会话分析与维特根斯坦

IF 0.8 3区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION
Text & Talk Pub Date : 2022-09-06 DOI:10.1515/text-2021-0017
Ariel Vázquez Carranza
{"title":"会话分析与维特根斯坦","authors":"Ariel Vázquez Carranza","doi":"10.1515/text-2021-0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the present paper I discuss the affinities between conversation analysis and Wittgenstein’s later ordinary language philosophy. Although both paradigms differ in purpose, they share some similarities: they both conceive language as an instrument for action, understanding as a manifestation of behaviour, and meaning as something generated in situ. I suggest that the concepts of adjacency pair, positionally sensitive grammar, and action ascription particularise, in some ways, Wittgenstein’s notion of context. Both paradigms share similarities and differences in terms of method and in terms of their conception of rules; for example, both are inductive approaches but for Wittgenstein rules are normative in principle whereas for conversation analysts like Sacks they are primarily practical.","PeriodicalId":46455,"journal":{"name":"Text & Talk","volume":"43 1","pages":"523 - 542"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conversation analysis and Wittgenstein\",\"authors\":\"Ariel Vázquez Carranza\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/text-2021-0017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In the present paper I discuss the affinities between conversation analysis and Wittgenstein’s later ordinary language philosophy. Although both paradigms differ in purpose, they share some similarities: they both conceive language as an instrument for action, understanding as a manifestation of behaviour, and meaning as something generated in situ. I suggest that the concepts of adjacency pair, positionally sensitive grammar, and action ascription particularise, in some ways, Wittgenstein’s notion of context. Both paradigms share similarities and differences in terms of method and in terms of their conception of rules; for example, both are inductive approaches but for Wittgenstein rules are normative in principle whereas for conversation analysts like Sacks they are primarily practical.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Text & Talk\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"523 - 542\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Text & Talk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2021-0017\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Text & Talk","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2021-0017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了对话分析与维特根斯坦后期日常语言哲学之间的联系。尽管这两种范式在目的上有所不同,但它们有一些相似之处:它们都认为语言是行动的工具,理解是行为的表现,意义是原地产生的东西。我认为邻接对、位置敏感语法和动作归因的概念在某种程度上特别体现了维特根斯坦的语境概念。两种范式在方法和规则概念上既有相似之处,也有不同之处;例如,两者都是归纳方法,但对于维特根斯坦来说,规则原则上是规范性的,而对于像萨克斯这样的对话分析者来说,规则主要是实用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conversation analysis and Wittgenstein
Abstract In the present paper I discuss the affinities between conversation analysis and Wittgenstein’s later ordinary language philosophy. Although both paradigms differ in purpose, they share some similarities: they both conceive language as an instrument for action, understanding as a manifestation of behaviour, and meaning as something generated in situ. I suggest that the concepts of adjacency pair, positionally sensitive grammar, and action ascription particularise, in some ways, Wittgenstein’s notion of context. Both paradigms share similarities and differences in terms of method and in terms of their conception of rules; for example, both are inductive approaches but for Wittgenstein rules are normative in principle whereas for conversation analysts like Sacks they are primarily practical.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Text & Talk
Text & Talk Multiple-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Text & Talk (founded as TEXT in 1981) is an internationally recognized forum for interdisciplinary research in language, discourse, and communication studies, focusing, among other things, on the situational and historical nature of text/talk production; the cognitive and sociocultural processes of language practice/action; and participant-based structures of meaning negotiation and multimodal alignment. Text & Talk encourages critical debates on these and other relevant issues, spanning not only the theoretical and methodological dimensions of discourse but also their practical and socially relevant outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信