Haugh2012

From emcawiki
Revision as of 12:36, 23 September 2020 by PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Michael Haugh; |Title=On understandings of intention: A response to Wedgwood |Tag(s)=EMCA; Understanding; Intention |Key=Haugh2012 |Year...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Haugh2012
BibType ARTICLE
Key Haugh2012
Author(s) Michael Haugh
Title On understandings of intention: A response to Wedgwood
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Understanding, Intention
Publisher
Year 2012
Language English
City
Month
Journal Intercultural Pragmatics
Volume 9
Number
Pages 161-194
URL Link
DOI
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

1 On understandings of intention: A response to Wedgwood Michael Haugh Griffith University Abstract: In a recent paper, Wedgwood (2011) launches a simultaneous defence of intention recognition and a critique of the alleged neglect of cognition in interactional approaches to communictive interaction. In this paper, I argue that this simultaneous critique and defence is deeply flawed on a number of counts. First, the “looser” notion of intention which Wedgwood proposes glosses over and even confounds various levels or types of intention, and for this reason is ultimately unfalsifiable. Second, in the course of his argumentation he confounds intention with intentionality and agency. Third, his claim that a focus on “local” intentions offers a more “fine-grained” and “explanatory analysis” is completely unwarranted in light of close examination of the data at hand. I argue that such an approach instead generates speculation which is analytically unproductive, and, does not account for the cognitively interdependent inferences that underlie conversational interaction in addition

to traditional monadic inferential processes. It is concluded that further discussions about the requirements that interaction places on cognition, including the question of the place of intention and intentionality can be productive, but only if researchers are cognisant of the different ways in which intention has been defined, and also the different analytical work to which intention is put by scholars in pragmatics.

“The big question is not whether actors understand each other or not. The fact is that they do understand each other, that they will understand each other, but the catch is that they will understand each other regardless of how they would be understood” (Garfinkel 1952: 367; cited in Heritage 1984: 119

Notes