1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Language and Dialogue
  4. Volume 6, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 6, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In recent decades the term ‘theory’ has pervasively been used in the literature without any reflection upon the conditions of its legitimate use. The paper focuses on the issue of what makes up a theory. Constitutive components are the object-of-study and the methodology. The object of a theory has to be the minimal autonomous unit. The object ‘dialogue’ is a human affair, language used by human beings in the dialogic action game. Any approach which claims to be a theory needs to justify its hypotheses. A theory about human actions and behaviour in the end relates to anthropological insights which can eventually be verified by neuroscience. It is sociobiology which unites the different disciplines in their search for the unity of knowledge.

© 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.6.3.01wei
2016-11-28
2023-09-30

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ld.6.3.01wei
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, Keith , and Kasia M. Jaszczolt
    (eds) 2011 The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anscombe, Gertrude E
    1957 Intention. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnett, Ronald
    . forthcoming. “Language as the Originative House of Dialogic Ethics.” InLanguage and Dialogue: A Handbook of Key Issues in the Field ed. by Edda Weigand . New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987 Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Burke, Kenneth
    1950 A Rhetoric of Motives. New York: Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Carruthers, Peter , and Peter K. Smith
    (eds) 1996 Theories of Theories of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597985
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597985 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cho, Yongkil
    2005 Grammatik und Höflichkeit im Sprachvergleich. Direktive Handlungsspiele des Bittens, Aufforderns und Anweisens im Deutschen und Koreanischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783110935028
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110935028 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cooren, François
    2010 Action and Agency in Dialogue. Passion, Incarnation and Ventriloquism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.6 [Google Scholar]
  9. Damasio, Antonio
    1994 Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Duranti, Alessandro
    2015 The Anthropology of Intentions. Language in a World of Others. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139207706
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139207706 [Google Scholar]
  11. Enfield, N.J. , Paul Kockelman , and Jack Sidnell
    (eds) 2014 The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139342872
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342872 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fetzer, Anita
    2004 Recontextualizing Context. Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.121
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.121 [Google Scholar]
  13. Feynman, Richard P
    2001 The Pleasure of Finding Things out. London: Penguin Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Frawley, William
    1987 “Review Article: van Dijk (ed.). Handbook of Discourse Analysis, I-IV.” Language63: 361–397. doi: 10.2307/415660
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415660 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gell-Mann, Murray
    1994 The Quark and the Jaguar. Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. London: Abacus.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Grein, Marion
    2007 “The Speech Act of Refusal within the Minimal Action Game.” InDialogue and Culture, ed. by Marion Grein and Edda Weigand , 95–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.1.08gre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.1.08gre [Google Scholar]
  17. 2008 “Der Sprechakt des Kompliments im interkulturellen Vergleich.”www.iada-web.org/category/online-publications_volume01/08-dialogue-in-and-between-differentcultures, 15–32.
  18. Habermas, Jürgen
    1991 “Comments on John Searle: ‘Meaning, Communication, and Representation’.” InJohn Searle and his Critics, ed. by Ernest Lepore and Robert van Gulick , 17–29. Cambridge, Mass./ Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Holmes, Janet
    1988 “Paying Compliments: A Sex-preferential Politeness Strategy.” Journal of Pragmatics12: 445–456. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90005‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90005-7 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hundsnurscher, Franz
    1980 “Konversationsanalyse versus Dialoggrammatik.” InAkten des VI. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses, Basel 1980. Part 2, ed. by Heinz Rupp and Hans-Gert Roloff , 89–95. Bern: Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Levinson, Stephen C
    2000 Presumptive Meaning. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass./London: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Linell, Per
    2009 Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: IAP-Information Age Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Lumsden, Charles J. , and Edward O. Wilson
    2005 Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. New Jersey: World Scientific. doi: 10.1142/5786
     https://doi.org/10.1142/5786 [Google Scholar]
  24. Marchand, Trevor H.J
    2010 “Making Knowledge: Explorations of the Indissoluble Relation between Minds, Bodies and Environment.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 16 (2):1–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9655.2010.01607.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2010.01607.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Martinet, André
    1975 “Functional Linguistics. La linguistique fonctionnelle.” InStudies in Functional Syntax. Études de syntax fonctionnelle, ed. by André Martinet , 9–81. München: Fink.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Mey, Jacob
    2001 Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Premawardhena, Neelakshi Chandrasena
    2007 “How Diplomatic Can a Language Be?” InDialogue and Culture, ed. by Marion Grein and Edda Weigand , 213–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.1.15pre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.1.15pre [Google Scholar]
  28. Prigogine, Ilya
    1994 Les Lois du Chaos. Paris: Flammarion.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Rapaille, Clotard
    2007 The Culture Code. New York: Broadway Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Rizzolatti, Giacomo , and Michael A. Arbib
    1998 “Language within our Grasp.” Trends in Neurosciences21(5): 188–194. doi: 10.1016/S0166‑2236(98)01260‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(98)01260-0 [Google Scholar]
  31. 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. by Jim Schenkein , 7–55. New York: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50008‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2 [Google Scholar]
  32. Searle, John R
    1969 Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: At the University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  33. Searle, John R. , and Daniel Vanderveken
    1985 Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Simon, Herbert A
    1962 “The Architecture of Complexity: Hierarchic Systems.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society106: 467–482.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Tannen, Deborah
    1989 Talking Voices. Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge etc: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. van Dijk, Teun A
    (ed.) 1985 Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. I–IV. London etc.: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Verschueren, Jef
    1987 “The Pragmatic Perspective.” InThe Pragmatic Perspective. Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference, eds. by Jef Verschueren , and Marcella Bertucelli-Papi , 3–8. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbcs.5.04ver
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbcs.5.04ver [Google Scholar]
  38. Weigand, Edda
    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. by Maxim I. Stamenov and Vittorio Gallese , 229–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aicr.42.18wei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aicr.42.18wei [Google Scholar]
  39. 2004 “Empirical Data and Theoretical Models. Review Article on Eerdmans, Susan L., Prevignano, Carlo L., and Paul J. Thibault (eds), Language and Interaction. Discussions with John J. Gumperz.” Pragmatics & Cognition12: 375–388. doi: 10.1075/pc.12.2.10wei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.12.2.10wei [Google Scholar]
  40. 2007 “The Sociobiology of Language.” InDialogue and Culture, ed. by Marion Grein and Edda Weigand , 27–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.1.04wei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.1.04wei [Google Scholar]
  41. 2009 Language as Dialogue. From Rules to Principles of Probability, ed. by Sebastian Feller . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.5 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2010 Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2011 “Paradigm Changes in Linguistics: From Reductionism to Holism.” Language Sciences33: 544–549. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.04.031
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.04.031 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2015 “Persuasion or the Integration of Grammar and Rhetoric.” InPersuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu , Maria-Ionela Neagu , and Stanca Măda , 3–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.26.01wei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.01wei [Google Scholar]
  45. . forthcoming. “The Concept of ‘Language’ in an Utterance Grammar.” InLanguage and Dialogue: A Handbook of Key Issues in the Field ed. by Edda Weigand . New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Wilson, Edward O
    1975 Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge/Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 1999 Consilience. The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 2004 On Human Nature. With a New Preface. Cambridge/Mass./London: Harvard University Press (originally published 1978).
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.6.3.01wei
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): anthropology; consilience; dialogic action game; dialogue; neuroscience; sociobiology; the Mixed Game Model; theory

Most Cited

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