Show simple item record

Rhetoric and Rational Enterprises

dc.contributor.authorLaroche, Maryen_US
dc.contributor.authorPearson, Sherylen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-14T14:14:22Z
dc.date.available2010-04-14T14:14:22Z
dc.date.issued1985en_US
dc.identifier.citationLaROCHE, 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.issn0741-0883en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/69034
dc.description.abstractTraditional 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.extent3108 bytes
dc.format.extent2403452 bytes
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.publisherSAGE PUBLICATIONSen_US
dc.titleRhetoric and Rational Enterprisesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelAnthropology and Archaeologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEducationen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan—Dearbornen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan—Dearbornen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/69034/2/10.1177_0741088385002003002.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0741088385002003002en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBentley, G. (1953). Editing the company publication. New York: Harper & Row.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBooth, W. (1974). Modern dogma and the rhetoric of assent. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceConsigny, S. (1974). Rhetoric and its situations. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 7, 175-186.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCushman, D., & Tompkins, P. (1980). Theory of rhetoric for a contemporary society. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 13, 43-67.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenced'Aprix, R. (1977). The believable corporation. New York: AMACOM.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencede 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.citedreferenceFilley, 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.citedreferenceFisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Houghton Mifflin.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFreedman, 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.citedreferenceHuckin, 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.citedreferenceJanis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict and choice. New York: Free Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJohnstone, 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.citedreferenceKahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKinneavy, J. L. (1971). A theory of discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKinneavy, 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.citedreferenceKuhn, 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.citedreferenceMc 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.citedreferenceMiller, D. W., & Starr, M. K. (1967). The structure of human decisions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNisbett, 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.citedreferenceParkinson, F. N., & Rowe, N. (1977). Communicate: Parkinson's law for business survival. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePerelman, 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.citedreferencePerelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric (W. Kluback, Trans.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1977)en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePerelman, 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.citedreferencePolanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePolanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScott, 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.citedreferenceSimon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSlovic, 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.citedreferenceStanger, R. (1969). Corporate decision-making: An empirical study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 1-13.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTimm, P. (1980). Managerial communication: A finger on the pulse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceToulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts (Vol. 1). Princeton: Princeton University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). The belief in the “law of small numbers.”Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105-110.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUttal, B. (1983, October 17). The corporate culture vultures. Fortune, 108(8), 66-72.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWeimer, 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.citedreferenceYoung, R. (1980). Arts, crafts, gifts, and knacks: Some disharmonies in the new rhetoric. Visible Language, 14, 341-350.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYoung, S. (1966). Management: A systems analysis. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

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.