In this paper, I develop an ecological-enactive perspective on the role rules play in linguistic behaviour. I formulate and motivate the hypothesis that metalinguistic reflexivity – our ability to talk about talking – is constitutive of linguistic normativity. On first sight, this hypothesis might seem to fall prey to a regress objection. By discussing the work of Searle, I show that this regress objection originates in the idea that learning language involves learning to follow rules from the very start. I propose an ecological-enactive response to the regress objection. The key move is to deny that language learning consists initially in learning rules. A child first engages in regular communicative behaviour, by learning first-order linguistic skills, and then retroactively interprets her own behaviour in normative metalinguistic terms, i.e., as being guided by rules by relying on reflexive or second-order linguistic skills. On this view, metalinguistic reflexivity enables regulation of already regular communicative behaviour, and thereby constitutes linguistic normativity. Finally, I argue that linguistic rules are resources: they are available to participants in order to (re)negotiate properties of situated language behaviour and thereby reorganize linguistic practices. The account developed in this paper thus allows us to understand the constitutive role of metalinguistic reflexivity for linguistic normativity without falling prey to the regress objection.

中文翻译：

---

规则作为资源：语言规范性的生态活跃视角

在本文中，我对规则在语言行为中的作用提出了生态积极的观点。我提出并提出了以下假设：金属语言反身性（我们谈论话题的能力）构成语言规范性的组成部分。乍看起来，这个假设似乎容易成为回归异议的牺牲品。通过讨论Searle的工作，我证明了这种回归反对源自于这样一种思想，即学习语言从一开始就涉及学习遵循规则。我提出了对回归反对意见的生态积极回应。关键举措是否认语言学习最初包含在学习规则中。儿童首先通过学习一阶语言技能来进行常规的交往行为，然后以规范的元语言学术语追溯性地解释自己的行为，即 依靠反身或二阶语言技能在规则的指引下进行。根据这种观点，元语言反射性使得能够调节本来就规则的交往行为，从而构成语言规范性。最后，我认为语言规则是资源：参与者可以使用它们来（重新）协商所处语言行为的属性，从而重新组织语言实践。因此，本文中提出的解释使我们能够理解元语言反身性对语言规范性的构成作用，而不会招致回归反对。从而构成语言规范。最后，我认为语言规则是资源：参与者可以使用它们来（重新）协商所处语言行为的属性，从而重新组织语言实践。因此，本文中提出的解释使我们能够理解元语言反身性对语言规范性的构成作用，而不会招致回归反对。从而构成语言规范。最后，我认为语言规则是资源：参与者可以使用它们来（重新）协商所处语言行为的属性，从而重新组织语言实践。因此，本文中提出的解释使我们能够理解元语言反身性对语言规范性的构成作用，而不会招致回归反对。