The study considers remittances as part of the lifeworlds of immigrants in multiple interactions with return intentions and communication with those left behind. This is an alternative view of the standard approach to remittances as a possible source of development or as a variable to be explained by family solidarity, investment projects or the reasons for return. The key dependent variable is the home orien-tation of immigrants as a function of remittances, return intentions and communication behaviours, measured in quantitative and typological terms. The typological analysis of home orientation diverges from the standard approach, which is in terms of high or low intensity of cross-border activities of remitting or communicating between immigrants and those they have left behind. It argues for the fact that cross-border activities combine in different ways to generate specific social types of remitting prac-tices. The remitting behaviours of migrants are, in our approach, multidimensional, encompassing eco-nomic, social and cultural content. Three hypotheses are formulated on: 1) collective deprivation in remitting money; 2) survival–development–identification strategies of migrants’ families; and 3) higher predictability of home orientation compared to economic remitting behaviours. In this context, higher predictability means greater variation of the synthetic variable of home orientation by social, cultural and economic factors as compared to the impact of the same factors on the more abstract variable of economic remittances.
The article analyzes the implementation of dialogicality in the artistic discourse referring to dialogue as a form of explication of dialogicity in text communication, as a special type of speech interaction which serves as the most relevant means of verbalizing the speaker’s communicative intentions and is represented by a question/answer complex of stimulus/reaction exchange. Based on the voluminous factual material, the explication of dialogic intentions is traced in two typological registers of communication: tolerant and a-tolerant; it is indicated that, on the one hand, the addressant/addressee continuum of speech interaction conveys a be-nevolent atmosphere and expresses the modality of interlocutors’ mutual understanding and tolerant attitude about themselves being realized through various modal-intentional utterances, primarily interrogative, and stimulating and optative constructions, the use of which contributes to the progress of the communicative process; on the other hand, there is a-tolerant register – a natural phenomenon that reflects the imbalance in relations between communicating parties, the principled incompatibility of views, a conflict in general, represented by counter-questions, echo-questions, evil wishes incentive imperatives, invectives, etc.
Akratic actions are usually defined as intentional actions which conflict with the agent’s best judgement. As both irrational and conscious, actions of that type stand in need of an explanation. In this paper I reconstruct and criticize Donald Davidson’s classical standpoint on the problem of akrasia. I show the disadvantages of Davidsonian conception of practical reasoning and I defend the conception of syllogistic reasoning. I also criticize the theory of intention as unconditional normative judgement. Against Davidson’s view, I argue for the theory of intention as an act of will (not a judgement). According to this theory of intention and practical reasoning, akratic actions should be explained as actions caused by an act of will which conflicts with the best judgement. I propose to interpret the inclination of will to conflict or to follow the best judgement by the theory of habitus.