THE INTENTIONALITY OF THE COMPREHENSION OF "INTENTION" AND "CONSENSUS" IN GRICE AND SEARLE'S THEORIES OF MEANING

Pınar Türkmen Birlik; Eren Rızvanoğlu

Makale detayları

THE INTENTIONALITY OF THE COMPREHENSION OF "INTENTION" AND "CONSENSUS" IN GRICE AND SEARLE'S THEORIES OF MEANING

Yazarlar:

Pınar Türkmen Birlik | Eren Rızvanoğlu

Yayıncı:

Dokuz Eylul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Dil Felsefesi

Dergi:

Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.442-464

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001329591

pISSN:

2147-4958

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 H. Paul Grice and John R. Searle are important figures in the twentieth-century ordinary language paradigm. Both thinkers tend to explain meaning in terms of the characteristics of the medium of communication. However, within this tendency, their explanations of meaning differ. In terms of how they first addressed the issue of meaning, Grice thinks that the meaning of the utterance should be considered as what the speaker wants to say, that is, what the listener should understand by implication, and thus goes beyond the traditional understanding of meaning. When Searle, on the other hand, turns to speech acts, he considers semantic structure in terms of social phenomena, namely social conventions, rules, and speech contexts. Thus, he aims to revisit the issues that Grice, as well as Austin, failed to explain. It can be argued that these explanations of meaning, which coincide with the same periods, have influenced each other, albeit to a certain extent, when their development in the process is followed. While Grice makes room for consensual meaning in his recent works, Searle focuses on individual intentionality, its place in speech acts, and its relations with the mind. In our study, we will focus on the place of the concepts of intention and consensus in these two thinkers explanations of meaning. To point out that these two concepts are two indispensable elements of the subject of meaning, our specific orientation in this analysis will be how these seemingly incompatible ideas come into contact with each other in the process.

 H. Paul Grice and John R. Searle are important figures in the twentieth-century ordinary language paradigm. Both thinkers tend to explain meaning in terms of the characteristics of the medium of communication. However, within this tendency, their explanations of meaning differ. In terms of how they first addressed the issue of meaning, Grice thinks that the meaning of the utterance should be considered as what the speaker wants to say, that is, what the listener should understand by implication, and thus goes beyond the traditional understanding of meaning. When Searle, on the other hand, turns to speech acts, he considers semantic structure in terms of social phenomena, namely social conventions, rules, and speech contexts. Thus, he aims to revisit the issues that Grice, as well as Austin, failed to explain. It can be argued that these explanations of meaning, which coincide with the same periods, have influenced each other, albeit to a certain extent, when their development in the process is followed. While Grice makes room for consensual meaning in his recent works, Searle focuses on individual intentionality, its place in speech acts, and its relations with the mind. In our study, we will focus on the place of the concepts of intention and consensus in these two thinkers explanations of meaning. To point out that these two concepts are two indispensable elements of the subject of meaning, our specific orientation in this analysis will be how these seemingly incompatible ideas come into contact with each other in the process.

 H. Paul Grice and John R. Searle are important figures in the twentieth-century ordinary language paradigm. Both thinkers tend to explain meaning in terms of the characteristics of the medium of communication. However, within this tendency, their explanations of meaning differ. In terms of how they first addressed the issue of meaning, Grice thinks that the meaning of the utterance should be considered as what the speaker wants to say, that is, what the listener should understand by implication, and thus goes beyond the traditional understanding of meaning. When Searle, on the other hand, turns to speech acts, he considers semantic structure in terms of social phenomena, namely social conventions, rules, and speech contexts. Thus, he aims to revisit the issues that Grice, as well as Austin, failed to explain. It can be argued that these explanations of meaning, which coincide with the same periods, have influenced each other, albeit to a certain extent, when their development in the process is followed. While Grice makes room for consensual meaning in his recent works, Searle focuses on individual intentionality, its place in speech acts, and its relations with the mind. In our study, we will focus on the place of the concepts of intention and consensus in these two thinkers explanations of meaning. To point out that these two concepts are two indispensable elements of the subject of meaning, our specific orientation in this analysis will be how these seemingly incompatible ideas come into contact with each other in the process.

 H. Paul Grice ve John R. Searle yirminci yüzyıl gündelik dil paradigmasının önemli iki figürüdür. Her iki düşünür de anlamı, iletişim ortamının özellikleriyle açıklama eğilimi taşır. Ancak bu eğilim içerisinde her ikisinin de anlam açıklamaları farklılık gösterir. Anlam konusunu ilk ele alış şekilleri itibariyle Grice, sözcenin sahip olduğu anlamı, konuşanın söylemek istediği, yani ima ederek dinleyenin anlaması gereken şey olarak ele alınması gerektiğini düşünür ve böylece geleneksel anlam anlayışının dışına çıkar. Searle ise söz edimleri üzerine yöneldiğinde, anlamsal yapıyı sosyal görüngülerin, yani toplumsal uzlaşım, kurallar ve sözcelem bağlamları etrafında ele alır. Böylece o, Austinin yanı sıra Gricein de açıklamada yetersiz kaldığı hususları yeniden gözden geçirmeyi amaçlar. Aşağı yukarı aynı dönemlere denk gelen bu anlam açıklamalarının, süreç içerisindeki gelişimleri takip edildiğinde onların birbirleri üzerinde belli ölçülerde de olsa etkileri olduğu ileri sürülebilir. Nitekim Grice, son çalışmalarında uzlaşımsal anlama yer açarken, Searle da bireysel yönelimselliğin üzerinde yoğunlaşıp, onun söz edimlerindeki yeri ve zihin ile olan ilişkilerini irdelemeye yönelir. Biz de çalışmamızda bu iki düşünürün anlam açıklamalarında, yönelim ve uzlaşım kavramlarının yeri üzerinde duracağız. Bu iki kavramın anlam konusunun vazgeçilmez iki öğesi olduğuna işaret etmek üzere bu incelemedeki özel yönelimimiz ise, birbirleriyle uyuşmaz görünen bu düşüncelerin süreç içerisinde bu teorilerde nasıl olup da birbirleriyle temas eder bir hale geldikleriyle ilgili olacaktır.

Makale detayları

THE INTENTIONALITY OF THE COMPREHENSION OF "INTENTION" AND "CONSENSUS" IN GRICE AND SEARLE'S THEORIES OF MEANING

Yazarlar:

Pınar Türkmen Birlik | Eren Rızvanoğlu

Yayıncı:

Dokuz Eylul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Dil Felsefesi

Dergi:

Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.442-464

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001329591

pISSN:

2147-4958

H. Paul Grice

John R. Searle

meaning

intention

consensus.H. Paul Grice

John R. Searle

anlam

yönelim

uzlaşım.

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Pınar Türkmen Birlik | Eren Rızvanoğlu

Yayıncı: Dokuz Eylul University

Ana Başlıklar: Dil Felsefesi

Dergi: Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.442-464

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 10/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001329591

pISSN: 2147-4958

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Pınar Türkmen Birlik | Eren Rızvanoğlu

Yayıncı:

Dokuz Eylul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Dil Felsefesi

Dergi:

Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.11 Issue 2, pp.442-464

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001329591

pISSN:

2147-4958