The Pragmaticians Selffashioning LIU Yameng College of Foreign Languages Fujian Normal University

1
Cooperation and Purpose Grice, Habermas, and
Beyond Liu Yameng Fujian Normal
University ????? ??????????????????????? ??????
???
2
Epilogue

• In 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 keen 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 on the challenges posed by other
  conceptions of language use, and rethought many
  of its own foundational assumptions.

3
Underlying 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 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.

4
0. Introductory RemarksThe Road Not Taken

• 0.1. The 1970s as the golden age of
  pragmatics?
• --- looked 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 Tradition
  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.
•  

5
1. Habermass Universal Pragmatics

• 1.1. The act of 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 (speech act) is itself
  right/appropriate in relation to a recognized
  normative context

6
1. 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 our 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 validity claims
being raised.
7
2. How Habermass Universal Pragmatics Compares
with Pragmatics 2.1. Grices famous definition of
CP Our talk exchanges do not normally consist of
a succession of disconnected remarks, and would
not be rational if they did. They are
characteristically . . . cooperative efforts 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
participants 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.
8
2.2. General differences between the two models
of communication

• --- the communicators 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
  rules within a pre-given situation

9
2.3. 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 of
the common purpose?
10

• 2.4. Differing answers to the what purpose
  question
• Grice
• --- successful communication? implementation of
  context-specific speech act?
• Habermas
• --- consensual understanding of three worlds?
  sustaining and reproducing the society and the
  culture?

11
2.5. Differing Answers to the How to Cooperate
Question Grice --- by observing the
conversational maxims Habermas --- by
mutually criticizing the three validity claims
12
3. Some of the Challenges Posed by the
Comparison 3.1. Conceptual grounds ---
rationality conformity to prescribed rules or
participation in communicative action? 3.2.
Theoretical Horizon --- everyday use of language
or social and cultural reproduction? 3.3.
Discursive Framework --- disciplinary
self-absorption or interdisciplinary interactions?
13
4. For Intensified Engagement and Interaction
with Other Disciplinary Perspectives Why do we
need pragmatics? What does 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. Mey
14
.
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17

• the biggest single consequence of the rejection
  of the Western Rationalistic Tradition is that it
  makes possible an abandonment of traditional
  standards of objectivity, truth, and rationality
  . . . (John Searle 1992)

18
the pragmatist comes to think of himself or
herself as . . . capable of as many descriptions
as there are purposes to be served. . . . There
are as many descriptions as there are uses to
which the pragmatist might be put, by his or her
self or by others. . . all descriptions . . . are
evaluated according to their efficacy as
instruments for purposes, rather than by their
fidelity to the object described. (R. Rorty 1998)