Cover not available
Discussion published In:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 11:3 (2021) ► pp.457–486
Discussion article

Dialogue

The complex whole

| University of Münster , Germany
The article unfolds dialogue as the complex whole of human action and behaviour in the theory of New Science. The actual state of research in dialogue analysis seems to be a garden of a thousand flowers where scholars can pick out the flower they like. Can this be science? New Science is introduced as science of complexity which represents a new hierarchy of integrated components derived from the complex whole. The structure of dialogue as the complex whole allows us to describe and explain all pertinent components in one theory. The article briefly outlines the main components: action and grammar. New Science also means the end of unjustified assumptions which underlie most of the various current models of science and philosophy and calls for verification by neuro- and sociobiology.
Keywords: science, New Science, complexity, dialogue, integration, action, grammar, speaking, thinking, perceiving, pragmatics, discourse, verification, neurobiology
Article outline
  • 1.The ‘thing’ we want to find out
  • 2.From classical science to New Science
    • Starting point
    • The object
    • Goal
    • Methodology
    • The key to opening up the complex whole
    • The role of data
    • Why to proceed from the simple to the complex
  • 3.Human nature as structuring principle
  • 4.The complex whole of the action game
    • 4.1Fundamentals
    • 4.2Abandoning and redefining traditional concepts
  • 5.The basic structure of action
  • 6.Grammar in New Science
    • 6.1Fundamentals of an utterance grammar
    • 6.2Reference and predication as components
  • 7.The challenge of humanity: Uniting science and philosophy
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 5 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00106.wei
References (65)
References
Adams, Jennifer L. 2017. “Self-interest and Social Concerns.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 294–306. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
. 2016. “Minimal Computation and the Architecture of Language.” Chinese Semiotic Studies 12 (1): 13–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooren, François. 2020. “Reconciling Dialogue and Propagation: A Ventriloquial Inquiry.” Language and Dialogue 10 (1): 9–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damasio, Antonio. 1994. Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pederson, 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. 1998. The Meaning of It All. Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist. Reading, GMass.: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
2001. The Pleasure of Finding Things out. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 1987. Discourse Structure and Anaphora. Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frawley, William. 1987. “Review Article: van Dijk (ed.) 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis 1-IV.” Language 631: 361–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1993. “Coherence in Text and in Mind.” Pragmatics and Cognition 11: 171–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 31: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva and Haiping Long. 2013. “An Outline of Discourse Grammar.” In Functional Approaches to Language, ed. by Shannon T. Bischoff and Carmen Jany, 155–206. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempson, Ruth. 2012. “The Syntax/Pragmatics Interface.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 529–548. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 2007. Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. A Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass./London: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle 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 (N.S.) 16 (s1): S1–S21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Lee. 2019. The Scientific Attitude. Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience. Cambridge, Mass./London: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor A. and Leo Wanner. 1994. “Lexical Co-occurrence and Lexical Inheritance. Emotion Lexemes in German: A Lexicographic Case Study.” Lexikos 41: 88–160 ( Afrilex-Reeks/Series 4). Stellenbosch/Republik Südafrika.Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. 2nd rev. ed. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mushin, Ilana and Simona Pekarek Doehler. 2021. “Linguistic Structures in Social Interaction. Moving Temporality to the forefront of a Science of Language.” Interactional Linguistics 1 (1): 2–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okulska, Urszula. 2018. “The Ethics of Intercultural Dialogue: Reconciliation Discourse in John Paul II’s Pontifical Correspondence.” In Dialogic Ethics, ed. by Ronald C. Arnett and François Cooren, 77–126. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prigogine, Ilya. 1994. Les lois du chaos. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass./London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1948. Human Knowledge. Its Scope and Limits. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1978. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 7–55. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: At the University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seligman, Martin E. P. 1970. “On the Generality of the Laws of Learning.” Psychological Review 771: 406–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1962. “The Architecture of Complexity: Hierarchic Systems.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 1061: 467–482.Google Scholar
Stati, Sorin. 1990. Le transphrastique. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
. 1994. “Formal Devices for Argumentative Moves.” In Text und Grammatik. Festschrift für Roland Harweg zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. by Peter Canisius, Clemens-Peter Herbermann and Gerhard Tschauder, 52–61. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara Fox and Chase Wesley Raymond. 2021. “The Grammar of Proposals for Joint Activities.” Interactional Linguistics 1 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael and Henrike Moll. 2010. “The Gap is Social: Human Shared Intentionality and Culture.” In Mind the Gap. Tracing the Origins of Human Universals, ed. by Peter M. Kappeler and Joan B. Silk, 331–349. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. (ed.). 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vols 1–41. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Vico, Giambattista. 1725. Scienza nuova. The First New Science. Leon Pompa (ed. and trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002.Google Scholar
Wandruszka, Mario. 1969. Sprachen vergleichbar und unvergleichlich. München: Piper.Google 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. 11, 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: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. “Generalisierende Regel oder idiomatischer Gebrauch. Von den Schwierigkeiten eines Ausländers, Deutsch zu lernen.” In Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Karl Sornig zum 66. Geburtstag. Grazer Linguistische Monographien 111, 259–275.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Review of Barbara A. Fox: Discourse and Anaphora.” Studies in Language 201: 236–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998a. “Contrastive Lexical Semantics.” In Contrastive Lexical Semantics, ed. by Edda Weigand, 25–44. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 1998b. Contrastive Lexical Semantics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Constitutive Features of Human Dialogic Interaction: Mirror Neurons and What They Tell Us about Human Abilities.” In Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language, ed. by Maxim Stamenov and Vittorio Gallese, 229–248. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Sprache als Dialog. Sprechakttaxonomie und kommunikative Grammatik. 2nd, rev. ed., Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “The Sociobiology of Language.” In Dialogue and Culture, ed. by Marion Grein and Edda Weigand, 27–49. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009a. Language as Dialogue. From Rules to Principles of Probability (ed. by Sebastian Feller). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. “Lexical Units and Syntactic Structures: Words, Phrases and Utterances Considered from a Comparative Viewpoint.” In Weigand, Edda. Language as Dialogue. From Rules to Principles of Probability (ed. by Sebastian Feller), 113–128. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Dialogue in the Stream of Life.” Language and Dialogue 5(2): 197–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017a. “The Mixed Game Model. A Holistic Theory.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 174–194. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2017b. “The Concept of Language in an Utterance Grammar.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 214–233. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Dialogue: The Key to Pragmatics.” In From Pragmatics to Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand and Istvan Kecskes, 5–27. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “Language and Dialogue in Philosophy and Science.” Intercultural Pragmatics 18 (4): 533–561. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. forthcoming. “Thinking about the Future of the Humanities.” In Scholarly Organizations and the Study of Languages and Literatures, ed. by Tom Clark. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Weigand, Edda and Istvan Kecskes (eds). 2018. From Pragmatics to Dialogue. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, Steven. 2016. To Explain the World. The Discovery of Modern Science. UK: Penguin Random Books.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1972. Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt/M.: Athenaeum.Google Scholar
Wilson, Edward O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2003. The Future of Life. London: Abacus.Google Scholar
2015. The Meaning of Human Existence. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Gertrude E. Anscombe (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Druzhinin, Andrey S., Tom Scholte & Tatiana A. Fomina
2024. (Im)politeness mismatches in the multi-dialogic pragmatics of telecinematic satire. Language and Dialogue 14:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Haiash, O., S. Mykhalska, S. Myronova & O. Bielova
2024. Studying the level of dialogical speech development in pupils with intellectual disorders as an indicator of their mental health. CHILD`S HEALTH 19:2 ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Szczyrbak, Magdalena
2024.  Experto crede . Language and Dialogue DOI logo
Tereszkiewicz, Anna
2024. Social identity construction in expert-lay dialogue on Facebook. Language and Dialogue DOI logo
Botaș, Adina
2023. A dialogic speech act approach to ridiculing references in the French presidential debate of 2022. Language and Dialogue 13:3 ► pp. 364 ff. DOI logo
Chłopicki, Władysław
2023. The drama of dialogue action in distinct discourse spaces. Language and Dialogue 13:3 ► pp. 383 ff. DOI logo
Cooren, François
2023. Speech Acts and Ventriloquation: The Contribution of Marina Sbisà to a General Theory of Action and Performativity. In Sbisà on Speech as Action [Philosophers in Depth, ], ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Weigand, Edda
2023. Principles of New Science. Language and Dialogue 13:1 ► pp. 26 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.