Dialogicality and ethics
Four cases of literary address
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 22342004 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Roger D Sell (Åbo Akademi University, autor de correspondencia) |
| Año | 2011 |
| Volumen | 1 |
| Número | 1 |
| Páginas | 79-104 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2011-06-20 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | No |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Language and Dialogue (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 2210-4119 • E-ISSN: 2210-4127 |
| Editorial | John Benjamins Publishing Company (PUBLISHER • NL) |
| DOI | 10.1075/ld.1.1.06sel |
| OpenAlex | W1985816727 |
| Idioma | EN |
Now that linguists are beginning to see an element of dialogicality in all language use, there is more scope for a humanized dialogue analysis with ameliorative goals. This can divide its labour between a communicational criticism dealing with the ethics of address, and a mediating criticism dealing with the ethics of response. In the present article, I outline the distinctive features of such an approach, and by sketching a communicational theory of literature (cf. Sell 2000) draw particular attention to the dialogicality arising between literary writers and their audience. From this starting-point, I then examine instances of four different literary genres for the light they can throw on the general ethics of address. Key terms here are “genuine communication”, by which I mean any manner of communication which respects the autonomy of the human other, and “negative capability”, defined by Keats (1954 [1817]: 53) as the capability of “being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason”
Autonomy · Criticism · Element (criminal law) · Epistemology · Key (lock) · Point (geometry) · Political science · Scope (computer science) · Sociology · Computer Science · Language, Metaphor, and Cognition · Law · Linguistic research and analysis · Mathematics · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology · Translation Studies and Practices
| Velocidad de citación | historical |
|---|---|
| Altamente citado | No |