990). Equivocal Communication . (pp. 11-28). Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications.

"FOR SALE 1966 VOLKSWAGEN. VERY CHEAP. PERSON WHO LIKES WORKING ON CARS WOULD BE WISE TO THIS CAR." (p. 14)

"Your gift although much appreciated was definitely uncalled for. Can I see you to talk about it as I think my feelings were hurt by it? Thanks." (p. 14)

The statements above are example of equivocal communication. A discussion this form of communicating is very useful when working with information theory. Equivocal Communication is defined as "nonstraightforward communication: it appears ambiguous, contradictory, tangential, obscure, or even evasive" (p. 28). Since much of later information theory work had to do with the inability to transmit information, it would make sense to look at equivocation as noise of sorts. In order to understand equivocal communication, it is necessary to look at some examples.

As you can see, these statements say a lot of different things and may even send mixed signals to the receiver. However, in relationship to information theory these messages carry an even greater weight. As Shannon states in his theory, "information refers to the opportunity to reduce uncertainty". It is obvious that equivocal communication does not reduce uncertainty. Hence, it is not at all conducive to the transmission in Shannon and Weaver's communication model.

This text also discusses two other kinds of equivocation, indirect speech acts and strategic ambiguity. Take these indirect speech acts for example:

Q. Are you going to the pub tonight?
Answers meaning 'yes':
A1. I always go to the pub when Leslie's waiting tables.
A2. It's a good night to celebrate.
A3. Is the Pope Catholic? (p. 25).

All these statements may be common. However, they all seem to be very illogical and certainly culturally based. Yet, amazingly most people in the United States would know what each response meant. This is the very idea behind indirect speech acts. In fact they are so common that the text refers to the phenomenon as "natural language" (p. 22). The real work comes when researchers tried to implement rules to understand natural communication. Although these rules were never really clearly stated in the text. The idea of natural language brings to light an interesting point. If by nature human beings communicate illogically, then how is information ever transferred amidst so much uncertainty?

The second kind of equivocation is called strategic ambiguity. The simplest definition of this can be seen in a presidential debate or other political public address. It is essentially to strategically be vague so as if not offend. The most interesting part of this concept is that it seems to work. Although many people seem to be angry about not getting real answers from their politicians, this seems to not always be true.

Goss and Williams showed that the effect of equivocation on an audience was surprisingly positive, in that equivocal messages ...were more likely than clear messages to elicit agreement and to result in better character ratings for the putative authors. (p. 22)

This book on equivocal communication may or may not be helpful to one's understanding of information theory and its concepts of entropy. Filled with examples and cartoons it is in fact easy to read for the most part and pleasing to the eye. However, I think that at least in the introduction it lacks any real theoretical meat. It would probably be best to read in full. As well, the latter part of the book provides much of the grounding work for these ideas.

Equivocation Poster Children 2000

To see how Information theory and Coordinated Management of Meaning relate to each other check out Brian Rittinger's page

Back to IT Home Page

This page was last updated by Sara Anderson on February 25, 2000