Jef Verschueren

Predicaments of Criticism

In this article, some of the pitfalls of critical analyses in socially relevant forms of linguistic research or discourse analysis are spelled out. Though the point of reference is Norman Fairclough’s version of critical discourse analysis, the observations can easily be extended to various related types of work. The argument is made that, in order for critical studies of discourse to be convincing – and hence to have any impact at all – the methodological link between empirical data and conclusions should be kept clear. Some basic guidelines, based on a general theory of linguistic pragmatics, are hinted at in the course of the critical reflections: e.g. whatever can be observed on the basis of formal analysis should never be ignored, and form-function relationships should never be regarded as stable.

Intercultural Communication and the Challenges of Migration1

Abstract This paper discusses some basic properties of intercultural communication (treated from the point of view of linguistic pragmatics as fundamentally similar to any other form of communication, and emphasising the need to move radically away from any essentialist substantiation of ‘culture’) against the background of contexts of migration. Three fields of tension are distinguished in the way in which meanings are generated under (predominantly institutional) conditions of asymmetric power relationships: the tension between communicative intentions and inferencing processes; the tension between culture-related assumptions and what is actually said; and the tension between legal frames of interpretation and the intrinsic properties of life stories.

The Pragmatics of Minority Politics in Belgium.

Newspaper reports, political policy papers, and investigations by social scientists concerning issues related to the presence of a community of migrant workers in Belgium are subjected to a systematic, pragmatic analysis. The analysis reveals an eminently coherent world of beliefs and attitudes with respect to (1) perceptions of the “other,” (2) the self-perception of majority members, (3) formulations of “the problem,” and (4) proposed solutions. This world of beliefs and attitudes is shown to be centered around stable – even if vague – notions of culture, nation and state, democracy and human rights, and around related recipes for “integration” that reveal a collective psyche profoundly troubled by the very idea of diversity in society (linguistic or otherwise). Homogeneity appears to be a strict norm for average members of Belgian society, irrespective of the specific political positions they take. (Minority politics, language and ideology, pragmatics, political rhetoric, news reporting, ethnicity)

Whose discipline? Some critical reflections on linguistic pragmatics☆

Abstract This contribution reflects on the status of pragmatics as a ‘critical’ discipline. First some aspects of the institutionalization of pragmatics are considered. Then the ways in which authority is established and maintained in relation to basic concepts and ideas are investigated. Finally, some conclusions are formulated on the future of the field.

The Belgian migrant debate 1

Abstract In this article we summarise the methodological principles and research results of an extensive investigation of four types of discourse about ‘the migrant problem’ in Belgium: news reporting, political policy documents, social‐scientific research reports, and a training programme. The analysis, which shows a fundamental similarity between the ideological underpinnings of both tolerant and intolerant rhetoric, is illustrated and reactions to it are analysed. Finally, principles are proposed for an alternative and more constructive way of conducting the migrant debate.

Discourse and critique, part one: introduction

As the recent republication of some of Dell Hymes’s papers from the 1960s and early 1970s makes clear, programmes for linking social critique to empirical research on language and discourse reach back at least 30 or 40 years (Hymes, 1969, 1996). So why ‘discourse and critique’ right now? The factors motivating the present collection are broadly two-fold. First, there has been surprisingly little transatlantic contact between the traditions of discourse analysis in Europe and North America that are committed to reflexive investigation of constitutive relations between language, ideology and inequality.1 Both critical discourse analysis (CDA) in Europe and linguistic anthropology (LA) in the USA are concerned with the links between language, discourse and larger social processes, with the problems of how to capture this relationship, and with the politics of research itself (see Blommaert and Bulcaen, 2000, for a fuller discussion), but in the absence of any dialogue between them, the differences are more striking than the similarities. Whereas CDA generally centres on lexico-grammatical meaning in written and mass-mediated texts, LA leans much more to ethnographically grounded analysis of indexical meaning in face-to-face interaction, and where false consciousness and ideology-as-mystification

Reflections on presupposition failure : a contribution to an integrated theory of pragmatics

Abstract An ‘integrated theory of pragmatics’ is defined as the study of the appropriateness conditions on the use of natural language. In search of such a theory, the recent work by Peter Harder and Christian Kock, The theory of presupposition failure , is subjected to a detailed investigation. Its theoretical apparatus is shown to contain some of the elements necessary for the foundation of a unified description of presupposition, speech acts, and implicature, provided some of its weaknesses are eliminated. The main weakness is Harder and Kocks conscious but harmful reduction of the concepts of communicative function and presupposition, which prevents them from seeing the unity (though not identity) of the three phenomena mentioned.

Contrastive ideology research: aspects of a pragmatic methodology

Abstract This article investigates some methodological problems involved in a discourse-centered exploration of societal ideologies, and in particular in an ongoing research program studying publicly accessible discourse in a number of European countries related to interethnic conflicts, the construction of ethnic or national identities, and nation-building processes. The proposal is made that a pragmatic concept of contrastiveness should be handled which captures forms of variability that are not only to be found between languages, but also within a single language, within one language variety, within one text, and even in one single sentence.

Discourse and Critique: Part One

As the recent republication of some of Dell Hymes’s papers from the 1960s and early 1970s makes clear, programmes for linking social critique to empirical research on language and discourse reach back at least 30 or 40 years (Hymes, 1969, 1996). So why ‘discourse and critique’ right now? The factors motivating the present collection are broadly two-fold. First, there has been surprisingly little transatlantic contact between the traditions of discourse analysis in Europe and North America that are committed to reflexive investigation of constitutive relations between language, ideology and inequality.1 Both critical discourse analysis (CDA) in Europe and linguistic anthropology (LA) in the USA are concerned with the links between language, discourse and larger social processes, with the problems of how to capture this relationship, and with the politics of research itself (see Blommaert and Bulcaen, 2000, for a fuller discussion), but in the absence of any dialogue between them, the differences are more striking than the similarities. Whereas CDA generally centres on lexico-grammatical meaning in written and mass-mediated texts, LA leans much more to ethnographically grounded analysis of indexical meaning in face-to-face interaction, and where false consciousness and ideology-as-mystification

The pragmatics of humor in a serious story

It is hard to imagine a text more serious than Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (1971). It is what its title says, a set of guidelines for those aspiring to become organizers of societal change – revolutionaries of some kind, the ‘realistic’ kind. The guidelines are ‘pragmatic’ in its everyday sense, hence entirely down-to-earth. Yet, humor comes in. This paper explores one of Alinsky’s educational stories which clearly lacks overall humorous intent but still has the potential of scoring humorous effects. An analysis of the example is used to address the relationship between humor and seriousness. At the same time it illustrates how systematic attention to the calibration of explicit and implicit levels of meaning generation can be used in the investigation of humor. Some additional remarks are made about how the example relates to some of the common notions in theories of humor.