Powers identifies three spheres that traditionally have defined thecommunication discipline-interpersonal, group, and public.
According to the seven contexts in the communication field addressed in Thinking About the Field: Traditions and Contexts, Power's schema may overlook intrapersonal and organizational communication.
The small group/team context is made up of individualswho take on various roles, or the positions of group members and their relationship to the group. These rolesmay be very diverse, including task leader, passive observer, active listener, recorder, and so forth.
In a group, there may also be a kind of 'hierarchy', as some people always follow, while others naturally take the role of leaders. But here the term "hierarchy" is only used in organizational communication.
First,consider the differences in these phrases: "same-sex marriages" and "marriage equality." We're sure most ofyou use the latter phrase. Why? Also, to make this point even more compelling: how does identifying ascisgender differ from identifying as non-binary? In part, the non-binary nature of sexual identity has usheredin some complexities in word choice. Some couples wish to avoid the heteronormative nature of husbandand wife and instead, elect to have more unique titles, including "hersbands," "wusbands," and even "supportstaff."
I am a bit confused about the difference between the rhetorical tradition and the socio-cultural tradition. I think these examples also fit the socio-cultural tradition, as they also support the statement "the words we use can be shaped by the world we see".
(1) When you make a comment, limityourself to one point only, though you can elaborate on thispoint, fleshing it out with examples and evidence.
I like this point. In paper tests, teachers often evaluate the quality of a response based on whether it covers all the key points. But in oral communication, we should maintain audience awareness and try our best to convey each point clearly.
ur own ideas become more cogentand powerful the more responsive we are to oth~rs and the morewe frame our claims not in isolation but as r~p:qnses to whatothers before us have said.
I find this sentence insightful because it makes me reflect on my experience of writing a literature review. Even when I do not present my own ideas, I need to thread those scattered articles together and get them talking to each other, just like bringing a group of strangers into a party and letting them realize how much they are actually connected.
"programmed contentiousness" or "ceremonial combat."
When I read "They say, I say" last week, I assumed that we had to criticize what other people said in order to enter the conversation. It seems that showing disagreement is a technique, just like "programmed contentiousness" here. But now I think sometimes such "disagreement" can be realized in a milder way by refining, advancing, or extending the existing ideas. Showing disagreement does not necessarily mean being in an agonistic position.
Agonism has still another serious effect: It is one of the reasons scholars have a hard timegetting policymakers to pay attention to their research.
But is it possible that, scholars might downplay the limitations of their work and exaggerate its strengths and value in order to make academic research more influential in policy-making？