ABSTRACT
It is generally argued that even in the most unstructured situations it is the shared meanings which ultimately eliminate the uncertainty that arises from the mutual attribution of motives. Because identity is often taken for granted, there is a tendency to assume that all men are engaged in a constant dialogue between situated motives and the enveloping social climate in which they find themselves. In considering a social theory of motives, one is obviously trying to understand the way in which men mutually construct social worlds in their everyday encounters. Language is therefore both a means and an end in regulating the way in which men regard and act towards each other. In their interactions they use language to impress, coerce, deceive, arbitrate, and construct new meanings. It is both the means of co-operation and the mechanism of conflict. Even though it is debatable, we assume that structures only exist in communication and particularly symbolic communication.
