Intersubjectivity and language system The ability to experience
Intersubjectivity and language system
The ability to experience oneself and view others as mental agents underlies the concept of subjectivity. The meaning of many linguistic items does not relate directly to (a model of) the world, but to a person's assessment, or construal, of a situation.
Of course one may have thoughts and beliefs that may differ from those of other people. This is the basis for intersubjectivity, that is the mutual coordination of cognitive systems.
Language use is always more than focusing on the same object of conceptualization in the same way. It is also inducing (and engaging in) inferential reasoning.
Engaging in cognitive coordination comes down to, for the speaker/writer, an attempt to influence someone else's thoughts, attitudes, or even immediate behavior. For the addressee it involves finding out what kind of influence it is that the speaker/writer is trying to exert, and deciding to go along with it or not.
This sentence looks as descriptive as one can get: (1) There are seats in this room. (2) There are seats in this room. (a) But they are uncomfortable. (b) And moreover, they are comfortable. (a) and (b) induce an addressee to make inferences about the degree of comfort provided in this room, and may also induce to perform a behavior in line with those inferences.
Normal language use is never just informative, but always 'argumentative', in the terminology of Anscombre and Ducrot (1989)
Informative view: The conventional function of a negative form (its linguistic meaning) only concerns the vertical relation between a subject and an object of conceptualization. An effect on the horizontal level of intersubjective coordination would then be seen not as a part of the conventional meaning of negative forms, but as a consequence derived in contexts of use.
Informative view Primary Function Derived in context use
Intersubjective view: Given that the primary function of language is communication, we may expect the reverse picture to be more adequate. Operating on intersubjective coordination is then seen of negation as a primary conventional function, while operating on the relationship between subject and object of conceptualization is secondary.
Intersubjective view Primary Function Secondary Function
Using language involves cognitive coordination in the sense of mutual attempts to influence other people's mind and behaviour.
Negation and virtual argumentation
Negation belongs to a part of the linguistic system that can be treated coherently in terms of its function in regulating relations between distinct “mental spaces” (Fauconnier 1994, 1997). Linguistic negation can be said to have a special function in regulating an addressee's cognitive coordination with other points of view.
The addressee is invited to adopt (at least for the time being) a particular epistemic stance toward some ideas, and to abandon another one that is inconsistent with it – possibly one that the addressee might entertain himself. Thus linguistic negation cannot be considered as only reversing the truth value of an utterance.
Sentential vs. Morphological negation Sentential negation = “not-X”+ coordinating conjunction (e. g. “on the contrary”, “let alone”) Morphological negation = un-Adj. (3) Mary is not happy, on the contrary she is feeling really depressed (4) # Mary is a bit sad, on the contrary she is feeling really depressed (5) # Mary is unhappy, on the contrary she is feeling really depressed
Only sentential negation projects two mental spaces with different epistemic stances toward the same proposition. Morphological negation, on the other hand, is an instrument for reversing the scale associated with the adjective to which is attached, and does not invite the addressee to consider-and-abandon the thought of applying that scale with its normal orientation.
Consider the relation between the expressions a small chance and a little chance. They may well refer to the same percentage of probability, for example 20 per cent, but their roles in orienting an addressee to certain conclusions are exactly opposite.
Suppose someone is considering whether or not to perform a surgical operation on a patient who is in a serious condition. (6) There is a small chance that the operation will be successful. (a) So let's give it a try (b) # So let's not take the risk There is a small chance orients an addressee to the same conclusion as the positive statement There is a chance.
(7) There is a little chance that the operation will be successful. (a) # So let's give it a try (b) So let's not take the risk There is a little chance orients an addressee to the same conclusion as the negative statement There is no chance.
The generalization can be made over negation and expressions like little chance in terms of argumentative orientation is that their use has the function of directing the addressee to infer that certain conclusions are invalid.
Straightforward negation has maximal argumentative strength; its use relates a specific situation (the chance of success here and now) to a shared inferential model of a type of situations (the more chance of success, the more reason to operate). Negation provides the strongest possible argument for invalidating the conclusion 'go ahead with the operation'.
There is a class of semantic elements known in the literature as “negative polarity licensors”, that is, elements that can satisfy the requirements for the felicitous use of negative-polarity items. e. g. barely, only, just, merely This elements combined with connectives (e. g. so, but, let alone) provide a conventional meaning that primary functions at the level of argumentative value of utterances.
Some examples: (8) He barely passed Statistics-1, let alone Statistics-2. (9) # He almost passed Statistics-1, let alone Statistics-2 (10) Our two sons Charles and George were playing a game. Halfway through, Charles only had sixty points. So the youngest was probably going to win again. (11) Our two sons Charles and George were playing a game. Halfway through, Charles already had sixty points. So the youngest was probably going to win again.
The use of an element from the negation system, e. g. not, only or barely sets up a configuration of two perspectives, the first of which is that of the person responsible for the utterance (including the negative element not-p), which contrasts in a particular way with a projected second perspective (the addressee's '? q') The speaker believes that she shares the knowledge of a certain cultural model with the addressee ('P→Q'). Both the use of not-p and that of barely p invalidate q (given 'P→Q'), inviting the addressee to consider ¬q more justified than q.
- Slides: 27