This thesis focusses on variability in audience interpretation of a television programme, and aims to problematise and investigate the reception of broadcast communication by applying the pragmatic theory of relevance (Sperber and Wilson 1966) to an empirical study of audience response. This aim is achieved using the following method: In Chapter Two I consider the scope of pragmatic theories of inferencing and conclude that relevance theory offers the only account which can both accommodate and provide the basis for an explanation of variation in interpretation. I also assert that for relevance theory to be able to show why an audience interprets a text in a specific way the cultural background of that audience has to be considered. In Chapter Three I show how existing studies of audience response which adopt a critical cultural studies approach require a more sophisticated model of communication than they currently assume if they are to realise their aim of relating audience respo nse to socio-political structures. My contention is that the inferential model proposed by Sperber and Wilson can provide such an account. Chapters Four and Five describe, and report the results of, an empirical study I carry out based on a methodology premised on relevance theory. The study consists of two separate interviews with audiences who have distinct cultural backgrounds in each of which I show a video recording of a television programme and then question the interviewees on their understanding of the text of the programme. In Chapters Six and Seven I discuss the results of the study in relation to relevance theory and media studies. The results of my study indicate that a methodology based on relevance theory can make explicit, and show the significance of, processes involved in audience interpretation of a media text which have not previously been open to analysis. Building on Sperber and Wilson's claim (1986: 15) that the context of an utterance is a psychological construct, and is a sub-set of the set of assumptions available to the hearer of a given utterance, the results make explicit (a) relevant aspects of the encyclopaedic knowledge of two distinct audiences; (b) the contexts these audiences produce in response to a television text; (c) how these contexts are related to the audience's encyclopaedic knowledge; (d) how these contexts affect the disambiguation and enrichment of information linguistically encoded in the text (e) 'The contextual implications, or interpretations, -the audience draw from a synthesis of the information encoded in text and the contexts the audiences apply. My findings are particularly pertinent for the critical cultural approach to audience studies as they indicate how it is possible to make explicit the relationship between response and cultural background by showing how the existing knowledge of an audience affects interpretation and indicating moreover how this knowledge can be related to social determinants. The results of my study also contribute to pragmatic theory in that they show how relevance theory can be used to explain why interpretation may vary.

Der Unterstellungsbegriff ist ein zentraler Begriff innerhalb transzendentaler Argumente. Transzendentale Argumente sind Versuche, empirische Erkenntnis stabiler zu sichern als durch empirische Erkenntnis selbst. Dabei müssten, heißt es immer wieder, bestimmte grundlegende Sachverhalte unterstellt werden. Was genau bedeutet hier „unterstellen“? Exemplarisch wird in dieser Arbeit Habermas’ Verwendung des Unterstellungsbegriffs und des eng verwandten Voraussetzungsbegriffs nachvollzogen und interpretiertHabermas verwendet seinen Kernbegriff nicht einheitlich, insbesondere unterscheidet er nicht zwischen semantischem und epistemischem Voraussetzungsbegriff. Im Gegensatz zum semantischen Voraussetzungsbegriff, der eine Relation zwischen Sachverhalten beschreibt, kennzeichnet der epistemische Voraussetzungsbegriff eine Relation zwischen einem epistemischen Subjekt und einem Sachverhalt. Mit der Verwendung des Ausdrucks Unterstellung konstruiert Habermas einen internen, konstitutiven Zusammenhang zwischen unserer Kommunikationsfähigkeit und grundlegend verschiedenen propositionalen, epistemischen Einstellungen, ohne dass diese terminologisch voneinander abgegrenzt werden. Handelt es sich um Fiktionen, Hypothesen oder um handfeste Überzeugungen? Der rekonstruierte Zusammenhang erweist sich in Abhängigkeit von der durch das Verb unterstellen jeweils ausgedrückten propositionalen Einstellung – doxastisch-affirmativ, doxastisch-negierende oder nicht-doxastisch - entweder als unverständlich oder als trivial. Die als notwendige Voraussetzungen benannten Unterstellungen haben aufgrund der Semantik des Ausdrucks unterstellen hinsichtlich ihres epistemischen Status’ also keinen klaren Sinn. Damit scheitert a fortiori auch Habermas’ Versuch, notwendige Unterstellungen als schwach transzendentale Grundlage kommunikativen Handelns zu bestimmen. Die Inakzeptanz transzendentaler Argumente – auch in ihrer nicht-metaphysischen, von Habermas favorisierten „schwachen“ Lesart – wird durch die Formulierung „unterstellen müssen“ als Bestandteil des Schlussprinzips oder einer Prämisse transzendentaler Argumente systematisch verschleiert. / The concept of presuppositions is central for transcendental arguments. Transcendental arguments are efforts to validate empirical knowledge more effectively than through empirical knowledge itself. According to widely held views some fundamental propositions have to be presupposed for that purpose. But what – precisely – does “to presuppose something” mean? This paper will exemplarily reconstruct and interpret the use of the concept of presupposition in Jürgen Habermas’ work: Habermas doesn’t use this central concept in a homogeneous, standardized way: In particular he does not distinguish between the semantic and the epistemological concept. In contrast to the semantic concept, which describes a relationship between propositions, the epistemological concept characterizes a relationship between an epistemological subject and a proposition. Moreover, using the term “presupposition”, Habermas constructs an internal, constitutive connection between our ability to communicate and fundamentally different propositional, epistemological attitudes, without distinguishing them from each other. Is it a matter of fictions, hypotheses or beliefs? The reconstructed connection appears to be either incomprehensible or trivial given its dependence on the verb “to presuppose”, which can imply the propositional attitude of doxastic-affirmative, doxastic-negating or non-doxastic. The presuppositions claimed to be essential are not clearly defined in terms of their epistemological status because of the semantics of the term to presuppose. Therefore, Habermas’ attempt to determine essential presuppositions as a transcendental basis for communication also fails a fortiori. The non-acceptance of transcendental arguments – even in their non-metaphysic interpretation favoured by Habermas – is disguised as constituent of the premise of the corpus by the phrase “to have to presuppose”.

Die Arbeit untersucht im Rahmen einer kulturanalytischen Medienlinguistik mit vier Einzelfallstudien exemplarisch das wissenschaftliche Bloggen deutschsprechender Soziolog_innen. Dafür sind zwei Leitfragen zentral: (1) Welche Konturen der Praktik innerwissenschaftlichen Bloggens lassen sich aktuell nachzeichnen? (2) Wie konkretisiert sich eristisches Handeln als wesentliches Strukturkennzeichen der Praxis interner Wissenschaftskommunikation im Rahmen dieser Praktik? Den Ausgangspunkt bilden theoretische, begriffliche und methodologische Klärungen. Mit einem konsequent medienlinguistischen Ansatz wird deshalb zunächst ein erkenntnistheoretischer Standpunkt herausgearbeitet. Für die empirische Analyse wird dann der Forschungsstand zu historischen und rezenten Entwicklungen in der Wissenschaftskommunikation sowie zu ihrer Konzeptualisierung gesichtet und diskutiert: Dabei kommt es zu einer grundlegenden Problematisierung und prozessbezogenen Rekonzeptualisierung des medienlinguistischen Kommunikationsformenbegriffs ebenso wie des Eristikbegriffs der Wissenschaftssprachenforschung. Die Ergebnisse der vier Einzelfallstudien erhellen das Bloggen der deutschsprachigen Soziologie in seinen infrastrukturellen, sozialisatorischen, ethnotheoretischen und nicht zuletzt sprachlich-kommunikativen Dimensionen umfangreich. Sie zeichnen das Bild einer im Interim befindlichen Praktik. Diese entwickelt sich im Spannungsfeld zwischen den Normen interner Wissenschaftskommunikation und der medialen Spezifik von Weblogs. Dies führt unweigerlich zu Konflikten. Die unterschiedlichen Strategien ihrer Bewältigung führen im Effekt zu je unterschiedlichen Verortungen des Bloggens im kommunikativen Haushalt der Wissenschaft. / This study examines a relatively recent phenomenon, the practice of scholarly blogging, with regards to its eristic dimension which is conceived as an overarching characteristic of all scholarly communication. In order to do so, the practice of scholarly blogging itself has to be explored first: What are the essential characteristics of scholarly blogging? What linguistic means are used to serve the eristic purposes in said practice? To answer these key questions, the scholarly blogging of German-speaking sociologists is examined in four case studies. Theoretical, conceptual, and methodological considerations situate this study in culture-analytical media linguistics: An according epistemological perspective is developed. In preparation of the empirical analyses, the stand of research regarding historical and recent developments as well as the common conceptualizations of scholarly communication are then examined and discussed. The notion of communication form, central to German media linguistics, is consequently scrutinized and re-conceptualized as process rather than structure, as well as the notion of eristics, central to German linguistics of scholarly communications. The findings of the four case studies shed light upon blogging of German-speaking sociologists in the following dimensions: regarding media infrastructure, processes of socialization, conflicting ethnotheories, and, most importantly, linguistic means for eristic purposes. The case studies show a practice currently evolving, in tension between the norms of scholarly communication and the specific mediality of the communication form weblog. Which inevitably prompts conflicts: The different strategies of coping with these conflicts effectively place blogs on different positions in the communicative household of academia.