Creating Interpersonal Reality through Conversational Interactions

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Studies in the Philosophy of Sociality book series (SIPS, volume 1)

Abstract

We understand interpersonal reality as consisting of those social facts that are informally created by people for themselves in everyday interactions and involve the collective acceptance of positive and negative deontic powers. We submit that, in the case of interpersonal reality, Gilbert’s concept of a joint commitment is a suitable view of what collective acceptance amounts to. We then argue that creating interpersonal reality, even in common everyday life situations, typically requires conversational exchanges involving several layers of joint commitments and, in particular, joint commitments to projects, joint meaning, and the joint commitments that are constitutive of conversations.

Keywords

Joint Activity Everyday Interaction Collective Intentionality Joint Commitment Legal Relationship 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brinck, Ingar, and Peter Gärdenfors. 2003. Co-operation and communication in apes and humans. Mind & Language 18: 484–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carassa, Antonella, and Marco Colombetti. 2009a. Joint meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1837–1854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carassa, Antonella, and Marco Colombetti. 2009b. Situated communicative acts: A deontic approach. In Proceedings of CogSci 2009, Amsterdam, ed. N. Taatgen and H. van Rijn, 1382–1387.Google Scholar
  5. Carassa, Antonella, Francesca Morganti, and Maurizio Tirassa. 2005. A situated cognition perspective on presence. In Proceedings of CogSci 2005, Stresa, Italy, ed. B.G. Bara, L. Barsalou, and M. Bucciarelli, 510–516.Google Scholar
  6. Carassa, Antonella, Marco Colombetti, and Francesca Morganti. 2008. The role of joint commitments in intersubjectivity. In Enacting intersubjectivity: Cognitive and social perspectives to the study of interactions, ed. F. Morganti, A. Carassa, and G. Riva, 187–201. Amsterdam: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gibson, James J. 1977. The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology, ed. R. Shaw and J. Bransford, 67–82. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Gibson, James J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  10. Gilbert, Margaret. 1987. Modeling collective belief. Synthese 73: 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilbert, Margaret. 1989. On social facts. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Gilbert, Margaret. 1996. Living together: Rationality, sociality, and obligation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  13. Gilbert, Margaret. 2000. Sociality and responsibility: New essays in plural subject theory. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  14. Gilbert, Margaret. 2006. A theory of political obligation. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilbert, Margaret. 2007. Mutual recognition, common knowledge, and joint attention. In Hommage à Wlodek: Philosophical papers dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz, ed. T. Rønnow-Rasmussen, B. Petersson, J. Josefsson, and D. Egonsson. http://www.fil.lu.se/hommageawlodek/site/papper/GilbertMargaret.pdf. Accessed 6 Sept 2011.
  16. Gräfenhain, Maria, Tanya Behne, Malinda Carpenter, and Michael Tomasello. 2009. Young children’s understanding of joint commitments. Developmental Psychology 45: 1430–1443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hohfeld, Wesley N. 1923. Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. New Haven: Cook.Google Scholar
  18. Norman, Donald A. 1988. The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  19. Norman, Donald A. 1999. Affordances, conventions, and design. Interactions 6: 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rakoczy, Hannes. 2006. Pretend play and the development of collective intentionality. Cognitive Systems Research 7: 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rakoczy, Hannes. 2007. Play, games, and the development of collective intentionality. In Conventionality in cognitive development: How children acquire representations in language, thought and action. New directions in child and adolescent development, vol. 115, ed. C. Kalish and M. Sabbagh, 53–67. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Searle, John R. 1990. Collective intentions and actions. In Intentions in communication, ed. P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M.E. Pollak, 401–415. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Searle, John R. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Searle, John R. 2007. Social ontology: The problem and steps toward a solution. In Intentional acts and institutional facts: Essays on John Searle’s social ontology, ed. S.L. Tsohatzidis, 11–28. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tomasello, Michael. 2009. Why we cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Tuomela, Raimo. 2005. We-intentions revisited. Philosophical Studies 125: 327–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tuomela, Raimo. 2007. The philosophy of sociality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Warneken, Felix, Frances Chen, and Michael Tomasello. 2006. Cooperative activities in young children and chimpanzees. Child Development 77: 640–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Communication SciencesUniversità della Svizzera italianaLuganoSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Electronics and InformationPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations