Any given communication situation can be defined by the speakers involved, their aims and goals, their verbal and social interactions, and so on. Hence, a communication situation corresponds to an archetypal discourse manifestation that can at least be identified and described by the following three general properties:
1. thematic: defining specific themes and contents, each interaction scene or site defining its own set of references;
2. formal: setting various discursive or semiotic markers; i.e. specific ways of using certain meaningful units or of favouring the use of some of them to the detriment of others;
3. relational[5] establishing a given relationship and how it can be expressed through formal communication structures. As an illustration let's quote the French use of the personal pronoun with its two forms for the second person singular. "Tu" (the English thou) is used for familiar and intimate language and contrasts with "vous" as a formal and polite form of addressing someone. We may add that the same "vous" is sometimes still in use in traditional circles as a sign of respect from children towards their parents, but the practice is gradually disappearing.
Our own experience in educational communication based on video programs, scripto-visual material, electronic mail and computer mediated communications (CMC) confirms this hypothesis. If one carries on an analysis of educational material or courseware under the three above aspects - thematic, formal and relational - distinctive differences will clearly appear like, for instance, between a video for industry managers, and a school TV program or between a documentary film and a video produced by high school students in their classroom, for their own use. The wording, the way the audience is spoken to, the images chosen, the editing style, the soundtrack, and their relative importance in each context, all are specific. In short, the settings in which the communication takes place display completely different properties (Meunier, Peraya, 1993).
Semiotic analyses of educational programs and products have revealed a number of discursive traits. Many educational movies and programs seem still nowadays to be based on verbal discursive models. The cinematographic treatment of the subject matter follows a narrative model that takes precedence in the narrative or explanatory sequence: in fact and in most cases, these products are mere recorded courses or talks.
In other respects, Jacquinot (1977) showed that the construction and organisation of educational programs using motion pictures correspond to two different pedagogical strategies. The first one so-called 'product pedagogy' considers the contents taught as a pre-built conceptual entity, some sort of abstract, or self-contained substance to be transmitted with minimal information loss. In this context, the communication means, the media, does not have any influence on contents: it can be considered as a simple carrier. The second one, called 'process pedagogy' considers cinematographic language, structure and substance as contributing to building knowledge. It focuses on the system of representation considered as a kind of mental technology. This is now a prevailing view even if educational routine has not yet entirely evolved in that direction.
From another point of view, we have described a number of semio-pragmatic mechanisms at work in audio-scripto-visual communication and its cognitive impact on the public (Meunier, Peraya, 1993). For example, let's first quote the opposition between 'speech' and 'narratives', two linguistic concepts proposed in Benveniste's linguistic theories (1966, 1974). 'Narratives', on one hand, mark fictions without a narrator, i.e. a type of narration that does not manifest an active storyteller, sharing his point of view, biases and comments with the reader. 'Discourses', on the other hand, designate stories with a narrator as an active element shaping the story being told. In turn, cases of motion picture plots, centred or not on the character of the conventional hero, exhibit features that are known to induce diverging attitudes in the viewer. The first instance forbids empathy and induces in the viewer/learner a cognitive and rational process of comprehension while the second instance leads the spectator to a well-known psychological process of identification. This process can further be analysed as being either self-centred - in the case of an individual hero - or social-centred - when the hero is a social or a political figure.
More generally, let's also keep in mind that there are important differences linked to the cultural context, to specific educational traditions, to the expectations and to the psychological and social peculiarities of a given audience. Comparative studies between French, English and Dutch educational video programs revealed national styles and patterns of discourse much more fundamental and important than first presumed. For instance, the use of humour, of the exemplary value of errors, or of counter-examples so well accepted in Anglo-Saxon educational traditions are not welcome in French speaking countries. The alternate use of both discursive and narrative techniques constitutes another characteristic (Meunier, Peraya, 1993). To illustrate these significant distinctions, we compared French ("La pub c'est pas de la tarte": explaining to youngsters how and why advertising campaigns are set up), British ("Get it right", a series explaining their legal rights to teenagers who get in trouble) and Dutch ("Wat verkoopt je me nou ?": a young worker, a 'hyper-consumer' repeating catchy phrases and identifying himself with characters in commercials) video programs (Peraya, 1994-b).
The French video includes fragments of informative and educational discourse in the continuum of the tale. They are recognisable through voice modulations, the kind of vocabulary used and the level of the language, a 'spoken-written' language. Very differently, the British video marks clear-cut distinctions between narrative and explanatory parts: the act is played like a typical story to maintain a process of identification. Diversions, 'distanciation' markers through humour and caricatures - as means of encouraging in the listener a critical dissociation from the main character -, are proposed in the course of explanatory parts, built like formal speeches. They are read by an off voice, doubled by scripto-visual elements on the screen. Finally, the Dutch films are build like a typical narrative with little didactic or explanatory markers. Here again, humour is used to help the viewer avoid the identification process. (Peraya, 1994-b).
In summary, the existence of relatively contrasted kinds of discourse are observed in which pedagogic and socio-educational programs could constitute two contrasting poles (Peraya, 1993). In addition, to each of them correspond a series of external, non-discursive characteristics, linked to specific sites of social interaction: for example, educational aims and goals, themes and audiences, organisational constructs, etc. The first kind of discourse - socio-educational communication - concerns education about a number of social or social life-related problems whereas the second kind, the didactic one, strictly implies a will to instruct with a specific teaching goal or educational system in mind.
Socio-educational communication does, hence, constitute a kind of assistance in social life and includes loosely structured actions on non-academic topics, to bring about behaviours or teach much needed knowledge in social life situations (in the professional sphere or elsewhere). In other words, it contributes to the harmonious integration of the individual in society. It therefore will promote actions in health care and education (AIDS prevention, campaigns against smoking, etc.), road safety, job hunting (interview preparation), etc.
In addition, this type of communication presents but a few institutional constrains. It often deals with focused short term actions, limited in scope and framed as sensitisation or 'educational' campaigns. Within such a scheme, certification, medium or long term evaluations, when they exist, mostly consider whether a given campaign has had an influence on the social behaviour targeted. Gauging a decrease in the number of accidents, in their deadly outcome, or in the number of seriously injured can provide a measure the impact of a road safety campaign.
Conversely, didactic communication is strictly limited to a pedagogic rationale determined by institutions or guardian organisms such as schools and/or industries. Themes and contents are directly related to fixed curricula or industry-defined professional profiles. Consequently, the teaching provided is strongly structured according to modular or curricular constraints, bridges and pathways are organised between levels of qualification and along various schooling paths and, in most cases, a certification is guarantied on completion of the training.
To establish the above distinctions does not merely answers a need to define and classify. If this were the case, the job would be rather whimsical. A primal preoccupation is to show the interdependence between discursive structures and didactical strategies at work . The second aim is to reveal the specificities and constrains related to given social interaction sites. For that reason, learning to know these different languages - the internal factors - as well as to comprehend the initial conditions of production and dissemination - the external factors - such as producers, commercial and educational lobbies as well as their audiences with their contexts and modes of reception -, also means to provide tools and ways to better use documentary evidence and to evaluate it for what it really is. In this study however, we will mostly consider the pedagogic side of communication.
[5] It is generally considered that a given message, whatever its contents may be, presents an important relational aspect that could be outlined as follows: How do we see our fellow speaker ? What image do we have of him and how do we convey it to him ? What kind of relationship do we have with our own discourse and how do we express it ?