Dialogue and what it means for discourse

Abstract

AbstractMy starting and concluding point is theZhuangzi, at least in parts attributed to the Chinese philosopher of the same name. His view, guided by the Daoist tradition, is that language users are free to reconstruct collectively their discursive realities (for instance the notion of happiness), as discourse does not refer to the unspoken reality. While both Edda Weigand and Roy Harris accept that meanings are not fixed, I disagree with Weigand as she wants to leave behind the language sign, and with Roy Harris, as for him it is each solitary person who is creating their signs, whether they take part in discourse or not. For me, but not for them, dialogue drives discourse in the sense of a contingent evolution of ideas, while for them dialogue is driven by solitary individuals. Perhaps we all agree that the meaning of a word likehappinessis arbitrary and we are free to construct its discursive reality, the only reality that counts.