Cover not available
Part of
From Pragmatics to Dialogue
Edited by Edda Weigand and Istvan Kecskes
[Dialogue Studies 31] 2018
► pp. 5–28

Dialogue

The key to pragmatics

When trying to find out the ‘state of the art’ in pragmatics we risk getting lost in a mix of diverse approaches which seems to be accepted as the ‘plurality of models’ but in the end means nothing other than ‘anything goes’. The ‘pragmatic turn’, which introduced the new natural object ‘language use’, waits to be structured by the ‘dialogic turn’, i.e. the insight that language use means dialogic use in a sequence of initiative and reactive actions. In this sense dialogue provides the key to the yet unstructured field of pragmatics. Human beings are dialogic individuals who use their abilities for dialogic purposes. It is their extraordinary ability of competence-in-performance which allows them to tackle the challenge of ‘living with uncertainty’.
Keywords: pragmatics, dialogue, action and reaction, the dialogic turn, plurality of models, competence-in-performance
Article outline
  • 1.The issue
  • 2.What pragmatics is about
    • Separating levels and items
    • Seeking for a solution at the level of artificial terms
    • Flying into vague concepts
      • To sum up
  • 3.The challenge of the dialogic turn
  • 4.The architecture of complexity
    • 4.1Dialogue and speech acts
    • 4.2Dialogue and utterance grammar
    • 4.3Dialogue and lexical meaning
  • 5.Examples of dialogic action games
    • 5.1So-called monologues
    • 5.2Culture integrated
    • 5.3Ethics integrated
  • 6.Conclusion and outlook
  • References
Published online: 5 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.31.02wei
References
Arbib, Michael, Erhan Oztop and Patricia Zukow-Goldring
2005 “Language and the Mirror System: A Perception/Action Based Approach to Communicative Development.” Cognition, Brain Behavior 3: 239–272.Google Scholar
Batt, Martine and Alain Trognon
2018 “An Interlocutory Logic Approach of a Case of Professional Ethics.” In Dialogic Ethics, ed. by Ronald C. Arnett and François Cooren, 149–177.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1959 “Review: G. F. Skinner: Verbal behavior. New York 1957.” Language 35: 26–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988 Language and Problems of Knowledge. The Managua Lectures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2016 “Minimal Computation and the Architecture of Language.”Chinese Semiotic Studies 12 (1): 13–24.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996 Using Language. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damasio, Antonio
2000 The Feeling of What Happens: Body, Emotion and the Making of Consciousness. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto
1976 A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth and Ditte Boeg Thomsen
2016 “The Socio-Cognitive Foundation of Danish Perspective-Mixing Dialogue Particles.” In Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, ed. by Barbara Dancygier, Wei-lun Lu and Arie Verhagen, 125–142. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feynman, Richard P.
2001 The pleasure of finding things out. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel
2003 On our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Roy
1996 Signs, Language and Communication London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan
(ed.) 2017 The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hundsnurscher, Franz
1992 “Does a Dialogic View of Language Amount to a Paradigm Change in Linguistics: Language as Dialogue.” In Methodologie der Dialoganalyse, ed. by Sorin Stati and Edda Weigand, 1–14. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Hutchins, Edwin
1995 Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1971 Word and Language. In Selected Writings, vol. 2. 1962–2002. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan
2016 “Can Intercultural Pragmatics Bring Some New Insight into Pragmatic Theories?” In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey. 43–69. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “From Pragmatics to Dialogue.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 78–92. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth
2017 “Shifting Concepts of Language: Meeting the Challenge of Modelling Interactive Syntax.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 197–213. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lanigan, Richard L.
2018 “The Rhetoric of Discourse: Chiasm and Dialogue in Communicology” In Dialogic Ethics, ed. by Ronald C. Arnett and François Cooren. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
2000 Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2006 “On the Human ‘Interaction Engine’.” In Roots of Human Sociality. Culture, Cognition and Interaction, ed. by N. J. Enfield and Stephen C. Levinson, 39–69. Oxford/New York: Berg.Google Scholar
Lumsden, Charles J. and Edward O. Wilson
2005 Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. New Jersey: World Scientific.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Trevor H. J.
2010 “Making Knowledge: Explorations of the Indissoluble Relation between Minds, Bodies and Environment.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 16(1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob L.
2001 Pragmatics: An Introduction: 2nd rev. ed. Oxford and Malden, MA Blackwell.Google Scholar
Piattelli Palmarini, Massimo
1995 L’arte di persuadere. Come impararla, come esercitarla, come difendersene. Milano: Mondadori.Google Scholar
Prigogine, Ilya
1994 Les lois du chaos. Paris: Flammarion [Le leggi del caos Rome: Laterza 1993].Google Scholar
Scott-Phillips, Thom
2014 Speaking our minds. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
2015 “A précis of ‘Speaking our minds’.” [URL] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert A.
1962 “The Architecture of Complexity: Hierarchic Systems.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106: 467–482.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam
2003 The Wealth of Nations. New York: Bantam Classics.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
1986 Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Turner, Ken
(ed.) 1999 The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Vanderveken, Daniel
1994 “A Complete Formulation of a Simple Logic of Elementary Illocutionary Acts.” In Foundations of Speech Act Theory. Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, ed. by Savas L. Tsohatzidis, 99–131. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A.
(ed.) 1985 Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vols 1–4. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef
1987 “The Pragmatic Perspective.” In The Pragmatic Perspective. Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference, ed. by Jef Verschueren and Marcella Bertucelli-Papi, 3–8. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda
1991 “The Dialogic Principle Revisited: Speech Acts and Mental States” In Dialoganalyse III. Referate der 3. Arbeitstagung, Bologna 1990, ed. by Sorin Stati, Edda Weigand and Franz Hundsnurscher, vol. 1, 75–104. Tübingen: Niemeyer. – Reprinted in Edda Weigand (ed. by Sebastian Feller) 2009 Language as Dialogue, 21–44. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. – Reprinted in Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society ed. by Alessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey, 209–232. Cham etc.: Springer.Google Scholar
1998 “Contrastive lexical semantics.” In Contrastive Lexical Semantics, ed. by Edda Weigand, 25–44. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “The Dialogic Action Game.” In Dialogue Analysis VII. Working with Dialogue, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard, Janett Cotterill and Frances Rock, 1–18. Tübingen: Niemeyer. – Reprinted in Edda Weigand: Language as Dialogue (ed. by Sebastian Feller), 265–282. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “Empirical Data and Theoretical Models.” Pragmatics & Cognition 12 (2): 375–388.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Argumentation: The Mixed Game.” Argumentation 20 (1): 59–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Language as Dialogue. From Rules to Principles of Probability, ed. by Sebastian Feller. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Rationality of Performance.” Philosophia Scientiæ 18 (3): 247–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “How to Verify a Theory of Dialogue.” Language and Dialogue 6 (3): 349–369.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “The Concept of Language in an Utterance Grammar.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 214–233. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2018a “Ethics in Dialogue. Ideals and Reality.” In Dialogic Ethics, ed. by Ronald C. Arnett and François Cooren, 1–23. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b “Preface.” Language and Dialogue 8(1), Special issue on Integrating Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu and Adrian Pablé.Google Scholar
2018c.”The theory myth.” Language and Dialogue 8 (2),Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1972 Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt/M.: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Wilson, Edward O.
1999 Consilience. The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig
2009 Philosophische Untersuchungen. Philosophical investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte, rev. 4th ed. by P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1st ed 1953.Google Scholar
Wong, Jock
2016 “A Critical Look at the Description of Speech Acts.” In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey 825–856. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yule, George
1996 Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zipf, George Kingsley
1949 Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. An Introduction to Human Ecology. New York: Hafner (facsimile 1972).Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 12 other publications

Caronia, Letizia
2021. Language, culture and social interaction. In Language and Social Interaction at Home and School [Dialogue Studies, 32], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2018. Dialogic features and interpersonal management in the early courtroom action game. Language and Dialogue 8:3 ► pp. 341 ff. DOI logo
Grein, Marion
2018. Progress in language teaching. In From Pragmatics to Dialogue [Dialogue Studies, 31], ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Nasi, Nicola
2022. Practices of inclusion/exclusion in and through classroom dialogue. Language and Dialogue 12:2 ► pp. 306 ff. DOI logo
Popov, V. Y & Е. V Popova
2021. Analytical Anthropology of Peter Hacker. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research :20 ► pp. 142 ff. DOI logo
Săftoiu, Răzvan
2019. The Dialogic Turn in Language Study. Language and Dialogue 9:3 ► pp. 471 ff. DOI logo
Tantucci, Vittorio
2023. Resonance and recombinant creativity: Why they are important for research in Cognitive Linguistics and Pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics 20:4 ► pp. 347 ff. DOI logo
Vasilescu, Andra
2023.  Yes (Rom. Da). Usages and functions in L2 proficiency examinations. Language and Dialogue 13:3 ► pp. 427 ff. DOI logo
Weigand, Edda
2018. The theory myth. Language and Dialogue 8:2 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo
Weigand, Edda
2021. Dialogue. Language and Dialogue 11:3 ► pp. 457 ff. DOI logo
Zubrzycki, Kamil
2021. Identity, agency and intercultural dialogic competencies in L2 ultimate attainment. Language and Dialogue 11:3 ► pp. 433 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Beyond Babel [FILLM Studies in Languages and Literatures, 18], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.