Distinctions Between Everyday and Representational Communication
Identifieur interne : 001336 ( Main/Corpus ); précédent : 001335; suivant : 001337Distinctions Between Everyday and Representational Communication
Auteurs : David B. MitchellSource :
- Communication Theory [ 1050-3293 ] ; 1994-05.
Abstract
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 those of pragmatic action.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1994.tb00086.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:91FC6CADD7E71FB19976E8B83BA43717E87F0B64Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Distinctions Between Everyday and Representational Communication</title><author><name sortKey="Mitchell, David B" sort="Mitchell, David B" uniqKey="Mitchell D" first="David B." last="Mitchell">David B. Mitchell</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>David B. Mitchell is assistant professor in the Graduate Program in Communication Studies at the University of Calgary, Calgary Alberta. He would like to thank Anthony Giddens (Cambridge) for insights gained in lectures and conversations, and Edna Einsiedel(Calgary) for her constant support.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:91FC6CADD7E71FB19976E8B83BA43717E87F0B64</idno><date when="1994" year="1994">1994</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1468-2885.1994.tb00086.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/91FC6CADD7E71FB19976E8B83BA43717E87F0B64/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Corpus">001336</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Distinctions Between Everyday and Representational Communication</title><author><name sortKey="Mitchell, David B" sort="Mitchell, David B" uniqKey="Mitchell D" first="David B." last="Mitchell">David B. Mitchell</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>David B. Mitchell is assistant professor in the Graduate Program in Communication Studies at the University of Calgary, Calgary Alberta. He would like to thank Anthony Giddens (Cambridge) for insights gained in lectures and conversations, and Edna Einsiedel(Calgary) for her constant support.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Communication Theory</title><idno type="ISSN">1050-3293</idno><idno type="eISSN">1468-2885</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1994-05">1994-05</date><biblScope unit="volume">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="111">111</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="131">131</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1050-3293</idno></series><idno type="istex">91FC6CADD7E71FB19976E8B83BA43717E87F0B64</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1468-2885.1994.tb00086.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">COMT111</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1050-3293</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">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 those of pragmatic action.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>David B. Mitchell</name><affiliations><json:string>David B. Mitchell is assistant professor in the Graduate Program in Communication Studies at the University of Calgary, Calgary Alberta. He would like to thank Anthony Giddens (Cambridge) for insights gained in lectures and conversations, and Edna Einsiedel(Calgary) for her constant support.</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><abstract>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 those of pragmatic action.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.204</score><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>486 x 702 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>0</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1034</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>9160</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>57147</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>21</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>142</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Distinctions Between Everyday and Representational Communication</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>4</volume><pages><total>21</total><last>131</last><first>111</first></pages><issn><json:string>1050-3293</json:string></issn><issue>2</issue><genre></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1468-2885</json:string></eissn><title>Communication Theory</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2885</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>1994</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1994</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1468-2885.1994.tb00086.x</json:string></doi><id>91FC6CADD7E71FB19976E8B83BA43717E87F0B64</id><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/91FC6CADD7E71FB19976E8B83BA43717E87F0B64/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/91FC6CADD7E71FB19976E8B83BA43717E87F0B64/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/91FC6CADD7E71FB19976E8B83BA43717E87F0B64/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Distinctions Between Everyday and Representational Communication</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>WILEY</p></availability><date>1994</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Distinctions Between Everyday and Representational Communication</title><author><persName><forename type="first">David B.</forename><surname>Mitchell</surname></persName><affiliation>David B. Mitchell is assistant professor in the Graduate Program in Communication Studies at the University of Calgary, Calgary Alberta. He would like to thank Anthony Giddens (Cambridge) for insights gained in lectures and conversations, and Edna Einsiedel(Calgary) for her constant support.</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Communication Theory</title><idno type="pISSN">1050-3293</idno><idno type="eISSN">1468-2885</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2885</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1994-05"></date><biblScope unit="volume">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="111">111</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="131">131</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">91FC6CADD7E71FB19976E8B83BA43717E87F0B64</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1468-2885.1994.tb00086.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">COMT111</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1994</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>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 those of pragmatic action.</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1994-05">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/91FC6CADD7E71FB19976E8B83BA43717E87F0B64/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2885</doi><issn type="print">1050-3293</issn><issn type="electronic">1468-2885</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="COMT"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="COMMUNICATION THEORY">Communication Theory</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="05002"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/comt.1994.4.issue-2</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="4">4</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="2">2</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="1994-05">May 1994</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0011100" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1468-2885.1994.tb00086.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="COMT111"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="21"></count></countGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2006-03-17"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2006-03-17"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:HeaderRef result:HeaderRef" date="2010-03-16"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-16"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="111">111</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="131">131</numbering></numberingGroup><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:COMT.COMT111.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="referenceTotal" number="41"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="1"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Distinctions Between Everyday and Representational Communication</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>David B.</givenNames><familyName>Mitchell</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>David B. Mitchell is assistant professor in the Graduate Program in Communication Studies at the University of Calgary, Calgary Alberta. He would like to thank Anthony Giddens (Cambridge) for insights gained in lectures and conversations, and Edna Einsiedel(Calgary) for her constant support.</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>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 those of pragmatic action.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Distinctions Between Everyday and Representational Communication</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Distinctions Between Everyday and Representational Communication</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">David B.</namePart><namePart type="family">Mitchell</namePart><affiliation>David B. Mitchell is assistant professor in the Graduate Program in Communication Studies at the University of Calgary, Calgary Alberta. He would like to thank Anthony Giddens (Cambridge) for insights gained in lectures and conversations, and Edna Einsiedel(Calgary) for her constant support.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1994-05</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1994</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="references">41</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">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 those of pragmatic action.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Communication Theory</title></titleInfo><genre type="Journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1050-3293</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1468-2885</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1468-2885</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">COMT</identifier><part><date>1994</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>4</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>111</start><end>131</end><total>21</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">91FC6CADD7E71FB19976E8B83BA43717E87F0B64</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1468-2885.1994.tb00086.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">COMT111</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Musique/explor/SchutzV1/Data/Main/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001336 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001336 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Musique
|area= SchutzV1
|flux= Main
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:91FC6CADD7E71FB19976E8B83BA43717E87F0B64
|texte= Distinctions Between Everyday and Representational Communication
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.38. |  |