Volume 7, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In this article, we propose to mobilize a communicative constitutive approach to analyze sessions that took place in the context of online suicide prevention chats in France. By analyzing the detail of a specific excerpt, we propose, more precisely, to draw a portrait of various figures that appear to express themselves in what could be called online help in action (see also Bartesaghi, 2014 ). Beyond the various psychotherapeutic approaches that are supposed to inform what volunteers are saying and doing, our goal is to start with their practices to determine the figures that they implicitly or explicitly stage in their turns of talk to help out the callers. By analyzing the relational aspects of these conversations, we thus show that these sessions can be compared to a form of modern exorcism, where the callers’ distress, uneasiness or suffering is meant to pass in and through the conversations. It is the conditions of these passages that we are exploring, especially regarding the tensions that they generate.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Allen, Brenda J.
    2005 “Social constructionism.” InEngaging organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives, ed. by Steve May , and Dennis K. Mumby , 35–53. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781452204536.n3
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452204536.n3 [Google Scholar]
  2. Antaki, Charles
    2011Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230316874
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230316874 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnett, Ronald C.
    2014 “Ventriloquism as communicative music.” Language Under Discussion2 (1).
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Austin, John L.
    (1962) How to do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barad, Karen
    2003 “Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society28 (3): 801–830. doi: 10.1086/345321
    https://doi.org/10.1086/345321 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2007Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. London: Duke University Press. doi: 10.1215/9780822388128
    https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388128 [Google Scholar]
  7. Barnden, John A.
    2014 “Questioning ventriloquism.” Language Under Discussion2 (1).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bartesaghi, Mariaelena
    2014 “Ventriloquism as a matter for discourse analysis.” Language Under Discussion2(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bencherki, Nicolas
    . In press. “How things make things do things with words, or how to pay attention to what things have to say.” Communication Research and Practice.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Berger, Peter L. , and Thomas Luckmann
    1966The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bergeron, Caroline D. , and François Cooren
    2012 “The collective framing of crisis management: A ventriloqual analysis of emergency operations centres.” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management20 (3): 120–137. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑5973.2012.00671.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2012.00671.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Burrell, Gibson , and Gareth Morgan
    1979Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. London: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cooren, François
    2000The organizing property of communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.65
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.65 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2004 “The communicative achievement of collective minding: Analysis of board meetings excerpts.” Management Communication Quarterly17(4): 517–551. doi: 10.1177/0893318903262242
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318903262242 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2008 “Between semiotics and pragmatics: Opening language studies to textual agency.” Journal of Pragmatics40: 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.018 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2010Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation, and ventriloquism. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.6 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2012 “Communication theory at the center: Ventriloquism and the communicative constitution of reality.” Journal of Communication62: 1–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2011.01622.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01622.x [Google Scholar]
  18. 2014 “Pragmatism as ventriloquism: Creating a dialogue among seven traditions in the study of communication.” Language Under Discussion, 2(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2015a “In the name of the law: Ventriloquism and juridical matters.” InLatour and the passage of law, ed. by Kyle McGee , 235–272. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2015b “In Medias Res: Communication, Existence and Materiality.” Communication Research and Practice1(4): 307–321. doi: 10.1080/22041451.2015.1110075
    https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2015.1110075 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2016 “Ethics for dummies: Ventriloquism and responsibility.” Atlantic Journal of Communication24 (1): 17–30. doi: 10.1080/15456870.2016.1113963
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2016.1113963 [Google Scholar]
  22. Cooren, François , and Sergeiy Sandler
    2014 “Polyphony, ventriloquism, and constitution: In dialogue with Bakhtin.” Communication Theory24: 225–244. doi: 10.1111/comt.12041
    https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12041 [Google Scholar]
  23. Culbert, Samuel A. , and John J. McDonough
    1985 “How reality gets constructed in an organization.” InHuman Systems Development, ed. by Robert Tannenbaum , Newton Margulies , Fred Massarik , and Associates, 122–142. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Derrida, Jacques
    1974Of grammatology. Baltimore, MA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1988Limited inc.Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Fultner, Barbara
    2014 “Ventriloquism and accountability.” Language Under Discussion2 (1).
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2002Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hacking, Ian
    2000The social construction of what?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hudson, Nancie
    2016 “Communication and power in the job interview: Using a ventriloqual approach to analyze moral accounts.” Text and Talk36 (3): 319–340. doi: 10.1515/text‑2016‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2016-0015 [Google Scholar]
  32. Innis, H. A.
    1951The bias of communication. Toronto: Toronto University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Jahn, Jody L. S.
    2016 “Adapting safety rules in a high reliability context: How wildland firefighting workgroups ventriloquize safety rules to understand hazards.” Management Communication Quarterly, 30 (3): 362–389. doi: 10.1177/0893318915623638
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915623638 [Google Scholar]
  34. Jakobson, Roman
    1976/1985 “Metalanguage as a linguistic problem,” InRoman Jakobson: Selected writings, Vol.VII, ed. by Stephen Rudy , 113–121. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. James, William
    1912/1976Essays in radical empiricism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Latour, Bruno , and Steve Woolgar
    1979Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Martine, Thomas , François Cooren , Aurélien Bénel , and Manuel Zacklad
    2016 “What does really matter in technology adoption and use? A CCO approach.” Management Communication Quarterly30 (2): 164–187. doi: 10.1177/0893318915619012
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915619012 [Google Scholar]
  38. Peirce, Charles S.
    1991Peirce on Signs: Writings on semiotics. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Peters, John D.
    1999Speaking into the air: A history of the idea of communication. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226922638.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226922638.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Pomerantz, Anita , and BJ Fehr
    2011 “Conversation analysis: An approach to the analysis of social interaction.” InDiscourse Studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, ed. by Teun A. Van Dijk , 165–190. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781446289068.n9
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446289068.n9 [Google Scholar]
  41. Potter, Jonathan
    1996Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781446222119
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446222119 [Google Scholar]
  42. Potter, Jonathan , and Margaret Wetherell
    1987Discourse and social psychology. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Potter, Jonathan , Margaret Wetherell , Ros Gill , and Derek Edwards
    1990 “Discourse: Noun, verb or social practice.” Philosophical Psychology3 (2): 205–217. doi: 10.1080/09515089008572999
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089008572999 [Google Scholar]
  44. Putnam, Linda L. , and Michael E. Pacanowsky
    1983Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Russill, Chris
    2014 “Planetary pragmatism? A response to François Cooren.” Language Under Discussion2 (1).
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Saussure, Ferdinand de
    1959Course in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1988 “Presequence and indirection. Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics12: 55–62. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90019‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90019-7 [Google Scholar]
  48. 1991 “Conversation analysis and socially shared cognition.” InPerspectives on socially shared cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick , John L. Levine , and Stephanie D. Teasley , 150–171. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10096‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-007 [Google Scholar]
  49. 1997 “Whose text? Whose context?” Discourse and Society8 (2): 165–187. doi: 10.1177/0957926597008002002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008002002 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2001 “Getting serious: Joke – > serious ‘no’.” Journal of Pragmatics33: 1947–1955. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00073‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00073-4 [Google Scholar]
  51. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  52. 1979Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  53. 1989 How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy12: 535–558. doi: 10.1007/BF00627773
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627773 [Google Scholar]
  54. 1995The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Searle, John R. , and Daniel Vanderveken
    1985Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Shannon, Claude E. , and Warren Weaver
    1949The mathematical theory of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Shotter, John
    1993Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. London, UK: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Stengers, Isabelle , and Bruno Latour
    2015 “The sphinx of the work.” InThe Different Modes of Existence, ed. by Isabelle Stengers , and Bruno Latour , 11–94. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Souriau, Étienne
    1956/2015The different modes of existence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Taylor, James R.
    1988Une organisation n’est qu’un tissu de communication. Montréal: Cahiers de recherches en communication.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 1993Rethinking the theory of organizational communication: How to read an organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Taylor, James R. , and François Cooren
    1997 “What makes communication ‘organizational’? How the many voices of a collectivity become the one voice of an organization.” Journal of Pragmatics27: 409–438. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(96)00044‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00044-6 [Google Scholar]
  63. Taylor, James R. , and Elizabeth J. Van Every
    2000The emergent organization: Communication as site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2011The situated organization: Case studies in the pragmatics of communication. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 2014When organization fails: Why authority matters. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Wetherell, Margaret
    1998 “Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue.” Discourse and Society9: 387–412. doi: 10.1177/0957926598009003005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009003005 [Google Scholar]
  67. Wilhoit, Elizabeth D.
    2014 “Ventriloquism’s methodological scope.” Language under Discussion, 2(1)
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 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. doi: 10.1177/0170840614556916
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614556916 [Google Scholar]
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