Cover not available
Part of
From Pragmatics to Dialogue
Edited by Edda Weigand and Istvan Kecskes
[Dialogue Studies 31] 2018
► pp. 189–216

Types and functions of pseudo-dialogues

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.
Keywords: dialogue, pseudo-dialogue, non-standard dialogue, talking to oneself, talking to animals, talking to a computer, listener, recipient, ORD project
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Constituents influencing the course of communication
  • 3.Types of dialogues
  • 4.Types of pseudo-dialogues
  • 5.Observations on pseudo-dialogues in ORD material
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 5 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.31.10mus
References
Abercrombie, David
1965 Studies in Phonetics and Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Asinovsky, Alexander, Natalia Bogdanova, Marina Rusakova, Anastassia Ryko, Svetlana Stepanova, and Tatiana Sherstinova
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
1986 Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, translated by Vern W. McGee; edited by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bargh, John A. and Tanya L. Chartrand
1999 “The Unbearable Automaticity of Being.” American Psychologist 54, 462–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohm, David
2006 On Dialogue. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brooks, David
2011 Social Science Palooza II. New York Times, March 17.Google Scholar
Buber, Martin
1923/2008 Ich und Du. Stuttgart: Raclam.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary and Kira Hall
2005 “Identity and Interaction. A Socio-Cultural Linguistic Approach.” Discourse Studies 7(4–5): 585–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bunz, Ulla and Scott W. Campbell
2004 “Politeness Accommodation in Electronic Mail.” Communication Research Reports 21: 11–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burnard, Lou
(ed.) 2007 Reference 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.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2016 Reference 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.Google Scholar
Campbell, Nick
2004 “Speech & Expression; the Value of a Longitudinal Corpus.” LREC 2004: 183–186.Google Scholar
Carbaugh, Donal
2013 “On Dialogue Studies.” Journal of Dialogue Studies 1(1), 9–18.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Thomas B. Carlson
1982 “Hearers and Speech Acts.” Language 58(2): 332–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dynel, M.
2010 Not Hearing Things – Hearer/listener Categories in Polylogues. mediAzioni 9. Available online at [URL]Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Fiehler, Reinhar, Birgit Barden, Mechthild Elstermann and Barbara Kraft
2004 Eigenschaften gesprochener Sprache. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Fields, Chris
2002 “Why We Talk to Ourselves?” Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 14: 255–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erwing
1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, Kathy and Rebecca Treiman
1982 “Doggerel: Motherese in a New Context.” Journal of Child Language 9(1): 229–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, William
1999 Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan
2010 “The Paradox of Communication: Socio-Cognitive Approach to Pragmatics.” Pragmatics and Society 1(1): 50–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N.
1983 “Language and Tact.” In G. Leech Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics, 79–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddicoat, Anthony J.
2007 An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Linell, Per
1998 Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
2017 “Dialogue, Dialogicality and Interactivity.” Language and Dialogue 7 (3): 301–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lotman, Yuri M.
1990 Universe of the Mind, translated by A. Shukman. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Marková, Irina
1982 Paradigms, Thought, and Language, . Chichester New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mitcell, Robert W.
2001 “Americans’ Talk to Dogs: Similarities and Differences with Talk to Infants.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 34(2): 183–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mustajoki, Arto
2012 “A Speaker-Oriented Multidimensional Approach to Risks and Causes of Miscommunication.” Language and Dialogue 2, 216–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
2017b “Why is Miscommunication More Common in Everyday Life than in Lingua Franca Conversation?” In Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, vol. 274), ed. by I. Kecskes and S. Assimakopoulos, 55–74. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Connell, Daniel C. and Sabine Kowal
2008 Communicating with One Another: Towards a Psychology of Spontaneous Spoken Discourse. New York etc.: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Dialogical Genres: Empractical and Conversational Listening and Speaking. New York etc.: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, Esther
2006 “Fictive Interaction within the Sentence: A Communicative Type of Fictivity of Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics 17(2): 245–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlidou, Theodossia
1991 “Cooperation and the Choice of Linguistic Means: Some Evidence from the Use of Subjunctive in Modern Greek.” Journal of Pragmatics 15: 11–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietikäinen, Kaisa S.
2016 “Misunderstandings and Ensuring Understanding in Private ELF Talk.” Applied Linguistics 1–26.Google Scholar
Roberts, Gareth, Benjamin Langstein and Bruno Galantucci
2016 “(In)sensitivity to Incoherence in Human Communication.” Language & Communication 47: 15–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saunders, Harold
1999 A Public Peace Process. New York: Saint Martin’s Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant K. and Slembrouck, Stefaan
1992 “Non-Cooperation in Communication: A Reassessment of Gricean Pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 17: 117–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Senge, Peter
1990 The Fifth discipline. The Art & Practice of Learning Organisations. Currency: Doubleday.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintel, Hadas and Boaz Keysar
2009 “Less is More: a Minimalist Account of Joint Action in Communication.” Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 260–273.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
2004 “Talking the Dog: Framing Pets as Interactional Resources in Family Discourse.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(4): 399–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N. and Fabrizi Macagno
2007 “Types of Dialogue, Dialectical Relevance and Textual Congruity.” Anthropology & Philosophy 8(1–2): 101–119.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda
2004 “Emotions: The simple and the Complex.” In Emotions in Dialogic Interaction, ed. by E. Weigand, 3–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Paradigm Changes in Linguistics: From Reductionism to Holism.” Language Sciences 33: 544–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Zemskaja, E. A.
1987 Russkaja razgovornaja rech’: lingvisticheskii analiz i problemy obucheniia [Russian colloquial language: linguistic analysis and problems of teaching]. Moscow: Russkii jazyk.Google Scholar
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 DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Mustajoki, Arto & Alla Baikulova
2020. The risks of misunderstandings in family discourse. Language and Dialogue 10:3 ► pp. 340 ff. DOI logo
Săftoiu, Răzvan
2019. The Dialogic Turn in Language Study. Language and Dialogue 9:3 ► pp. 471 ff. DOI logo
Săftoiu, Răzvan
2020. Angela Smith & Michael Higgins, The Language of Journalism. A Multi-genre Perspective, 2nd edition, Bloomsbury, London, 2020, 224 p.. Diacronia :12 DOI logo
Săftoiu, Răzvan
2020. Angela Smith & Michael Higgins, The Language of Journalism. A Multi-genre Perspective, 2nd edition, Bloomsbury, London, 2020, 224 p.. Diacronia :12 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.