Week 2 Post 2: Patterned Interaction

2). Consider the pragmatic perspective. Does it make sense to think of communication as patterned interaction? How is communication like a game? How is it different from a game?

This is an interesting question because answering either yes or no to the question, "Does it make sense to think of communication as patterned interaction?" brings many exceptions to my mind with either answer.

In many contexts, yes, communication is a patterned interaction. In some formats, like interviews, questionnaires, or surveys you are asked something and expected to respond with an answer. Typical conversations often begin with "Hi, how are you" and the recipient typically answers "Good, how are you?" In these situations I could definitely see how communication could be filled with many instances like these and definitely be seen as a patterned interaction.

On the other hand, communication is way too diverse and deep to try and compare it to a game. In chess, there are rules and in certain situations you only have one or two options. Communication is so much deeper than that. To use my earlier comparison, person A could say "Hi, how are you?" and person B could instead say, "It's fantastic! I just won tickets to a Britney spears concert and I am so excited, let me tell you all about it!", or they could say, "Fine" and effectively end the conversation. There are no set rules or regulations in communication so it's hard to compare to so something like chess, as chapter two attempts to do.