Discussion reveals communicative competencies influence language use and social obligations, indicating new views of interaction.
Linguistic norms and meta-norms involve reward and punishment, which typically take the form of emotional-moral judgments of praise and blame, respectively. The intensity of the “drive for cooperation and a drive to serve punishments” (Damasio, A. 2005. The neurobiological grounding of human values. In J.-P. Changeux, A. R. Damasio, W. Singer & Y. Christian (eds.), Neurobiology of human values , 47–56. Springer Verlag) is functional in maintaining and policing the boundaries of a linguistic community by enforcing the social obligation to talk in the ‘right’ way. Against this backdrop, I consider Gregory Bateson’s discussion of the selectivity of purposeful consciousness and its inbuilt value biases. I examine some examples of transitivity patterns to illustrate the problems that arise in relation to patterns of thinking such as “language use” and “speaking a named language.” Alternatively, the idea that we use or speak a language must be replaced with a view founded in communication, seen as the mutual integration of activities by the co-participants in communicative activities. On this basis, we can re-consider communicative competencies and their implications for learning and the role of languaging in learning and in communicative processes more generally.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paul J. Thibault (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: