Language Pragmatics
From Geography
BertHegger (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | The core concept of language pragmatic action theory is [[speech act]]. This approach involves not only human interactions but also nonhuman. This perspective is similar to the [[Actor network theory|actor-network theory]]. A [[nonessentialist]] view is adopted. Language is considered a means of representation and an instrument to coordinate actions and everything that people do (Zierhofer, 2002, p.1362). Language gives the precondition of how we can speak, express ourselves, give meaning. | + | The core concept of language pragmatic action theory is [[speech act]]. This is the central analytical concept and is the biding force force of actions and consequences. This approach involves not only human interactions but also nonhuman. This perspective is similar to the [[Actor network theory|actor-network theory]]. A [[nonessentialist]] view is adopted. Language is considered a means of representation and an instrument to coordinate actions and everything that people do (Zierhofer, 2002, p.1362). Language gives the precondition of how we can speak, express ourselves, give meaning. Language is a means of communication and relies on interpretation and acceptance of other actors. In this approach there are two ideal types of rationality, namely [[intrumental rationality]] and [[communicative rationality]]. The former describes language as a means of communication, whereas the latter describes language as binding force. The physical setting is important to social life, and thus communication. Space is seen a scheme of interpretation and can be seen in different orders. First order space is used to draw distinctions, whereas second order space generates meaning (Zierhofer, 2002). |
Language pragmatic action theory differs from other versions of action theory like [[Anthony Giddens|Giddens]]’ [[Structuration Theory|structuration theory]] and [[Benno Werlen|Werlen]]’s theory of [[Contextual regional geography|everyday regionalizations]]. Language pragmatic focuses on speech acts and language philosophy. In other approaches language is regarded as a means to transport meaning, whereas language pragmatics considers language to generate meaning (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1362). | Language pragmatic action theory differs from other versions of action theory like [[Anthony Giddens|Giddens]]’ [[Structuration Theory|structuration theory]] and [[Benno Werlen|Werlen]]’s theory of [[Contextual regional geography|everyday regionalizations]]. Language pragmatic focuses on speech acts and language philosophy. In other approaches language is regarded as a means to transport meaning, whereas language pragmatics considers language to generate meaning (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1362). | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
''Links added by Aafke Brus'' --[[User:AafkeBrus|AafkeBrus]] 15:59, 25 October 2011 (CEST) | ''Links added by Aafke Brus'' --[[User:AafkeBrus|AafkeBrus]] 15:59, 25 October 2011 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Edited by Bert Hegger | ||
[[Category: Language Pragmatic Action Theory]] | [[Category: Language Pragmatic Action Theory]] | ||
Revision as of 09:18, 19 September 2012
The core concept of language pragmatic action theory is speech act. This is the central analytical concept and is the biding force force of actions and consequences. This approach involves not only human interactions but also nonhuman. This perspective is similar to the actor-network theory. A nonessentialist view is adopted. Language is considered a means of representation and an instrument to coordinate actions and everything that people do (Zierhofer, 2002, p.1362). Language gives the precondition of how we can speak, express ourselves, give meaning. Language is a means of communication and relies on interpretation and acceptance of other actors. In this approach there are two ideal types of rationality, namely intrumental rationality and communicative rationality. The former describes language as a means of communication, whereas the latter describes language as binding force. The physical setting is important to social life, and thus communication. Space is seen a scheme of interpretation and can be seen in different orders. First order space is used to draw distinctions, whereas second order space generates meaning (Zierhofer, 2002).
Language pragmatic action theory differs from other versions of action theory like Giddens’ structuration theory and Werlen’s theory of everyday regionalizations. Language pragmatic focuses on speech acts and language philosophy. In other approaches language is regarded as a means to transport meaning, whereas language pragmatics considers language to generate meaning (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1362).
"Spaces, in consequence, are seen as phenomena which are constituted and applied by agents pursuing particular projects by using their specific semantic competences" (Zierhofer, 2002, p.1371). Space is thus an element of speech acts. Language and speech acts influence geography by constructing geographical realities. E.g. I live in Nijmegen (Huib Ernste, personal communication, 05-10-10).
References
Zierhofer, W. (2002). Speech acts and space(s): language pragmatics and the discursive constitution of the social. In Environment and Planning A, vol.34, pp 1355-1372.
Contributors
Published by Sabrina Willems & Anouk Soomers
Links added by Aafke Brus --AafkeBrus 15:59, 25 October 2011 (CEST)
Edited by Bert Hegger
