Factual and action-oriented

There are two types of linguistic behaviourism: “factual” and “action-oriented”. For example, the question, “What does your work mean?” may appear to be simply a factual question, but behind it may be “doesn’t your work mean anything?” can also have the meaning of “What does your work mean? Such an interpretation cannot be determined by the form of the text alone. And this question of interpretation has been studied by many scholars.

• All propositions are open to action-performance interpretation, and certain meanings are not fixed. However, in order to facilitate communication, society has established rules in some areas that allow propositions to be accepted only in a fact-checking manner. Academic conference papers are one example.

• With regard to the recent hot topic of the “humanities/science” debate, the actual issue is the level of interpretation, whether it is fact-confirming or action-performing, and the understanding of the social mechanisms that stabilize that interpretation. In other words, the key question in dialogue is at what level of interpretation of propositions. This issue can also be considered as a question of epistemology and ethics.

• Finally, references on linguistic action theory include the work of J. L. Austin, John Searle, and others, as well as Bakhtin’s theory of dialogue and Bateson’s theory of the double bind.

  • linguistic behaviourism
    • factual (constavive)
    • action-oriented (performative)
    • Classification by [J.L. Austin

• He pointed out that while traditional linguistic theory has focused primarily on the truth or falsehood of propositions, the utterance of a sentence is at the same time the performance of an action. For example, uttering “I promise,” in other words, is nothing but the performance of the act of “promising. Such an act executed by saying something is called an “act in utterance.

  • International Encyclopedia Britannica, Small Encyclopedia

• Formal analysis does not tell us which way a given sentence should be interpreted

• All propositions are open to action-performance reading = meaning is not fixed

  • →Hindrances to communication
  • Areas that are only received in a fact-checking manner (e.g., conferences)
  • Social devices that stabilize interpretation

Two different opinions - dialogue should be a rational and logical exchange of ideas - The interpretation of the proposition must be limited to a fact-checking level before it can be done.

• Determining that a particular level of interpretation is standard is “Rule-Setting Violence.” - What has been said since benjamin’s “critical theory of violence”.

• Mikhail Bakhtin

  • Conceived of dialogue as a battle of action-oriented propositions rather than an exchange of fact-oriented propositions

  • linguistic behaviourism

  • must-read - J.L. Austin - John Searle - The Searle and Derrida Controversy

    • The double bind argument in [Bateson.

  • application - The polyphony theory of [buffetin - Foucault’s pipe paper

Reference source: https://togetter.com/li/840705

• I don’t really like the “science and arts” kind of division, so I cut it out.

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/事実確認的と行為遂行的 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.