?
Анализ проблемы скептицизма в отношении значения в категориях языковой прагматики
In this work, I show the perspectives revealed for analysis of the problem of scepticism regarding meaning (‘the Kripke’s problem’) by usage of the categories of linguistic pragmatics (performativity, the distinction of locution, illocution and perlocution). I provide a critical analysis of the argumentation against scepticism proposed by V. A. Ladov and E. V. Borisov, who appeal to performative contradiction ascribed by them to sceptical discourse. With extrapolation of this style of argumentation to the discussion of scepticism in general, I show its vulnerability in light of the counter-argument from sceptical illocution proposed in the present work. Taking into account the polemic discussion spread out around the ‘straight solution’ in the literature, I point out that knowledge of meaning by introspection, postulated by Borisov, should be understood as a performative establishment of meaning in individual speech acts (thus, the notion of performativity arises once again in his argumentation). I propose and substantiate the opinion that the appeal to such performativity is not a full-aspect solution for the problem. Addressing the distinction of locution, illocution and perlocution allows to analyse the problem of scepticism regarding meaning in a new perspective, posing the question: what aspect of meaning – locutive, illocutive or perlocutive – is concerned? I propose and explicate the hypothesis that objectivity and stability of meanings is maintained by the perlocutive aspect of speach; that doesn’t exclude relativity and fluidity of reconstruction of meanings in the illocutive aspect.