Pragmatics and Society 1 (1):50-73 (2010)
AbstractCommunication is not as smooth a process as current pragmatic theories depict it. In Rapaport’s words “We almost always fail […]. Yet we almost always nearly succeed: This is the paradox of communication”. This paper claims that there is a need for an approach that is able to explain this “bumpy road” by analyzing both the positive and negative features of the communicative process. The paper presents a socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics that takes into account both the societal and individual factors including cooperation and egocentrism that, as claimed here, are not antagonistic phenomena in interaction. This approach is considered an alternative to current theories of pragmatics that do not give an adequate account of what really happens in the communicative process. They consider communication an idealistic, cooperation-based, context-dependent process in which speakers are supposed to carefully construct their utterances for the hearer taking into account all contextual factors and hearers do their best to figure out the intentions of the speakers. This approach relies mainly on the positive features of communication including cooperation, rapport and politeness while almost completely ignores the untidy, trial-and-error nature of communication and the importance of prior contexts captured in the individual use of linguistic units. The overemphasis on cooperative, societal, contextual factors has led to disregard individual factors such as egocentrism and salience that are as important contributors to the communicative process as cooperation, context and rapport. The socio-cognitive approach is presented as a theoretical framework to incorporate and reconcile two seemingly antagonistic sides of the communicative process and explain the dynamic interplay of prior and actual situational contexts.
Similar books and articles
Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: a socio-cognitive approach.Istvan Kecskes & Fenghui Zhang - 2009 - Pragmatics and Cognition 17 (2):331-355.
The socio-cultural concept of face in Akan communication.Kofi Agyekum - 2004 - Pragmatics and Cognition 12 (1):71-92.
Beyond Universal Pragmatics: Studies in the Philosophy of Communication.Colin B. Grant - 2010 - Peter Lang.
The Liar Paradox and Metaphysics.Matti Eklund - 2006 - In Jurgis Skilters & Matti Eklund (eds.), The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication. University of Latvia Press.
La traduction des sciences de la communication en Chine : le concept de « chuanboxue ».Mylène Hardy & Hailong Liu - 2010 - Hermès: La Revue Cognition, communication, politique 56 (1):129.
Pojęcie komunikacji w poznańskiej szkole metodologicznej.Michał Wendland - 2012 - Filo-Sofija 12 (18).
Communicative competence and the architecture of the mind/brain.Maurizio Tirassa - 1999 - Brain and Language 68:419-441.
A cognitive neuroscience, dual-systems approach to the sorites paradox.Leib Litman & Mark Zelcer - 2013 - Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 25 (3):355-366.
Gricean charity: The Gricean turn in psychology.Carole J. Lee - 2006 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36 (2):193-218.
African Culture of Communication in the Global Village: The Experience of Ogba People in Rivers State Nigeria.Uche A. Dike - 2013 - Open Journal of Philosophy 3 (1):122.
Establishing conventional communication systems: Is common knowledge necessary?Dale J. Barr - 2004 - Cognitive Science 28 (6):937-962.
The pragmatics of 'never tell too plainly': Indirect communication in Chan buddhism.Youru Wang - 2000 - Asian Philosophy 10 (1):7 – 31.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2017 - Amsterdam: Springer.
Ignoring Qualifications as a Pragmatic Fallacy: Enrichments and Their Use for Manipulating Commitments.Fabrizio Macagno - 2022 - Langages 1 (13).
Evidence and presumptions for analyzing and detecting misunderstandings.Fabrizio Macagno - 2018 - Pragmatics and Cognition 24 (2):263-296.
Explicatures are NOT Cancellable.Alessandro Capone - 2013 - In Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo & Marco Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics. Springer. pp. 131-151.
References found in this work
No references found.