Abstract
Objectives: In spite of the development of communication science, there has been a notable increase in the ambiguity surrounding the studies of researchers and scholars in the field, with differing opinions and apparent controversy regarding the appropriate cognitive structure for the connectivism theory. This research study presents a cognitive perspective on human communication that underpins focused answers to the first of three key questions that science raises within its specialized knowledge dimension: Why do we communicate? How do we communicate? What benefits do we derive from the communication process?
Methods: The study relied on the analytical method for examining the existing theoretical literature based on the three processes: deconstruction, evaluation, and re-composition.
Results: The perspective “We communicate to know” is based on four basic assumptions: Man communicates with others to know things, events, and individuals (what they do and how they think), hence the communication process is circular. Man uses the means most capable of achieving knowledge through communication. Personal communication allows for better acquaintance or getting to know others more than communication through media. An individual uses the medium that achieves acquaintance based on social and cultural values and in accordance with the ethics and controls prevailing within their society. The perspective holds that there are three forms of the communicative stance: direct communication, dialogue and discussion, and the receptive stance associated with the medium.
Conclusion: The "We communicate to know" perspective, as its linguistic and scientific formulation indicates, answers the first question: "Why do we communicate?" with knowledge (in all its cognitive and scientific connotations), meaning that the purpose of human communication is to know the other, whether or not we agree with them.
