合作與目由哈貝馬斯普世語用學(xué)對傳統(tǒng)語用學(xué)挑戰(zhàn)說開去劉亞猛

1、Cooperation and Purpose: Grice, Habermas, and BeyondLiu YamengFujian Normal University合作與目的：由哈貝馬斯“普世語用學(xué)”對語用研究傳統(tǒng)的挑戰(zhàn)說開去1EpilogueIn constructing its disciplinary self-identity, pragmatics has been using linguistics and the philosophy of language as its primary points of reference, and has not shown a k

2、een interest in engaging other areas of inquiry and in interacting with the prevailing intellectual ethos of our time. A brief look at Habermass theory of “universal pragmatics” and a comparison of this notion with Grices thinking serve to remind us how much pragmatics would have gained had it taken

3、 on the challenges posed by other conceptions of language use, and rethought many of its own foundational assumptions. 2Underlying Assumptions of This “Non-talk”No discipline is an island. The development of any discipline depends on the way it interacts with other disciplines.For pragmatics to live

4、 up to its claim as the study of language use, it would have to to turn outward as well as inward in its search for new theoretical resources, and to be a heterogeneous rather homogeneous conceptually. 30. Introductory Remarks:The Road Not Taken0.1. The 1970s as the “golden age” of pragmatics? - loo

5、ked upon as a theoretical wunderkind, a new discipline of exceptional promises, a conversational partner, even by major thinkers of the time;0.2. engagements and disengagements: Derrida/Rorty/Habermas v. pragmatics; - “the biggest single consequence of the rejection of the Western Rationalistic Trad

6、ition is that it makes possible an abandonment of traditional standards of objectivity, truth, and rationality . . .” (John Searle 1992) -passing references of Habermas in Mey and Verschueren;0.3. Habermass “universal pragmatics” as a case in point. 41. Habermass “Universal Pragmatics”1.1. The act o

7、f uttering situates the speaker in relation to three worlds: the objective, the social, and the subjective;1.2. in making an utterance, the speaker necessarily makes three “validity claims”: that what he states is true; that his expression of intentions is truthful/sincere; and that his utterance (s

8、peech act) is itself right/appropriate in relation to a recognized normative context ;51. Habermass Universal Pragmatics (cont.)1.3. the claims to truth, truthfulness, and rightness place the speakers utterance in relation to extralinguistic orders of reality, to ones “own” internal world, and to “o

9、ur” shared social life-world;1.4. the “correct” understanding of the action situation means an intersubjectively valid appraisal or definition of the situation; the process of trying to negotiate a consensual understanding of the situation is in this sense the process to “communicatively redeem” the

10、 validity claims being raised. 62. How Habermass Universal Pragmatics Compares with Pragmatics2.1. Grices famous definition of CPOur talk exchanges do not normally consist of a succession of disconnected remarks, and would not be rational if they did. They are characteristically . . . cooperative ef

11、forts; and each participant recognizes in them . . . a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction. . . . at each stage, some possible conversational moves would be excluded as conversationally unsuitable. We might then formulate a rough general principle which parti

12、cipants will be expected to observe, namely: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.72.2. General differences between the two models of communication - the communic

13、ators: self-assertive yet open-minded subjects v. norm/rule-governed individuals;- the orientation: toward “three worlds” v. toward partners;- the manner: raising “criticizable” claims v. observing maxims;- the approach: negotiating a consensual understanding of the situation v. applying shared rule

14、s within a pre-given situation; 82.3. Two key questions being raised by the comparison:- What is the “common purpose” or “mutually accepted direction” that motivates and accounts for the “cooperative efforts” in “talk exchanges”?-How do the participants “cooperate” in order to ensure the realization

15、 of the “common purpose”?92.4. Differing answers to the “what purpose” questionGrice: - successful communication? implementation of context-specific speech act?Habermas: - “consensual understanding” of three worlds? sustaining and reproducing the society and the culture?102.5. Differing Answers to t

16、he “How to Cooperate” QuestionGrice: - by observing the conversational maxims;Habermas:- by mutually criticizing the three “validity claims”;113. Some of the Challenges Posed by the Comparison3.1. Conceptual grounds- rationality: conformity to prescribed rules or participation in communicative actio

17、n?3.2. Theoretical Horizon- everyday use of language or social and cultural reproduction?3.3. Discursive Framework- disciplinary self-absorption or interdisciplinary interactions?124. For Intensified Engagement and Interaction with Other Disciplinary Perspectives“Why do we need pragmatics? What does

18、 pragmatics have to offer that cannot be found in good old-fashioned linguistics? What do pragmatic methods give us in the way of greater understanding of how the human mind works, how human communicate, how they manipulate one another, and in general how they use language” - Jacob L. Mey13. 14“the biggest single consequence of the rej