Volume 11, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adams, Jennifer L.
    2017 “Self-interest and Social Concerns.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. byEdda Weigand, 294–306. New York/London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, Gillian and George Yule
    1983Discourse Analysis. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805226
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226 [Google Scholar]
  3. Chomsky, Noam
    1965Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2016 “Minimal Computation and the Architecture of Language.” Chinese Semiotic Studies12 (1): 13–24. 10.1515/css‑2016‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2016-0003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cooren, François
    2020 “Reconciling Dialogue and Propagation: A Ventriloquial Inquiry.” Language and Dialogue10 (1): 9–28. 10.1075/ld.00057.coo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00057.coo [Google Scholar]
  6. Damasio, Antonio
    1994Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dik, Simon C.
    1997The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110218374
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218374 [Google Scholar]
  8. Engberg-Pederson, Elisabeth and Ditte Boeg Thomsen
    2016 “The Socio-Cognitive Foundation of Danish Perspective-Mixing Dialogue Particles.” InViewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities, ed. byBarbara Dancygier, Wei-lun Lu and Arie Verhagen, 125–142. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110365467‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467-006 [Google Scholar]
  9. Feynman, Richard P.
    1998The Meaning of It All. Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist. Reading, GMass.: Perseus Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2001The Pleasure of Finding Things out. London: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fox, Barbara A.
    1987Discourse Structure and Anaphora. Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511627767
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627767 [Google Scholar]
  12. Frawley, William
    1987 “Review Article: van Dijk (ed.) 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis 1-IV.” Language63: 361–397. 10.2307/415660
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415660 [Google Scholar]
  13. Givón, Talmy
    1993 “Coherence in Text and in Mind.” Pragmatics and Cognition1: 171–227. 10.1075/pc.1.2.01giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.1.2.01giv [Google Scholar]
  14. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics, vol.3: Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva and Haiping Long
    2013 “An Outline of Discourse Grammar.” InFunctional Approaches to Language, ed. byShannon T. Bischoff and Carmen Jany, 155–206. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110285321.155
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110285321.155 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kempson, Ruth
    2012 “The Syntax/Pragmatics Interface.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byKeith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 529–548. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.029
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.029 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2017 “Shifting Concepts of Language. Meeting the Challenge of Modelling Interactive Syntax.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. byEdda Weigand, 197–213. New York/London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Latour, Bruno
    2007Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2000 Presumptive Meanings. A Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass./London: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lumsden, Charles J. and Edward O. Wilson
    2005Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. New Jersey: World Scientific. 10.1142/5786
    https://doi.org/10.1142/5786 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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. 10.1111/j.1467‑9655.2010.01607.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2010.01607.x [Google Scholar]
  22. McIntyre, Lee
    2019The Scientific Attitude. Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience. Cambridge, Mass./London: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/12203.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12203.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Mel’čuk, Igor A. and Leo Wanner
    1994 “Lexical Co-occurrence and Lexical Inheritance. Emotion Lexemes in German: A Lexicographic Case Study.” Lexikos4: 88–160 (Afrilex-Reeks/Series 4). Stellenbosch/Republik Südafrika.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Mey, Jacob L.
    2001Pragmatics: An Introduction. 2nd rev. ed.Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Mushin, Ilana and Simona Pekarek Doehler
    2021 “Linguistic Structures in Social Interaction. Moving Temporality to the forefront of a Science of Language.” Interactional Linguistics1 (1): 2–32. 10.1075/il.21008.mus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/il.21008.mus [Google Scholar]
  26. Okulska, Urszula
    2018 “The Ethics of Intercultural Dialogue: Reconciliation Discourse in John Paul II’s Pontifical Correspondence.” InDialogic Ethics, ed. byRonald C. Arnett and François Cooren, 77–126. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.30.04oku
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.30.04oku [Google Scholar]
  27. Prigogine, Ilya
    1994Les lois du chaos. Paris: Flammarion.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Pustejovsky, James
    1995The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass./London: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Russell, Bertrand
    1948Human Knowledge. Its Scope and Limits. London: Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1978 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation.” InStudies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. byJim Schenkein, 7–55. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50008‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2 [Google Scholar]
  31. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: At the University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  32. Seligman, Martin E. P.
    1970 “On the Generality of the Laws of Learning.” Psychological Review77: 406–418. 10.1037/h0029790
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029790 [Google Scholar]
  33. Simon, Herbert A.
    1962 “The Architecture of Complexity: Hierarchic Systems.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society106: 467–482.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Stati, Sorin
    1990Le transphrastique. Paris: PUF.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 1994 “Formal Devices for Argumentative Moves.” InText und Grammatik. Festschrift für Roland Harweg zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. byPeter Canisius, Clemens-Peter Herbermann and Gerhard Tschauder, 52–61. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara Fox and Chase Wesley Raymond
    2021 “The Grammar of Proposals for Joint Activities.” Interactional Linguistics1 (1). 10.1075/il.20011.tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20011.tho [Google Scholar]
  37. Tomasello, Michael and Henrike Moll
    2010 “The Gap is Social: Human Shared Intentionality and Culture.” InMind the Gap. Tracing the Origins of Human Universals, ed. byPeter M. Kappeler and Joan B. Silk, 331–349. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑02725‑3_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02725-3_16 [Google Scholar]
  38. Yule, George
    1996Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. van Dijk, Teun A.
    (ed.) 1985Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vols1–4. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Vico, Giambattista
    1725Scienza nuova. The First New Science. Leon Pompa (ed. and trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Wandruszka, Mario
    1969Sprachen vergleichbar und unvergleichlich. München: Piper.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Weigand, Edda
    1991 “The Dialogic Principle Revisited: Speech Acts and Mental States.” InDialoganalyse III. Referate der 3. Arbeitstagung, Bologna 1990, ed. bySorin Stati, Edda Weigand and Franz Hundsnurscher, vol.1, 75–104. Tübingen: Niemeyer. – Reprinted inEdda Weigand (ed. bySebastian Feller) 2009 Language as Dialogue, 21–44. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. – Reprinted inInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. byAlessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey, 209–232. Cham: Springer. 10.1515/9783111678504‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111678504-008 [Google Scholar]
  43. 1994 “Generalisierende Regel oder idiomatischer Gebrauch. Von den Schwierigkeiten eines Ausländers, Deutsch zu lernen.” InFestschrift für Prof. Dr. Karl Sornig zum 66. Geburtstag. Grazer Linguistische Monographien11, 259–275.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 1996 “Review of Barbara A. Fox: Discourse and Anaphora.” Studies in Language20: 236–243. 10.1075/sl.20.1.15wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20.1.15wei [Google Scholar]
  45. 1998a “Contrastive Lexical Semantics.” InContrastive Lexical Semantics, ed. byEdda Weigand, 25–44. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.171.03wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.171.03wei [Google Scholar]
  46. (ed.) 1998bContrastive Lexical Semantics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.171
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.171 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2002 “Constitutive Features of Human Dialogic Interaction: Mirror Neurons and What They Tell Us about Human Abilities.” InMirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language, ed. byMaxim Stamenov and Vittorio Gallese, 229–248. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/aicr.42.18wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aicr.42.18wei [Google Scholar]
  48. 2003Sprache als Dialog. Sprechakttaxonomie und kommunikative Grammatik. 2nd, rev. ed., Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110953466
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110953466 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2007 “The Sociobiology of Language.” InDialogue and Culture, ed. byMarion Grein and Edda Weigand, 27–49. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.1.04wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.1.04wei [Google Scholar]
  50. 2009aLanguage as Dialogue. From Rules to Principles of Probability (ed. bySebastian Feller). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.5 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2009b “Lexical Units and Syntactic Structures: Words, Phrases and Utterances Considered from a Comparative Viewpoint.” InWeigand, Edda. Language as Dialogue. From Rules to Principles of Probability (ed. bySebastian Feller), 113–128. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.5 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2010Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2015 “Dialogue in the Stream of Life.” Language and Dialogue5(2): 197–223. 10.1075/ld.5.2.01wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.5.2.01wei [Google Scholar]
  54. 2017a “The Mixed Game Model. A Holistic Theory.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. byEdda Weigand, 174–194. New York/London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2017b “The Concept of Language in an Utterance Grammar.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. byEdda Weigand, 214–233. New York/London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2018 “Dialogue: The Key to Pragmatics.” InFrom Pragmatics to Dialogue, ed. byEdda Weigand and Istvan Kecskes, 5–27. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.31.02wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.31.02wei [Google Scholar]
  57. 2021 “Language and Dialogue in Philosophy and Science.” Intercultural Pragmatics18 (4): 533–561. 10.1515/ip‑2021‑4005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2021-4005 [Google Scholar]
  58. . forthcoming. “Thinking about the Future of the Humanities.” InScholarly Organizations and the Study of Languages and Literatures ed. by Tom Clark. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Weigand, Edda and Istvan Kecskes
    (eds) 2018From Pragmatics to Dialogue. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.31
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.31 [Google Scholar]
  60. Weinberg, Steven
    2016To Explain the World. The Discovery of Modern Science. UK: Penguin Random Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1972Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt/M.: Athenaeum.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Wilson, Edward O.
    1975Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 2003The Future of Life. London: Abacus.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2015The Meaning of Human Existence. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Wittgenstein, Ludwig
    1953Philosophical Investigations. Gertrude E. Anscombe (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error