Abstract
This article suggests a model of uttering/énonciation as representational activity (Energeia) throughout the observable case of both impersonal injunctions and collaborative interaction. Being a dynamic relation at the intersection of notions, language and world, reference, this model integrates a new paradigm into the realm of discursive linguistics, the described morphodynamic language phenomenon instead of the described hypothesis emanating from “structuralized” grammars. We thus discuss one aspect of the interaction adjustment/distortion beyond mere projection (stasis of both virtual social markers and uttered stable forms), considering distortion as a relevant marker of the described observable (an interaction from a translation course for instance). Henceforth, beyond the speech act frame, we present a mathematical attempt to study the variation of the pragmatic impact taking place between projection and result; this last implies two sources positions and praxical levels. As a conclusive note, we expose a brief insight into the phenomenon misunderstanding between both neurocognitive and linguistic studies.
References
Althusser, Louis (ed.). 1998. Lire le capital. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Search in Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2001. Langage et pouvoir symbolique. Paris: Seuil.Search in Google Scholar
Carel, Marion. 2011. L’entrelacement argumentatif. Lexique, discours et blocs sémantiques. Paris: Honoré Champion.Search in Google Scholar
Culioli, Antoine. 1990. The concept of notional domain. In Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation: Opérations et représentations, vol. 1. Paris: Ophrys.Search in Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, Pierre (ed.). 1999. Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Oxford: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 2001. Kant et l’ornithorynque. Paris: Le livre de Poche.Search in Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 2003. Dire presque la même chose: Expériences de traduction. Paris: Grasset.Search in Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech arts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368811_003Search in Google Scholar
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 2016. In Karl-Maria Guth (ed.), Wissenschaft der Logik, 654. Berlin: Hofenberg.Search in Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1990–1994. Les interactions verbales, vols. 1–3. Paris: A. Colin.Search in Google Scholar
Lacan, Jacques. 2005. Le séminaire: Le sinthome. Paris: Seuil.Search in Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques. 1997. Théorie pragmatique et pragmatique conversationnelle. Paris: A. Colin.Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Thom, René. 1972. Stabilité structurelle et morphogenèse. Reading: W. A. Benjamin.Search in Google Scholar
Trognon, Alain & Christian Brassac. 1992. L’enchaînement conversationnel. In Eddy Roulet (ed.), Cahiers de linguistique française: Théorie des actes de langage et analyse des conversations 13, 76–106. Genève: Université de Genève.Search in Google Scholar
Vion, Robert. 2005. Séquentialité, interactivité et instabilité énonciative. Cahiers de la praxématique 45. 25–50. https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.111.Search in Google Scholar
Von Humboldt, Wilhelm. 1907. Über die Kawi-Sprache auf der Insel Java. In Einleitung: Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 7.1. Berlin: Königlich-Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften.10.1017/CBO9781139056236.003Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
