On the focus, scope, and coherence of the study of human symbolic activity

On the intellectual structure of the human communication discipline

“…4 As a concept, message is more abstract than any of the other possible competing foundational terms (speech, discourse, conversation, proposition, utterance, speech act, essay, gesture, film, narrative, information, and so forth), which may all be included as distinct forms of "messages," and therefore subtypes deserving their own specific theoretical analyses. Furthermore, MESSAGE also encompasses such notions as meaning, signs and symbols, which have been offered by some as the defining characteristics of the field (Pearce, 1989;Cronkhite, 1986). 5 See, for example, Washell (1973), Benjamin (1975), and Liska (1993) for examples of this type of project.…”

“…6 Although human communication scholars have not written extensively on the semiotic foundations of tier-1 theory, several contributions are nevertheless available that provide a flavor of this level of our disciplinary research. Among the contributions to basic semiotic theory are the following: Aune's (1983) analysis of the symbol and social reality, Buttny's (1986) description of a Wittgensteinian perspective on meaning, Cherwitz's (1981) application of Morris's semiotic theory to rhetorical criticism, Corcoran's (1981) critique of the use of linguistic models for the semiotic analysis of screen media, Cronkhite's (1986) adaptation of Peircean concepts in preparation for arguing that the study of human symbolic activity characterizes the general focus, scope and source of coherence for our discipline, Glynn's (1986) deconstructionist interpretation of the role of symbols in the construction of social reality, Harris's (1984) analysis of language as a sign system, Hillbruner's (1985) treatment of language as an icon in rhetorical criticism and theory, Liska's (1993) adaptation of Peircean concepts to analyze the relation of non-human sign systems to human ones, Lyne's (1980) interpretation of the place of rhetoric in C. S. Peirce's semiotic theory, and Stewart's (1972Stewart's ( , 1986 critiques of various semiotic theories from a hermeneutic point of view.…”

“…Supporting this choice,Cohen (1994) reports that the preponderance of communication professionals he surveyed believe that we are already a discipline, and even more believe that we should be considered one.2 Although such questions are frequently asked(Berger, 1991(Berger, , 1992 Dervin, Grossberg, O'Keefe, & Wartella, 1989aRogers & Chaffee, 1983;Miller, 1983), they are far more rarely taken up as a problem in their own right(Cronkhite, 1986). Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 20:28 04 January 2015…”

La communication en tant que champ d’études

“…[une communauté conversationnelle ayant une tradition argumentative] 15. Voyez Beniger (1993) ; Berger et Chaffee (1987, p. 894) ;Cronkhite (1986) ;Deetz (1994) ;Luhmann (1992) ; Motley (1991) ; Pearce (1989) ;Rothenbuhler (1993Rothenbuhler ( , 1996Rothenbuhler ( , 1998Shepherd (1993) ;Sigman (1992Sigman ( , 1995a Plusieurs thèmes importants traversent cette documentation. L'un de ces thèmes veut que les idées sur la communication aient évolué à travers l'histoire et qu'elles puissent être mieux comprises lorsque mises en un contexte historique, culturel et intellectuel plus large.…”

New explorations in organizational relationships: An expectancy model of human symbolic activity

“…More recently the need for a greater concentration upon human symbolic activity has been noted by Cronkhite (1986), who argued that the study of human symbolic activity provides an unambiguous research perspective. He addresses the focus, scope, and coherence of the study of human symbolic activity.…”