Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reasons and Representations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fundamental Theories of Business Communication

Part of the book series: New Perspectives in Organizational Communication ((NPOC))

  • 1118 Accesses

Abstract

The theories in this chapter take a different approach to business communication than those in the other chapters. The theories presented here mainly focus on why we should undertake business communication rather than how we do business communication. The theories also present meta-views of business communication in that some present an overarching view of how we should do business communication research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Almaney, A. (1974). Communication and the systems theory of organization. Journal of Business Communication,12(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194367401200106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations,53(9), 1125–1149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700539002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argenti, P. A. (2017). Strategic communication in the c-suite. International Journal of Business Communication,54(2), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416687053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed. and C. Emerson, Trans.; Reprint Edition). University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belcher, D. (2009a). English for Specific Purposes in theory and practice. University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belcher, D. (2009b). What ESP is and can be: An introduction. In D. Belcher (Ed.), English for specific purposes in theory and practice (pp. 1–20). University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, W. L., & Pfau, M. (2004). Introduction to the special issue: The state of the art in communication theory and research, part 1. Journal of Communication,54(4), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, J. M. (2012). Applying dialogic public relations theory to public relations education. Teaching Journalism & Mass Communication,2(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology,29(1), 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, M. (1998). English for specific purposes: The preservation of the species (some notes on a recently evolved species and on the contribution of John Swales to its preservation and protection). English for Specific Purposes,17(1), 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brannen, M. Y., Piekkari, R., & Tietze, S. (2014). The multifaceted role of language in international business: Unpacking the forms, functions and features of a critical challenge to MNC theory and performance. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G., Gillian, B., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos, M. N. (2007). Ecology of meanings: A critical constructivist communication model. Communication Theory,17(4), 386–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K. M., & Kaufer, D. S. (1993). Semantic connectivity: An approach for analyzing symbols in semantic networks. Communication Theory,3(3), 183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chouliaraki, L. (2008). Discourse analysis. In T. Bennett (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of cultural analysis (pp. 674–698). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, B. (1984). ESP—English for specific purposes. Language Teaching,17(1), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800010405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P. R., & Perrault, C. R. (1979). Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science,3(3), 177–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronen, V. E. (1988). Coordinated management of meaning: A critical theory. CONTEXT,2(8), 66–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deetz, S. (2007). Corporate governance, corporate social responsibility, and communication. In S. K. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 267–278). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deetz, S. A. (1982). Critical interpretive research in organizational communication. Western Journal of Communication (Includes Communication Reports),46(2), 131–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deetz, S. A. (2003). Corporate governance, communication, and getting social values into the decisional chain. Management Communication Quarterly,16(4), 606–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deetz, S., May, S., & Mumby, D. K. (2005). Critical theory. In S. May & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), Engaging organizational communication theory & research: Multiple perspectives (pp. 85–111). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doerfel, M. L. (1998). What constitutes semantic network analysis? A comparison of research and methodologies. Connections,21(2), 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duda, R. O., Hart, P. E., Nilsson, N. J., & Sutherland, G. L. (1977). Semantic network representations in rule-based inference systems. ACM SIGART Bulletin,63, 18. https://doi.org/10.1145/1045343.1045351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dulek, R. (2020). Sitting with elephants. Waldorf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielden, J. S., & Dulek, R. E. (1984). How to use bottom-line writing in corporate communications. Business Horizons,27(4), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(84)90053-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielden, J. S., & Dulek, R. E. (1990). Principles of business communication. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielden, J. S., Gibbons, J. D., & Dulek, R. E. (2003). Throw me the bottom line…: I’m drowning in e-mail! Pioneer River Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, C., & Mosco, V. (2012). Introduction: Marx is back – The importance of Marxist theory and research for critical communication studies today. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 10(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v10i2.421.

  • Gee, J. P. (2004). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203005675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology,19, 283–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouran, D. S., Hirokawa, R. Y., Julian, K. M., & Leatham, G. B. (1993). The evolution and current status of the functional perspective on communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups. Annals of the International Communication Association,16(1), 573–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1993.11678870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. K., Vitanova, G., & Marchenkova, L. A. (2004). Dialogue with Bakhtin on second and foreign language learning: New perspectives. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (2003). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: Methods or paradigms? Discourse & Society,14(6), 751–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265030146004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasian, M., & Delgado, F. (1998). The trials and tribulations of racialized critical rhetorical theory: Understanding the rhetorical ambiguities of Proposition 187. Communication Theory,8(3), 245–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J., & Turner, B. S. (2008). Conversation analysis as social theory. In The new Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 300–320). Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirokawa, R. Y. (1988). Group communication and decision-making performance: A continued test of the functional perspective. Human Communication Research,14(4), 487–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00165.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirokawa, R. Y., & Poole, M. S. (1986). Communication and group decision-making. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johns, A. M. (2012). The history of English for specific purposes research. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 5–30). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118339855.ch1.

  • Jørgensen, M. W., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, M. L. (2017). Principles of dialogue and the history of dialogic theory in public relations. In X. Chen (Ed.), Prospect of public relations science (pp. 105–129). Peking University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, M. L., & Lane, A. B. (2017). A rhizomatous metaphor for dialogic theory. Public Relations Review,43(3), 568–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.02.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review,28(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korobov, N. (2001). Reconciling theory with method: From conversation analysis and critical discourse analysis to positioning analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research,2(3), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1996). Structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). University Of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavin-Loucks, D. (2005). Conversation analysis. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 507–513). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbaum, J. (2008). Conversation analysis theory. In Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 175–188). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2012). National culture and infrastructure development: A comparison among four cultural typologies. Competitiveness Review,22(5), 396–410. https://doi.org/10.1108/10595421211266285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2014). Step by step to better performance: Organizational-citizenship behavior can transform employees and the workplace. Human Resource Management International Digest,22(4), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-07-2014-0087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2017a). Leadership communication: Reflecting, engaging, and innovating. International Journal of Business Communication,54(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416675446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2018). Motivating language theory: Effective leader talk in the workplace. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2019). The diffusion process of strategic motivating language: An examination of the internal organizational environment and emergent properties. International Journal of Business Communication,56(3), 366–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416629093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J. (2017b). “What’s past is prologue”: A look at past leadership communication research with a view toward the future. International Journal of Business Communication,54(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416687050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, S. M. (2013). Toward a dialogic theory of fundraising. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,37(4), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920903527043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navigli, R., & Ponzetto, S. P. (2012). BabelNet: The automatic construction, evaluation and application of a wide-coverage multilingual semantic network. Artificial Intelligence,193(December), 217–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (2001). To err is human, to correct for it divine: A meta-analysis of research testing the functional theory of group decision-making effectiveness. Small Group Research,32(3), 313–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrey, S. (1990). Speech acts and literary theory. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction (Vol. 35). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. L. (1983). Communication and organizations: An interpretive perspective. In L. L. Putnam & M. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations (pp. 31–45). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, R. E., & Danowski, J. A. (1993). Is it really just like a fancy answering machine? Comparing semantic networks of different types of voice mail users. Journal of Business Communication,30(4), 369–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruben, B. D., & Gigliotti, R. A. (2017). Communication: Sine qua non of organizational leadership theory and practice. International Journal of Business Communication,54(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416675447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (Eds.). (2003). The handbook of discourse analysis (1st ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, F., Kleinnijenhuis, J., Oegema, D., Utz, S., & Van Atteveldt, W. (2012). Strategic framing in the BP crisis: A semantic network analysis of associative frames. Public Relations Review,38(1), 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P. B. (2005). Knowledge workers: Social, task and semantic network analysis. Corporate Communications: an International Journal,10(3), 257–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1985). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S. C., & Rapaport, W. J. (1987). SNePS considered as a fully intensional propositional semantic network. In N. Cercone & G. McCalla (Eds.), The knowledge frontier (pp. 262–315). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchan, J., & Dulek, R. (1988). Toward a better understanding of reader analysis. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 25(2), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194368802500204.

  • Suchan, J., & Dulek, R. (1990). A reassessment of clarity in written managerial communications. Management Communication Quarterly,4(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318990004001005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchan, J., & Dulek, R. (1998). From text to context: An open systems approach to research in written business communication. Journal of Business Communication,35(1), 87–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, W. J. (2008). The interlocutor’s dilemma: The place of strategy in dialogic theory. Communication Theory,18(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00311.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A&M International University, Laredo, TX, USA

    Milton Mayfield & Jacqueline Mayfield

  2. Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Robyn Walker

Authors
  1. Milton Mayfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacqueline Mayfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robyn Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacqueline Mayfield .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mayfield, M., Mayfield, J., Walker, R. (2020). Reasons and Representations. In: Fundamental Theories of Business Communication. New Perspectives in Organizational Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57741-4_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation