Reflexões sobre a cooperatividade e sobre a intenção na comunicação
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.33.1.93-126Palabras clave:
intenção, intenção comunicativ, cooperação, coordenação, comunicação desintencionalResumen
A comunicação humana costuma ser focada como uma atividade conjunta detentora do maior nível de cooperatividade, porquanto emissor e recetor desenvolvem papéis supostamente interdependentes num processo que, basicamente, consiste na inferência da intenção comunicativa do emissor por meio dos sinais que ele emite num determinado contexto comunicativo. Contudo, a alegada existência de formas de comunicação desintencional contradiz essa interpretação. Partindo do quadro geral da teoria das atividades conjuntas de Herbert H. Clark (1996), assume-se que a função geral da comunicação é facilitar a coordenação de atividades cooperativas e procede-se então a rever o papel da intenção comunicativa no quadro geral dos comportamentos coletivos. O objetivo é analisar o papel da intenção comunicativa na coordenação acional e na dinâmica da comunicação para verificar se ela faz parte inerente dessa dinâmica. As conclusões sugerem que a restrição determinada pelas possibilidades de cooperação que o contexto situacional oferece permite que a apreensão da situação possa constituir o fundamento primário da comunicação. Isso implica que os sinais do emissor apenas constituiriam uma parte desse contexto cuja contribuição para a determinação final da solução de coordenação entre os agentes seria variável. Como consequência, em termos de pura funcionalidade informativa, não parece existir uma diferença qualitativa entre a comunicação intencional e as transferências desintencionais de informação. Esse ponto de vista outorga centralidade ao recetor, envolve uma redefinição do carácter cooperativo da comunicação, reforça a equiparação da comunicação com outros meios de coordenação e explica satisfatoriamente a existência da denominada “comunicação desintencional”.
Referencias
ASHBY, W. R. Introduction to Cybernetics. Londres: Chapman & Hall, 1964.
AJZEN, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, Amesterdão, v.50, n.2, p. 179-211, 1991.
AUSTIN, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2. ed., 1975.
BACH, P.; SCHENKE, K. C. Predictive social perception: Towards a unifying framework from action observation to person knowledge. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Hoboken, v. 11, n.7, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12312
BANDURA, A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,Washington D.C., v. 84, n. 2, p. 191-215, 1977.
BANGERTER, A.; CLARK, H. H. Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, Medford, v. 27, n. 2, p. 195–225, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2702_3
BRATMAN, M. Shared Cooperative Activity, The Philosophical Review, Durham, v. 101, n. 2, p. 327-341, 1992.
BRENNAN, S. et al. Coordinating cognition: The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition, Amesterdão, v. 106, n. 3, p. 1465-1477, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.012
BRENTANO, F. Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint. London, New York: Routledge, 2014.
CLARK, H. H. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
CLARK, H. H. Pragmatics of Language Performance. In: HORN, L. R.; WARD, G. (orgs.) The Handbook of Pragmatics.Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. p. 365-382.
CLARK, H. H. Social actions, social commitments. In: LEVISON, S. C.; ENFIELD, N. J. (orgs.) Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction. Oxford: Berg Publishers, 2006. p. 126-150.
CLARK, H. H. Coordinating with each other in a material world. Discourse Studies, Sage Publications, vol. 7, n. 4/5, 2005, pp. 507-525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054404
CLARK, H. H.; BRENNAN S. Grounding in communication. In: RESNICK L.: LEVINE J.: TEASLEY S. (orgs.). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington: American Psychological Association, 1991. p. 127-149.
CLARK, H. H.; SCHAEFER, E. F. Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Language and cognitive processes, Oxfordshire, v. 2, n. 1, p. 19-41, 1987.
CORNO, L. The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research, Educational Researcher, Washington D.C., v. 22 n.2, p. 14-22, 1993.
CROFT, W. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman, 2000.
DENNETT, D. C. From bacteria to Bach and back: The evolution of minds. Nova Iorque: WW Norton & Company, 2017.
DEVITT, M.; STERELNY, K. Language and Reality. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987.
ENFIELD, N. J.; SIDNELL, J. Consequences of language: From primary to enhanced intersubjectivity. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2022.
ENRICI I.; BARA B. G; ADENZATO M. Theory of Mind, pragmatics and the brain: Converging evidence for the role of intention processing as a core feature of human communication. Pragmatics & Cognition, Amesterdão, v. 26, n. 1, p. 5-38, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19010.enr
FLÓREZ-ALARCÓN, L., La intencionalidad de la acción en el proceso motivacional humano, Psychologia, Bogotá, v. 12, n. 2, pp. 115-135, 2018. DOI: http:// doi.org/10.21500/19002386.3973
GALLESE, V. Embodied Simulation. Its Bearing on Aesthetic Experience and the Dialogue Between Neuroscience and the Humanities. Gestalt Theory, Varsóvia, v. 41, n. 2, p. 113-127, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.2478/gth-2019-0013
GEURTS, B. Communication as commitment sharing: speech acts, implicatures, common ground. Theoretical linguistics, Berlim, v. 45, n. 1-2, p. 1-30, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0001
GERRIG, R. J. Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading. Boulder: Westview Press, 1993.
GIL, J. M. Significados no intencionales: de la exclusión a la inclusión. Diánoia, México D.F., v. 60, n.74, pp. 53-80, 2015.
GIL, J. M. Sobre la comunicación no intencional, Praxis Filosófica, Cáli, v. 47, pp. 113-135, 2018.
GILBERT, M. On Social Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.
GRICE, P. Logic and conversation, In: COLE P.; MORGAN J. L. (orgs.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts, Nova Iorque: Academic Press, pp. 41-58, 1975.
GRICE, P. Meaning. The Philosophical Review, v. 66, n. 3, p. 377-388, 1957.
HAUGH, M. The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In: KECSKÉS, I.; MEY, J. (orgs.). Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Nova Iorque: De Gruyter Mouton, 2008. p. 45-86.
HAUGH, M. Intention(ality) and the conceptualization of communication in pragmatics. Australian Journal of Linguistics, Abingdon, v. 29, n.1, p. 91-113, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07268600802516301
HECKHAUSEN, H.; GOLLWITZER, P. M. Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, Nova Iorque, v. 11, n. 2, p. 101-120, 1987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992338
JACOB, P. Intentionality. In: ZALTA E. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition) Disponível em: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/intentionality/>. Acesso em: 10 de jan. 2024.
KANO, F.; KAWAGUCHI, Y.; YEOW, H. Experimental evidence for the gaze-signaling hypothesis: White sclera enhances the visibility of eye-gaze direction in humans and chimpanzees. Disponível em: < https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.21.461201v1 > bioRxiv, Acesso em: 22 jan. 2024, 2021.
KASHIMA, Y., KLEIN O.; CLARK, A. E. Grounding: Sharing information in social interaction, In: FIEDLER K. (org.) Social Communication. Nova Iorque: Psychology Press. 2007, p. 27-77.
KHALIL, L. M. G. As noções de intenção e intencionalidade sob a perspectiva da Sociolinguística Interacional: reflexões teóricas e análise de duas situações de interação. Entrepalavras, Fortaleza, v. 7, n. 2, p. 351-370, 2017. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22168/2237-6321.7.7.2.351-370
KUHL, J. Action control: The maintenance of motivational states. In: HALISCH, F.;KUHL, J. (orgs.) Motivation, Intention, and Volition. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1987. p. 279-291.
LEVINSON, S. A review of Relevance. Journal of Linguistics, v. 25, n. 2, p. 455–472, 1989.
LEWIS, D. K. Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969.
MARKEN, R. S. Making inferences about intention: perceptual control theory as a “theory of mind” for psychologists, Psychological Reports, Thousand Oaks, v. 113, n. 1, pp. 257-274, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2466/03.49.PR0.113x14z0
MARMOR, A. Social Conventions. From Language to Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.
NORD, C. Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis. Amesterdão/Nova Iorque: Rodopi, 2005.
PACHERIE, É. The role of emotions in the explanation of action. European Review of Philosophy, Stanford, v. 5, p. 53-92, 2002.
PÉREZ-RODRÍGUEZ, J. H. La analogía funcional como estrategia de replicación de la información cultural. El Genio Maligno: revista de humanidades y ciencias sociales, v. 19, p. 79-95, 2016.
POWERS, W. T. Behavior: The Control of Perception. Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter, 1973.
RIZZOLATTI, G.; CRAIGHERO, L. The mirror-neuron system, Annual Review of Neuroscience, v. 27, n. 1, p. 169–192, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230
ROSENBERG, M. J.; HOVLAND, C. I. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Components of Attitudes. In: ROSENBERG, M. J.; HOVLAND, C. I. (org.), Attitude Organization and Change: An Analysis of Consistency Among Attitude Components. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960. p. 938-955.
ROSENBLUETH, A.; WIENER, N.; BIGELOW, J. Behavior, Purpose and Teleology. Philosophy of Science, Cambridge, vol. 10, n. 1, pp. 18–24. 1943. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/286788
SCHELLING, T. C. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.
SEARLE, J. R. A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts, In: GUNDERSON, K. (org.), Language, Mind, and Knowledge, v. 7, Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1975. p. 344-369.
SEARLE, J. R. The intentionality of intention and action. Cognitive science, Medford, v. 4, n. 1, p. 47-70, 1980.
SEARLE, J. Collective Intentions and Actions, In: COHEN, P. R.; MORGAN, J.; POLLACK, M. Intentions in Communication. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990, p. 401-415.
SEARLE, J. R. The Construction of Social Reality. Nova Iorque: Free Press, 1995.
SPERBER, D; WILSON, D. .Relevance, Communication & Cognition, Oxford-Cambridge: Blackwell, 2 ed., 1995.
SPERBER, D.; WILSON, D. Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, Zagrebe, v. 15.2, n. 44, p. 117-149, 2015.
STALNAKER, R. Assertion. In: COLE, P. (org.). Syntax and Semantics IX: Pragmatics. Nova Iorque: Academic Press, 1978. p. 315-332.
STOLK, A.; VERHAGEN, L.; TONI, I. Conceptual alignment: How brains achieve mutual understanding. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Kidlington, v. 20, n. 3, p. 180-191, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.11.007
STOLK, A.; BAŠNÁKOVÁ, J.; TONI, I. Joint epistemic engineering: The neglected process of context construction in human communication. In: GARCÍA, A. M.; IBÁÑEZ, A. (orgs.) The Routledge Handbook of Semiosis and the Brain, v. 17, 2022. Disponível em <https://psyarxiv.com/rwfe6/> Acesso em: 6 de fev. 2024.
SVENNEVIG, J. Getting acquainted in conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999.
TAILLARD, M. Beyond communicative intention. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, Londres, v. 14, p. 189-207, 2002.
TOBIN, V. Readers as overhearers and texts as objects: joint attention in reading communities. Scripta, Belo Horizonte, v. 18, n. 34, p. 179-198, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5752/P.2358-3428.2014v18n34p179
TOMASELLO, M. Why We Cooperate. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009.
TOMASELLO, M.; KRUGER, A. C.; RATNER, H. H. Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Cambridge, v. 16, n. 3, p. 495-511, 1993.
TVERSKY, B. Some ways that maps and diagrams communicate. In: Freksa, C. et al. (orgs.) Spatial Cognition II. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2000. p. 72-79.
WATZLAWICK, P.; BEAVIN, J. H.; JACKSON, D. D. Pragmática da comunicação humana. Tradução: CABRAL, A. São Paulo: Culprix, 1973.
WILLETT, A. B. et al. Control blindness: Why people can make incorrect inferences about the intentions of others. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, Nova Iorque, v. 79, n. 3, p. 841-849, 2017. DOI: https//doi.org/ 10.3758/s13414-016-1268-3
