Visit www.benjamins.com

rss feed

Language and Dialogue

image of Language and Dialogue
ISSN 2210-4119
E-ISSN 2210-4127

<p>In our post-Cartesian times human abilities are regarded as integrated and interacting abilities. Speaking, thinking, perceiving, having emotions need to be studied in interaction. Integration and interaction take place in dialogue. Scholars are called upon to go beyond reductive methods of abstraction and division and to take up the challenge of coming to terms with the complex whole. The conclusions drawn from reasoning about human behaviour in the humanities and social sciences have finally been proven by experiments in the natural sciences, especially neurology and sociobiology. What happens in the black box, can now, at least in part, be made visible.</p><p>The journal intends to be an explicitly interdisciplinary journal reaching out to any discipline dealing with human abilities on the basis of consilience or the unity of knowledge. It is the challenge of post-Cartesian science to tackle the issue of how body, mind and language are interconnected and dialogically put to action. The journal invites papers which deal with ‘language and dialogue’ as an integrated whole in different languages and cultures and in different areas: everyday, institutional and literary, in theory and in practice, in business, in court, in the media, in politics and academia. In particular the humanities and social sciences are addressed: linguistics, literary studies, pragmatics, dialogue analysis, communication and cultural studies, applied linguistics, business studies, media studies, studies of language and the law, philosophy, psychology, cognitive sciences, sociology, anthropology and others.</p><p>The journal <em>Language and Dialogue </em> is associated with the book series <a title="Dialogue Studies" href="/content/series/18751792"><em>Dialogue Studies</em></a>, edited by Edda Weigand.</p>


Volumes & issues:

Show / Hide descriptions

Latest content:

Article
content/journals/22104127
Journal
5
3
Loading

Most cited this month

  • A speaker-oriented multidimensional approach to risks and causes of miscommunication
    • Author: Arto Mustajoki
    • Source: Language and Dialogue, Volume 2, Issue 2, 2012, pages: 216 –243
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • Combining ideas from different research directions and fields, the paper presents a multidimensional model of communication which enables to explain the risks of communication more comprehensively than before. The process of producing and interpreting speech is described through a message transfer circle. The model also includes the mental worlds of the speaker and the recipient, which substantially influence interaction. In addition, special attention is paid to recipient design, which plays a crucial role in interaction. One may even argue that such frequently mentioned factors as misreference or ambiguity are not causes of miscommunication but only risks for it; the real cause of miscommunication is incomplete recipient design. The common denominator is the egocentrism of the speaker: avoidance of cognitive effort, common ground fallacy, emotional overdrive, obstacles caused by physiological state or physical defects, and attaching greater importance to other things at the expense of recipient design.
  • Working to keep aligned in psychotherapy: Using nods as a dialogic resource to display affiliation
    • Authors: Peter Muntigl, Naomi Knight, and Ashley Watkins
    • Source: Language and Dialogue, Volume 2, Issue 1, 2012, pages: 9 –27
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • We examine therapist nods in terms of how they display and maintain affiliation with clients in contexts in which therapists reformulate clients’ prior talk. We found that therapist nods functioned to maintain affiliation with clients irrespective of whether clients aligned (e.g., confirmed) or disaligned (e.g., disconfirmed) with the therapist’s prior reformulation. Further, we found that the sequential placement of a therapist’s nod was influenced by the quality of alignment; that is, in aligning contexts, nods were found to be contiguous to the client’s confirmation. In disaligning contexts, by contrast, therapists delayed the production of nods to a point at which the client either ‘fully’ disconfirmed or displayed an affectual stance regarding a personal event. We argue that these forms of delay index a practice in which therapists may successfully secure realignment with clients.
  • Interactivities, intersubjectivities and language: On dialogism and phenomenology
    • Author: Per Linell
    • Source: Language and Dialogue, Volume 4, Issue 2, 2014, pages: 165 –193
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • This theoretical paper deals with intersubjectivity and interactivity in relation to language and sense-making. It starts out from a critical discussion of certain proposals regarding the nature and localisation of language, that is, radical versions of individualism and collectivism. The conclusion is that both are untenable. Instead, we must assume that language originates and lives in interactivities between sense-making people. Such an ‘interactionism’ is close to dialogism.The bulk of the paper is devoted to the relations between interactivities and intersubjectivities. Adducing arguments from a cross-disciplinary approach to language and languaging, we end up with a conclusion that interactivities are more basic than both intersubjectivities and linguistic dialogue. In the summarising discussion the paper suggests some foundations for a dynamic and dialogical language science, as an antidote to formal linguistics.
  • Negotiating narrative: Dialogic dynamics of Known, Unknown and Believed in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
    • Authors: Gill Philip, Ramona Bongelli, Carla Canestrari, Ilaria Riccioni, and Andrzej Zuczkowski
    • Source: Language and Dialogue, Volume 3, Issue 1, 2013, pages: 7 –33
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • Within the framework of KUB Theory (Bongelli and Zuczkowski 2008, Zuczkowski et al. 2011), information communicated verbally can ultimately be reduced to one of three categories: what the speaker knows (Known), what the speaker does not know (Unknown) and what the speaker believes (Believed). Dialogic communication can be considered as an exchange of information originating in one of these categories and directed towards another. The present study investigates the interaction of Known, Unknown and Believed information in the dialogues found in Chapter 10 of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It demonstrates how these three categories of information can contribute to a reading of the plot and its progression, and also how aspects of the protagonists’ characters emerge through the language they use in their dialogic communication.
  • Is there anyone out there who really is interested in the speaker?
    • Author: Istvan Kecskes
    • Source: Language and Dialogue, Volume 2, Issue 2, 2012, pages: 283 –297
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • This paper discusses two important issues of current pragmatics research as related to dialogue and discourse: interest in the hearer rather than the speaker, and focus on utterance rather than dialogue and discourse segment. These two issues are intertwined, and they are each other’s consequences. It will be argued that current pragmatic theories appear to be hearer-centered and utterance-centered and they consider communication recipient design and intention recognition. This explains why the main interest in these theories is in interpretation: recovery of speaker’s meaning by the hearer. The paper claims that hearer-centeredness is a direct consequence of the fact that pragmatics is an utterance-based inquiry. In order for us to get closer to what exactly the speaker has wanted to say we need to go beyond utterance to dialogue and discourse segment. This would require rethinking and reevaluating, to some extent, what current pragmatics is all about. In fact this process has already started. Several studies have been talking about “narrow pragmatics” and “wide pragmatics” discussing the relationship of pragmatics, dialogue (e.g. Weigand 2001, 2004, 2006, 2010, Cooren 2010) and discourse analysis (e.g. Puig 2003, Taboada and Mann 2006, De Saussure 2007).
More
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address