摘要:

This article links theory in organizational communication and organizational ecology in order to explore organizational evolution from the sociocultural perspective proposed by Weick (1969, 1979a). I argue that Weick's model of organizing stipulates a necessary relationship between enactment and organizational adaptation. I argue that this relationship provides the foundation for defining organizational evolution as the transformation of enacted environments. Such a definition places the communication process of enactment and the ecological outcome of adaptation at the center of the effort to describe the evolution and ecology of organizations and organizational populations from a sociocultural perspective.

ISSN:1050-3293    

DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1994.tb00085.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1994

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

This essay extends a series of distinctions Giddens bas made between “ta1k” and “cultural objects” respectively in terms of “everyday” and “representational communication.” Everyday communication is equivalent to face‐to‐face communication. Representational communication entails conventional aesthetic practices—and is not synonymous with technologically mediated communication. Historically, the stress on linguistic models has limited our understanding of these analogous and yet distinctive modes of communication. The two varieties are distinctive: first, in terms of the role of verbal language; second, in terms of how meaning is processed over and against background frames of understanding; third, in terms of the relationship between levels of analysis; fourth, in terms of pragmatic features. These distinctions are relevant to how we think about cultural history and practice from a communicational perspective. They are also germane to the prospect of integrating theories of symbolic form with thos

ISSN:1050-3293    

DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1994.tb00086.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1994

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

Current approaches to critical discourse analysis either presume that persons are active agents, intentionally and strategically resisting oppression and domination or that persons are objects, inscribed in the reproduction and reconstitution of speech conventions. These dichotomies (intention/convention and resistance/reproduction) inhibit the description of the discursive processes through which persons participate actively in the transformation of dominant ideologies. This article attempts to dissolve these dichotomies by deconstructing the role of intentionality in critical discourse analysis and redefining intentions as social constructions in discourse, rather than deep structures manifest in speech action. Using Anscombe (1960), I define intention as a language game central to the political management of positions in discourse; from this perspective, intentions, as discursive artifacts, are empirically available and methodologically pertinent to the analysis of power in communicative practices.

ISSN:1050-3293    

DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1994.tb00087.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1994

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

Book reviewed in this article:Norms of Rhetorical CultureThomas B. FarrellHand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About ThoughtDavid McNeillMutual Misunderstanding: Scepticism and the Theorizing of Lanuage and lnterpretationQalbot J. Taylor

ISSN:1050-3293    

DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1994.tb00088.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1994

数据来源: WILEY