Divided subjects, no subjects, or standardized subjects? The interdependence between subjectivity and social practices in communication
Abstract
Two recent articles have drawn attention to special kinds of speech acts inviting reflection on subjectivity in linguistic interactions: Bianchi (2024) refers to them as «unfinished speech acts»; Terkourafi (2025) as «partial speech acts». In both cases, the speech act being actually performed has to be finalized by the hearer. However, while Bianchi focuses on speech acts involving strategic speakers’ intentions, Terkourafi emphasizes instead the indeterminacy of communicative intentions, suggesting the idea of speech acts without antecedent subjectivity. I argue that this idea must be understood in terms of the absence of a coherent and transparent subject, while the literal claim of speech acts with no antecedent subjectivity is problematic for various reasons. Here, I focus on the risk of diverting attention from the fact that, in normal cases, speakers’ communicative intentions tend to align with social practices: our subjectivities are indeed standardized by the standardizing effect of social regularities. I will present this idea of standardized subjects with reference to three domains: the interdependence between social structures and subjects; the cognitive infrastructure this presupposes; and the role of conventions in linguistic behavior.
Downloads
References
Arundale, Robert B. (2008), «Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction», in Intercultural Pragmatics, vol. 5, n. 2, pp. 229-258.
Beaver, David, Stanley Jason (2019), «Toward a non-ideal philosophy of language», in Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, vol. 39, n. 2, pp. 501-545.
Bevir, Mark (1999), «Foucault and Critique: Deploying Agency Against Autonomy», in Political theory, vol. 27, n. 1, pp. 65-84.
Bianchi, Claudia (2024), «Unfinished speech acts», in Synthese, vol. 204, n. 5, 144, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04782-x.
Butler, Judith (1997), Excitable speech. A politics of the performative, Routledge, New York/London.
Foucault, Michel (1982), The Subject and Power, in Dreyfus Hubert and Rabinow Paul, edited by, Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 208–222.
Garfinkel, Harold (1964), «Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities», in Social problems, vol. 11, n. 3, pp. 225-250.
Geurts, Bart (2019), What’s wrong with Gricean pragmatics», in Botinis Antonis, edited by, ExLing 2019: Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Experimental Linguistics, International Society of Experimental Linguistics, Athens, pp. 1-8, https://doi.org/10.36505/ExLing-2019/10/0001/000363.
Goffman, Erving (1974), Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience, Harper & Row, New York.
Grice, H. Paul (1957), «Meaning», in The Philosophical Review, vol. 66, n. 3 (july 1957), pp. 377–388, https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440.
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard, Terkourafi, Marina (2023), «We need to talk about Hearer’s Meaning!», in Journal of pragmatics, vol. 208. pp. 99-114, https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.pragma.2023.02.015.
Haugh, Michael (2008), The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature, in Kecskes Istvan, Mey Jacob, edited by, Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 45-86.
Honneth, Axel (1995), The struggle for recognition, Polity Press, Cambridge and Oxford.
Kecskes, Istvan (2010), «Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts», in Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 42, n. 11, pp. 2889-2897, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008.
Leezenberg, Michiel (2015), «Politics, economy, and ideology in Iraqi Kurdistan since 2003: Enduring trends and novel challenges», in The Arab Studies Journal, vol. 23, n. 1, pp. 154-183.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1979), «Activity types and language», in Linguistics, vol. 17, n. 5-6, pp. 365-399.
Mazzone, Marco (2024), «Is mediation violence? A critique of identity politics», in Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, doi: 10.4396/20240615M.
Mazzone, Marco (submitted a), «Communicative intentions: private or public? The issue of the speaker’s vs. hearer’s authority».
Mazzone, Marco (submitted b), «Coming to terms with Foucauldianism: Emancipation or anti-politics?».
Mead, George H. (1934), Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Morgan, Jerry L. (1978), Two types of convention in indirect speech acts, in Cole Peter, edited by, Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 261-280.
Quinn, Naomi (1992), The motivational force of self-understanding, in D’Andrade Roy G., Strauss Claudia, edited by, Human Motives and Cultural Models, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 90-126.
Saul, Jennifer (2002), «Speaker meaning, what is said, and what is implicated», in Nous, vol. 36, n. 2 (june 2002), pp. 228-248.
Sbisà, Marina (2021), (Im)politeness and the Human Subject, in Xie Chaoqun, edited by, The philosophy of (im) politeness, Springer, Cham, pp. 157-177, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81592-9_9.
Sbisà, Marina (2023), Intentions from the other side, in Sbisà Marina, Essays on speech acts and other topics in pragmatics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 72-89, https://doi.org/10. 1093 /oso/9780192844125.003.0005
Schank, Roger C., Abelson, Robert P. (1977), Scripts. Plans, Goals, and Understanding, Lawrence and Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
Strawson, Peter (1964), «Intention and convention in speech acts», in Philosophical Review, vol. 73, n. 4 (october 1964), pp. 439–460.
Terkourafi, Marina (2025), «Partial speech acts», in Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del linguaggio, n. 1 (2025), pp. 6-24.
Tirrell, Lynne (2012), Genocidal Language Games, in Maitra Ishani and McGowan Mary Kate, edited by, Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 174-221, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199236282.003.0008.
Tomasello, Michael (2008), Origins of Human Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Tomasello, Michael (2014), «The ultra‐social animal», in European journal of social psychology, vol. 44, n. 3, pp. 187-194, https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2015.
Tomasello, Michael (2020), «The moral psychology of obligation», in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 43, e56, doi:10.1017/S0140525X19001742.
Villadsen, Kaspar (2023), «Goodbye Foucault’s “Missing Human Agent”? Self-Formation, Capability and the Dispositifs», in European journal of social theory, vol. 26, n. 1, pp. 67-89, https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310221125350.
Westra, Evan, Andrews, Kristin (2022), «A pluralistic framework for the psychology of norms», in Biology & philosophy, vol. 37, n. 5, 40, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-022-09871-0.
Works published in RIFL are released under Creative Commons Licence:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
