Rhetoric and Rational Enterprises
dc.contributor.author | Laroche, Mary | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Pearson, Sheryl | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-04-14T14:14:22Z | |
dc.date.available | 2010-04-14T14:14:22Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1985 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | LaROCHE, MARY; PEARSON, SHERYL (1985). "Rhetoric and Rational Enterprises." Written Communication 3(2): 246-268. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/69034> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0741-0883 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/69034 | |
dc.description.abstract | Traditional views of organizational communication have fallen short because they misapprehended and oversimplified the realities of rhetorical behavior in organizations and because they offered weak theoretical underpinnings for the study of business communication. Recent developments in rhetorical theory spearheaded by the work of Toulmin, Perelman, Polanyi, and others offer a coherent, theoretically sound, and productive way of analyzing discourse in organizations. Applying constructs of the “new rhetoric” to the study of sample documents from a representative organizational situation illustrates the importance of consensus building as a tacit communication purpose, reveals the decision-making process involving the text's audience, and demonstrates the central role of context or situation in shaping discourse. Rhetoric in organizations, just as in other “rational enterprises” (such as the disciplines of science and law), reveals underlying paradigms that are determined by the nature of communal behavior and by the nature of thinking man. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 3108 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 2403452 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.publisher | SAGE PUBLICATIONS | en_US |
dc.title | Rhetoric and Rational Enterprises | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Anthropology and Archaeology | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Education | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Social Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | University of Michigan—Dearborn | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | University of Michigan—Dearborn | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/69034/2/10.1177_0741088385002003002.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1177/0741088385002003002 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Bentley, G. (1953). Editing the company publication. New York: Harper & Row. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1-14. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Booth, W. (1974). Modern dogma and the rhetoric of assent. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Consigny, S. (1974). Rhetoric and its situations. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 7, 175-186. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Cushman, D., & Tompkins, P. (1980). Theory of rhetoric for a contemporary society. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 13, 43-67. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | d'Aprix, R. (1977). The believable corporation. New York: AMACOM. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | de la Mare, G. (1979). Communicating at the top: What you need to know about communicating to run an organization. New York: John Wiley. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Filley, A. C. (1977). Conflict resolution: The ethic of the good loser. In R. C. Huseman, C. M. Logue, & D. L. Freshley (Eds.), Readings in interpersonal and organizational communication (3rd ed.). Boston: Holbrook Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Houghton Mifflin. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Freedman, A., & Pringle, I. (1980). Reinventing the rhetorical tradition. In A. Freedman & I. Pringle (Eds.), Reinventing the rhetorical tradition (pp. 173-185). Conway, AR: CCTE/L&S Books. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Huckin, T. N. (1983). A cognitive approach to readability. In P. V. Anderson, R. J. Brockmann, & C. R. Miller (Eds.), New essays in technical and scientific communication: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 90-104). Farmingdale, NY: Baywood. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict and choice. New York: Free Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Johnstone, H., Jr. (1970). Rhetoric and communication in philosophy. In Perspectives in education, religion, and the arts (pp. 351-364). Albany: SUNY Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kinneavy, J. L. (1971). A theory of discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kinneavy, J. L. (1980). A pluralistic synthesis of four contemporary models for teaching composition. In A. Freedman and I. Pringle (Eds.), Reinventing the rhetorical tradition (pp. 37-52). Conway, AR: CCTE/L&S Books. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). In International encyclopedia of unified science (Vol. 2, no. 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mc Keon, R. (1971). The uses of rhetoric in a technological age: Architectonic productive arts. In L. F. Bitzer and E. Black (Eds.), The prospect of rhetoric (pp. 44-63). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Miller, D. W., & Starr, M. K. (1967). The structure of human decisions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Nisbett, R. E., Borgida, E., Crandall, R., & Reed, H. (1976). Popular induction: Information is not necessarily informative. In J. S. Carroll & J. W. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp. 113-133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Parkinson, F. N., & Rowe, N. (1977). Communicate: Parkinson's law for business survival. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Perelman, C. (1979). Disagreement and rationality. In The new rhetoric and the humanities: Essays on rhetoric and its applications (pp. 111-116). Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel. (Original work published 1966) | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Perelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric (W. Kluback, Trans.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1977) | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958) | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Scott, R. L. (1981). The tacit dimension and rhetoric: What it means to be persuading and persuaded. Pre/Text, 2, 115-126. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Slovic, P., Fischloff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1976). Cognitive processes and societal risk-taking. In J. S. Carroll & J. W. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp. 166-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Stanger, R. (1969). Corporate decision-making: An empirical study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 1-13. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Timm, P. (1980). Managerial communication: A finger on the pulse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts (Vol. 1). Princeton: Princeton University Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). The belief in the “law of small numbers.”Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105-110. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Uttal, B. (1983, October 17). The corporate culture vultures. Fortune, 108(8), 66-72. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Weimer, W. B. (1977). Science as a rhetorical transaction: Toward a non-justificational conception of rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10, 1-29. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Young, R. (1980). Arts, crafts, gifts, and knacks: Some disharmonies in the new rhetoric. Visible Language, 14, 341-350. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Young, S. (1966). Management: A systems analysis. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.