Anticipatory pragmatics

1. Introductory remarks
My role at this workshop has been described ad advisor. Now, an advisor clearly has one specic task in front of him or
her: namely, to give advice. What kind of advice seems appropriate to offer at this point of the workshop whenit is nearing its
conclusion?
One can distinguish between pre-advice and post-advice: advice either given before the fact, and advice provided as
feedback on what has happened. But there is a third kind of advice, which I would call pro-advice: advice about things to
come, an advice that tells us how to handle current problems in the future but also anticipates future problems and how to
deal with them, based on our historical experiences, in accordance with the Italian/US philosopher George Santayanas
famous dictum: He who has not learnt fromhistory will have to repeat it. One could call this kind of advice feed-forward, as
opposed to feedback, and it is this kind of advice I will present to you today.
But rst a matter of terminology: why do I call my advice anticipatory? Heeding Santayanas warning, lets have a short
look at history.
2. Emancipatory and anticipatory
The term anticipatory pragmatics is, in a way, an extension of the earlier coined term emancipatory linguistics (see
Mey, 1976, 1979, 1985, 1994, 2001; Signorini, 2009). Now, the rst question to ask is what is meant by emancipatory? What
or who do we emancipate ourselves from?
In classical times, the term was used to characterize the process by which slaves were freed from their bonds (called
mancipium, the taking by the hand), and, metonymically, the enslaved individuals themselves. The emancipation of the
slaves in the US in the 19th century was replicated in the emancipation of the working classes in the Western world in
general; also, the freeing from religious oppression was often called emancipation (the struggle of the Dutch Catholics to
obtain full citizenship rights in the Netherlands in mid-19th century provides an instance).
When it comes to emancipatory linguistics, the term was originally intended to signify the freeing of the language users
from the societal oppression, among others as it was manifested in language. In the latter half of the 20th century,
Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 705708
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 17 June 2010
Keywords:
Emancipatory linguistics
Anticipatory pragmatics
Linguistic oppression
Abusive language
Sociolinguistics
A B S T R A C T
The termanticipatory pragmatics is an extension of the earlier coined termemancipatory
linguistics, which was originally intended to signify the freeing of the language users from
societal oppression as manifested in language. Emancipatory linguistics ideally serves the
underprivileged, and as such was seen as part of the social struggle. Recent work by Sachiko
Ide and her co-workers has broadened this notion to comprise emancipation from all sorts
of linguistic bondage. With regard to pragmatics, emancipatory denotes a discipline that
does not obey the usual circumscription of linguistic work. But emancipating pragmatics
from its linguistic bondage must necessarily include a blueprint for the next steps: in
order to be successful, emancipation needs anticipation. Thus, anticipatory pragmatics
proactively promotes use of language in non-oppressive ways; it foresees and prevents
abusive language of all kinds by enabling the users, both on the domestic and the (inter)
national scene.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Pragmatics
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ pr agma
0378-2166/$ see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.020
sociolinguists such as Basil Bernstein remarked on the fact that social origin often leads to societal inferiority in matters of
education and use of language. The socially inferior were also underprivileged with regard to culture and the workings of
democracy. An emancipatory linguistics was thought of as ideally serving the underprivileged, and as such was seen as part
of the social struggle.
Recently, however, and thanks to the work of Sachiko Ide and her co-workers (see Hanks et al., 2009), the notion has been
broadened to comprise emancipation from all sorts of linguistic bondage, not just social; in particular, with regard to
pragmatics, emancipatory denotes the special status in linguistics of a discipline that does not obey the usual
circumscription of linguistic work: conversely, and by the same token, pragmatics, according to many of the traditional
practitioners of the art (the phonologists, the syntacticians, the semanticists, and others) does not really belong there.
As a consequence, pragmatics is often seen as an intruder (cf. the termpragmatic intrusion, as used by Levinson (2000)
or Capone (2008) and many others): an illegitimate offspring, a kind of bastardized linguistics. For some even, the idea of
pragmatics as a wastebasket of linguistics (in particular semantics) seemed attractive enough to relegate the burgeoning
discipline to the outer reaches of the linguistic realm. In addition, many pragmaticists were initially hide-bound in their
philosophical and semantic traditions; at best, they considered pragmatics as rightfully belonging in either of those
disciplines and did not see the need for an independent area of research.
3. Emancipation and anticipation
As we know, pragmatics is all about the use of language and the people who use language; emancipating them from the
bondage of false beliefs and societal oppression is thus an appropriate task of an emancipatory pragmatics. But emancipation
in and by itself is not enough: there is a life after emancipation, as the freed slaves of the American South got to experience,
often to their disadvantage. Without knowing where to go, or whom to approach for a free labor connection, many of them
sunk into a misery that was often worse than the slavery they had been emancipated from. Similarly, emancipating
pragmatics fromits linguistic bondage must include some blueprint for the next series of steps. In other words, in order to be
successful, emancipation presupposes anticipation. Pragmatics must not just liberate itself; it has a paramount role in the
liberation of the users, and must follow up the emancipatory process in sustained supportive action.
Such a task is not just conned to the here and now; we must look ahead, and this is where the anticipatory comes in.
1
If
pragmatics is about the use of language, an emancipatory pragmatics deals with how to use language in a non-oppressive,
even liberating way. Looking ahead, then, we will see that our task is to proactively promote a language use that will prevent
people from abusing the gift of language to their own egoistic ends. The task of an anticipatory pragmatics is then to foresee
and prevent such abuses, and enable the users to counteract abusive language (in the widest sense of the word), even before
it starts being accepted as a normal way of dealing with the world. (Politically correct language may, despite its sometimes
holier-than-thou connotations, represent a step in the right direction).
In the following I will give some examples.
4. Use and abuse in language
In every day usage, abusive language is thought of as consisting of abusive and vituperative words and expressions, as
when we call people names, or diminish their dignity as humans by comparing them to low-prestige animals (as the Iraqi
journalist did when he threw his shoes at then President George W. Bush during a press conference in Baghdad and called
him a dog).
2
The language of religious fanaticism (as in unclean unbelievers) belongs here, and in general all ideology-
laden invective and depreciative discourse.
In a broader context, the terminology we create for controversial natural and social phenomena often is abusive in that it
puts the user in a double bind: thus, we have to use a termlike climate change in order not to offend our audience (who may
be shocked by hearing global warming being dened as the real problem). Here, an anticipatory pragmatics should look for
ways to express sensitive matters in such a way that we do not offend our listeners, yet maintain the integrity of our speech.
In this connection, one may think of the recent international debates on whether or not to interfere in other nations
internal affairs. Cases like the former Yugoslavia and the conict in the Darfur region of Sudan come to mind. Here, the right
to interfere (RTI) has been a matter of hot controversy; in contrast, fewer people will be offended (both nationally and
internationally) when we proactively dene our interference as a responsibility to protect (RTP).
5. Fighting the common discourse
The term discourse is often used to characterize not just (a) speech (as in French discours), but a total attitude of people
vis--vis their life world, as it manifests itself in language and is handled and nurtured by language, specically by the way
we express our ideologies in language. Discourse in this sense creates and recreates the social fabric on which it is
1
My use of the termis inspired by what anthropologists such as Robert B. Textor have called anticipatory anthropology, described as a disciplined effort
to discover proactively what members of a human group want and what they fear, and what sacrices they are prepared to take, toward realizing the former
or avoiding the latter (Textor, 2009:21).
2
The journalist (by many Iraqis considered a hero) was subsequently given a three-year prison sentence (later reduced to one year).
Conference / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 705708 706
predicated; in a dialectically turning of the screw, it conditions us towards accepting the societal order that we happen to live
under, as natural.
As an example of a proactive use of discourse in this sense, consider the ght that Abraham Lincoln had to wage against
his contemporaries when he opposed the secessionists. Many of those who wanted to preserve the Union and opposed
secession, were not at all convinced that slavery was at the root of the secessionist discourse; actually ve of the loyal
Southern states of the Union were slave states, whose governments had little or no interest in abolishing slavery (examples:
Kentucky and Maryland). Lincoln skillfully turned the problem on its head and persuaded these people that the discourse of
slavery had to be replaced by a discourse of freedom, as the only way to preserve the Union. His anticipatory pragmatic view
prevailed in the end, albeit at the cost of many lives and a deep scar in the minds of the American people and the collective
consciousness of the USa scar, which even today is not entirely healed.
Other discourses come to mind: the discourse of oppression, of sexual discrimination, of colonialism, and so on. Recently,
we have witnessed a rising discourse of terrorism, by which acts of violence are gloried as heroic deeds; in the cities of the
US and Europe a newattitude among mainly young immigrant populations sees the discourse of terrorismas an example on
which to model their own ght for independence and a better livelihood (the inner cities of Britain serve as egregious
examples).
In order to turn back the wave of violence that is rolling in over our society, we need to redene the mentality that is
expressed in this discourse; but also, proactively and emancipatorily, we need to replace the language used in the terrorist
discourse. Why should a suicide bomber be called a martyr and not a mass murderer? Replacing the discourse of terror with a
discourse of doing no harm in the Gandhian tradition of ahimsa is a necessary step towards eliminating terrorism itself.
Similarly, in the current nancial mess, we should proactively deate the discourses glorifying the captains of industry,
when they in reality are robber barons and committers of grand larceny, often in collusion with the politicians (not all of
whom get caught.). Here, the proactive discourse that US President Obama is introducing points the way to a true
emancipation of the tyranny, not only of the language of evil, but of the social evils that are at the bottom of the abusive
language itself.
6. Conclusion: emancipation, anticipation, and control
One caveat is in order here, though. As Neal Norrick has remarked during the Third International Workshop on
Emancipatory Pragmatics (Norrick, 2009), anticipating peoples needs can be used to control those very people whose needs
we intend to meet. The manipulative character of this kind of anticipation is clear: we may overstep the boundaries of other
peoples territories of information (as the late Akio Kamio has dened it; 1987/1990, 1994, 1995, 1997), or we may impinge
on the private sphere of people whose sufferings we want to empathize with, as has been pointed out by John Heritage in his
discussion of the boundaries of empathy (2007; see also Heritage and Se, 1992). An emancipatory pragmatics with a
proactive, anticipatory thrust should be aware of these dangers, and not fall back in the old groove of paternalistic
colonialism, by which the poor natives were considered as unruly children, to be educated and formatted according to the
principles and beliefs of the colonizers.
Here, emancipatory pragmaticists should be aware of the dangers, but still stride boldly ahead; for even less preferable
actions are better in the end than no action at all, as we have seen demonstrated repeatedly in the crises that plagued the
former Yugoslavia, and are still rampant in Central and East Africa. But our actionshould be embedded in theoretical insights,
and this is where emancipatory pragmatics, in its proactive, anticipatory version comes in. If pragmatic linguistics has as its
aim to unveil the abuses of language, then emancipatory pragmatics will have to anticipate such language and prevent it
frombeing acknowledged as the correct way of discoursing about our actual problems, be they of a political, social, and even
ecological nature.
In this sense, my advice is for all pragmaticists to proactively engage in the counter-discourses of emancipation, by
depriving all corruption, impunity, and terrorism of the protective cloak that language and its abusive users willfully and
consistently have wrapped around themselves. In this sense, too, I feel that the venue of this talk, the Third International
Workshop on Emancipatory Pragmatics, has had a vision to defend that is of importance not just to its participants, but on a
wider, global scale of emancipatory pragmatic thinking and practice.
References
Capone, Alessandro, 2008. Belief reports and pragmatic intrusion: the case of null appositives. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 10191040.
Hanks, William F., Ide, Sachiko, Katagiri, Yasuhiro, 2009. Introduction: towards an emancipatory pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 19 (Special Issue
Towards an Emancipatory Pragmatics, Eds. W.F. Hanks, S. Ide, Y. Katagiri).
Heritage, John, 2007. Territories of Knowledge, Territories of Experience: (Not so) Empathic Moments in Interaction. In: Keynote Speech at the XVth
Symposium About Language and Society, Austin (SALSA), Austin, Tex., April 14, 2007.
Heritage, John, Se, Sue, 1992. Dilemmas of advice. In: Drew, Paul, Heritage, John (Eds.), Heritage, Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 359417.
Kamio, Akio, 1987/1990. Joohoo no nawabari riron [Theory of the territory of information] (Tsukuba University Ph.D. dissertation). Taishukan, Tokyo.
Kamio, Akio, 1995. Territory of information in English and Japanese and psychological utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 24 (3), 235264.
Kamio, Akio, 1997. Theory of Territory of Information. John Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia (= Pragmatics and Beyond, Vol. 48).
Levinson, Stephen C., 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Mey, Jacob L., 1976. Qualication, emancipatory language use, and pragmatic linguistics. In: Karlsson, Fred (Ed.), Papers from the Third Scandinavian
Conference of Linguistics. Academy of Finland, Turku, pp. 275284.
Conference / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 705708 707
Mey, Jacob L., 1979. Zur kritischen Sprachtheorie. In: Mey, Jacob L. (Ed.), Pragmalinguistics: Theory and Practice. Mouton, The Hague & Paris, pp. 411434.
Mey, Jacob L., 1985. Whose Language? A Study in Linguistic Pragmatics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia.
Mey, Jacob L., 1994. How to do good things with words: a social pragmatics for survival. Pragmatics 4 (2), 239263.
Mey, Jacob L., 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction, Second Edition [1993]. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford & Malden, Mass..
Norrick, Neal R., 2009.In: Contribution to Discussion, Third International Workshop on Emancipatory Pragmatics, Japan Womens University, Tokyo, March
2427, 2009.
Signorini, Ines, 2009. Emancipatory Linguistics. In: Mey, Jacob L. (Ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Second Edition. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 237239.
Textor, Robert B., 2009. Practicing anticipatory anthropology with Austrian national leaders. Anthropology News 50 (January (1)), 21 (See also www.
stanford.edu/rbtextor).
Jacob L. Mey
University of Southern Denmark (emer.), Denmark
E-mail address: inmey@mail.utexas.edu
Conference / Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012) 705708 708