Claudia Bianchi
Claudia Bianchi (Ph.D. at École Polytechnique, Paris) is Full Professor at the Philosophy Faculty of the University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan. She teaches Pragmatics (undergraduate course), Gender Studies, and Communication and Cognition (graduate course).
Her main research interests are in the field of Philosophy of Language, Pragmatics, and Feminist Philosophy of Language. In particular, she works on hate speech, slurs, and discursive injustice.
At present, she is a member of the Scientific Board of the CRESA (Center for Experimental and Applied Epistemology), of the Interfaculty centre for gender studies, and of the SWIP (Society for Women in Philosophy).
She has published four books, edited a further one, and co-edited three more. Her latest authored work is Hate speech. Il lato oscuro del linguaggio, Roma-Bari, Laterza (2021).
Web page: https://www.unisr.it/docenti/b/bianchi-claudia-giovanna-daniela
Address: Faculty of Philosophy - Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, via Olgettina 58, 20132 Milano - Italy
https://www.unisr.it/docenti/b/bianchi-claudia-giovanna-daniela
Her main research interests are in the field of Philosophy of Language, Pragmatics, and Feminist Philosophy of Language. In particular, she works on hate speech, slurs, and discursive injustice.
At present, she is a member of the Scientific Board of the CRESA (Center for Experimental and Applied Epistemology), of the Interfaculty centre for gender studies, and of the SWIP (Society for Women in Philosophy).
She has published four books, edited a further one, and co-edited three more. Her latest authored work is Hate speech. Il lato oscuro del linguaggio, Roma-Bari, Laterza (2021).
Web page: https://www.unisr.it/docenti/b/bianchi-claudia-giovanna-daniela
Address: Faculty of Philosophy - Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, via Olgettina 58, 20132 Milano - Italy
https://www.unisr.it/docenti/b/bianchi-claudia-giovanna-daniela
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (15)
Uploads
Papers by Claudia Bianchi
essere fatto. Ecco perché l’attenzione al linguaggio che usiamo non è una questione di dettaglio, un capriccio degli adepti del politicamente corretto, quasi un lusso di fronte a sperequazioni economiche, discriminazioni sul posto di lavoro, crimini d’odio. È il linguaggio lo strumento chiave che plasma e trasforma le nostre identità, in particolare le nostre identità sociali, crea e rinforza le asimmetrie e le ingiustizie sociali, diffonde e legittima i pregiudizi e la discriminazione, fomenta l’odio e la violenza.
speech acts of subordination, but also the audience must typically have a certain kind of standing or social position in order to either license or object to the speaker’s authority, and her acts of subordination.
utterances—those involved in written texts, films and images, conceived as recordings that can be seen or
heard in different occasions. More precisely, my paper deals with the “metaphysical” or constitutive role of
context—as opposed to its epistemic or evidential role: my goal is to determine which context is semantically
relevant in order to fix the illocutionary force of a speech act, as distinct from the information the addressee
uses to ascertain the semantically relevant context. In particular I will try to assess two different perspectives
on this problem, a Conventionalist Perspective and an Intentionalist Perspective. Drawing on the literature
on indexicals in written texts and recorded messages, I will argue in favor of the Intentionalist Perspective:
the relevant context is the one intended by the speaker. Bringing intentions into the picture, however, requires
qualification; in particular, I will distinguish my Weak Intentionalist proposal from a Strong Intentionalist
one. I will show that the Weak Intentionalist Perspective is flexible enough to deal with cases of delayed
communication, but not so unrestricted as to yield counter-intuitive consequences."
Austin is best known for two major contributions to contemporary philosophy: first, his ‘linguistic phenomenology’, a peculiar method of philosophical analysis of the concepts and ways of expression of everyday language; and second, speech act theory, the idea that every use of language carries a performative dimension (in the well-known slogan, “to say something is to do something”). Speech act theory has had consequences and import in research fields as diverse as philosophy of language, ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of law, linguistics, artificial intelligence and feminist philosophy.
This article describes Austin’s linguistic method and his speech act theory, and it describes the original contributions he made to epistemology and philosophy of action. It closes by focusing on two main developments of speech act theory─the dispute between conventionalism and intentionalism, and the debate on free speech, pornography, and censorship.
essere fatto. Ecco perché l’attenzione al linguaggio che usiamo non è una questione di dettaglio, un capriccio degli adepti del politicamente corretto, quasi un lusso di fronte a sperequazioni economiche, discriminazioni sul posto di lavoro, crimini d’odio. È il linguaggio lo strumento chiave che plasma e trasforma le nostre identità, in particolare le nostre identità sociali, crea e rinforza le asimmetrie e le ingiustizie sociali, diffonde e legittima i pregiudizi e la discriminazione, fomenta l’odio e la violenza.
speech acts of subordination, but also the audience must typically have a certain kind of standing or social position in order to either license or object to the speaker’s authority, and her acts of subordination.
utterances—those involved in written texts, films and images, conceived as recordings that can be seen or
heard in different occasions. More precisely, my paper deals with the “metaphysical” or constitutive role of
context—as opposed to its epistemic or evidential role: my goal is to determine which context is semantically
relevant in order to fix the illocutionary force of a speech act, as distinct from the information the addressee
uses to ascertain the semantically relevant context. In particular I will try to assess two different perspectives
on this problem, a Conventionalist Perspective and an Intentionalist Perspective. Drawing on the literature
on indexicals in written texts and recorded messages, I will argue in favor of the Intentionalist Perspective:
the relevant context is the one intended by the speaker. Bringing intentions into the picture, however, requires
qualification; in particular, I will distinguish my Weak Intentionalist proposal from a Strong Intentionalist
one. I will show that the Weak Intentionalist Perspective is flexible enough to deal with cases of delayed
communication, but not so unrestricted as to yield counter-intuitive consequences."
Austin is best known for two major contributions to contemporary philosophy: first, his ‘linguistic phenomenology’, a peculiar method of philosophical analysis of the concepts and ways of expression of everyday language; and second, speech act theory, the idea that every use of language carries a performative dimension (in the well-known slogan, “to say something is to do something”). Speech act theory has had consequences and import in research fields as diverse as philosophy of language, ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of law, linguistics, artificial intelligence and feminist philosophy.
This article describes Austin’s linguistic method and his speech act theory, and it describes the original contributions he made to epistemology and philosophy of action. It closes by focusing on two main developments of speech act theory─the dispute between conventionalism and intentionalism, and the debate on free speech, pornography, and censorship.
Gary Burns: "Visto che il Presidente l'ha citata nel suo discorso, immagino sia portato a condividere le sue idee sull'economia"
Chauncey Gardiner: "Quali idee?"
Il pubblico in studio ride e applaude, divertito dall'impietosa frecciata che Chance ha indirizzato all'inadeguatezza della visione economica del Presidente.
Che cosa fa sì che il pubblico colga l'ironia della battuta di Chauncey? In generale, cosa ci permette di capire i nostri interlocutori? Di comprendere i significati impliciti (figurati o ironici) che le loro parole veicolano? Perché i fraintendimenti sono eventi rari, riconosciuti quasi subito e risolti rapidamente negli scambi successivi? Quanto conta ciò che sappiamo o crediamo di sapere quando interpretiamo le parole di qualcuno?
a) Donne e uomini usano il linguaggio in modo diverso?
b) Il linguaggio riflette – o addirittura contribuisce a creare – le disuguaglianze di genere?
c) È possibile intervenire per correggere il linguaggio sessista? È giusto farlo?
Il presente capitolo è dedicato alle risposte più interessanti fornite a queste domande.
List of confirmed speakers:
Marina Terkourafi, Mark Jary, Mikhail Kissine, Tomoyuki Yamada, Gregory Bochner,
F. Ch. Dörge, Neri Marsili, Marcin Lewinski, Leo Townsend, Grzegorz Gaszczyk,
Chloé Muteau-Jaouen, Lucy McDonald, Mitchell Green, Jennifer Hornsby, Claudia Bianchi, Laura Caponetto, Filippo Domaneschi, Paolo Leonardi, Marco Mazzone,
Maciej Witek, Bruno Ambroise, Rae Langton, Bart Geurts.