Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 7:3 (2017) ► pp.301–335

Dialogue, dialogicality and interactivity

A conceptually bewildering field?

| University of Gothenburg (Sweden),
This paper discusses about twenty approaches to the study of dialogue or interaction. The literature shows different foci in and understandings of these phenomena. There is a basic distinction between dialogue – in the sense of overt exchanges of sequentialised utterances or contributions by two or more participants who are co-present in particular situated encounters – and dialogicality, which is taken to be a more general capacity that enables individuals or constellations of individuals to make sense in and through interactions with others, artefacts and environments. There are also “interactivity” approaches that appear to broaden the scope to encompass more of non-linguistic and often material aspects of human sense-making.
Keywords: dialogue, dialogicality, interactivity, sense-making, semiotic resource
Article outline
  • 1.Purpose
  • 2.Dialogue and dialogicality: Some fundamental assumptions
  • 3.Dialogical theories
    • 3.1Bakhtinology
    • 3.2Text-oriented dialogism
    • 3.3Interactional dialogism
    • 3.4Dialogical self theory
    • 3.5Normative dialogism and dialogue philosophy
    • 3.6Dialogic(al) pedagogy
    • 3.7Extended dialogism
  • 4.A dialogue action theory: Dialogue game model
  • 5.Theories of semiotic resources used in dialogue: Language and dialogue systems and more general cultural resources
    • 5.1Linguistic pragmatics
    • 5.2Social-pragmatic discourse analysis
    • 5.3Social representations theory
    • 5.4Activity theory in Russia and the West
    • 5.5Cultural-semiotic psychology
  • 6.Dialogue theories
    • 6.1Conversation Analysis and ethnomethodology
    • 6.2Interactional linguistics
    • 6.3Utterance grammars
    • 6.4Discursive psychology
    • 6.5Interaction grammar
    • 6.6“Mechanistic” theory of interaction
    • 6.7Multi-aspectual interaction analysis
    • 6.8Studies of infant interaction
    • 6.9Distributed Language Approach
  • 7.Interactivity within organism-environment theories
    • 7.1Organism-environment theory
    • 7.2Posthumanism
  • 8.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.7.3.01lin
References (139)
References
Anward, Jan. 2015. Doing Language. Linköping: Department of Culture and Communication.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1971 [1978]. The Life of the Mind. Book One: Thinking. San Diego: Harcourt, Inc.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2005. “Projection in interaction and projection in grammar.” Text 251: 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language.” Language Sciences 311: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Michail M. 1968. Rabelais and His World. Translated by H. Iswolsky. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Transl. by Carol Emerson and Michael Holquist, edited by Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. A selection of essays from the Russian original “Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva” [1979]. Translated by V. McGee, edited by Carol Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway – Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham: Duke University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barwise, John and Jon Perry. 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bertau, Marie-Cécile, Gonçalves Miguel, and Peter Raggatt (Eds.). 2012. Dialogic Formations: Investigations into the Origins and Development of the Dialogical Self. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Billig, Michael. 1987. Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brandist, Craig and Galin Tihanov (eds.). 2000. Materializing Bakhtin: The Bakhtin Circle and Social Theory. Basingstoke: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brannigan, Holly, Martin Pickering, Janet McLean, and Alexandra Cleland. 2007. “Syntactic alignment and participant role in dialogue.” Cognition 1041: 163–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broth, Mathias, Jakob Cromdal, and Lena Levin. 2017. “Starting out as a driver: Progression in instructed pedal work.” In Memory Practices and Learning: Interactional, Institutional and Sociocultural Perspectives, ed. by Mäkitalo, Åsa, Linell, Per and Säljö, Roger, 113–143. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Buber, Martin. 1954. Die Schriften über das Dialogische Prinzip: Ich und Du [1923], Zwiesprache [1932], Die Frage an den Einzelnen, Elemente des Zwischenmenschlichen [1954]. Heidelberg: Schneider.Google Scholar
Carbaugh, Donal. 2013. “On Dialogue Studies.” Journal of Dialogue Studies 11: 9–28.Google Scholar
Cicourel, Aaron. 1968. The Social Organization of Juvenile Evidence. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
. 1981. “Notes on the integration of micro- and macro-levels of analysis.” In Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Towards an Integration of Micro- and Macro-sociologies, ed. by Knorr-Cetina, Karin and Cicourel, Aaron, 51–80. London: Routledge and Kegan.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Robin. 2005. Type Theory with Records. University of Gothenburg. Ms.Google Scholar
Cowley, Stephen (ed.). 2011. Distributed Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowley, Stephen, João Major, Sune V. Steffensen, and Alfredo Dinis (Eds.). 2010. Signifying Bodies: Biosemiosis, Interaction and Health. Braga: The Faculty of Philosophy of Braga.Google Scholar
De Boer, Bart. 2011. “Self-organization and language evolution.” In The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution (e-book), ed. by Talleman, Maggie and Gibson, Kathleen. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewey, John and Arthur Bentley. 1949. Knowing and the Known. Boston.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul and John Heritage (Eds.). 1992. Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, Jack. 2014. “Towards a Dialogic Syntax.” Cognitive Linguistics 251: 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emerson, Carol. 1997. The First Hundred Years of Mikhail Bakhtin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Yrjö. 2008. From Teams to Knots: Activity-theoretical Studies of Collaboration and Learning at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foolen, Ad, Ulrike Lüdtke, Timothy Racine, and Jordan Zlatev (eds.). 2012. Moving Ourselves, Moving Others: Motion and Emotion in Intersubjectivity, Consciousness and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
François, Frédéric. 1994. Morale et mise en mots. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Shaun. 2011. “Interpretations of embodied cognition.” In The Implications of Embodiment: Cognition and Communication, ed. by Tschacher, T. and Bergomi, C., 59–71. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
. 2002. Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Edited and introduced by A. W. Rawls. Lanham, MA: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Gibson, James. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Gillespie, Alex and Flora Cornish. 2009. “Intersubjectivity: Towards a Dialogical Analysis.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 401: 19–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2009. The Interactive Stance: Meaning for Conversation. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan and Massimo Poesio. 2016. “Grammar is a system that characterizes talk in interaction.” Frontiers in Psychology 71: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2011. “Contextures of Action.” In Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World, ed. by Streeck, Jürgen, Goodwin, Charles and LeBaron, Curtis, 182–193. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2017. Co-Operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Grice 1975. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grossen, Michèle. 2010. “Interaction analysis and psychology. A dialogical perspective!” Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 441: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, 31: Speech Acts, ed. by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne, Wolfgang Imo, and Jörg Bücker (Eds.). 2014. Grammar and Dialogism: Sequential, Syntactic and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli and Margret Selting (eds.). 2005. Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Roy. 1997. “From an integrationist point of view.” In Linguistics Inside Out: Roy Harris and His Critics, ed. by Wolf, George and Nigel Love, 229–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Christian. 2013. The Dynamics of Auction: Social Interaction and the Sale of Fine Art and Antiques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John and Steven Clayman. 2010. Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. New York: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John and Douglas Maynard (eds.). 2006. Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primare Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Hubert and Harry Kempen. 1993. The Dialogical Self. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hermans, Hubert and Agnieszka Hermans-Konopka. 2010. Dialogical Self Theory: Positioning and Counter-positioning in a Globalizing Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko and Jack Kalus. 1985. Anaphora and Definite Descriptions: Two Applications of Game-Theoretical Semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hodges, Bert, Sune V. Steffensen, and Jim Martin. 2012. “Caring, conversing, and realizing values: new directions in language studies.” Language Sciences 341: 499–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmeyer, Jesper, 2010. “A biosemiotic approach to health.” In Signifying Bodies: Biosemiosis, Interaction and Health, ed. by Cowley, Stephen, Major, João, Steffensen, Sune V. and Dinis, Alfredo, 21–41. Braga: The Faculty of Philosophy of Braga.Google Scholar
Holquist, Michael. 1986. “Introduction.” In Bakhtin, Mikhail M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. A selection of essays from the Russian original “Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva” [1979]. Translated by V. McGee, edited by C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
. 1990. Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundsnurscher, Franz. 1980. “Konversationsanalyse versus Dialoggrammatik.” In Akten des VI. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongress Basel 1980, ed. by Rupp, Heinz and Roloff, Hans-Gert, 89–95. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Hutchins, Edwin. 2013. “The cultural ecosystem of human cognition.” Philosophical Psychology, 1–16.Google Scholar
Jovchelovitch, Sandra. 2007. Knowledge in Context: Representations, Community and Culture. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2010. “Bodily quoting in dance correction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 431: 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempson, Ruth, Wilfried Meyer-Viol, and Dov Gabbay. 2001. Dynamic Syntax: The Flow of Language Understanding. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin. 2017. “Using Conversation Analysis in the Lab.” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 501: 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leontiev, Aleksei N. 1981. “The problem of activity in psychology.” In The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology ed. by Wertsch, James, 37–71. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Google Scholar
Levinas, Emmanuel. 1969. Totality and Infinity. Translated by A. Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
Ligorio, Beatrice and Margarida César (Eds.). 2013. Interplays between Dialogical Learning and Dialogical Self. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn, Peter MacNeilage, and Michael Studdert-Kennedy. 1984. “Self-organizing processes and the explanation of phonological universals.” In Explanation for Language Universals, ed. by Butterworth, Brian, Comrie, Bernard and Dahl, Östen, 181–203. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindwall, Oskar and Anna Ekström. 2011. “Instruction‐in‐Interaction: The Teaching and Learning of a Manual Skill.” Human Studies 351: 27–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-making. Charlotte NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2013. “The dynamics of incrementation in utterance-building: processes and resources.” In Units of Talk – Units of Actions, ed. by Szczepek Reed, Beatrice and Raymond, Geoffrey, 57–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Dialogism and the Distributed Language Approach: A rejoinder to Steffensen.” Language Sciences 501: 120–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Self-other interdependences in dialogue.” In Self and Other in Dialogue, ed. by Gille, Johan and Norén, Coco, 7–29. Pieterlen, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Linell, Per, Lennart Gustavsson, and Päivi Juvonen. 1988. “Interactional dominance in dyadic communication: A presentation of initiative-response analysis.” Linguistics, 261: 415–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per and Ivana Marková. 2014. Dialogical Approaches to Trust in Communication. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Luckmann, Thomas. 2012. “Alles Soziale besteht aus verschiedenen Niveaus der Objektivierung.” Ein Gespräch mit Thomas Luckmann. In Sozialität in Slow Mootion: Theoretische und empirische Perspektiven, ed. by Ayass, Ruth and Meyer, Christian, 21–39. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
Luff, Paul, Jon Hindmarsh, and Christian Heath (eds.). 2000. Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing System Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mäkitalo, Åsa and Roger Säljö. 2002. Talk in institutional context and institutional context in talk: Categories as situated practices. Text 221: 57–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marková, Ivana. 2003. Dialogicality and Social Representations: The Dynamics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. “On «the inner alter» in dialogue.” International Journal for Dialogical Science, 11: 125–147.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Complementarity as epistemology of life.” In Culture Psychology and Its Future: Complementarity in a New Key, ed. by Wagoner, Brady, Chaudhary, Nandita and Hviid, Pernille, 33–50. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2016. The Dialogical Mind: Common Sense and Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marková, Ivana and Klaus Foppa (eds.). 1990. The Dynamics of Dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
(eds.). 1991. Asymmetries of Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Marková, Ivana and Alex Gillespie (eds.). 2008. Trust and Distrust: Sociocultural perspectives. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
(eds.). 2012. Trust and Conflict: Representation, culture and dialogue. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marková, Ivana, Carl F. Graumann, and Klaus Foppa (eds.). 1995. Mutualities in Dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marková, Ivana, Per Linell, Michèle Grossen, and Anne Salazar Orvig. 2007. Dialogue in Focus Groups: Exploring socially shared knowledge. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Martin, Cathrin. 2004. From other to self. Learning as Interactional Change. Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Märtsin, Mariann, Brady Wagoner, Emma-Louise Aveling, Irini Kadianaki, and Lisa Whittaker (eds.). 2012. Dialogicality in Focus: Challenges to Theory, Method and Application. New York: Nova Science.Google Scholar
Maturana, Humberto and Francisco Varela. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matusov, Eugene. 2001. Journey into Dialogic Pedagogy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers.Google Scholar
Mercer, Neil. 1995. The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst Teachers and Learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1964. “The philosopher and his shadow.” In Signs, ed. by Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 159–81. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, Christian, Jürgen Streeck, and Scott Jordan (eds.). 2017. Intercorporeality: Emerging Socialities in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2013. “Interactional space and the study of embodied talk-in-interaction.” In Space in Language and Linguistics: Geographical, Interactional, and Cognitive Perspectives. (linguae and litterae, 24), ed. by Auer, Peter, Hilpert, Martin, Stukenbrock, Anja and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, 247–275. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logo Rommetveit 1974Google Scholar
Morson, Gary and Carol Emerson. 1990. Mikhail Bakhtin. Creation of a Prosaics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, Serge. 2000. Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology, ed. by Gerald Duveen. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. Psychoanalysis: Its Image and its Public. Translated by David Macey. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Noë, Alva. 2004. Action in Perception. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson. 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, Sarah Bro. 2015. The Cognitive Ecology of Human Errors in Emergency Medicine: An Interactivity-Based Approach. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin and Simon Garrod. 2004. “Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 271: 169–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “How tightly are production and comprehension interwoven?” Frontiers in Psychology 41: Article 238 (April 2013). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poesio, Massimo and Hannes Rieser. 2010. “Competions, coordination, and alignment in dialogue.” Dialogue and Discourse 11: 1–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potter, Jonathan. 1996. Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, Paul. 1998. Writing/disciplinarity: A Sociohistoric Account of Literate Activity in the Academy. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Prior, Paul and Jody Shipka. 2003. “Chronotopic lamination: Tracing the contours of literateactivity.” In Writing Selves/ Writing Societies: Research from Activity Perspectives, ed. by Bazerman, Charles and Russell, David, 180–238. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
Rommetveit, Ragnar. 1974. On Message Structure. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Roth, Wolff-Michael and Alfredo Jornet. 2014. “Toward a Theory of Experience.” Science Education 981: 106–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roulet, Eddy, Antoine Auchlin, Jacques Moeschler, M. Schelling, and Christian Rubattel. 1985. L’articulation du discours en français contemporain. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Vols. I-II1. Edited by Gail Jefferson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language 501: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salazar Orvig, Anne. 1999. Les mouvements du discourse. Paris: l’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant and Celia Roberts (Eds.). 1999. Talk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. “Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided for place for the defence of intersubjectivity in conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 951: 1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. “Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Thompson, Sandra, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steffensen, Sune Vork. 2013. “Human interactivity: Problem-solving, solution-probing and verbal patterns in the wild.” In Cognition Beyond the Brain: Computation, Interactivity and Human Artifice, ed. by Cowley, Stephen and Vallée-Tourangeau, Frédéric, 195–221. Dordrect: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron (Eds.). 2011. Embodied Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice and Raymond Geoffrey (eds.). 2013. Units of Talk – Units of Actions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tallis, Raymond. 2011. Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity. (Acumen) New printing (2014): London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Theunissen, Michael. 1964. Der Andere: Studien zur Sozialontologie der Gegenwart. (New edition, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965).Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trevarthen, Colwyn. 1979. “Communication and cooperation in early infancy: a description of primary intersubjectivity.” In Before Speech: The Beginning of Interpersonal Communication, ed. by Bullowa, Margaret, 321–347. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Valsiner, Jaan. 2014. An Invitation to Cultural Psychology. Los Angeles, etc: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vice, Susan. 1997. Introducing Bakhtin. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, Lev. 1987. Thinking and Speech. Edited and translated by N. Minick. Russian original [1934]. New York and London: Plenum.Google Scholar
Wegerif, Rupert. 2007. Dialogic, Education and Technology: Expanding the Space of Learning. New York and Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2009. Language as Dialogue: From Rules to Principles of Probability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “How to verify a theory of dialogue.” Language and Dialogue 61: 349–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “IADA history: The unity of dialogue and its multiple faces.” Language and Dialogue 71: 63–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Ethics in Dialogue: Ideals and reality.” In Dialogic Ethics, ed. by Arnett, Ronald and Cooren, François. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, James. 1985. Culture, Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1998. Mind as Action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wieder, Lawrence. 1974. Language and Social Reality: The Case of Telling the Convict Code. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2013. “The mimesis hierarchy of semiotic development: Five stages of intersubjectivity in children.” Public Journal of Semiotices 41: 47–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (23)

Cited by 23 other publications

Borchmann, Simon
2024. A little less conversation – On the completeness of discourse-initial action-guiding subsententials. Language Sciences 103 ► pp. 101628 ff. DOI logo
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
Van Poucke, Margo
2024. ChatGPT, the perfect virtual teaching assistant? Ideological bias in learner-chatbot interactions. Computers and Composition 73 ► pp. 102871 ff. 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
Goddard, Alex & Alex Gillespie
2023. Textual Indicators of Deliberative Dialogue: A Systematic Review of Methods for Studying the Quality of Online Dialogues. Social Science Computer Review 41:6 ► pp. 2364 ff. DOI logo
Ilie, Cornelia
2023. Dialogue and dialogic perspectives on actions, interactions and practices across contexts. Journal of Pragmatics 203 ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
Leskinen, Kirsi
2023. Refugee-background students negotiating academic literacy practices in L2: a dialogical and nexus analytical approach. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 11:1 ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo
Rapanta, Chrysi, Andrea Miralda-Banda, Mercè Garcia-Milà, Maria Vrikki, Fabrizio Macagno & Maria Evagorou
2023. Detecting the factors affecting classroom dialogue quality. Linguistics and Education 77 ► pp. 101223 ff. DOI logo
Rinholm, Hanne, Ida Heiberg Solem & Inger Ulleberg
2023. Dialogues in education: Exploring cases from music and mathematics education. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal 11:1 ► pp. A60 ff. DOI logo
Lantz-Andersson, Annika, Ewa Skantz-Åberg, Apostolia Roka, Mona Lundin & Pia Williams
2022. Teachers' collaborative reflective discussions on technology-mediated teaching: Envisioned and enacted transformative agency. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 35 ► pp. 100645 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Delin
2022. Review of Pickering & Garrod (2021): Understanding Dialogue: Language Use and Social Interaction. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 23:2 ► pp. 348 ff. DOI logo
Ro, Eunseok & Hanbyul Jung
2022. “Aratda!”: Intersubjectivity-in-action in a multilingual Korean reality TV show. Journal of Pragmatics 201 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo
Dollar, Natalie J.
2021. Engaging contested community issues. Language and Dialogue 11:1 ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
Simonsen, Line Maria
2021. Hybrid presence: Integrating interprofessional interactions with digital consultations. Nordicom Review 42:s4 ► pp. 22 ff. DOI logo
Zeng, Guocai
2021. Repetition in Mandarin-speaking children’s dialogs: its distribution and structural dimensions. Linguistics Vanguard 7:1 DOI logo
Cowley, Stephen J. & Anneliese Kuhle
2020. The rise of languaging. Biosystems 198 ► pp. 104264 ff. DOI logo
Soukup, Barbara
2020. Survey area selection in Variationist Linguistic Landscape Study (VaLLS). Linguistic Landscape. An international journal 6:1 ► pp. 52 ff. DOI logo
Foolen, Ad
2019. Quo vadis pragmatics? From adaptation to participatory sense-making. Journal of Pragmatics 145 ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo
Linell, Per
2018. Dialogism is an integrationism. Language and Dialogue 8:2 ► pp. 306 ff. DOI logo
Mustajoki, Arto, Tatiana Sherstinova & Ulla Tuomarla
2018. Types and functions of pseudo-dialogues. In From Pragmatics to Dialogue [Dialogue Studies, 31], ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Weigand, Edda
2018. The theory myth. Language and Dialogue 8:2 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo
Trasmundi, Sarah Bro & Per Linell
2017. Insights and their emergence in everyday practices. Pragmatics & Cognition 24:1 ► pp. 62 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 august 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.