Classifying communibiology's texts: Implications for Genre theory

Communication Theory

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 142-166

  Nelson, Christian K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION;

EID: 2642527856     PISSN: 10503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00309.x     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Altman, R. (1999). Film/genre. London: BFI.
2. Amariglio, J., Resnick, S., & Wolff, R. D. (1993). Division and difference in the "discipline" of economics. In E. Messer-Davidow, D. R. Shumway, & D. J. Sylvan (Eds.), Knowledges: Historical and critical studies in disciplinarity (pp. 150-184). Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
3. Beatty, M. J., Heisel, A. D., Hall, A. E., Levine, T. R., & LaFrance, B. H. (2002). What can we learn from the study of twins about genetic and environmental influences on interpersonal affiliation, aggressiveness, and social anxiety?: A meta-analytic study. Communication Monographs, 69, 1-18.
4. Beatty, M. J., Marshall, L. A., & Rudd, J. E. (2001). A twins study of communicative adaptability: Heritability of individual differences. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 87, 366-377.
5. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). It's in our nature: Verbal aggressiveness as temperamental expression. Communication Quarterly, 45, 446-460.
6. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Interpersonal communication as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 41-67). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
7. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000a). A few comments about communibiology and the nature/nurture question. Communication Education, 49, 25-28.
8. Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000b). Theory, scientific evidence, and the communibiological paradigm: Reflections on misguided criticism. Communication Education, 49, 36-44.
9. Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Heisel, A. D. (1998). Communication apprehension as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. Communication Monographs, 65, 197-219.
10. Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Valencic, K. M. (2001). The biology of communication: A communibiological perspective. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
11. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of discipline (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
12. Beckwith, J., & Alper, J. S. (1998, July/August). Nature's imperfect experiment. La recherche, 311, 72-76. Retrieved April 29, 2003, from http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bibliography/beckwith/twins.htm
13. Beebee, T. O. (1994). The ideology of genre: A comparative study of generic instability. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
14. Benoit, W. L. (2000). Beyond genre theory: The genesis of rhetorical action. Communication Monographs, 67, 178-192.
15. Berger, C. R. (1991). Communication theories and other curios. Communication Monographs, 58, 101-113.
16. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/ culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Bostrom, R., & Donohew, L. (1992). The case for empiricism: Clarifying fundamental issues in communication theory. Communication Monographs, 59, 109-129.
18. Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14, 19-47.
19. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (Richard Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Cappella, J. N. (1991). The biological origins of automated patterns of human interaction. Communication Theory, 1, 4-35.
21. Cappella, J. N. (1993). The facial feedback hypothesis: Review and speculation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 3-13.
22. Cappella, J. N. (1995). An evolutionary psychology of Gricean cooperation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 167-181.
23. Cappella, J N. (1996a). Why biological explanation? Journal of Communication, 46(3), 4-7.
24. Cappella, J. N. (Ed.). (1996b). Biology and communication [Special issue]. Journal of Communication, 46(3).
25. Ceccarelli, L. (2001). Shaping science with rhetoric: The cases of Dobzhansky, Schrodinger, and Wilson. Chicago: University of Chicago.
26. Clark, B. R. (1997). Small worlds, different worlds: The uniqueness and troubles of American academic professions. Daedalus, 126, 21-42.
27. Condit, C. M. (2000a). Culture and biology in human communication: Toward a multi-causal model. Communication Education, 49, 7-24.
28. Condit, C. M. (2000b). Toward new "sciences" of human behavior. Communication Education, 49, 29-35.
29. Condit, C. M. (2001, November). In J. Keaten (Chair), Extending the dialogue of the causes of communication behavior: A roundtable discussion. Panel conducted at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.
30. Conley, T. (1986). The Linnaean blues: Thoughts on the genre approach. In H. W Simons & A. A. Aghazarian (Eds.), Form, genre, and the study of political discourse (pp. 59-78). Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
31. Davis, M. S. (1971). That's interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of Social Science, 1, 309-344.
32. Derrida, J. (1980). The law of genre. Critical Inquiry, 7, 55-81.
33. Derrida, J. (1988). Limited Inc. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
34. Dobzhansky, T. (1937). Genetics and the origin of species. New York: Columbia University Press.
35. Ellis, D. G. (1997). [Review of the book The evolution of communication.] Journal of Communication, 47(2), 166-169.
36. Fishelov, D. (1991). Genre theory and family resemblance-revisited. Poetics, 20, 123-138.
37. Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of, and experiments with, "trust" as a condition of stable concerted actions. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction: Cognitive determinants (pp. 187-238). NY: The Ronald Press.
38. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 337-366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
39. Gieryn, T. E. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781-795.
40. Gerbner, G. (1983). Ferment in the field [Special issue]. Journal of Communication, 33(3).
41. Gerhart, M. (1989). The dilemma of the text: How to "belong" to a genre. Poetics, 18, 355-373.
42. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
43. Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B, 205, 581-598.
44. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
45. Gumport, P. J. (1997). Public universities as academic workplaces. Daedalus, 126, 113-136.
46. Haarman, L. (2001). Performing talk. In A. Tolson (Ed.), Television talk shows (pp. 31-64). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Hauptmeier, H. (1987). Sketches of theories of genre. Poetics, 16, 397-430.
48. Hauser, M. D. (1996). The evolution of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. Hutchby, I. (1996). Confrontation talk: Arguments, assymetries, and power on talk radio. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50. Hutchby, I. (2001). Confrontation as spectacle: The argumentative frame of the Ricki Lake Show. In A. Tolson (Ed.), Television talk shows (pp. 155-172). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. New York: Longman.
52. Jamieson, K. H. (1973). Generic constraints and the rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 6, 162-170.
53. Kamin, L. J. (1974). The science and politics of I.Q. New York: Wiley.
54. Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1982). Scientific communities or transepistemic arenas of research? A critique of quasi-economic models of science. Social Studies of Science, 12, 101-130.
55. Labinger, J. A. (1997). The science wars and the future of the American academic profession. Daedalus, 126, 201-220.
56. Leitch, V. B. (1991). (De)coding (generic) discourse. Genre, 24, 83-98.
57. Levine, D. N. (1985). The flight from ambiguity: Essays in social and Cultural theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
58. Levinson, S. C. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman's concepts of participation. In P. Drew & A. Woman (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interactional order (pp. 161-227). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
59. Lewontin, R. (1992). Gene talk on target. Social Epistemology, 6, 179-181.
60. Lewontin, R. C. (2000). The triple helix: Gene, organism, and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61. Lewontin, R.C., Rose, S., & Kamin, L. J. (1984). Not in our genes: Biology, ideology, and human nature. New York: Pantheon Books.
62. Livingstone, S., & Lunt, P. (1994). Talk on television: Audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge.
63. Lyne, J. (2001, November). In J. Keaten (Chair), Extending the dialogue of the causes of communication behavior: A roundtable discussion. Panel conducted at the annual conference of the National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.
64. Lyne J. (2002). [Review of the book Shaping science with rhetoric]. Argumentation and Advocacy, 39, 74-77.
65. Lyne, J., & Howe, H. (1990). The rhetoric of expertise: E. O. Wilson and sociobiology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76, 134-151.
66. Maynard, D. W, & Clayman, S. E. (1991). The diversity of ethnomethodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 385-418.
67. McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Why we communicate the ways we do: A communibiological perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
68. McCroskey, J. C., & Beatty, M. J. (2000). The communibiological perspective: Implications for communication in instruction. Communication Education, 49, 1-6.
69. Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-162.
70. Moore, D. S. (2001). The dependent gene. New York: Henry Holt.
71. Myers, G. (2001). "I'm out of it; you guys argue": Making an issue out of it on The Jerry Springer Show. In A. Tolson (Ed.), Television talk shows (pp. 173-191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
72. Nelson, C. K. (1994). Ethnomethodological positions on the use of ethnographic data in conversation analytic research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 23, 307-329.
73. Nelson, C. K. (2001a). The haunting of communication research by dead metaphors: For reflexive analyses of the communication research literature. Language and Communication, 21, 245-262.
74. Nelson, C. K. (2001b). If it sounds too good to be true, it is: A Wittgensteinian approach to the conflict literature. Language and Communication, 21, 1-22.
75. Rosmarin, A. (1985). The power of genre. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press.
76. Rubinstein, D. (1977). The concept of action in the social sciences. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 7, 209-236.
77. Sacks, H. (1963). Sociological description. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 8, 1-16.
78. Sacks, H. (1967). The search for help: No one to turn to. In E. Schneidman (Ed.), Essays in self destruction (pp. 203-223). New York: Science House.
79. Schrödinger, E. (1944). What is life? The physical aspect of the living cell. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
80. Sullivan, D. L. (1996). Displaying disciplinarity. Written Communication, 13, 221-250.
81. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
82. Watson, J. D. (1968). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. New York: Atheneum.
83. Wieder, D. L. (1988). Language and social reality: The case of telling, the convict code. Washington, DC: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology & University Press of America.
84. Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
85. Wilson, E, O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Knopf.
86. Wood, H. (2001). "No, you rioted!": The pursuit of conflict in the management of "lay" and "expert" discourses on Kilroy. In A. Tolson (Ed.), Television talk shows (pp. 65-87). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
87. Yoxen, E. (1985). Speaking out about competition: An essay on The Double Helix as popularization. In T. Shinn & R. Whitley (Eds.), Expository science: Forms and functions of popularisation (pp. 163-181). Boston: D. Reidel.