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.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
