Reflections on cooperativity and intention in communication

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.33.1.93-126

Keywords:

intention, communicative intention, cooperation, coordination, unintentional communication

Abstract

Human communication is often depicted as a collaborative activity characterized by a high level of cooperativeness, as both sender and receiver assume supposedly interdependent roles in a process that essentially involves inferring the sender’s communicative intention through the signals emitted within a given communicative context. However, the alleged existence of unintentional forms of communication contradicts this interpretation. Building upon the overall framework of Herbert H. Clark’s joint activity theory (1996) and assuming that the overarching function of communication is to facilitate the coordination of cooperative activities, the role of communicative intention is reassessed within the general framework of collective behaviors with the aim of analyzing its function in action coordination and communication dynamics to verify whether it is an inherent part of this dynamic. In conclusion, it is suggested that the constraint imposed by the opportunities for cooperation offered by the situational context allows the apprehension of the situation to serve as the primary basis of communication. This implies that the signals from the sender would merely constitute a part of this context, the contribution of which to the final determination of the coordination solution between the agents would vary. As a consequence, in terms of purely informational functionality, there appears to be no qualitative difference between intentional communication and unintentional information transfers. This perspective shifts emphasis to the receiver, redefines the cooperative nature of communication, strengthens parallels of communication with other coordination devices, and offers a coherent account of so-called “unintentional communication”.

References

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

Published

2025-06-18

How to Cite

Reflections on cooperativity and intention in communication. Revista de Estudos da Linguagem, [S. l.], v. 33, n. 1, p. 93–126, 2025. DOI: 10.17851/2237-2083.33.1.93-126. Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufmg.br/index.php/relin/article/view/59611. Acesso em: 22 dec. 2025.