Available online at www.sserr.ro 

Social Sciences and Education Research Review 

(3) 2 131-136 (2016) 

ISSN 2393–1264 ISSN–L 2392–9863 

## **HOW THE MESSAGE BECOMES PART OF THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS** 

**Ștefan VLĂDUȚESCU[1] Dan Valeriu VOINEA[2]** 

1Professor, PhD, University of Craiova, Romania 2Assistant Professor, PhD, University of Craiova, Romania 

## **Abstract** 

This study argues in favour of the thesis according to which the message is not directly perceived and it does not occur immediately within the communication process. We can notice that, in order to receive and understand the message, we need to follow a process concerned with the initiation into the process of comprehending the message: we receive the message after having established a hermeneutic situation and determined an instance of discourse. The message will not become obvious implicitly, within the reality of comprehension: it is not conveyed as such, as the sender does not simply deliver a message; the message takes shape within the processing of the significations used in the communicational transaction. 

**Keywords:** message, communication, comprehension, hermeneutic situation 

**JEL classification:** A10, Z10, H0 

131 

Social Sciences and Education Research Review (3) 2 / 2016 

## INTRODUCTION 

Any kind of communication includes a message. We could even assert that any communication imposes, it asks for a message, which actually turns it into communication (Vlăduțescu & Tomiță, 2014; Enachescu & Tarabay, 2016; Sandu, 2016). 

Although the message comes after the communication, it is the one that makes communication possible, and not vice versa. Communication is described as a debate on significations, as an approach to certain issues. Communication is defined as a debate on significations, meanings, as a demarche concerned with the determination of a reality of significations. The method of communication represents only a transmission of significations. This illusion constitutes a possibility of reality, a modality of the truth belonging to reality, an aspect of what is real. Once selected in this manner, it is judged as reality. The illusion is essentially an advanced form of reality. It only exists as a consequence of a known, tested reality. It has substance only if it is preceded by a clear non-illusion. The illusion consolidates the ideas of precedence specific to a fixed truth. Consequently, the illusion comes as a future of reality. The illusion eliminates the wrong part of reality, diminishing it by the updating of a development possibility. The illusion as method of communication shapes the framework necessary for wisdom to be able to represent illusion itself as a form of philosophizing. If illusion did not exist, the appearances that lie at the basis of the philosophical elements would be blocked. Any demarche is certainly illusory (Militaru, 2012; Ene, 2014; Ghita & Ghita, 2016; AlTokhais, 2016). 

Transaction as a method of philosophizing takes place as a beneficial and inevitable failure. Communication has never paid attention, communicationally speaking, to the aspect concerned with what kind of message it is itself and whether it stands for a message, to how much and how it is communication. This failure is actually part of the traditional omissions that render the communicational reflection endless (Petrescu, 2016; Landicho, 2016; Ghita, 2016). The questions communication states throughout an epoch represent its present stakes. These stakes entail in the circuit of meditation aporias that turn times into traditions, but also amazements, interrogations, astonishments and questionings that reveal the inaugural specific elements of each epoch. Communication focuses on what it imagines to be itself. Consequently, inaugurally, it is defined as a message of cogitation, of reflection, meditation and contemplation of meanings. Methodically speaking, communication is described as a process of messageshaping. 

The message finally proves to be a problematization of meanings. Any communicational discourse contains a message, so that we can recognize the message according to its character, to its communicational tendency. The theoretical idea of 

132 

Ștefan VLĂDUȚESCU, Dan Valeriu VOINEA _How The Message Becomes Part Of The Communication Process_ signification is specific to the communicational fact called message. The message is the one that makes two processes converge, namely: the process represented by our personal story and the process made up of the history of our previous communications. 

The communicational element pulsates as communicational discourse. The message is an event within the human existential behaviour. Communicational life and the life of communication consist of behaviours that divide into events that draw their essence from abbreviated communicational messages. These nuclear communicational messages are called ideas, attitudes, situations, visions. 

The communication that problematizes meanings exists at the linguistic level, it exists by the meaning of language. Communication is, on the one hand, a mathematics of meanings, while on the other it represents the preparation of a discourse for writing and reading. Thus, the communicational discourse depends on two apparatuses: the cogitative and the linguistic apparatuses. 

Communication comes to be what it is only by means of the cogitative-linguistic discourse. The communicational discourse stands for a way of understanding the meanings by making use of the language. In order to understand things, Aristotle sustains, (in ”Politics”, I, 2), we must notice them in the make, surprise them in the moment of their formation. We can presently talk about communication at the discursive level, due to the fact we are able to understand the process of their embodiment in a definite form. 

The idea of communication itself is a message that has conferred names to all the other elements of communication, naming itself as well. This phenomenon follows the rule according to which the Red Emperor has a red kingdom. The word speaks, as Heidegger states; communication communicates, more precisely it builds messages. By its message, communication is a historical phenomenon (Crăciun, 2010; Domović, 2015; Motoi, Dumitru & Curelaru, 2016; Grad, Frunză & Frunză, 2016 ). 

The main communication is unique. The fundamental communication is to be found at the crossroads between the primary cogitative communication and the secondary or linguistic communication. Both forms meet within the message. It depends on the way and devices by which the message is configured in the communication. The main communication represents the meanings that can be communicated: meditation, reflection, cogitation. Fundamental communication is characterized by a clear and distinct message. The difference between the two types of message consists in the fact that the first message is conveyed as an idea of message, whereas the second one is established as “experience, feeling”. Man’s experiences events and puts into perspective communicational behaviours. The message focuses and at the same time it is structured out of meanings. It consists of meanings. The cogitative spirit develops a theoretical reflection on the capital issues of thinking and life. Thinking evolves as cogitative and 

133 

Social Sciences and Education Research Review (3) 2 / 2016 

linguistic activity on thinking (Ionescu, 2016; Kupritz, 2016; Voinea, Negrea & Teodorescu, 2016). 

## THE MESSAGE SIGNIFIES A WAY OF LIFE AND AN EXISTENTIAL OPTION 

Communication means to turn a message into discourse. From this point of view, the discourse is designed to convey the message it carries. The message reveals and justifies rationally the existential option, as well as the image of the world. This is the reason why the discourse that presents it, is mandatory, impositive. Beyond the option, there is always an agreement that tries to offer an explanation. Communication understands, explains and proposes, suggests. The discourse is animated by an image of the world, by a way of life, an existential option, an impositive way of representing all these elements (Frunza, 2016). 

If he had nothing to say, a man would not convey messages. The message goes beyond the discourse. The message comes after the discourse. Consequently, it has no decisive qualitative duties towards the discourse that contains it. 

On the other hand, the divided core of the discourse is formed by the message. The power and individuality of the discourse are established by the message. Any discourse contains a message. The discourse must necessarily contain a message. Such an experiment is itself a message. Both the discourse and the message stand for realities similar to the meaning. The meanings of the discourse are shaped linearly, whereas the meaning of the message has a tabular character. Taking into account the fact that the message is carried out as a discourse, we conclude that it represents the real practice of the linguistic practice. The message is not directly propagated, it is conveyed as reflection, speculation, meditation, contemplation, etc. These types of discursive practices rely on the idea of spiritual exercise: the intellective substance that gives relativity the possibility to self-improve and manifest as a concrete experience (Ranta, 2014; Gioroceanu, 2016). 

## CONCLUSION 

Communication, the discourse and the message are inseparable, especially because they are constituent elements of the same order. They have a common feature: they belong to the domain of meaning. They are inseparable because they are organized, generated and they function by means of the same two aspects: cogitative and linguistic. Communication ends within the discourse, the discourse ends within the message, more precisely within the message that concludes, in its turn, the communication process. The three elements conclude one another: this is how they are inseparable. Let us not omit the fact that the message always comes after the communication process. The message is 

134 

Ștefan VLĂDUȚESCU, Dan Valeriu VOINEA _How The Message Becomes Part Of The Communication Process_ “the delayed reason, wit.” The message stands for the text’s wisdom. It reveals the meanings concerned with the complete self-coherence of each of us. 

## REFERENCES 

Al-Tokhais, A. A. (2016). The Relationship between Communication Effectiveness and Multicultural Employees’job Outcomes (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University). 

Crăciun, A. (2010). Branding pentru numărătorii de stele. Universitatea din Bucureşti. 

Domović, R. (2015). Methodology of information operation. National security and the future, 16(2-3), 95-120. 

Enachescu, V. A., & Tarabay, D. (2016). Internet is Changing Cultures. Review of International Comparative Management/Revista de Management Comparat International, 17(3). 

Ene, M. (2014). The art of decomposition: Bacovia and european decadence. Alea: Estudos Neolatinos, 16(1), 135-145. 

Frunza, S. (2016). Seeking Authenticity. Philosophy and Poetry in the Communication-Construed World. _Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies_ , _15_ (45), 162. 

Ghită, C. (2016). Orientul Europei romantice. Alteritatea ca exotism în poezia engleză, franceză și română. Tracus Arte. 

Ghita, R., & Ghita, C. (2016). The Problem of Kitsch in the Context of Holocaust Fiction: Jonathan Littell and Bernhard Schlink. Jednak Książki. Gdańskie Czasopismo Humanistyczne, (6), 107-124. 

Gioroceanu, A. (2015). A Relevant Circumstance: The Procedural Place. Analele Universităţii din Craiova. Seria Ştiinţe Filologice. Lingvistică, (1-2), 304-309. 

Grad, I., Frunză, M., & Frunză, S. (2016). Ethical aspects of gender stereotypes in Romanian advertising. _ESSACHESS-Journal for Communication Studies_ , _9_ (01), 143157. 

Ionescu, A. (2016). Étude comparative des évolutions sémantiques et pragmatiques des adverbes bien en français et bine en roumain. Analele Universităţii din Craiova. Seria Ştiinţe Filologice. Lingvistică, (1-2), 195-214. 

Kupritz, V. W. (2016). The Communicative Nature of Space in Organizations. Cultural Influences on Architecture, 58. 

Landicho, J. A. (2016). Voisee Communicator: An Android Mobile Application for Hearing-impaired and Blind Communications. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 10(4), 26-31. 

135 

Social Sciences and Education Research Review (3) 2 / 2016 

Militaru, Petrișor (2012). Ştiinţa modernă, muza neştiută a suprarealiştilor. Bucureşti: Curtea Veche. 

Motoi, A. G., Dumitru, A., & Curelaru, L. (2016). Basic Accounting in European Projects. Annals of the University of Craiova for Journalism, Communication and Management, 2, 119-130. 

Petrescu, D. C. (2016). The Influence of Social Goals and Gender on Negotiation. Annals-Economy Series, 5, 61-66. 

Ranta, A. E. (2014). Accesul la informaţiile de interes public–obligaţie legală în sarcina autorităţilor administraţiei publice. Studiu de caz privind gradul de accesibilitate al informațiilor de interes public comunicate din oficiu. Revista Transilvană de Ştiinţe Administrative, 16(35), 98-113. 

Sandu, A. (2016). Social Construction of Reality as Communicative Action. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 

Vlăduțescu, Irina Vastag, and Mihaela Tomiță. "Applying the OCAI Model of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument in The Inspectorate for Emergency Situations in the Timiș County,„Banat”." _European Review of Applied Sociology_ 7.9 (2014) 

Voinea, D. V., Negrea, X., & Teodorescu, B. (2016). Journalistic Language as a Part of Romanian Language. Analele Universităţii din Craiova. Seria Ştiinţe Filologice. Lingvistică, (1-2), 284-291. 

136