1887
Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Studies about dialogue are conducted in a descriptive perspective, but also in a so-called normative approach or tradition. Taking Bakhtin’s case, I consider this tension and show how it can be treated as a question of disciplines and interdisciplinarity, which permits us to understand how they are both necessary and complement each other. This disciplinary angle can be relevant to understand Bakhtin’s own work but also other research paths. Showing then how this way of structuring research is lacking certain elements notably the evaluative aspect of any discourse and discourse study, I develop the hypothesis according to which a triad of terms might be more useful to reflect and study dialogue than just the descriptive/normative dyad, suggesting the introduction of Peircian categories.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.7.2.05let
2017-10-16
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allen, Graham
    2000Intertextuality. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnett, Ronald C.
    1986Communication and Community. Implications of Martin Buber’s Dialogue. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1973Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ann Arbor: Ardis.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 1984Esthétique de la création verbale. Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1981The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1984 “Toward a Reworking of Dostoevsky’s Book”, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, Annex II, 283–302. Tr. C. Emerson . Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barthes, Roland
    1968 “La mort de l’auteur.” InŒuvres complètesIII, ed. by Roland Barthes , 40–51. Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Beauchamp, Tom L. and James Childress
    2012Principles of Biomedical Ethics [7th edition]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bohm, David
    1996On Dialogue. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cassirer, Ernst
    2009 [1923–1929]The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, vol.1–3. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark, Katerina and Michael Holquist
    1984Mikhaïl Bakhtin. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dewey, John
    1929 [1925]Experience and nature. London: Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 1939Theory of Valuation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Grondin, Jean
    1997Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Holquist, David
    1990Dialogism: Bakhtin and his World. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Johannessen, Richard L.
    2008 [1996]Ethics in Human Communication [5th edition]. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kristeva, Julia
    1969Sèméiotikè. Recherches pour une sémanalyse. Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim, Gary
    2004 “Mikhail Bakhtin: The Philosopher of Human Communication.” The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology12(1), Article 8. Available at: ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol12/iss1/8
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Legault, Georges A.
    1998Professionnalisme et délibération éthique. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université Laval.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Létourneau, Alain
    2012 “Towards an inclusive notion of dialogue for ethical and moral purposes.” In[Re]Presentations and Dialogue, ed. by Fracois Cooren and Alain Létourneau , 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2014 “An example of the plurality of levels of communication ethics analysis in a newspaper article.” InPhilosophy of Communication Ethics: Alterity and the Other, ed. by Ronald C. Arnett and Pat Arneson , 233–252. Madison [NJ]: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lipari, Lisbeth
    2012Listening, Thinking, Being. Towards an Ethic of Attunement. University Park: Penn State Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Misak, Cheryl
    2013The American Pragmatists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Naess, Arne
    1989Ecology, Community, and Lifestyle. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Peirce, Charles S.
    1955 “How to Make our Ideas Clear.” InPhilosophical Writings of Peirce, ed. by J. Buchler [1878], 23–41. New York/Dover.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1955 “The Principles of Phenomenology.” InPhilosophical Writings of Peirce, ed. by J. Buchler [1905], 74–97. New York/Dover.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1998The Essential Peirce, vol.1 and 2. Selected Philosophical Writings. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Peterson, Clayton
    2016De la logique des obligations, des permissions et des interdictions. Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Peytard, Jean
    1995Mikhaïl Bakhtine. Dialogisme et analyse du discours. Paris: Bertrand Lacoste.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Todorov, Tzvetan
    1981Mikhaïl Bakhtin. Le principe dialogique. Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Voloshinov, Valentin N.
    1973Marxism and Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Weigand, Edda
    (ed.) 2009Proceedings of the 11th IADA Conference on “Dialogue Analysis and Rhetoric”, University of Münster, March26–30 2007, volume1/09, Dialogue Analysis 11. Available atwww.iada-web.org/product/volume-109-dialogue-analysis-xi/
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.7.2.05let
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Bakhtin , dialogical studies , dialogue , interdisciplinarity and Peirce
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