MGW10-GT-A2-Gender-Language-K

MGW10-GT-A2-Gender-Language-K - MGW 2010 Gothbret/Thomas...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
MGW 2010 Gender Language K Answers Gothbret/Thomas Lab – K lab A2 Gender Language K A2 Gender Language K. ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Perm . ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 A2 Impact. ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 A2 Alt. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 A2 Alt. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 A2 Language Shape Reality. ..................................................................................................................................... 6 A2 Reps come first. ................................................................................................................................................... 7 A2 Reps come first. ................................................................................................................................................... 8 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
MGW 2010 Gender Language K Answers Gothbret/Thomas Lab – K lab Perm Opposing discursive interpretations result in a deadlock – only reaching a consensus through the perm allows for successful solutions and effective critical analysis. Carr, 89 Prof of Philosophy of Edu @ U. of Sheffield UK, 89 (Wilfred, “The Idea of an Educational Science,” Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vd. 23, No. 1, p 34 1989 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119440829/abstract) But such discourse , Habermas notes, can only proceed if participants are satisfied that certain claims about the validity of what is being said are being met . These “validity claims”-that what is being said is comprehensible, that any factual assertions being made are true, that what is being said is in the context appropriate and justified, and that a speaker is being sincere and not trying to deceive the listener-are thus built into the very structure of discursive language. Hence, the very act of engaging in discourse presupposes a “communicative rationality” such that any agreement reached through a discussion in which these four validity claims are met constitutes what Habermas calls a “rational consensus”-an agreement arising precisely because “the force of the better argument” has been allowed to prevail. Habermas recognises, of course, that this kind of purely rational discourse does not describe the way in which disagreements are actually resolved . It nevertheless, creates the image of what Habermas calls an “ideal speech situation”-a social context in which constraints on free and open dialogue have been excluded and in
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 8

MGW10-GT-A2-Gender-Language-K - MGW 2010 Gothbret/Thomas...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online