Language, communication, observation and coupling in second-order change

• Authors: Grzegorczyk Grzegorz

Title variants

FR

Langage, communication, observation et accouplement dans le changement de deuxième ordre

PL

Język, komunikacja, obserwacja i sprzężenie w procesie zmiany

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Evidence and research shows that coaching and cognitive therapies bring desired effects to a considerable number of those choosing to undergo the methods they offer. Although these results have been in many instances well documented, still too little, if anything, has been said about the core reasons of this effectiveness. Our claim in this text is that language use plays a pivotal role. Substantiating this view, we found classical models of communication and change inade-quate, thus we propose an alternative approach. The new biocognitive perspective allows us to integrate language, communication and change in one model based on an ecological stance. In order to design this model we redefine cognition following Maturana (1980), as an ability to respond to environmental events. This leads us to employ Maturana’s concept of structural coupling (Maturana 1975) and the notion of cognitive domain as well as his understanding of languag-ing. As a result, we receive a model of communication which might cast more light on the mechanisms behind second-order change.

FR

Les recherches et les faits montrent que le coaching et les psychothérapies cognitives sont efficaces pour un grand nombre de personnes qui décident de recourir à ce type d’aide cognitive. Bien que les résultats des thérapies et du coaching soient bien documentés pour de nombreux cas, on n’a pas assez commenté les principales raisons de leur efficacité. Le présent texte propose une explication selon laquelle c’est le langage qui joue le rôle principal dans les changements. Les modèles classiques qui décrivent les mécanismes et l’essence de la communication linguistique se révèlent incapables d’expliquer les causes des découvertes dont on parle ci-dessus, une approche alternative, s’inscrivant dans le courant biocognitif, est donc proposée. Cette nouvelle perspective cognitive permet d’intégrer les notions-clés du langage, de la communication et du changement dans un modèle basé sur l’attitude écologique. Pour établir ce modèle, la notion de connaissance a été reformulée suivant la proposition de Maturana et Varela (1980) qui la définissaient comme une capacité de réagir aux événements de l’environnement. Cela donne un modèle de communication qui peut éclairer les mécanismes qui se cachent derrière le changement de deuxième ordre.

PL

Badania i fakty pokazują, że coaching oraz terapie poznawcze przynoszą pożądane skutki w przypadku znacznej liczby osób, które decydują się skorzystać z tych kognitywnych form pomocowych. Choć wyniki procesów terapeutycznych i coachingowych są w wielu przypadkach dobrze udokumentowane, wciąż zbyt mało, o ile cokolwiek, zostało powiedziane na temat głównych powodów ich skuteczności. Niniejszy tekst prezentuje stanowisko, zgodnie z którym to język odgrywa zasadniczą rolę w zmianie. Klasyczne modele opisujące mechanizmy i istotę komunikacji językowej okazują się niewystarczające do wyjaśnienia przyczyn powyższych odkryć, stąd propozycja alternatywnego podejścia w nurcie biokognitywnym. Ta nowa perspektywa poznawcza po-zwala zintegrować kluczowe pojęcia języka, komunikacji i zmiany w jednym modelu w oparciu o postawę ekologiczną. W celu opracowania tego modelu przedefiniujemy pojęcie poznania za Maturaną i Varelą (1980) ujmując je jako zdolność do reagowania na zdarzenia środowiskowe. W rezultacie otrzymamy model komunikacji, który może rzucić więcej światła na mechanizmy stojące za zmianą drugiego rzędu.

Keywords

EN

change; cognition; communication; language; languaging

FR

changement,; communication; connaissance; langage; mise en langage (languaging)

PL

język; komunikacja; languaging; poznanie; zmiana

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Gdański
• Journal: Beyond Philology: An International Journal of Linguistics, Literary Studies and English Language Teaching
• Year: 2016
• Issue: 13
• Pages: 351-367

Dates

published

2016

Contributors

author

Grzegorczyk Grzegorz

• Uniwersytet Gdański

References

• Adams, J., M. White (2004). “Why don’t stage-based activity promotion interventions work?” Health Education Research 20/2: 237-243. doi: 10.1093/her/cyg105.
• Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, Language, and Possibilities: A Postmodern Approach to Therapy. New York: Basic Books.
• Anderson, H., D. Gehart (2006). Collaborative Therapy: Relationships and Conversations That Make a Difference. New York: Routledge.
• Anderson. H., H. Goolishian (1988). “Human systems as linguistic systems: Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory”. Family Process 27: 157-163.
• Anderson. H., H. Goolishian (1992). “The client is the expert: A not-knowing approach to Therapy”. In: S. McNamee, K. Gergen (eds.). Therapy as Social Construction. Newbury Park. CA: Sage. 25-39.
• Bandura A. (1991). “Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactive Mechanisms”. In: R. A Dienstbier (ed.). Perspec-tives on Motivation: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 38: 69-164.
• Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. San Fransisco Chandler Publishing Co.
• Di Paolo, E., M. Rhohde, H. De Jaegher (2010). “Horizons for the enac-tive mind: Values, social interaction, and play”. In: J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, E. A. Di Paolo (eds.). Enaction: Toward a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 33-87.
• Forman E. M., J. D. Herbert, E. Moitra, P. D. Yeomans, P. A. Geller (2007). “A randomized controlled effectiveness trial of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Cognitive Therapy for anxiety and depression”. Behavior Modification 31: 772–799.
• Glasersfeld, E. Von (2001). “The radical constructivist view of science”. In: A. Riegler (ed.). Foundations of Science (Special issue The Impact of Radical Constructivism on Science) 6/1-3: 31-43.
• Grant, A. M., L. Curtayne, G. Burton (2009). “Executive coaching en-hances goal attainment, resilience and workplace well-being: A randomized controlled study”. The Journal of Positive Psychology 4: 396-407.
• Kravchenko A. (2011). “How Humberto Maturana’s biology of cognition can revive the language sciences”. Constructivist Foundations 6/3: 352-362.
• Korzybski, A. (1994). Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. Brooklyn, NY: Institute of General Semantics.
• Lasswell, H. D. (1948). “The structure and function of communication in society”. In: L. Bryson (ed.). The Communication of Ideas. Vol. 37. New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies, 37-51.
• Mac Kay, D. M. (1969). Information, Mechanism and Meaning. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press,
• MacKie, D. (2014). “The effectiveness of strength-based executive coaching in enhancing full range leadership development: A con-trolled study”. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 66/2: 118-137. doi: 10.1037/cpb0000005.
• Maier, H. W. (1987). Developmental Group Care of Children and Youth: Concepts and Practice. New York: Haworth.
• Maturana, H. R. (1975). “The organization of the living: A theory of the living organization”. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 7: 313-332.
• Maturana, H. R., F. Varela (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Reali-zation of the Living. Boston: Reidel.
• Maturana, H., G. Guiloff (1980). The quest for the intelligence of intel-ligence. Journal of Social and Biological Structures 3: 135-148.
• Maturana, H., F. Varela (1992). The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston: Shambhala.
• Pelham, G. (2016). The Coaching Relationship in Practice. London: SAGE Publishing.
• Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence. New York: Routledge.
• Prochaska, J. O., C. C. DiClemente (2005). “The transtheoretical approach”. In: J.C. Norcross, M. R. Goldfried (eds.). Handbook of Psychotherapy Integration. New York: Oxford University Press, 147-171.
• Reddy, M. (1979). “The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language”. In: A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 284-324.
• Rush, D. D., M. L. Shelden (2005). Evidence-based definition of coaching practices. CASEInPoint 1/6: 1-6.
• Shaw V.N. (2001). “Self-dialogue as a fundamental process of expression”. Social Thought & Research 24/1-2: 271-312.
• Smither, J. W., M. London, R. Flautt, Y. Vargas, I. Kucine (2003). “Can working with an executive coach improve multi-source feedback ratings over time? A quasi-experimental field study”. Personnel Psychology 56: 23-44. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb001 42.x.
• Sniehotta, F. F. (2009). “Towards a theory of intentional behaviour change: Plans, planning, and self-regulation”. British Journal of Health Psychology 14: 261-273.
• Theeboom, T., B. Beersma, A. E. van Vianen (2014). “Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context.” The Journal of Positive Psy-chology 9: 1-18.
• Watzlawick, P., J. Weakland, R. Fisch (1974). Change Principles of Problem Formation and Resolution. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.
• Whitmore, J. (2009). Coaching for Performance. London: Nicolas Brealey Publishing.
• Wiener, N. (1954). The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society. Garden City – New York: Doubleday Anchor.

Identifiers

ISSN

1732-1220

ISSN

2451-1498