InterventionA B C D E F G H IJKL M N O P R S T U VXYZWBasic Course (Pearson International Education, 2008).
Interpretant C.S. Peirce (1839–1914), generally
regarded as the founder of the American strand
of semiology/semiotics, used the word
interpretant in his model defi ning the nature of
a sign, which ‘addresses somebody, that is, it
creates in the mind of that person an equivalent
sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. The
sign which it creates I call the interpretant of
the fi rst sign. Th e sign stands for something, its
object’ (from J. Zeman, ‘Peirce’s theory of signs’
in T. Sebeok, ed., A Perfusion of Signs; Indiana
University Press, 1977). Th e interpretant, then,
is a mental concept produced both by the sign
itself and by the user’s experience of the object.
Peirce’s sign and interpretant fi nd a parallel in
the signifier and signified of the father of the
European strand of semiology, Swiss linguist
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913).
Intertextuality See text.
Intervening variables (IVs) Th ose infl uences
which come between the encoder, the message
and the decoder are referred to as intervening
variables, mediating factors which infl uence the
way in which a message is perceived and the
nature and degree of its impact. Time of day,
mood, state of health can all constitute interven-
ing variables. More importantly, family, friends,
peer groups, respected persons, opinion leaders,
etc. are capable of signifi cant mediation between
what we are told and what we accept, believe or
reject.
Whilst people may act as intervening vari-
ables between media messages and audience,
the media may also be intervening variables
between people. The TV socializes the child,
as do parents; it also ‘comes between them’ in
the sense that it can stop interaction, modify it,
improve it, rechannelize it (not to mention the
dissonance it might cause in a family when,
for example, it provokes controversy). See s-iv-r
model of communication. See also topic
guide under communication models.
Intervention Chiefl y describes the policy and
practice of governments to ‘intervene’ in, and
attempt to control, the nature and fl ow of infor-
mation. Intervention operates through laws,
regulations and surveillance. From earliest
times governments have, with justification,
believed that communication is power and an
agent of change. Such power is a threat to exist-
ing power structures. Intervention remains high
on the agenda of contemporary governments
apprehensive about the freedoms of access and
expression brought about by online communica-
tion. See censorship; clipper chip; encrypt;his/her personality; the role he/she is playing
at the time; the state of his/her motivation;
his/her communicative competence; and the
context in which the communicative encounter
takes place. All of these factors and others aff ect
decisions about self-presentation. Th ey also
influence the receiver(s) and how he/she will
interpret messages sent.
Barriers often arise in interpersonal commu-
nication, and these are categorized by Richard
Dimbleby and Graeme Burton in More Than
Words: An Introduction to Communication (4th
impression, Routledge, 2007) into three main
types: mechanical (physical barriers such as a
noisy environment); semantic (barriers arising
from an inability to understand the signs, verbal
or non-verbal, being used by one or more of the
persons involved in the transaction); and psycho-
logical (barriers caused by a range of psycho-
logical factors, for example the message may be
perceived as a threat to one’s values). Common
errors made in the process of social perception,
such as stereotyping, also constitute psychologi-
cal barriers to eff ective communication.
Speech and non-verbal communication are
the main means by which messages are sent
in interpersonal communication; non-verbal
communication being particularly important in
providing feedback and in regulating interac-
tion. Interpersonal communication is also aff ected
by the context in which it takes place – in groups
or organizations, for example – and factors found
there such as norms, mores, power relationships
and so on. Good interpersonal communication
skills are valued and many techniques have been
developed to try to improve them, assertive-
ness training and transactional analysis
being but two examples. Th ere is of course a rich
interplay between the messages received in inter-
personal and mass communication and our
refl ection on them in the process of intraper-
sonal communication. To complicate matters
further, most of the factors infl uencing the process
of interpersonal communication are formed and
shaped through that process. See topic guide
under interpersonal communication.
▶Michael Argyle, Bodily Communication (Methuen,
1988); Richard Ellis and Ann McClintock, If You Take
My Meaning: Th eory Into Practice in Human Commu-
nication (Edward Arnold, 2003); Graeme Burton and
Richard Dimbleby, Between Ourselves: An Introduc-
tion to Interpersonal Communication (Hodder
Arnold, 2006); Anne Hill, James Watson, Danny
Rivers and Mark Joyce, Key Th emes in Interpersonal
Communication (Open University Press/McGraw-
Hill, 2007); J. Devito, Human Communication: Th e