316 research outputs found
Modular, Cellular, Integral: A Pragmatic Elephant?
No full textWhen talking about reference, our immediate reaction is to ask what is referred to, by whom, and how. Reference can be made in writing or in speech; in the former case, I can “refer” by putting together a list of “references” which will explain those references that are not immediately clear from the written context. In speech, by contrast, we need other means of referring (e.g., by quoting, by ostensive pointing, by the use of indexicals, by innuendo, by relying on the context, and so on). What this chapter wants to do is to connect reference with the idea that all speech acts, including those having to do with referring, are situated, that is to say, their explanation and understanding happens, so to speak, from the “outside” (the context) inward, rather than from the “inside” (the mind of the speaker) outward. The corollary of such a view is that speech acts, as such, do not exist; consequently, reference always happens in the form of a situated “pointing,” where the activity of referring always is a “situated” one, possible only in a total context of understanding: “the whole in which the components work” (Weigand 2006, pp. 59–87; quoted Capone 2010, p. 2863).</p
Twenty-Seven Views (Plus One) of Language Socialization
No full textThe “Twenty-Seven Views” alluded to in the title of the current chapter correspond to the individual chapters of a recent book edited by Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs, and Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds.; The handbook of language socialization, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, 2012, pp.xvi + 660. As to the year of publication, there is a slight divergence between the book’s cover page and colophon, where the year is given as “2012,” and the bottom lines of the individual chapters, where the year occurs as “2011”). The excess “plus one” view is the present author’s: It will pop up with intermittent and unexpected intervals throughout the text, and in this way do more than merely present a conspectus of the work under consideration; rather, it aims to compare and evaluate the (sometimes very divergent) earlier and contemporary views on language socialization presented here and elsewhere in the literature, and thus endeavors to achieve some measure of convergence, if not homogeneity, of the various authors’ points of view.</p
Pragmatics Seen Through the Prism of Society
No full textWhat do we mean when we talk about pragmatics as seen through a societal prism? Is not pragmatics by definition soci(et)al? In this chapter, I explain my views on pragmatics, and highlight its societal character, interpreted as a commitment to and from the users’ side. I especially look into the oppressive aspects of our language, and suggest ways and means to prevent such oppression, in an “emancipatory pragmatics,” as it would be appropriate to call it.</p
Lactuca tatarica (L.) C.A. Mey. te Rotterdam
No full textThe author mentions a second find of Lactuca tatarica (L.) C. A. Mey. in the harbour of Rotterdam in 1966, in a ruderal locality. The number of specimens increased in 1967
Dialogus de Ente Linguistico : Uno, Vero, Bono
No full textMey Jacob L. Dialogus de Ente Linguistico : Uno, Vero, Bono. In: Langages, 22ᵉ année, n°86, 1987. A l'occasion d'un centenaire : Actualité de Brøndal. pp. 21-39
Chapter 1. Adaptability and truth
No full textFactual statements are supposed to be necessarily ‘true’, as opposed to people’s opinions. But what is often not taken into account is the fact that statements always are by a speaker whose relationship to the truth, or command of the facts may be less evident. In particular, leaning on an understanding of ‘facts’ (in science and elsewhere) that is more attuned to the pragmatics of Gibsonian ‘affordances’ and context, the chapter argues for a renewed attention to the conditions of ‘stating’ that circumscribe the truth value of statements. Invoking such diverse authorities as Giambattista Vico, Pope Francis, and Bruno Latour, it is claimed that all speaking is an activity of ‘acting in the world’ around us, rather than merely ‘representing’ that world. This has consequences for the precept of ‘letting the facts speak for themselves’ – as it is affirmed in a deceptively simple, but essentially vacuous popular slogan.</p
Introduction: Pragmatics, Linguistics, and Sociocultural Diversity
No full textWe are pleased to introduce this new volume on Pragmatics, Culture, and Society. As Kecskes (Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014) says in his introduction to his Intercultural Pragmatics, there are many works around on pragmatics, and a new volume is (only) justified on the basis of some unique features that differentiate it from others. In this chapter, we want to explain to what extent the present book is different from other works dealing with issues in theoretical pragmatics.</p
Introduction
No full text[C]ontrary to what is too often assumed, contemporary neurobiologists claim that the elements of cognition are not in fact innate. These elements develop and appear as a result of the constant interaction between the internal milieu and the environment. This type of interaction fundamentally defines rationality as adaptability- A n adaptive power () to form and transform. (Catherine Malabou, 2016, Before Tomorrow: Epigenesis and Rationality, p. 10).</p
Conversation Analysis Of Turn-Taking In Courtroom Interaction
No full textThe purpose of this research is to analyze the turn-taking in Supreme Court civilcase in United States, Sveen v. Melin, decided on June 11, 2018, which thismechanisms occur in the conversation to make the conversation flows well. Theobjectives of this research are: (1) to analyze how the turn-taking occur in Sveen v.Melin case on June 11, 2018 conversation and (2) to identify the dominant types ofturn-taking that are used by the participants in the Sveen v. Melin case on June 11,2018 conversation. The research questions will be answered in analytical description.This research uses turn-taking theory proposed by Jacob L Mey to analyze the turntakingwhichoccursintheconversationofSupremeCourtcivilcaseinUnitedStates,Sveenv. Melin,decidedonJune11, 2018.There are three kinds of turn-takingmechanisms which are taking the floor, holding the floor and yielding the floor.Qualitative method is used in this research. The collected data are selected randomlythen be classified on the same classes. The result of this research shows that there are209 data classified as turn-taking, which are 88 data of taking the turn, including 20data of starting up (12 data of clear start and 8 data of hesitant start), 42 data ofinterruption, and 26 data of overlapping; 63 data of holding the turn, and 58 data ofyielding the turn were found in the conversation. The dominant types of turn-takingthat are used by the participants are holding the turn, each of participants does not wantthe floor is being taken over so they hold their floor.ix,72 hlm.ilus; 25 c
Conversation Analysis Of Turn-Taking In Courtroom Interaction
No full textThe purpose of this research is to analyze the turn-taking in Supreme Court civilcase in United States, Sveen v. Melin, decided on June 11, 2018, which thismechanisms occur in the conversation to make the conversation flows well. Theobjectives of this research are: (1) to analyze how the turn-taking occur in Sveen v.Melin case on June 11, 2018 conversation and (2) to identify the dominant types ofturn-taking that are used by the participants in the Sveen v. Melin case on June 11,2018 conversation. The research questions will be answered in analytical description.This research uses turn-taking theory proposed by Jacob L Mey to analyze the turntakingwhichoccursintheconversationofSupremeCourtcivilcaseinUnitedStates,Sveenv. Melin,decidedonJune11, 2018.There are three kinds of turn-takingmechanisms which are taking the floor, holding the floor and yielding the floor.Qualitative method is used in this research. The collected data are selected randomlythen be classified on the same classes. The result of this research shows that there are209 data classified as turn-taking, which are 88 data of taking the turn, including 20data of starting up (12 data of clear start and 8 data of hesitant start), 42 data ofinterruption, and 26 data of overlapping; 63 data of holding the turn, and 58 data ofyielding the turn were found in the conversation. The dominant types of turn-takingthat are used by the participants are holding the turn, each of participants does not wantthe floor is being taken over so they hold their floor.ix,72 hlm.ilus; 25 c
- …
