| 概要 |
It is due to "contexts" that any communication is ultimately ambiguous. According to J.Derrida the problems concerning "context" should be considered in relation to written language (écriture) rather ...than spoken language, for every language basically contains the elements of written language. Écriture presupposes "death" of the reader and can accordingly sever its connection to context i.e. "wholeness of the present". This means that any message can be "quoted". According to J. L. Austin, in the performative utterances, if said by actor on the stage, in a poem, in soliloquy, language is used in ways "parasitic" upon its normal use, i.e. "unfelicitous". That is to say, they are "quoted". Based on this idea, J. Searle insisted that "felicitous" speech where "intention" and "expression" are in accord each other should be standard for the performatives. In opposition to it Derrida asserted that any performative is inevitably "unfelicitous" and involves "quotability". Deirrida called the frame of "intention" and "expression" itself into question. What the "transcendental jokability" as H. Nagai calls it means is that speaker can quote his own speech. This shows that the boundary between the original (before quotation) speech and parasitic (quoted) speech is ambiguous and that any performative already involves quotability. Nagai also stands on the frame of "intention" and "expression", but the contraposition of both is a kind of illusion. As a matter of fact "expression" produces "intention" in given contexts. It seems to be considered generally that common communications can be admitted to be "unserious" but as to education communication must be "serious" i.e. "intention" and "expression" accord each other. Is that right? Sending messages to learners, teachers should be aware that his messages can be quoted by himself. The teachers have and should have further messages which outreach the messages they are sending.続きを見る
|
Mendeley出力
