Volume 13, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Drawing inspiration from key authors such as Weick, Taylor and Van Every, Greimas, Goffman, Sbisà, and Tsui, we propose to explore what we call the basic organizing unit, in other words, the minimal form that a sequence of action must take in order to claim a certain degree of organizationality. In order to empirically test this proposition, we purposively analyze interactions taking place outside of a classical organizational context, i.e., street hypnosis sessions. What interests us is not only how these sessions are organized, but also how they organize themselves. Our aim, therefore, is to identify key moments when a certain organizationality seems to express itself, an organizationality that we propose to detect through the identification of these basic organizing units. This leads us to show that the adjacency pair model, which has been historically defined as a fundamental unit of conversational organization should, in fact, be replaced by our triadic model of interaction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ahrne, Göran and Nils Brunsson
    2011 “Organization outside organizations: the significance of partial organization.” Organization18(1): 83–104. 10.1177/1350508410376256
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508410376256 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2019Organization outside Organizations: The Abundance of Partial Organization in Social Life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108604994
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108604994 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahrne, Göran, Nils Brunsson, and David Seidl
    2016 “Resurrecting organization by going beyond organizations.” European Management Journal341: 93–101. 10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alcadipani, Rafael and Islam Gazi
    2017 “Modalities of opposition: Control and resistance via visual materiality.” Organization24(6): 866–891. 10.1177/1350508417694962
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508417694962 [Google Scholar]
  5. Althusser, Louis
    1971 “Ideology and ideological state apparatuses.” Lenin and philosophy and other essays, 127–186. New York: Monthly Review Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Austin, John L.
    1962How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Balay, Matthieu, François Cooren, and Frédéric Dion
    2021 “Processus organisants et formes organisées : Le cas de séances d’hypnose de rue.” Communication et organisation. Revue scientifique francophone en Communication organisationnelle591: 91–105. 10.4000/communicationorganisation.9968
    https://doi.org/10.4000/communicationorganisation.9968 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bencherki, Nicolas and Alaric Bourgoin
    2019 “Property and organization studies.” Organization Studies40(4): 497–513. 10.1177/0170840617745922
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617745922 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bencherki, Nicolas and François Cooren
    2011 “Having to be: The possessive constitution of organization.” Human Relations64(12): 1579–1607. 10.1177/0018726711424227
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711424227 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bencherki, Nicolas, Frédéric Matte, and François Cooren
    (eds) 2019Authority and power in social interaction. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351051668
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351051668 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bencherki, Nicolas and James P. Snack
    2016 “Contributorship and partial inclusion: A communicative perspective.” Management Communication Quarterly30(3): 279–304. 10.1177/0893318915624163
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915624163 [Google Scholar]
  12. 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 Quarterly23(1): 5–31. 10.1177/0893318909335414
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909335414 [Google Scholar]
  13. Blagoev, Blagoy, Jana Costas, and Dan Kärreman
    2019 “We are all herd animals: Community and organizationality in coworking spaces. Organization26(6): 894–916. 10.1177/1350508418821008
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508418821008 [Google Scholar]
  14. Boden, Deirdre
    1994The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bruner, Jerome
    1991 “The narrative construction of reality.” Critical Inquiry181: 1–21. 10.1086/448619
    https://doi.org/10.1086/448619 [Google Scholar]
  16. Burawoy, Michael
    1982Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under monopoly capitalism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226217710.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226217710.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Callon, Michel
    1986 “Some elements of a sociology of translation: The domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay.” InPower, Action and Belief, ed. byJohn Law, 196–233. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cnossen, Boukje and Nicolas Bencherki
    2019 “The role of space in the emergence and endurance of organizing: How independent workers and material assemblages constitute organizations.” Human Relations72(6): 1057–1080. 10.1177/0018726718794265
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718794265 [Google Scholar]
  19. Combe, Jean-Emmanuel
    2013La voix de l’inconscient. Paris: Street Hypnose.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cooren, François
    2000The organizing property of communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.65
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.65 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2004 “Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings.” Organization11(3): 373–393. 10.1177/1350508404041998
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508404041998 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2007Interacting and organizing: Analyses of a management meeting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2010Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation, and ventriloquism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.6 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2015Organizational discourse: Communication and constitution. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Cooren, François and David Douyère
    2013 “Pour une approche incarnée de la communication organisationnelle: Une critique de l’usage de la notion de “réification”.” InCommunication and organisation: Perspectives critiques, ed. byThomas Heller, Romain Huët, and Bénédicte Vidaillet, 155–165. Lille: Presses universitaires du Septentrion. 10.4000/books.septentrion.7436
    https://doi.org/10.4000/books.septentrion.7436 [Google Scholar]
  26. Cooren, François and Gail T. Fairhurst
    2004 “Speech timing and spacing: The phenomenon of organizational closure.” Organization11(6): 793–824. 10.1177/1350508404047252
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508404047252 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2009 “Dislocation and Stabilization: How to Scale Up from Interactions to Organization.” InThe Communicative Constitution Of Organization: Centering Organizational Communication, ed. byLinda L. Putnam and Anne M. Nicotera, 117–152. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Cooren, François and Frédérik Matte
    2021 “Between media studies and organizational communication: Organizing as the creation of organs.” InMedia: A transdisciplinary inquiry, ed. byJeremy Swartz and Janet Wasko, 100–114. Bristol, UK: Intellect.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Coulthard, Malcolm
    1986An introduction to discourse analysis. London, UK: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Deetz, Stan
    2008 “Resistance: Would struggle by any other name be as sweet?” Management Communication Quarterly21(3): 387–392. 10.1177/0893318907310943
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318907310943 [Google Scholar]
  31. Derrida, Jacques
    1988Limited Inc. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Dion, Frédéric and Jacinthe Dupuis
    2022Organizing self: A hauntological approach to communication constitutive of personhood. Paper presented at the108th Annual convention of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA, United States.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Dobusch, Leonhard and Dennis Schoeneborn
    2015 “Fluidity, identity, and organizationality: The communicative constitution of Anonymous.” Journal of Management Studies, 52(8): 1005–1035. 10.1111/joms.12139
    https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12139 [Google Scholar]
  34. Garfinkel, Harold
    2002Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Oxford, UK: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Giddens, Anthony
    1984The Constitution of Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Goffman, Erving
    1976 “Replies and responses.” Language in society5(3): 257–313. 10.1017/S0047404500007156
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500007156 [Google Scholar]
  37. Greimas, Algirdas J.
    1987On meaning: Selected writings in semiotic theory. London, UK: Frances Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Heller, Thomas, Romain Huët, and Bénédicte Vidaillet
    2013 “Communication et organisation: Perspectives critiques.” Lille: Presses universitaires du Septentrion. 10.4000/books.septentrion.7375
    https://doi.org/10.4000/books.septentrion.7375 [Google Scholar]
  39. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Howe, Christine and Manzoorul Abedin
    2013 “Classroom dialogue: a systematic review across four decades of research.” Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3): 325–356. 10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024 [Google Scholar]
  41. Jacquin, Anthony
    2008Reality is plastic: The art of impromptu hypnosis. Derbyshire, UK: Anthony Jacquin.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. James, Eric P. and Heather M. Zoller
    2018 “Resistance training: (Re)shaping extreme forms of workplace health promotion. Management Communication Quarterly32(1): 60–89. 10.1177/0893318917696990
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318917696990 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kendrick, Kobin H., Penelope Brown, Mark Dingemanse, Simeon Floyd, Sonja Gipper, Kaoru Hayano, Elliott Hoey, Gertie Hoymann, Elizabeth Manrique, Giovanni Rossi, and Stephen C. Levinson
    2020 “Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for social action.” Journal of Pragmatics1681: 119–138. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
    2005Le discours en interaction. Paris: Armand Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Latour, Bruno
    2013aAn inquiry into modes of existence: An anthropology of the moderns. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2013b ““What’s the story?” Organizing as a mode of existence.” InOrganization and organizing: Materiality, agency, and discourse, ed. byDaniel Robichaud and François Cooren, 37–51. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lemke, Jay L.
    1990Talking science: Language, learning and values, Norwoord, NJ: Ablex
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  49. Leydon, Geraldine, and Rebecca K. Barnes
    2020 “Conversation analysis”. InQualitative research in health careed. byCatherine Pope and Nicholas Mays, 135–150. Oxford, UK: Wiley. 10.1002/9781119410867.ch10
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch10 [Google Scholar]
  50. Lien, Marianne E. and Gísli Pálsson
    2021 “Ethnography beyond the human : The ‘other-than-human’ in Ethnographic Work.” Ethnos86(1): 1–20. 10.1080/00141844.2019.1628796
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2019.1628796 [Google Scholar]
  51. Luhmann, Niklas
    2018Organization and decision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108560672
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108560672 [Google Scholar]
  52. McPhee, Robert D. and Pamela Zaug
    2000 “The communicative constitution of organizations: A framework for explanation.” The Electronic Journal of Communication / La revue électronique de communication10(1/2): 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Mehan, Hugh
    1979 ““What time is it, Denise?”: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse.” Theory Into Practice18(4): 285–294. 10.1080/00405847909542846
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00405847909542846 [Google Scholar]
  54. Mumby, Dennis K.
    2005 “Theorizing resistance in organization studies: A dialectical approach.” Management Communication Quarterly19(1): 19–44. 10.1177/0893318905276558
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318905276558 [Google Scholar]
  55. Newcomb, Theodore M.
    1953 “An approach to the study of communicative acts.” Psychological Review501: 393–404. 10.1037/h0063098
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063098 [Google Scholar]
  56. Peräkylä, Anssi
    2016 “Conversation analysis.” InThe Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. ed. byGeorge Ritzer. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosc133.pub2
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosc133.pub2 [Google Scholar]
  57. Rasche, Andreas, Frank G. A. de Bakker, and Jeremy Moon
    2013 “Complete and partial organizing for corporate social responsibility.” Journal of Business Ethics (115): 651–663. 10.1007/s10551‑013‑1824‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1824-x [Google Scholar]
  58. Rossano, Federico
    2013 “Sequence organization and timing of bonobo mother-infant interactions.” Interaction Studies14(2): 160–189. 10.1075/is.14.2.02ros
    https://doi.org/10.1075/is.14.2.02ros [Google Scholar]
  59. Sacks, Harvey
    1992Lectures on conversation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language501: 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sbisà, Marina
    2003 “Cognition and narrativity in speech act sequences.” InRethinking Sequentiality, ed. byAnita Fetzer and Christiane Meierkord, 71–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.103.04sbi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.103.04sbi [Google Scholar]
  62. Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Harvey Sacks
    1973 “Opening up closings.” Semiotica71: 289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  63. Schoeneborn, Dennis, Timothy R. Kuhn, and Dan Kärreman
    2019 “The Communicative Constitution of Organization, Organizing, and Organizationality.” Organization Studies40(4): 475–496. 10.1177/0170840618782284
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618782284 [Google Scholar]
  64. Sinclair, John M. and R. M. Coulthard
    1975Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Smith, William R.
    2022 “On Relationality and Organizationality: Degrees of durability, materiality, and communicatively constituting a fluid social collective.” Organization Studies43(11): 1815–1837. 10.1177/01708406211035497
    https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211035497 [Google Scholar]
  66. Taylor, James R. and Elizabeth J. Van Every
    2000The emergent organization. Communication as site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 2011The situated organization: Case studies in the pragmatics of communication. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 2014When organization fails: Why authority matters. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315815176
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315815176 [Google Scholar]
  69. Tracy, Sarah
    2000 “Becoming a character for commerce.” Management Communication Quarterly14(1): 90–128. 10.1177/0893318900141004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318900141004 [Google Scholar]
  70. Tsui, Amy B. M.
    1989 “Beyond the adjacency pair.” Language in Society18(4): 545–564. 10.1017/S0047404500013907
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500013907 [Google Scholar]
  71. 1994English conversation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Weick, Karl E.
    1979The Social Psychology of Organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Weick, Karl E.
    1995Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Wilhoit, Elizabeth D. and Lorraine G. Kisselburgh
    2015 “Collective action without organization: The material constitution of bike commuters as collective.” Organization Studies36(5): 573–592. 10.1177/0170840614556916
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614556916 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error