Jacques Derrida has often remarked that his own philosophy of language can be regarded as a sort ... more Jacques Derrida has often remarked that his own philosophy of language can be regarded as a sort of pragmatics, which he calls pragrammatology (pragmatics + grammatology). In a way, this program serves as a rebuttal to the critics of deconstruction who have maintained that Derrida is committed to the view that there is no such thing as meaning, thus allowing a text to be interpreted in any way that suits the whims of the reader. I have tried to prove Derrida’s assertion that his work overlaps and is consistent with pragmatics is correct. In order to accomplish this task, I first delve into the study of pragmatics and chart its development out of ordinary language philosophy. Figures such as Austin, Searle, Grice, and Habermas are discussed so that the underlying themes of pragmatics can be made explicit. I isolate four elements of pragmatics that distinguishes it from formal semantics: convention, intention, context, and conversational maxims (or, in Habermasian terminology, pragmatic presuppositions). Derrida explicitly deals with the themes of intention (in his readings of Husserl and Austin) and context (again in his essay on Austin) while tackling the other two implicitly. I argue that the problem of convention is covered in his discourse on Saussure while the problematizing of the conversational maxims is a consequence of Derrida’s overall theory of meaning and communication. However, Derrida does not simply endorse without reservation these pragmatic ingredients of meaning but submits them to deconstruction while simultaneously acknowledging their necessity. Conventions, intentions, contexts, and conversational maxims cannot determine the meaning of an utterance and, consequently, the success of communication absolutely. Moreover, this is so for necessary reasons given the iterable structure of language, i.e., that an utterance, to be intelligible, must be able to be repeated in circumstances different from those of its production. None of the pragmatic features can arrest iteration because it is a necessary possibility of language. Therefore, there is always a non-present remainder that cannot be reduced to any given context or intention, a belief Derrida shares with the position of semantic minimalism. So, while pragmatics is necessary for the relative stability of meaning and relative success of communication, it cannot exhaust all that is required for meaning. Pragrammatology is a pragmatic semantic minimalism.
Jacques Derrida has often remarked that his own philosophy of language can be regarded as a sort ... more Jacques Derrida has often remarked that his own philosophy of language can be regarded as a sort of pragmatics, which he calls pragrammatology (pragmatics + grammatology). In a way, this program serves as a rebuttal to the critics of deconstruction who have maintained that Derrida is committed to the view that there is no such thing as meaning, thus allowing a text to be interpreted in any way that suits the whims of the reader. I have tried to prove Derrida’s assertion that his work overlaps and is consistent with pragmatics is correct. In order to accomplish this task, I first delve into the study of pragmatics and chart its development out of ordinary language philosophy. Figures such as Austin, Searle, Grice, and Habermas are discussed so that the underlying themes of pragmatics can be made explicit. I isolate four elements of pragmatics that distinguishes it from formal semantics: convention, intention, context, and conversational maxims (or, in Habermasian terminology, pragmatic presuppositions). Derrida explicitly deals with the themes of intention (in his readings of Husserl and Austin) and context (again in his essay on Austin) while tackling the other two implicitly. I argue that the problem of convention is covered in his discourse on Saussure while the problematizing of the conversational maxims is a consequence of Derrida’s overall theory of meaning and communication. However, Derrida does not simply endorse without reservation these pragmatic ingredients of meaning but submits them to deconstruction while simultaneously acknowledging their necessity. Conventions, intentions, contexts, and conversational maxims cannot determine the meaning of an utterance and, consequently, the success of communication absolutely. Moreover, this is so for necessary reasons given the iterable structure of language, i.e., that an utterance, to be intelligible, must be able to be repeated in circumstances different from those of its production. None of the pragmatic features can arrest iteration because it is a necessary possibility of language. Therefore, there is always a non-present remainder that cannot be reduced to any given context or intention, a belief Derrida shares with the position of semantic minimalism. So, while pragmatics is necessary for the relative stability of meaning and relative success of communication, it cannot exhaust all that is required for meaning. Pragrammatology is a pragmatic semantic minimalism.
Uploads
Papers by Richard Sebold
Derrida explicitly deals with the themes of intention (in his readings of Husserl and Austin) and context (again in his essay on Austin) while tackling the other two implicitly. I argue that the problem of convention is covered in his discourse on Saussure while the problematizing of the conversational maxims is a consequence of Derrida’s overall theory of meaning and communication. However, Derrida does not simply endorse without reservation these pragmatic ingredients of meaning but submits them to deconstruction while simultaneously acknowledging their necessity. Conventions, intentions, contexts, and conversational maxims cannot determine the meaning of an utterance and, consequently, the success of communication absolutely. Moreover, this is so for necessary reasons given the iterable structure of language, i.e., that an utterance, to be intelligible, must be able to be repeated in circumstances different from those of its production. None of the pragmatic features can arrest iteration because it is a necessary possibility of language. Therefore, there is always a non-present remainder that cannot be reduced to any given context or intention, a belief Derrida shares with the position of semantic minimalism. So, while pragmatics is necessary for the relative stability of meaning and relative success of communication, it cannot exhaust all that is required for meaning. Pragrammatology is a pragmatic semantic minimalism.
Talks by Richard Sebold
Derrida explicitly deals with the themes of intention (in his readings of Husserl and Austin) and context (again in his essay on Austin) while tackling the other two implicitly. I argue that the problem of convention is covered in his discourse on Saussure while the problematizing of the conversational maxims is a consequence of Derrida’s overall theory of meaning and communication. However, Derrida does not simply endorse without reservation these pragmatic ingredients of meaning but submits them to deconstruction while simultaneously acknowledging their necessity. Conventions, intentions, contexts, and conversational maxims cannot determine the meaning of an utterance and, consequently, the success of communication absolutely. Moreover, this is so for necessary reasons given the iterable structure of language, i.e., that an utterance, to be intelligible, must be able to be repeated in circumstances different from those of its production. None of the pragmatic features can arrest iteration because it is a necessary possibility of language. Therefore, there is always a non-present remainder that cannot be reduced to any given context or intention, a belief Derrida shares with the position of semantic minimalism. So, while pragmatics is necessary for the relative stability of meaning and relative success of communication, it cannot exhaust all that is required for meaning. Pragrammatology is a pragmatic semantic minimalism.