合作与目的--由哈贝马斯的普世语用学对传统语用学的挑战说开去(刘亚猛).ppt

,CooperationandPurpose:Grice,Habermas,andBeyondLiuYamengFujianNormalUniversity合作与目的：由哈贝马斯“普世语用学”对语用研究传统的挑战说开去福建师范大学刘亚猛,Epilogue,Inconstructingitsdisciplinaryself-identity,pragmaticshasbeenusinglinguisticsandthephilosophyoflanguageasitsprimarypointsofreference,andhasnotshownakeeninterestinengagingotherareasofinquiryandininteractingwiththeprevailingintellectualethosofourtime.AbrieflookatHabermasstheoryof“universalpragmatics”andacomparisonofthisnotionwithGricesthinkingservetoremindushowmuchpragmaticswouldhavegainedhadittakenonthechallengesposedbyotherconceptionsoflanguageuse,andrethoughtmanyofitsownfoundationalassumptions.,UnderlyingAssumptionsofThis“Non-talk”,Nodisciplineisanisland.Thedevelopmentofanydisciplinedependsonthewayitinteractswithotherdisciplines.Forpragmaticstoliveuptoitsclaimasthestudyoflanguageuse,itwouldhavetototurnoutwardaswellasinwardinitssearchfornewtheoreticalresources,andtobeaheterogeneousratherhomogeneousconceptually.,0.IntroductoryRemarks:TheRoadNotTaken,0.1.The1970sasthe“goldenage”ofpragmatics?-lookeduponasatheoreticalwunderkind,anewdisciplineofexceptionalpromises,aconversationalpartner,evenbymajorthinkersofthetime;0.2.engagementsanddisengagements:Derrida/Rorty/Habermasv.pragmatics;-“thebiggestsingleconsequenceoftherejectionoftheWesternRationalisticTraditionisthatitmakespossibleanabandonmentoftraditionalstandardsofobjectivity,truth,andrationality.”(JohnSearle1992)-passingreferencesofHabermasinMeyandVerschueren;0.3.Habermass“universalpragmatics”asacaseinpoint.,1.Habermass“UniversalPragmatics”,1.1.Theactofutteringsituatesthespeakerinrelationtothreeworlds:theobjective,thesocial,andthesubjective;1.2.inmakinganutterance,thespeakernecessarilymakesthree“validityclaims”:thatwhathestatesistrue;thathisexpressionofintentionsistruthful/sincere;andthathisutterance(speechact)isitselfright/appropriateinrelationtoarecognizednormativecontext;,1.HabermassUniversalPragmatics(cont.),1.3.theclaimstotruth,truthfulness,andrightnessplacethespeakersutteranceinrelationtoextralinguisticordersofreality,toones“own”internalworld,andto“our”sharedsociallife-world;1.4.the“correct”understandingoftheactionsituationmeansanintersubjectivelyvalidappraisalordefinitionofthesituation;theprocessoftryingtonegotiateaconsensualunderstandingofthesituationisinthissensetheprocessto“communicativelyredeem”thevalidityclaimsbeingraised.,2.HowHabermassUniversalPragmaticsCompareswithPragmatics2.1.GricesfamousdefinitionofCPOurtalkexchangesdonotnormallyconsistofasuccessionofdisconnectedremarks,andwouldnotberationaliftheydid.Terativeefforts;andeachparticipantrecognizesinthem.acommonpurposeorsetofpurposes,oratleastamutuallyaccepteddirection.ateachstage,somepossibleconversationalmoveswouldbeexcludedasconversationallyunsuitable.Wemightthenformulatearoughgeneralprinciplewhichparticipantswillbeexpectedtoobserve,namely:Makeyourconversationalcontributionsuchasisrequired,atthestageatwhichitoccurs,bytheacceptedpurposeordirectionofthetalkexchangeinwhichyouareengaged.,2.2.Generaldifferencesbetweenthetwomodelsofcommunication,-thecommunicators:self-assertiveyetopen-mindedsubjectsv.norm/rule-governedindividuals;-theorientation:toward“threeworlds”v.towardpartners;-themanner:raising“criticizable”claimsv.observingmaxims;-theapproach:negotiatingaconsensualunderstandingofthesituationv.applyingsharedruleswithinapre-givensituation;,2.3.Twokeyquestionsbeingraisedbythecomparison:-Whatisthe“commonpurpose”or“mutuallyaccepteddirection”thatmotivatesandaccountsforthe“cooperativeefforts”in“talkexchanges”?-Howdotheparticipants“cooperate”inordertoensuretherealizationofthe“commonpurpose”?,2.4.Differinganswerstothe“whatpurpose”questionGrice:-successfulcommunication?implementationofcontext-specificspeechact?Habermas:-“consensualunderstanding”ofthreeworlds?sustainingandreproducingthesocietyandtheculture?,2.5.DifferingAnswerstothe“HowtoCooperate”QuestionGrice:-byobservingtheconversationalmaxims;Habermas:-bymutuallycriticizingthethree“validityclaims”;,3.SomeoftheChallengesPosedbytheComparison3.1.Conceptualgrounds-rationality:conformitytoprescribedrulesorparticipationincommunicativeaction?3.2.TheoreticalHorizon-everydayuseoflanguageorsocialandculturalreproduction?3.3.DiscursiveFramework-disciplinaryself-absorptionorinterdisciplinaryinteractions?,4.ForIntensifiedEngagementandInteractionwithOtherDisciplinaryPerspectives“Whydoweneedpragmatics?Whatdoespragmaticshavetoofferthatcannotbefoundingoodold-fashionedlinguistics?Whatdopragmaticmethodsgiveusinthewayofgreaterunderstandingofhowthehumanmindworks,howhumancommunicate,howtheymanipulateoneanother,andingeneralhowtheyuselanguage”-JacobL.Mey,.,“thebiggestsingleconsequenceoftherejectionoftheWesternRationalisticTraditionisthatitmakespossibleanabandonmentoftraditionalstandardsofobjectivity,truth,andrationality.”(JohnSearle1992),thepragmatistcomestothinkofhimselforherselfas.capableofasmanydescriptionsasthe