Bernhard forchtner
Yüklə 337,42 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
F o r c h t n e r
P a g e | 34
ultimately based on the analysts‟ voluntarism. Insofar, such analysis can well be described as „crypto-normative‟ (Habermas 1990: 276). 3 In the following paper, all quotations – as long as it is not stated differently – refer to works of Habermas. 4 In How to do things with Words, Austin initially introduced constative and performative utterances. While the former refer to objective true:false conditions of an utterance, e.g. „This table is round‟, the latter can be happy:unhappy as they try to achieve something, e.g. „I herewith baptize this child‟. Later, Austin realised that constative utterances too have performative elements and dismissed this separation. Instead, he introduced a new one: utterances now consist of locutionary (the semantic representation of X), illocutionary (one does X by saying Y) and perlocutionary aspects (the effect on the hearer). 5 At a first glance, this seems to restrict the Habermasian model to a small amount of standard utterances. However, even if symbolic/nonverbal utterances lack the propositional aspect of a speech act, they, nevertheless, are often criticisable too as they simply call to mind the propositional content of the presupposed norm (1976b: 37).
6 Thus, Habermas accuses poststructuralism of a performative contradiction. If every use of language is indeed only one more power-contaminated action, why should we believe in their particular attempt to enlighten us about the ideological character of modernity? In other words: „I hereby tell you, that truth does not exist‟ is a contradiction in itself as the speaker raises the claim of truth in his utterance while he/she simultaneously rejects the idea itself (Habermas 1990). 7 Therefore, not only academics conduct communicative action. Besides the fact that especially this group contest their communication symbolically, e.g. via sentence- construction or the use of foreign words, formal pragmatics is concerned with the practical knowledge, „the intuitive knowledge of competent subjects‟ (emphasis added).
8 Due to his focus on Jean Piaget‟s theory of cognitive development (Piaget 1970, 1977), Habermas initially perceived individual learning processes as running ahead of social learning, as „peacemakers of social evolution‟ (1975: 162). Such a restriction to the individual dimension does not seem beneficial to describe social phenomenon (Eder 1988: 321-387). Since then, Habermas himself has moved away from his initial position and now explicitly outlines intersubjectivity as the medium of development and learning (1995, 2003). For a detailed review of this change, cf. Strydom (1992). 9 For much more detailed theories of social learning within the Habermasian frame, cf. Miller 1986, 2002; Eder 1988: 285-387, 1999). 10 For the use of fallacies in the DHA cf. Reisigl and Wodak (2009). However, it is important to note that implementing fallacies might help evaluating truth claims but cannot clarify what is right or wrong. In other words: fallacies can serve as a tool in CDA in order to reveal how certain claims distort communication but they cannot define distortion itself. Thus, even the fruitful implementation of fallacies does not answer why fallacies should actually be criticised.
Adorno, T.W. (1997). Negative Dialectics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Austin, J.L. (1975). How to do things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Billig, M. (2003). Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique. In G. Weiss and R. Wodak (eds.), Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinary. London: Palgrave. pp. 35-46.
35 | P a g e
C A D A A D Blommaert, J. and Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 447-466. Chilton, P. (2003). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical
Döbert, R. (1973). Zur Logik des Übergangs von archaischen zu hochkulturellen Religionssystemen. In K. Eder (ed.), Die Entstehung von Klassengesellschaften. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. pp. 330-363. Eder, K. (1973). Die reorganisation der legitimationsformen in klassengesellschaften. In K. Eder (ed.), Die Entstehung von Klassengesellschaften. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. pp.288-299. Eder, K. (1988). Die Vergesellschaftung der Natur: Studien zur sozialen Evolution der Vernunft. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. Eder, K. (1999). Societies learn and yet the world is hard to change. European Journal of Social Theory 2 (2): 195-215. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (2009). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2 nd edn. London: Sage. pp. 162-186. Fairclough, N. and Wodak R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage. pp. 258-284. Forchtner, B. (forthcoming a). Nazi-collaboration, acknowledgements of wrongdoing and the legitimation of the Iraq war in Denmark: a judge-penitent perspective. Forchtner, B. (forthcoming b). Pride and prejudice in post-heroic public spheres: The rhetoric of judge-penitence. Foucault, M. (1981). The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Foucault, M. (1983). On the genealogy of ethics: An overview of work in progress. In P Rabinow (ed.) (2000), Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984. Vol. 1. London: Penguin. pp. 253-280. Foucault, M. (1984): The ethics of the concern for self as a practice of freedom. In P. Rabinow (ed.). (2000). Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984. Vol. 1. London: Penguin. pp. 281-301. Goffman, E. (1971). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Habermas, J. (1971). Reflections on the linguistic foundation of sociology: The Christian Gauss lecture. In J. Habermas (ed.) (2001), On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:
3-103. Habermas, J. (1972). Wahrheitstheorien. In J. Habermas (ed.) (1984), Vorstudien und
pp. 27-183. Habermas, J. (1974a). Reflections on communicative pathology. In J. Habermas (ed.) (2001),
Habermas, J.(1974b). Können komplexe Gesellschaften eine vernünftige Identität ausbilden?, In J. Habermas (ed.) (1976), Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. pp. 92-126. Habermas, J. (1974c). Introduction: Some difficulties in the attempt to link theory and praxis. In J. Habermas (ed.), Theory and Practice. London: Heinemann. pp. 1-40. F o r c h t n e r
P a g e | 36 Habermas, J. (1975). Towards a reconstruction of historical materialism. In J. Habermas (ed.) (1979), Communication and the Evolution of Society. Heinemann: London. pp. 130- 177. Habermas, J. (1976a). Überlegungen zum evolutionären Stellenwert des Rechts. In J. Habermas (ed.), Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. pp. 260-267. Habermas, J. (1976b). What is Universal Pragmatics? In J. Habermas (ed.) (1979),
Habermas, J. (1982). A reply to my critics. In J.B. Thompson and D. Held (eds.), Habermas: Critical Debates. London/Basingstoke: MacMillan Press. pp. 219-283. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. I: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. London: Heinemann. Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. II: Lifeworld and System. Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermas, J. (1990). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures. Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermas, J. (1993). The Gulf War: Catalyst for a new German normalcy. In M. Pensky (ed.), The Past as Future. University of Nebraska Press. pp. 5-31. Habermas, J. (1995). Individuation through socialization: George Herbert Mead‟s theory of subjectivity. In J. Habermas (ed.), Postmetapysical Thinking. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 149-204. Habermas, J. (1996). Some further clarifications of the concept of communicative rationality. In J. Habermas (ed.), On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. pp. 307-342. Habermas, J. (1997). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermas, J. (2003). Introduction: Realism after the Linguistic Turn. In J. Habermas (ed.) (2008), Truth and Justification. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. pp. 1-51. Hammersley, M. (1997). On the foundations of Critical Discourse Analysis. Language and Communication 17 (3): 237-248. Horkheimer, M. (1933). Materialism and Morality. In G.F. Hunter, M.S. Kramer and J. Torpey (trans.) Between Philosophy and Social Science: Selected Early Writings. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. pp. 15-48. Jäger, S. (2001): Discourse and knowledge: Theoretical and methodological aspects of critical discourse and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. pp. 32-62. Klein, G. (2003). Glückliche Tage. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 20. 24/01/2003. p. 33. Luhmann, N. (1978). Geschichte als prozess und die theorie soziokultureller evolution. In C. Meier and K.G. Faber (eds.), Historische Prozesse. München: DTV. pp. 413-440. Jäger, S. and Maier, F. (2009). Theoretical and methodological aspects in Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2 nd edn. London: Sage. pp. 34-61. Marcuse, H. (1992). Eros and Civilization: Philosophical Inquiry into Freud. Boston: Beacon Press. Martin, J.R. and Wodak, R. (2003). Introduction. In J.R. Martin and R. Wodak (eds.), Re/reading the Past: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Time and Value. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 115-138. McKenna, B. (2004). Critical Discourse Studies: Where to from here? Critical Discourse
37 | P a g e
C A D A A D Miller, M. (1986). Kollektive Lernprozesse: Studien zur Grundlegung einer Soziologischen Lerntheorie. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. Miller, M. (2002). Some theoretical aspects of systematic learning. http://www.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de/Isoz/isoz/miller/miller/systemic_learning.pdf
Accessed 04.03.2007. Mouffe, C. (2006). The Return of the Political. London: Verso. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic Epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press. Piaget, J. (1977). The Moral Judgement of the Child. London: Penguin. Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and Discrimination: Rethorics of Racism and Anti-Semitism. London: Routledge. Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2009): The discourse-historical approach, in: Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds.). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Second Edition. London: Sage. pp. 87-121. Schmid, M. (1987). Collective action and the selection of rules: Some notes on the evolutionary paradigm in social theory. In M. Schmid and F.M. Wuketits (eds.), Evolutionary Theory in Social Science. Dodrecht: D. Reidel. pp. 79-100. Strydom, P. (1992). The ontogenetic fallacy: The immanent critique of Habermas‟s developmental logical theory of evolution. Theory, Culture and Society 9: 65-93. Stubbs, M. (1997). Whorf's children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis (CDA). In A. Ryan and A. Wray (eds.), Evolving Models of Language. Clevedon: British
van Dijk, T.A. (1991). Racism and the Press. London: Routledge. van Dijk, T.A. (1993). Elite Discourse and Racism. London: Sage. van Dijk, T.A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. pp. 95-120. van Dijk, T.A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society 17 (3): 359-383. van Dijk, T.A. (2008). Critical discourse analysis and nominalization. Discourse & Society 19 (6): 821-828. van Dijk, T.A. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2 nd edn. London: Sage. pp.62- 86.
Widdowson, H.G. (1998). The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics 19 (1): 136-151. Widdowson, H.G. (2004). Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of Discourse. London: Longman. Wodak, R. (2001a): What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. pp. 1-13. Wodak, R. (2001b). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.),
Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2
Wodak, R. and Weiss, G. (2005): Analyzing European Union discourses: Theories and applications. In R. Wodak and P. Chilton (eds.), A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse
pp. 121-135. Yüklə 337,42 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|