Reviews for Student companion for Communication theories in action

The average rating for Student companion for Communication theories in action based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2010-01-19 00:00:00 Kevin Williams I actually read the Preface thru ch. 2 on 10 Mar, and re-read those parts again in May. Then I started over from the beginning in Aug. This is a good book. It presents a pretty good introduction to Integrationism, but there are many newer works by Harris, and it is one of his longer works. All in all, though, it probably presents the most comprehensive intro to Integrationism. Bought my own copy, to say the least. …, the question often asked is: 'But what other theoretical basis is there for the study of communication?' To that question this book tries to suggest an answer. It is written from the viewpoint of a hypothetical theorist ('the integrationist') who, although very sceptical of what passes for the study of communication in modern academic circles, does not (yet) consider it a lost cause. What the integrationist seeks is an explanatory account of communication which will accord with our lay understanding of human existence but does not prejudge fundamental questions about how and why human beings communicate. … The integrationist's hypothetical opponent is 'the segregationist'. Why the term segregationist? Because for this theorist semiological knowledge and knowledge of the world are two segregated domains. … For the integrationist, on the other hand, these are not two domains at all but a single integrated domain, and its separation into two is already a questionable theoretical move which risks distorting our analyses of communication (x). The present book is concerned only with general principles of communication theory (xi). Reread 28 September - 26 December 2010

Review # 2 was written on 2016-05-07 00:00:00 Todd Johnson I first read this when it was first published and I was beginning my PhD, 30 years ago. I have moved away from this field so I don't know how well its ideas have stood the test of time. Reading it again, I am struck by how comprehensive and radical is its attack on the then-prevailing (and possibly still-prevailing) ideas about communication and cognition. But I am also struck by its complete absence of any hard scientific evidence: no meaningful citations of psycholinguistic or psychological experiments. Finally, I am struck at how prolix it is (although, admittedly, it does have huge scope), so much so that it is hard to pin down a precise theory here; possibly all sorts of lacunae are hidden by this writing style. Perhaps my criticisms are unfair: the book launches a programme of work with some real insights, rather than summarizes a firmly established theory.