Contrary to a common attitude that overemphasizes the cooperative nature of communication, the thesis of this chapter is that the different viewpoints of interlocutors characterize human conversation in both competitive and cooperative terms. The idea that human conversation is governed by a competitive logic brings to the fore that the way humans typically communicate also evolves around what distinguishes rather than unites the interlocutors. The diversity of viewpoints and the idea that in communication the listener accepts (as well as understands) what the speaker says is the basis of a persuasive model of human conversation. More specifically, the diversity of viewpoints of the interlocutors characterizes conversation as a form of persuasive reciprocity, given the continuous exchange of roles between speaker and listener. Since persuasion is achieved primarily through argumentative strategies, it is the dialectic of argument and counterargument that governs the arena of human conversation. Such a dialectic requires appropriate cognitive devices and expressive resources. The system of cognitive architectures underlying “epistemic vigilance” seems to be an indispensable condition for a conversation based on persuasive reciprocity. As for expressive resources, since argumentation is a kind of reasoning, and reasoning makes use of propositional structures, persuasive reciprocity also requires grammatical structures. Such structures are the product of a process of grammaticalization driven by selective pressures in favour of enhancing argumentation skills. Persuasive pragmatics is the basis of persuasive syntax: a way of supporting the pragmatic foundation of grammar.
Ferretti, F. (2024). Agonistic conversation. A cognitive-interactive perspective on the origin of grammar. In F.F. Adornetti Ines (a cura di), Introducing Evolutionary Pragmatics (pp. 124-149). New York / London : Routledge [10.4324/9781003390084-10].
Agonistic conversation. A cognitive-interactive perspective on the origin of grammar
Francesco Ferretti
2024-01-01
Abstract
Contrary to a common attitude that overemphasizes the cooperative nature of communication, the thesis of this chapter is that the different viewpoints of interlocutors characterize human conversation in both competitive and cooperative terms. The idea that human conversation is governed by a competitive logic brings to the fore that the way humans typically communicate also evolves around what distinguishes rather than unites the interlocutors. The diversity of viewpoints and the idea that in communication the listener accepts (as well as understands) what the speaker says is the basis of a persuasive model of human conversation. More specifically, the diversity of viewpoints of the interlocutors characterizes conversation as a form of persuasive reciprocity, given the continuous exchange of roles between speaker and listener. Since persuasion is achieved primarily through argumentative strategies, it is the dialectic of argument and counterargument that governs the arena of human conversation. Such a dialectic requires appropriate cognitive devices and expressive resources. The system of cognitive architectures underlying “epistemic vigilance” seems to be an indispensable condition for a conversation based on persuasive reciprocity. As for expressive resources, since argumentation is a kind of reasoning, and reasoning makes use of propositional structures, persuasive reciprocity also requires grammatical structures. Such structures are the product of a process of grammaticalization driven by selective pressures in favour of enhancing argumentation skills. Persuasive pragmatics is the basis of persuasive syntax: a way of supporting the pragmatic foundation of grammar.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.