|
|
|
|
CONTRIBUTORS:
|
|
|
JOURNAL:
|
|
|
YEAR:
|
1995
|
|
PUB TYPE:
|
Journal Article
|
|
SUBJECT(S):
|
Organization theory; Discourse analysis; Linguistic turn; Language games; Wittgenstein
|
|
DISCIPLINE:
|
Business/Management
|
|
HTTP:
|
|
|
LANGUAGE:
|
English
|
|
PUB ID:
|
103-329-861
(Last edited on
2008/06/16 02:00:49 GMT-6)
|
|
SPONSOR(S):
|
|
|
ABSTRACT:
Wittgenstein’s concept of a language game arose in a recent dialogue on the relationship between organization science and managerial practice. Astley and Zammuto (1992), the central paper in the dialogue, introduced the concept and used it to examine the contribution of organization science to managerial practice. In their replies, Donaldson (1992) and Beyer (1992) were clearly unconvinced of the value of Astley and Zammuto’s argument and of the usefulness of the language game concept in general. In this paper we argue that one significant source of the disagreement among these authors lies in their under-developed conceptions of a language game. We argue that Wittgenstein’s idea of a language game is considerably more complex and nuanced than is suggested by this dialogue and that, when properly understood, it can provide useful insights into the phenomenon of organization as well as the nature of organization science. Thus, while the field has begun to use this term, we have come to know a very weak version of this concept. This paper is an argument for a stronger version of the language game concept and for a greater attention to its original source.
|
|
|
|
STATISTICS
|
|
Click on # to view
|
|
Citations
|
|
2
|
|
References
|
|
30
|
|
Comments
|
|
0
|
|
Quality
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
Interest
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
View(er)s
|
|
23/1907
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prev |
Next |
|
