Advanced search
Publication Cover
Annals of the International Communication Association Volume 11, 1988 - Issue 1: Communication Yearbook 11
Submit an article Journal homepage
72
Views
9
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Section 1: The Mass Media Audience: Perceptive, Interpretive, or Not

Media Audiences as Interpretive Communities

Thomas RlindlofUniversity of Kentucky
Pages 81-107 | Published online: 18 May 2016

References

  • Anderson, J. A. (1987). Communication research: Methods and issues. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Attalah, P. (1984). The unworthy discourse: Situation comedy in television. In W. D. Rowland, Jr., & B. Watkins (Eds.), Interpreting television (pp. 222–249). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Austin, B. A. (1981). Portrait of a cult film audience: The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Journal of Communication, 3/(2), 43–54.
  • Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.) (pp. 60–102). Austin: University of Texas Press.
  • Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
  • Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control. New York: Schocken.
  • Bernstein, R. J. (1985). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Blum, A. F. (1964). Lower-class Negro television spectators: The concept of pseudo-jovial scepticism. In A, B. Shostak (Ed.), Blue collar world (pp. 437–443). Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Bryce, J. W.,&Leichter, H.J. (1983). The family and television: Forms of mediation. Journal of Family Issues, 4, 309–328.
  • Carey, J. (1975). Communication and culture. Communication Research, 2, 173–191.
  • Christenson, P. G., DeBenedittis, P., & Lindlof, T. R. (1985). Children’s use of audio media. Communication Research, 12, 327–343.
  • Cicourel, A. (1974). Cognitive sociology. New York: Free Press.
  • Collins, W. A. (1982). Cognitive processing in television viewing. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and Behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties (pp. 9–23). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.
  • Corry, J. (1986, August 3). Why some old shows never fade. New York Times, p. 25.
  • Culler, J. (1975). Structuralist poetics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Cushman, D. (1977). The rules perspective as a theoretical basis for the study of human communication. Communication Quarterly, 25, 30–45.
  • Dayan, D. (1986). Review essay: Copyrighted subcultures. American Journal of Sociology, 9/(5), 1219–1228.
  • Dorr, A. (1983). No shortcuts to reality. In J. Bryant & D. Anderson (Eds.), Children’s understanding of television: Research on attention and comprehension (pp. 199–200). New York: Academic Press.
  • Eco, U. (1979). The role of the reader. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press.
  • Ferrari, M., Klinzing, D. G., Paris, C. L., Morris, S. K., & Eyman, A. P. (1985). Home computers: Implications for children and families. Marriage & Family Review, 5(1/2), 41–58.
  • Fine, G. A. (1983). Sharedfantasy: Role-playing games as social worlds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Fine, G. A., & Kleinman, S. (1979). Rethinking subculture: An interactionist analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 1–20.
  • Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Fiske, J. (1986). Television and popular culture: Reflections on British and Australian critical practice. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3, 200–216.
  • Freidson, E. (1953). Adult discount: An aspect of children’s changing taste. Child Development, 24, 39–49.
  • Freud, S. (1961). Civilization and its discontents. New York: W. W. Norton.
  • Fry, D. L., & Fry, V. H, (1985). Elements of a semiotic model for the study of mass communication. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 9. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.
  • Geertz, C. (1983). Blurred genres: The refiguration of social thought. In Local knowledge (pp. 19–35). New York: Basic Books.
  • Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Gitlin, T. (1982). Prime time ideology: The hegemonic process in television entertainment. In H. Newcomb (Ed.), Television: The critical view (3rd. ed., pp. 426–454). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday-Anchor.
  • Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis: Hackett.
  • Goodman, N. (1984). Of mind and other matters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Gronbeck, B. E. (1984). Writing television criticism. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
  • Gross, L. (1985). Life vs. art: The interpretation of visual narratives. Studies in Visual Communication, 11(A), 2–11.
  • Gumperz, J. J. (1968). The speech community. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 9, pp. 381–386). New York: Macmillan.
  • Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language (pp. 128–138). London: Hutchinson.
  • Hall, S. (1982). The rediscovery of “ideology”: Return of the repressed in media studies. In M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, & J. Woollacott (Eds.), Culture, society and the media (pp. 56–90). New York: Methuen.
  • Hawes, L. (1977). Toward a hermeneutic phenomenology of communication. Communication Quarterly, 25, 30–31.
  • Hawkins, R. P., & Pingree, S. (1982). Television’s influence on social reality. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties (pp. 224–247). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.
  • Hobson, D. (1982). Crossroads: The drama of a soap opera. London: Methuen.
  • Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Kaminsky, S. M., & Mahan, J. H. (1985). American television genres. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
  • Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence. New York: Free Press.
  • Kling, R., & Gerson, E. M. (1977). The social dynamics of technical innovation in the computing world. Symbolic Interaction, I, 132–146.
  • Larson, R., & Kubey, R. (1983). Television and music: Contrasting media in adolescent life. Youth and Society, 15, 13–32.
  • Leiter, K. (1980). A primer on ethnomethodology. New York: Oxford University Press, Lemish, D. (1982). The rules of television viewing in public places. Journal of Broadcasting, 26, 757–781.
  • Lemish, D. (1985). Soap opera viewing in college: A naturalistic inquiry. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 29, 275–293.
  • Lemish, D. (1987). Viewers in diapers: The early development of television viewing. In T. R. Lindlof (Ed.), Natural audiences (pp. 33–57). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Liebes, T. (1984). Ethnocentrism: Israelis of Moroccan ethnicity negotiate the meaning of “Dallas.” Studies in Visual Communication, 10(3), 46–72.
  • Lindlof, T. R. (1986). Social and structural constraints of media use in incarceration. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, SO, 341–355.
  • Lindlof, T. R. (1987a). Ideology and pragmatics of media access in prison, In T. R. Lindlof (Ed.), Natural audiences (pp. 175–197). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Lindlof, T. R. (1987b, April). Modes of accommodation of new media technologies by families. Paper presented at the meeting of the Central States Speech Association, St. Louis, MO.
  • Lindlof, T. R. (Ed.). (1987c). Natural audiences: Qualitative research of media uses and effects. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Lindlof, T. R., & Traudt, P. J. (1983). Mediated communication in families: New theoretical directions. In M. S. Mander (Ed.), Communications in transition (pp. 260–278). New York: Praeger.
  • Lull, J. (1980). The social uses of television. Human Communication Research, 6, 197–209.
  • Lull, J. (1982). A rules approach to the study of television and society. Human Communication Research, 8, 3–16.
  • Lull, J. (1985). On the communicative properties of music. Communication Research, 12, 363–372.
  • Lull, J. (1987). Thrashing in the pit: An ethnography of San Francisco punk subculture. In T. Lindlof (Ed.), Natural audiences (pp. 225–252). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Mailloux, S. (1982). Interpretive conventions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (1978). Identities and interactions. New York: Free Press.
  • Messaris, P. (1987). Mothers’ comments to their children about the relationship between television and reality. In T. R. Lindlof (Ed.), Natural audiences (pp. 95–108). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Messaris, P., & Sarett, C. (1981). On the consequences of television-related parent-child interaction. Human Communication Research, 7, 226–244.
  • Montgomery, K. (1986). The political struggle for prime time. In S. J. Ball-Rokeach & M. G. Cantor(Eds.), Media, audience, and social structure (pp. 189–199). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Morley, D. (1980). The “Nationwide” audience: Structure and decoding. London: British Film Institute.
  • Morley, D. (1986). Family television: Cultural power and domestic leisure. London: Comedia.
  • Newcomb, H. M. (1984). On the dialogic aspects of mass communication. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 1, 34–50.
  • Newcomb, H. M., & Hirsch, P. M. (1984). Television as a cultural forum: Implications for research. In W. D. Rowland, Jr., & B. Watkins (Eds.), Interpreting television (pp. 58–73). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • O’Connor, J. J. (1983, July 19). Where time stands still. New York Times, p. 25a.
  • O’Sullivan, T., Hartley, J., Saunders, D., & Fiske, J. (1983). Key concepts in communication. London: Methuen.
  • Pacanowsky, M.,& Anderson, J. A. (1982). Cop talk and media use. Journal of Broadcasting, 26, 741–756.
  • Pask, G., & Curran, S. (1982). Micro man: Computers and the evolution of consciousness. New York: Macmillan.
  • Philipsen, G. (1975). Speaking “like a man” in Teamsterville: Culture patterns of role enactment in an urban neighborhood. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62, 15–25.
  • Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1980). Computation and cognition: Issues in the foundations of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 111–132.
  • Radway, J. A. (1984a). Interpretive communities and variable literacies: The functions of romance reading. Dedalus, 113, 49–73.
  • Radway, J. A. (1984b). Reading the romance: Women, patriarchy, and popular literature. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
  • Radway, J. A. (1986). Identifying ideological seams: Mass culture, analytical method, and political practice. Communication, 9, 93–123.
  • Rice, G. E. (1980). On cultural schemata. American Ethnologist, 7, 152–171.
  • Rodgers, S. (1986). Blank tape cassette kinship: Constructing kinship through the Indonesian national mass media. American Ethnologist, 13, 23–42.
  • Rogers, E. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1983). Communications as an academic discipline: A dialogue. Journal of Communication, 3(3), 18–30.
  • Rosaldo, M. Z. (1984). Toward an anthropology of self and feeling. In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 137–157). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rothenbuhler, E. W. (1986a, May). Media events and social solidarity: An updated report on the living room celebration of the Olympic Games. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago.
  • Rothenbuhler, E. W. (1986b, May). The saliency of genre in identifications of television programs: Comparing college students and television critics. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago.
  • Rubin, A. M., & Windahi, S. (1986). The uses and dependency model of mass communication. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3, 184–199.
  • Schutz, A. (1944). The stranger. American Journal of Sociology, 49(b), 499–507.
  • Scribner, S.,& Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Sherman, S. J., & Corty, E. (1984). Cognitive heuristics. In R. S. Wyer, Jr., & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 189–286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Shimanoff, S. (1980). Communication rules. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Sigman, S. (1980). On communication rules from a social perspective. Human Communication Research, 7, 37–51.
  • Sigman, S. (1982). Why ithnographers of communication do ethnography: Issues in observational methodology. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Louisville.
  • Stewart, J., & Philipsen, G. (1984). Communication as situated accomplishment: The cases of hermeneutics and ethnography. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 5, pp. 179–217). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Straubhaar, J. D. (1984). Brazilian television: The decline of American influence. Communication Research, II, 221–240.
  • Streeter, T. (1986, May). Polysemy, plurality, and media studies. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago.
  • Szwed, J. F. (1981). The ethnography of literacy. InM. F. Whiteman(Ed.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Taylor, C. (1977). Interpretation and the sciences of man. In F. R. Dallmayr & T. A. McCarthy (Eds.), Understanding and social inquiry (pp. 101–131). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Thorbum, D. (1981). Television melodrama. In R. P. Adler(Ed.), Understanding television (pp. 73–90). New York: Praeger.
  • Tinnell, C. S. (1985). An ethnographic look at personal computers in the family setting. Marriage & Family Review, 5(1/2), 59–70.
  • Traudt, P. J., & Lont, C. M. (1987). Media-logic-in-use: The family as locus of study. In T. R. Lindlof (Ed.), Natural audiences (pp. 139–160). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Turkic, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  • Turow, J. (1984). Media industries. New York: Longman.
  • Wagner, R. (1981). The invention of culture (rev. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Wartella, E. (1987). Commentary on qualitative research and children’s mediated communication. In T. R. Lindlof (Ed.), Natural audiences: Qualitative research of media uses and effects (pp. 109–118). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Wilson, T. P. (1970). Normative and interpretive paradigms in sociology. In J. D. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life (pp. 57–79). Chicago: Aldine.
  • Wolf, M. A., Meyer, T. P., & White, C, (1982). A rules-based study of television’s role in the construction of social reality. Journal of Broadcasting, 26, 813–829.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.