Establishing the Distinction
When a subject makes a statement, their words can be considered an expression of their relationship to what is happening. They may report a fact known to them, entertain a possibility, assess the probability of an event, express doubt, or assert something as actual.
Yet these are not the only relationships present in communication.
The subject does not merely say something about something. They address another subject. This act of addressing someone can itself have a particular intention that does not coincide with the epistemic relationship to the content of the statement.
For example, a subject may communicate a possibility not because they seek to investigate what is happening, but because they intend to arouse suspicion in another person. They may present facts not to clarify understanding, but to create a predetermined impression. They may ask a question not to obtain an answer, but to direct the interlocutor’s attention toward a particular interpretation.
Here we discover a distinction between the subject’s relationship to the content of a statement and their relationship to the other subject to whom the statement is addressed.
The Concept of Communicative Intention
Communicative intention is a subject’s relationship to another subject that expresses what the first subject intends to achieve through communication.
Communicative intention belongs to the subject, not to words, sentences, or linguistic constructions.
Words serve as a form of expression through which the subject attempts to realize their intention. However, the same linguistic form can be used to realize different intentions.
Communicative intention may involve a desire to:
- Convey a certain understanding of what is happening to another subject.
- Share one’s own experience, doubt, or question.
- Obtain information or ascertain the interlocutor’s position.
- Draw another subject’s attention to an as-yet-unknown distinction.
- Prompt another subject to perform a particular action.
- Change their conception of an event or a person.
- Create doubt, suspicion, or a false impression.
- Conceal certain circumstances or divert attention away from them.
- Establish, maintain, change, or terminate a relationship with another subject.
This list is not exhaustive. Communicative intention is not limited to a predetermined set of objectives.
Moreover, the subject may pursue several intentions simultaneously. For example, they may sincerely communicate information while also seeking to persuade the interlocutor to make a particular decision.
Epistemic and Communicative Relationships
At least two relationships can be distinguished within a single communicative act.
The epistemic relationship expresses the subject’s relationship to what they are talking about: what they know, what they consider possible, what distinctions they discover, and on what grounds they draw a particular conclusion.
The communicative relationship expresses the subject’s relationship to another subject: what they intend to achieve by addressing that person through a particular statement.
These relationships may be directed toward the same end, or they may diverge.
For example, a subject may seek to convey their own understanding of what is happening to another person by providing facts and revealing the grounds for their conclusions. In this case, the epistemic and communicative relationships are directed toward jointly clarifying what is happening.
But another situation is also possible. A subject may understand that the available grounds are insufficient, yet intentionally create the impression in another person that a particular conclusion is justified.
Here, the subject’s epistemic relationship to what is happening differs from the understanding they intend to create in the interlocutor.
Consequently, the content of a statement and the communicative intention do not determine one another unambiguously.
Communicative Intention and Modality
The distinction is particularly noticeable when examining the modality of statements.
Consider the phrase:
“Perhaps he stole the money.”
In epistemic terms, the subject may merely be entertaining one conceivable scenario, without possessing additional facts pointing toward a theft.
The mere admission of possibility does not yet mean that the subject has discovered grounds for considering the corresponding event probable.
But entirely different intentions are possible in communicative terms.
The subject may be investigating alternative explanations of what happened in good faith. They may seek to draw attention to a scenario not previously considered. They may be checking what information the interlocutor possesses.
However, they may also intentionally foster suspicion toward another person despite having no facts that justify such suspicion.
In the latter case, the subject uses the modality of possibility to achieve a communicative objective.
They do not assert that a theft occurred, but they may seek to create the impression in the interlocutor that there are grounds for suspecting a theft.
If asked to justify the statement, they may reply:
“I only said it was possible.”
Such a response appeals to the formal modality of the statement, but does not in itself disclose the communicative intention with which the statement was made.
This is where an essential distinction arises: a subject can use possibility as the form of a statement while simultaneously intending to create an impression of probability in another subject.
At the same time, the absence of additional facts does not in itself establish an intention to manipulate. A good-faith investigation of possibilities can also begin without additional facts. The distinction lies in the subject’s relationship to the interlocutor and to the outcome of communication that the subject intends to achieve.
Intention, Action, and the Result of Communication
Communicative intention must be distinguished from the communicative action itself and from its result.
Intention concerns what the subject seeks to achieve.
Communicative action concerns what the subject does to realize the intention: utters words, asks a question, advances an argument, withholds a circumstance, or selects a particular form of expression.
Result concerns what actually happened in the relationship between subjects as a consequence of communication.
These three distinctions are not identical.
A subject may intend to persuade an interlocutor but provoke the opposite reaction. They may seek to generate doubt but instead prompt another person to investigate the grounds for the suggestion.
The reverse situation is also possible: a subject did not intend to mislead the interlocutor, but their words were understood in such a way that the other person developed a false conception.
Consequently, the conception that arises in a listener does not yet establish the speaker’s intention.
And the speaker’s intention, in turn, does not necessarily determine the result of communication.
The other subject is not a passive carrier of received information. They independently distinguish, interpret, accept, reject, and investigate what was presented to them.
Communicative Intention and the Meaning of a Statement
Communicative intention allows us to discover another distinction between meaning belonging to a subject and the trace left in communication.
The subject initially possesses a certain meaning and an intention to express or use it when addressing another subject.
The statement serves as a trace of that action. However, the trace is identical neither to the original meaning nor to the communicative intention.
The same phrase may remain unchanged while the speaker’s intentions are entirely different.
Conversely, the same communicative intention can be realized through different forms of expression, including statements, questions, gestures, or silence.
Therefore, examining linguistic form alone does not exhaust the investigation of communication.
One can thoroughly examine a sentence’s grammatical structure, the meanings of the words used, and the logical form of the statement, yet fail to discover what the subject intended to achieve by addressing another person.
This does not make the examination of linguistic form meaningless. It establishes the boundary between what is directly expressed in the trace left behind and the intention that accompanied that trace.
Investigating Communicative Intention
Because intention is not identical to linguistic form, investigating communicative intention requires examining the relationships within which the communicative action occurred.
The circumstances of the address, the facts known to the subject, the sequence of their statements, their response to clarifying questions, the nature of the justifications they provided, and their subsequent actions may all matter.
For example, if a subject proposes a particular scenario, one can investigate:
- What facts were known to them at the time of the statement?
- What grounds did they present to the interlocutor?
- Did they distinguish the admission of possibility from a justified assessment of probability?
- What conception could their statement have created in its recipient?
- How did they act when the interlocutor attempted to clarify or verify the grounds?
- Did they preserve the distinction between established facts and their own assumptions?
Such questions allow communicative intention to be investigated through observable relationships and actions.
At the same time, it is necessary to preserve the distinction between the subject’s own intention and the intention attributed to them by an investigator.
Attributing an intention to another subject is an independent epistemic act, and its grounds can also be investigated.
The Significance of the Distinction for Subject-to-Subject Relationships
Communicative intention matters not only for analyzing individual statements, but also for investigating relationships between subjects.
In one case, a subject addresses another person as an independent participant in inquiry, capable of investigating the grounds presented, asking questions, and reaching their own conclusions.
In another case, the subject may intend to produce a particular conception in the interlocutor by exploiting features of their understanding, their lack of information, or their trust in the speaker.
Outwardly, the communication may have the same linguistic form. The distinction lies in the relationship between subjects.
A subject may strive to investigate what is happening together with another person. Or they may strive to achieve a particular result in the interlocutor’s understanding or behavior, regardless of how closely the conception presented corresponds to circumstances known to the speaker.
Thus, investigating communicative intention makes it possible to distinguish relationships that cannot be discovered through an analysis of words or grammatical form alone.
Conclusion
Communication cannot be reduced to the transmission of the content of a statement.
When speaking, a subject expresses a particular relationship to what is happening and may simultaneously pursue a particular intention in relation to another subject.
These relationships are not identical.
The same statement can be used for good-faith inquiry, conveying an understanding, creating suspicion, persuasion, deception, or achieving other objectives.
At the same time, communicative intention must be distinguished from linguistic form, the communicative action itself, the result of communication, and the intention attributed to the speaker by another subject.
Communicative intention constitutes an independent relationship of the subject, without distinguishing which an investigation of the meaning of communication remains incomplete.
