A metaphorical analysis of client organisations and the briefing process

This paper reviews and critiques the current practice of classifying building clients according to their 'type'. An alternative approach to understanding organisations is developed in accordance with the principles of naturalistic inquiry. It is contended that the complex pluralistic clients of the 1990s can only really be understood 'from the inside'. The concept of organisational metaphors is introduced as the basis for a more sophisticated way of thinking about organisations. The various strands of organisational theory are also analyzed in terms of their underlying metaphors. Different theories are seen to bring different insights. The implicit metaphors adopted by practitioners are held to be important in that they tend to dictate the adopted approach to client briefing. This contention is illustrated by analyzing three different characterisations of the briefing process in terms of their underlying metaphors. Finally, the discussion is placed in a contemporary UK context by comparing the dominant paradigm of practice during the 1980s to that of the 1990s.

Thinking for speaking and linguistic relativity among bilinguals: towards a new research agenda

This article evaluates how the different papers in this special issue fill a gap in our understanding of cognitive processes that are being activated when second language learners or bilinguals prepare to speak. All papers are framed in Slobin’s (1987) Thinking for Speaking theory, and aim to test whether the conceptualisation patterns that were learned in early childhood can be relearned or restructured in L2 acquisition. In many papers the focus is on identifying constraints on this restructuring process. Among these constraints, the role of typological differences between languages is investigated in great depth. The studies involve different types of learners, language combinations and tasks. As all informants were given verbal rather than non-verbal tasks, the focus is here on the effects of conceptual transfer from one language on another, and not on the effects of language on non-linguistic cognition. The paper also sketches different avenues for further research in this field and proposes that researchers working in this field might want to take up the challenge of investigating whether speakers of different languages perceive motion outside explicitly verbal contexts differently, as this will enable us to gain an understanding of linguistic relativity effects in this domain. Studying which teaching methods can help learners to restructure their conceptualisation patterns may also shed new light on the aspects of discourse organization and motion event construal that are most difficult for learners.

The ‘thinking’ in thinking-for-speaking: where is it?

According to the thinking-for-speaking (TFS) hypothesis, speakers of different languages think differently while in the process of mentally preparing content for speech. The aim of the present paper is to critically discuss the research carried out within the TFS paradigm, against the background of the basic tenets laid out by the proponents of this framework. We will show that despite substantial progress in the investigation of crosslinguistic differences in the organisation of information in discourse, the studies that actually examine the cognitive aspects of speech production are, to date, vanishingly few. This state of affairs creates a gap in our knowledge about the thought processes that co-occur with speech production during language use and acquisition. We will argue that in order to reach a more comprehensive picture of the cognitive processes and outcomes of speech production, methodologies additional to the analysis of information organisation must be used.

Whole life thinking and engineering the future

Whole-life thinking for engineers working on the built environment has become more important in a fast changing world.Engineers are increasingly concerned with complex systems, in which the parts interact with each other and with the outside world in many ways – the relationships between the parts determine how the system behaves. Systems thinking provides one approach to developing a more robust whole life approach. Systems thinking is a process of understanding how things influence one another within a wider perspective. Complexity, chaos, and risk are endemic in all major projects. New approaches are needed to produce more reliable whole life predictions. Best value, rather than lowest cost can be achieved by using whole-life appraisal as part of the design and delivery strategy.