Russian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of Linguistics2687-00882686-8024Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)9254ArticlesСтатьиArticlesResearch ArticleStructure-Interaction Theory: Conceptual, Contextual and Strategic Influences on Human CommunicationТеория структурного взаимодействия: концептуальные, контекстуальные и стратегические определяющие коммуникацииBeebeSteven AБибиСтивен АRegents’ and University Distinguished Professor; Department of Communication StudiesКафедра коммуникативных исследованийsbeebe@txstate.eduTexas State UniversityУниверситет штата Техас15042015194VOL 19, NO4 (2015)ТОМ 19, №4 (2015)173209092016Copyright ©; 2015, Beebe S.A.Copyright ©; 2015, Биби С.А.Copyright ©; 2015, Beebe S.2015Beebe S.A.Биби С.А.Beebe S.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0https://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/article/view/9254This paper addresses Structure-Interaction Theory (SIT), a theoretical framework that both describes communication messages as well as assists in making predictions about how human communication can be improved based on listener preferences for message structure or interaction. Communication messages may be characterized as existing on a continuum of structure-interaction. Communication structure is the inherent way information in a message is organized. A highly structured message is one in which the message is strategically organized using a planned arrangement of symbols to create meaning. Communication interaction is a way of viewing a message with give-and-take, less sustained “notes,” more change in note sequence and briefer notes. SIT seeks to provide a framework to assist communicators in appropriately adapting a message for maximum effectiveness. Although Structure-Interaction Theory newly articulated here, it is anchored in both classic ways of describing communication, such as rhetoric and dialectic (Aristotle, 1959), as well as more contemporary communication theories (Salem, 2012; Littlejohn & Foss, 2008). Specifically, the paper provides an overview of the theory and its conceptual assumptions, identifies how the theory can help explain and predict communication in several communication contexts (interpersonal, group, public communication), and suggests how SIT may help identify strategies to enhance human development. Structure-Interaction Theory is based on an assumption that a human communication message which is understood, achieves the intended effect of the communicator, and is ethical, requires an appropriate balance of two things: structure and interaction. Communication structure is the inherent way a message is constructed to provide a sustained direction to present information to another person. In linking structure and interaction to Aristotle’s description of messages, rhetoric is a more structured, sustained speech or planned message. Dialectic is characterized by a more spontaneous give and take interaction of messages and response to messages. SIT posits that all communication can be placed on a continuum of structure-interaction. The paper identifies applications of SIT to several communication situations and presents communication strategies that can enhance human development. The paper also notes how SIT can be used to develop message strategies to adapt to audience preferences for structure and interaction based on culture and audience expectations. Considering the needs, interests, values (including cultural values) of the audience, is the prime determinant of the degree of structure or interaction that should be evident in a communication episode. Appropriately applied, SIT may help both describe the nature of messages (as structured or interactive) as well as assist in making predictions as to how applications of the structure-interaction message continuum may enhance communication effectiveness.В статье описывается Теория структурного взаимодействия (ТСВ), в рамках которой рассматриваются коммуникативные сообщения и предлагаются способы улучшения коммуникации, основанные на выборе наиболее предпочтительной для реципиента структуры сообщения или способа взаимодействия. Хотя Теория структурного взаимодействия является новой, она уходит корнями в такие классические науки, описывающие коммуникацию, как риторика и диалектика (Аристотель, 1959), а также современные теории коммуникации (Салем, 2012; Литтлджон, Фосс 2008). В статье даются основные положения Теории структурного взаимодействия, показано, как она может помочь объяснить и предсказать ход коммуникации в разных контекстах (в межличностной, групповой и общественной коммуникации) и определить стратегии, нацеленные на улучшение общения (что обсуждалось на конференции Российской коммуникативной ассоциации). Согласно Теории структурного взаимодействия, для того, чтобы сообщение было понято и достигло цели говорящего, необходим баланс двух составляющих: структуры и взаимодействия. Структура коммуникации - неотъемлемый элемент, участвующий в донесении информации до собеседника. Согласно описанию Аристотеля, в структуре связей и взаимодействия риторика является наиболее структурированной и четкой моделью передачи сообщения. Диалектика характеризуется более спонтанным обменом сообщениями. Согласно ТСВ, вся коммуникация может быть рассмотрена в рамках культурного взаимодействия. Данная работа иллюстрирует применение ТСВ к некоторым коммуникативным ситуациям и предлагает стратегии улучшения общения. В частности, рассматриваются возможности развития сообщений в соответствии с предпочтениями аудитории, основанными на коммуникативных ожиданиях и культурной специфике. Структура взаимодействия должна определяться запросами, интересами, ценностями (включая культурные ценности) аудитории, которые влияют на тип коммуникации.Structure-interaction theory (SIT)communication messagescommunication strategiesrhetoricdialecticсcommunication contextТеория структурного взаимодействия (ТСВ)коммуникативные сообщениякоммуникативный контексткоммуникативные стратегиириторикадиалектика1.Amichai-Hamburger, Y (2005). The social net: Human behavior in cyberspace. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.2.Anderson, G.M. (2007). A most poetent rhetoric: C.S. Lewis, ‘congenital rhetorician’ In (Eds.) Edwards, B.E. C.S. Lewis: Life, works, and legacy. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.3.Aristotle (1959). Ars rhetorica (Ed.) Ross, W.D. Oxford: Oxford University Press.4.Bakhtin, M.M. (1930/1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. (Ed.) Holquist, M. (Trans.) Emerson, C & Holquist, M. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.5.Bateson, G. (1958). Naven (2nd ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1936). See: Salem, P. (1912). The complexity of human communication. New York: Hampton Press.6.Baxter, L.A. (1988). Dialectical contradictions to relationship development, in Handbook of personal relationships, (Ed.) Duck, S.W. Chichester, England: Wiley, 257-273.7.Baxter, L.A. and Montgomery, M., (1997). Rethinking communication in personal relationships from a dialectical perspective, in Handbook of personal relationships, 2nd ed., (Ed.) Duck, S.W. Chichester, England: Wiley, 325-349.8.Beebe, S.A. & Beebe, S.J. (2015). Public speaking: An audience-centered approach. Boston: Pearson.9.Beebe, S.A., Beebe S.J. & Ivy, D.K. (2013). Communication: Principles for a lifetime. Boston: Pearson.10.Beebe, S.A. & Masterson, J.T. (2015). Communicating in small groups: Principles and practices. Boston: Pearson.11.Beebe, S.A., Beebe, S.J. & Redmond, M.V. (2014). Interpersonal communication: Relating to others. Boston: Pearson.12.Berg, D.M. (1967). A descriptive analysis of the distribution and duration of themes discussed by task-oriented small groups. Speech Monographs 34, 172-75.13.Bryant, D.C. (1953). Rhetoric: Its function and its scope. Quarterly Journal of Speech 39.14.Buber, M. (1958). I and thou. New York: Scribners.15.Dance, F.E. X. & Larson, C. (1972). Speech communication: Concepts and behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.16.Flam, J. (2013). Matisse in the cone collection: The poetics of vision. Baltimore: The Baltimore Museum of Art.17.Fisher, B.A. (1970). Decision emergence: Phases in group decision making. Speech Monographs 37, 60.18.Gersick, C.J. (1989). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development, Academy of Management Journal 32, 274-309.19.Giddens, A. (1984). The construction of society. Berkeley: The University of California Press.20.Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Books.21.Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.22.Hopthrow, T & Hulbert, L.G. (2005). The effect of group decision making on cooperation in social dilemmas, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 8, 89-100.23.Kennedy, G.A. (1980). Classical rhetoric and its Christian and secular tradition from ancient to modern times. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.24.Kerr, N.L. & Tindale, R.S. (2004). Group performance and decision making, Annual Review of Psychology 55, 623-655.25.Littlejohn, S.W. & Foss, K.A. (2008). Theories of human communication. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.26.Pavitt, C, Philipp, M & Johnson, K.K. (2004). Who owns a group’s proposals: The initiator or the group as a whole? Communication Research Reports 21, 221-230.27.Poole, M.S. (1983). Decision development in small groups III: A multiple sequence model of group decision development, Communication Monographs 50, 321-341.28.Poole, M.S., Seibold, D.R. & McPhee, R.D. (1996). A structurational approach to theory building in group decision-making research. (eds.) Hirokawa, R.Y & Poole, M.S. Communication and group decision-making, (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.29.Raymo, C. (2008). When god is gone everything is holy: The making of a religious naturalist. New York: Ave Maria Press.30.Salem, P.J. (2012). The complexity of human communication. (2nd ed.). New York: Hampton Press.31.Sproull, I &Kiesler, S. (1986) Reducing social context cures: Electronic mail in organizational communication, Management Science 32, 1492-1513.32.Stewart, J. (2013). U & Me: Communicating in moments that matter. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute publications.33.Sunwolf & Seibold, D.R. (1999). The impact of formal procedures on group processes, members, and task outcomes, in Frey, L. (Ed.). The Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 395-431.34.Tidwell, L.C. & Walter, J.B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time, Human Communication Research 28, 317-348.35.Trevino, L.K., Daft, R. L, & Lengel, R.H. (1990). Understanding mangers’ media choices: A symbolic interactions perspective, in Fulk, J. & Steinfield, C. (Eds.). Organizations and Communication Technology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 71074.