DOES CONTEXTUALISM MAKE COMMUNICATION A MIRACLE

No meu artigo, argumento contra a seguinte tese de Cappelen e Lepore (2005): se o contextualismo fosse verdadeiro, a comunicacao demandaria muitas coisas, e seria portanto fragil; a comunicacao nao e fragil, logo, ela nao demanda muitas coisas e o contextualismo e falso. Devemos aceitar a robustez da comunicacao, mas ela nao e garantida por condicoes minimas invariantes, e sim por diferentes mecanismos flexiveis que aumentam a chance da compreensao mutua a um custo relativamente baixo. Este e o caso de diferentes mecanismos de feedback e de diferentes modos de uma informacao ser mutuamente disponivel. A comunicacao nao e uma sucessao de acoes individuais e independentes; dialogos sao um tipo de atividade conjunta, e incompreensoes sao reparadas conjuntamente pelos participantes do dialogo como parte da atividade mesma na qual eles estao engajados. Alem disto, se consideramos os diferentes papeis conversacionais de ouvintes, vemos que nao ha modo de tornar o argumento de Cappelen e Lepore ao mesmo tempo plausivel e relevante. O ouvinte pode ou bem ser um participante confirmado da conversa ou nao. No segundo caso, talvez incompreensoes possam ocorrer facilmente, mas isto nada revela sobre o que ocorre num dialogo. Se o ouvinte for um participante do dialogo, muitas das condicoes da compreensao mutua sao asseguradas pela atividade dialogica ela mesma, e os participantes do dialogo esforcam-se para que incompreensoes nao ocorram, como parte de suas responsabilidades como participantes do dialogo. Abstract: In this paper, I argue against the thesis suggested by Cappelen and Lepore (2005), according to which if contextualism were true, communication would require many items, and therefore would be fragile; communication is not fragile, and therefore, communication does not demand a large number of conditions, and contextualism is false. While we should grant the robustness of communication, it is not guaranteed by some unchanging conditions, but by different flexible mechanisms that enhance the chances of mutual understanding at a relatively low cost – this is true, in particular, of different feedback mechanisms and of alternative ways to make the same information mutually available. Communication is not a series of successive, individual and independent actions; dialogues are a kind of joint activity in which misunderstandings are jointly repaired by participants as part of the very activity they are engaged in. Moreover, as we consider the roles of hearers in a conversation, we see that no construal makes Cappelen and Lepore’s argument both plausible and relevant. The hearer can either be overhearer or a certified participant. If the hearer is an overhearer, it may be the case that he easily misunderstands what is said, but it has no consequence to the understanding of what takes place in a dialogue, since, ex hypothesi, he is not a party to it. If the hearer is a participant, many of the conditions of mutual understanding will be assured in the dialogical activity itself, and both he and the speaker will make efforts to assure that mutual understanding do take place, as part of their responsibilities as parties to a dialogue – and their argument is not plausible. Keywords: Communication. Contextualism. Robustness. Dialogues.