In pure dialogues, the speakers address their words to recipients who concentrate on listening, while in pseudo-dialogues the recipients are not able to listen, or prefer not to listen. The speaker may be fully aware of the recipient’s mental absence. The aim of the chapter is to study how pseudo-dialogues are used in everyday communication. We differentiate four main categories of pseudo-dialogues based on the role of the recipient: a human recipient who is present in the situation but whose role in the interaction is secondary; a physically remote human recipient; a non-human recipient (a dog, a computer, etc.); a speaker who speaks to himself/herself (no other recipients than oneself). In most cases, the manner of speaking in pseudo-dialogues largely resembles that of pure dialogues. Examples of the usage of pseudo-dialogues are taken from the St. Petersburg One Day of Speech Corpus.
2009 “The ORD Speech Corpus of Russian Everyday Communication “One Speaker’s Day”: Creation Principles and Annotation.” In Text, Speech and Dialogue, ed. by Vaclav Matoušek and Pavel Mautner, 250–257. Berlin: Springer.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
1986Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, translated by Vern W. McGee; edited by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bargh, John A. and Tanya L. Chartrand
1999 “The Unbearable Automaticity of Being.” American Psychologist 54, 462–476.
Bogdanova-Beglarian, Natalia, Tatiana Sherstinova, Olga Blinova, Olga Ermolova, Ekaterina Baeva, Gregory Martynenko, and Anastasia Ryko
2016 ”Sociolinguistic Extension of the ORD Corpus of Russian Everyday Speech.” In Speech and Computer, SPECOM 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by A. Ronzhin, R. Potapova, and G. Németh, vol. 9811, 659–666. Springer, Switzerland.
Bohm, David
2006On Dialogue. New York: Routledge.
Brooks, David
2011Social Science Palooza II. New York Times, March 17.
Buber, Martin
1923/2008Ich und Du. Stuttgart: Raclam.
Bucholtz, Mary and Kira Hall
2005 “Identity and Interaction. A Socio-Cultural Linguistic Approach.” Discourse Studies 7(4–5): 585–614.
Bunz, Ulla and Scott W. Campbell
2004 “Politeness Accommodation in Electronic Mail.” Communication Research Reports 21: 11–25.
Burnard, Lou
(ed.)2007Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (XML edition). Published for the British National Corpus Consortium by Oxford University Computing Services 2007 Available at: < [URL] >. Retrieved: February 2, 2016.
Burnard, Lou
(ed.)2016Reference Guide for the British National Corpus(XML edition). Published for the British National Corpus Consortium by Oxford University Computing Services 2007 Available online at [URL], accessed on February 2, 2016.
Campbell, Nick
2004 “Speech & Expression; the Value of a Longitudinal Corpus.” LREC 2004: 183–186.
Carbaugh, Donal
2013 “On Dialogue Studies.” Journal of Dialogue Studies 1(1), 9–18.
Clark, Herbert H.
1996Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, Herbert H. and Thomas B. Carlson
1982 “Hearers and Speech Acts.” Language 58(2): 332–372.
Dijksterhuis, Ap
2004 “Think Different: The Merits of Unconscious Thought in Preference Development and Decision Making.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87(5): 586–598.
Dynel, M.
2010Not Hearing Things – Hearer/listener Categories in Polylogues. mediAzioni 9. Available online at [URL]
Ermolova, O.
2015 “Lingvisticheskie osobennosti obschenija cheloveka s domashnimi zhivotnymi.” [Linguistic features of human conversation with domestic animals] Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Rossijskaja i zarubezhnaja filologija 4(32): 58–66.
Fiehler, Reinhar, Birgit Barden, Mechthild Elstermann and Barbara Kraft
2002 “Why We Talk to Ourselves?” Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 14: 255–272.
Giles, Howard and Jordan Soliz
2014 “Accommodation Theory: A Situated Framework for Relational, Family and Intergroup Dynamics.” In Engaging Interpersonal Theories, second edition, ed. by D. Braitewaite and P. Schrodt, 159–167. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Goffman, Erwing
1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Grice, H. Paul
1975 “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 2: Speech Acts, ed. by P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Seminar Press.
Gu, Yueguo
1994 “Pragmatics and Rhetoric: A Collaborative Approach to Conversation.” In Pretending to Communicate, ed. by H. Parret, 173–195. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Hirsh-Pasek, Kathy and Rebecca Treiman
1982 “Doggerel: Motherese in a New Context.” Journal of Child Language 9(1): 229–237.
Isaacs, William
1999Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. New York: Doubleday.
Kallio, Tomi J. and Johan Sandström
2009 “Academic Writing as Autocommunication – the Case of Doctoral Dissertations on CSR.” Culture and Organization 15(1): 75–87.
2015 “Is the Idiom Principle Blocked in Bilingual L2 Production?” In Bilingual Figurative Language Processing, ed. by R. R. Heredia and A. B. Cieśliska, 28–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiesling, Scott F.
2013 “Constructing Identity.” In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, 2nd edition, ed. by J. K. Chambers and N. Schilling-Estes, 448–467. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Leech, Geoffrey N.
1983 “Language and Tact.” In G. LeechExplorations in Semantics and Pragmatics, 79–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liddicoat, Anthony J.
2007An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.
2012 “On the Nature of Language: Formal Written-Language Biased Linguistics vs. Dialogical Language Sciences.” In Cognitive Dynamics in Linguistic Interactions, ed. by A. Kravchenko, 107–124. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publ.
2013 “Risks of Miscommunication in Various Speech Genres.” In Understanding by Communication, ed. by E. Borisova and O. Souleimanova, 33–53. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publ.
Mustajoki, Arto
2017a “The Issue of Theorizing: Object-of-Study and Methodology.” In Language and Dialogue: A Handbook of Key Issues in the Field, ed. by E. Weigand, 234–250. New York: Routledge.
1991 “Cooperation and the Choice of Linguistic Means: Some Evidence from the Use of Subjunctive in Modern Greek.” Journal of Pragmatics 15: 11–42.
Pietikäinen, Kaisa S.
2016 “Misunderstandings and Ensuring Understanding in Private ELF Talk.” Applied Linguistics 1–26.
Roberts, Gareth, Benjamin Langstein and Bruno Galantucci
2016 “(In)sensitivity to Incoherence in Human Communication.” Language & Communication 47: 15–22.
Rogers, John, Lynette A. Hart and Ronald P. Boltz
1993 “The Role of Pet Dogs in Casual Conversations of Elderly Adults.” The Journal of Social Psychology 133(3): 265–277.
Saunders, Harold
1999A Public Peace Process. New York: Saint Martin’s Press.
Sarangi, Srikant K. and Slembrouck, Stefaan
1992 “Non-Cooperation in Communication: A Reassessment of Gricean Pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 17: 117–154.
Senge, Peter
1990The Fifth discipline. The Art & Practice of Learning Organisations. Currency: Doubleday.
Sherstinova, Tatiana
2015 “Macro Episodes of Russian Everyday Oral Communication: Towards Pragmatic Annotation of the ORD Speech Corpus.” In Speech and Computer, SPECOM 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by A. Ronzhin, R. Potapova, and N. Fakotakis, vol. 9391, 268–276. Heidelberg: Springer.
Shintel, Hadas and Boaz Keysar
2009 “Less is More: a Minimalist Account of Joint Action in Communication.” Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 260–273.
Tannen, Deborah
2004 “Talking the Dog: Framing Pets as Interactional Resources in Family Discourse.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(4): 399–420.
Vepreva, I. T.
2012 “Razgovory avtomobolista za ruljom i tipy kvaziadresata.” [Conversations of car-drivers and types of quasi-addressees] Russkii iazyk segodnja, vypusk 5, 82–92.
Walton, Douglas N. and Fabrizi Macagno
2007 “Types of Dialogue, Dialectical Relevance and Textual Congruity.” Anthropology & Philosophy 8(1–2): 101–119.
Weigand, Edda
2004 “Emotions: The simple and the Complex.” In Emotions in Dialogic Interaction, ed. by E. Weigand, 3–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Weigand, Edda
2011 “Paradigm Changes in Linguistics: From Reductionism to Holism.” Language Sciences 33: 544–549.
Zanadvorova, A. V.
2008 “Obshchenie cheloveka s komjuterom” [Interaction of a human with a computer]. In Russkii iazyk. Aktyvnye protsessy na rubezhe XX-XXI vekov, ed. by L. P. Krysin, 579–611. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskih kul’tur.
Zemskaja, E. A.
1987Russkaja razgovornaja rech’: lingvisticheskii analiz i problemy obucheniia [Russian colloquial language: linguistic analysis and problems of teaching]. Moscow: Russkii jazyk.
Cited by
Cited by 6 other publications
Galantucci, Bruno, Benjamin Langstein, Eliyahu Spivack & Nathaniel Paley
2020. Repair Avoidance: When Faithful Informational Exchanges Don't Matter That Much. Cognitive Science 44:10
Hashmi, Syed Ghufran, Sameera Khanam & S. Imtiaz Hasnain
2023. What Providers Seek to Do with ‘Questions’ in Patient-Provider Interaction. Health Communication 38:14 ► pp. 3326 ff.
2020. Angela Smith & Michael Higgins, The Language of Journalism. A Multi-genre Perspective, 2nd edition, Bloomsbury, London, 2020, 224 p.. Diacronia :12
Săftoiu, Răzvan
2020. Angela Smith & Michael Higgins, The Language of Journalism. A Multi-genre Perspective, 2nd edition, Bloomsbury, London, 2020, 224 p.. Diacronia :12
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.