Dialogicality and dialogue: An analysis of complexity and dynamics of fictitious dialogues in spanish and mexican television advertising

Gonzalo Martínez-Camino

Abstract

The aim of this article is to provide a theoretical and methodological contribution to the study of dialogue based on a dialogic conception of human communication (Bakhtin, Linell, Markova). From this perspective, it is postulated that the exchange is governed by the Principles of Dialogicality and Reciprocity and turns and contributions are defined as the constitutive elements of dialogue, representing two different levels of complexity. What is compared is how, on these two levels, the fictitious interlocutors of TV advertising dialogues, either Spanish or Mexican, try to influence each other: What are the similarities and differences in the diversity of types of turn and types of contribution, their possible impacts and the multiplicity of their connections.

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Baudrillard, J.
(1977) El sistema de los objetos. Madrid: Siglo Veintiuno.Google Scholar
Bravo, D.
(1998) Face y rol social: Eficacia comunicativa en encuentros entre hablantes nativos y no nativos de español. Revista de Estudios de Adquisición de la Lengua Española 9–10: 1–32.Google Scholar
(1999) ¿Imagen ‘positiva’ vs. imagen ‘negativa’?: Pragmática socio-cultural y componentes de face . Oralia 2: 155–184.Google Scholar
Briz, A.
(1998) El español coloquial en la conversación. Esbozo de pragmagramática. Madrid: Ariel.Google Scholar
Buber, M.
(1923/1962) I and thou. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H.
(1987) Four dimensions of language use. In J. Verschueren, and M. Bertucelli-Papi (eds.), The pragmatics perspective. Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 9–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fant, L.
(1989) Cultural mismatch in conversation: Spanish and Scandinavian communicative behaviour in negotiation settings. Hermes: Journal of Linguistics 3: 247–265.  TSBGoogle Scholar
(1996) Regulación conversacional en la negociación: Una comparación entre pautas mexicanas y peninsulares. In T. Kotschi, W. Oesterreicher, and K. Zimmermann (eds.), El español hablado y la cultura oral en España e Hispanoamérica. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, pp. 147–183.Google Scholar
(2001) Creating awareness of identity work in conversation. In M. Kelly, I. Elliot, and L. Fant (eds.), Third Level, Third Space: Intercultural Communication and Language in European High Education. Berna: Peter Lang, pp. 79–93.Google Scholar
Fant, L., and L. Granato de Grasso
(2002) Cortesía y gestión interrelacional: Hacia un nuevo marco conceptual. SIIS Working Papers 1. http://​lab1​.isp​.su​.se​/iis/.
Grice, P.
(1989) Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge/London: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Grupo Val. Es. Co
(2003) Un Sistema de unidades para el estudio del lenguaje coloquial. Oralia 6: 7–61.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1984) Language as code and language as behaviour: A systemic-functional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue. In R. Fawcett, M.A.K. Halliday, S.M. Lamb, and A. Makki, (eds.), The Semiotics of Language and Culture Vol. I: Language as Social Semiotics. London: Pinter, pp. 3–35.Google Scholar
(1985/1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hardin, K.J.
(2001) Pragmatics in Persuasive Discourse of Spanish Television Advertising. Dallas, (Tex.): SIL International.Google Scholar
Hernández-Flores, N.
(1999) Politeness ideology in Spanish colloquial conversation: The case of advice. Pragmatics 9.1: 37–49.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) La cortesía en la conversación española de familiares y amigos. La búsqueda de equilibrio entre la imagen del hablante y la imagen del destinatario. Alborg: Alborg Universitet.Google Scholar
Linell, P.
(1990) The power of dialogue dynamics. In Ivana Marková, and Klaus Foppa, (eds.), The Dynamics of Dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 147–177.Google Scholar
(1998) Approaching Dialogue. Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2009) Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte (NC): Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Linell, P., L. Gustavsson, and P. Juvonen
(1988) Interactional dominance in dyadic communication: A presentation of initiative-response analysis. Linguistics 26: 415–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P., and I. Marková
(1993) Acts in discourse: From monological speech acts to dialogical interacts. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 23: 173–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marková, Ivana
(2003) Dialogicality and Social Representation. The dynamics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martínez-Camino, G.
(2006) Cortesía y poder: La petición como gestión del vínculo interpersonal en una asignatura universitaria impartida a través de ordenador (Webct). Lingüística en la red, 4 www​.linred​.es.
(2008) Eslóganes y cortesía: Diferencias en la gestión interpersonal de la imagen social entre la publicidad televisiva emocional-sensorial y la racional. In A. Briz, A. Hidalgo, M. Albelda, J. Contreras, and N. Hernández Flores (eds.), Cortesía y conversación: de lo escrito a lo oral. III coloquio internacional del programa EDICE. Valencia: Departamento de Filología Española de la Facultat de Filología, Traducció i Comunicació de la Universitat de València y el Programa EDICE, pp. 556–586.Google Scholar
(2011) Análisis comparativo del dominio interactivo en los diálogos ficticios de la publicidad mexicana y de la española y su repercusión en la gestión interpersonal. In E. Alcaide Lara, E. Brenes Peña, and C. Fuentes Rodríguez (eds.), Aproximaciones a la (des)cortesía verbal en español. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2012) Análisis contrastivo del uso de las contribuciones interpersonales en los diálogos ficticios de la publicidad mexicana y de la española. In C. García, and M.E. Placencia (eds.), Estudios de variación pragmática en español. Buenos Aires: Dunken.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, J.
(1996) About face: A defence and elaboration of universal dualism. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Romera, Magdalena
(2004) Discourse Functional Units. The expression of coherence relations in spoken Spanish. Muenchen: Lincom.Google Scholar
Riley, Philip
(2007) Language, Culture and Identity. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Schneider, K.P., and A. Barron
(2008) Variational Pragmatics: A focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R.
(1976) A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society 5: 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson
(1996) Relevance: Communication & Cognition. London & New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Watts, R.
(2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Turnbull, W.
(2003) Language in Action. Psychological Models of Conversation. Hove & New York: Psychology Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yus Ramos, F.
(1997) La interpretación y la imagen de masas. Un modelo pragmático aplicado al discurso del cómic inglés. Alicante: Instituto de Cultura «Juan Gil-Albert».Google Scholar
Žegerac, V.
(1998) What is phatic communication? In V. Rouchota, and A. Jucker (eds.), Current issues on relevance theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 327–361. CrossrefGoogle Scholar