Cover not available
Article published In:
Dialogue and Ways of Relating
Edited by Huey-Rong Chen
[Language and Dialogue 10:1] 2020
► pp. 29–48

On streams and lakes

Metaventriloquism and the technologies of a water controversy

| University of Wisconsin – Parkside, USA
This article advances the notion of metaventriloquism by bringing together the concepts of metacommunication and ventriloquism (Cooren 2010). Metaventriloquism is when one makes claims regarding who or what another is speaking behalf of. To explore the implications of metaventriloquism, a public hearing related to a community water controversy is analyzed. The analysis illustrates how metaventriloquism may be used as a form of critique and operates retrospectively in claiming what motivated another, and prospectively in claiming what another should do. The implications of metaventriloquism for the construction of technological risks are also explored.
Keywords: metacommunication, ventriloquism, public discourse, technological risks, water policy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1The ventriloquial approach
    • 2.2Metacommunication
    • 2.3Bring metacommunication and ventriloquism together: Metaventriloquism
    • 2.4Technology, risk, and ventriloquism
  • 3.Data
    • 3.1Contextual background
    • 3.2Method of data analysis
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Diversion request as ventriloquial process
    • 4.2Metaventriloquism and legitimation: Water for the public good
    • 4.3Metaventriloquism and presentification: Constructing a responsible partner
    • 4.4Metaventriloquism as critique
    • 4.5Metaventriloquism and technological cautions
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00058.cas
References (37)
References
Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Bencherki, Nicolas and François Cooren. 2011. “Having To Be: The Possessive Constitution of Organization.” Human Relations 641: 1579–1607. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bencherki, Nicolas, Frederic Matte, and François Cooren (eds). 2019. Authority and Power in Social Interaction Methods and Analysis. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benoit-Barné, Chantal and François Cooren. 2009. “The Accomplishment of Authority Through Presentification How Authority Is Distributed Among and Negotiated by Organizational Members.” Management Communication Quarterly 23 (1): 5–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carbaugh, Donal. 1989. “Fifty terms for talk: A cross-cultural study.” International and intercultural communication annual 13 (93): 120.Google Scholar
Caronia, Letizia and François Cooren. 2014. “Decentering Our Analytical Position: The Dialogicity of Things.” Discourse and Communication 8 (1): 41–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castor, Theresa R. 2016. “The materiality of discourse: relational positioning in a fresh water controversy.” Communication Research and Practice 2 (3): 334–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. “Metacommunication.” The International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication: 1–9.Google Scholar
Castor, Theresa. 2018. “Sustainability and Textual Extensions of Institutional Discourse: Testing the Great Lakes Compact.” Critical Sociology 44 (2): 341–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooren, François. 2004. “Textual Agency: How Texts Do Things in Organizational Settings.” Organization 11 (3): 373–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “The Organizational World as a Plenum of Agencies.” In Communication as Organizing: Empirical and Theoretical Explorations in the Dynamic of Text and Conversation, ed. by François Cooren, James R. Taylor, and Elizabeth J. Van Every, 81–100. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
. 2010. Action and Agency in Dialogue: Passion, Incarnation and Ventriloquism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “In Medias Res: Communication, Existence, and Materiality.” Communication Research and Practice 1(4): 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooren, François and Nicholas Bencherki. 2010. “How things do things with words: Ventriloquism, passion and technology.” Encyclopaideia 151: 35–61.Google Scholar
Cooren, François, Frédérik Matte, Chantal Benoit-Barné, and Boris Brummans. 2013. “Communication as Ventriloquism: A Grounded-in-Action Approach to the Study of Organizational Tensions.” Communication Monographs 801: 255–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooren, François and Sergeiy Sandler. 2014. “Polyphony, Ventriloquism, and Constitution: In Dialogue with Bakhtin.” Communication Theory 241: 225–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooren, François, Fiona Thompson, Donna Canestraro, and Tamas Bodor. 2006. “From Agency to Structure: Analysis of an Episode in a Facilitation Process.” Human Relations 591: 533–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craig, Robert. 2005. How we talk about how we talk: Communication theory in the public interest. Journal of Communication 551: 659–667. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craig, Robert T. and Karen Tracy. 2014. “Building Grounded Practical Theory in Applied Communication Research: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 42 (3): 229–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Rodney H. 2012. Discourse Analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 2008. What Is the Style of Matters of Concern. Two Lectures in Empirical Philosophy. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Lucy, John A. (ed.). 1993. Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas. 1990. “Technology, Environment and Social Risk: A Systems Perspective.” Industrial Crisis Quarterly 4(3): 223–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martine, Thomas, François Cooren, Aurélien Bénel, and Manuel Zacklad. 2016. “What Does Really Matter in Technology Adoption and Use? A CCO Approach.” Management Communication Quarterly 30(2): 164–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLuhan, Marshall. 1994. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, Raymond. 2004. “Disaster or Sustainability: The Dance of Human Agents with Nature’s Actants.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 41(3): 249–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robles, Jessica S. and Elizabeth S. Parks. 2019. “Complaints about technology as a resource for identity-work.” Language in Society 48(2): 209–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rogers, Everett M. 1986. Communication Technology. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Strifling, David. 2018, March 20. Will the Foxconn project “transform” Wisconsin’s water resources? [Blog post]. Retrieved from [URL]
Tatge-Rozell, Jill. “Hundreds comment on proposed plan to tap Lake Michigan.” Kenosha News, March 7, 2018. Accessed May 31, 2019. [URL]
Taylor, James R. and Elizabeth J. Van Every. 2014. When organization fails: Why authority matters. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasilyeva, Alena, Jessica Robles, Jean Saludadez, Christian Schwägerl, and Theresa Castor. 2019. “The varieties of (more or less) formal authority.” In Authority and Power in Social Interaction Methods and Analysis, ed. by Nicolas Bencherki, Frederic Matte, and François Cooren, 37–55. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watzlawick, Paul, Janet Beavin Bavelas, and Don D. Jackson. 1967. Pragmatics of Human Ccommunication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Whitehead, Alfred. 1920. The Concept of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar