Language and Dialogue - Volume 1, Issue 2, 2011

Metaphor and other figurative uses of language play a central role in political dialogue on account of their semantic, pragmatic and textual ‘added value’ effects: they provide an opportunity to introduce new thematic aspects, increase the textual coherence of the dialogue contributions and provide warrants for (analogical) conclusions. One of the oldest examples of metaphor use in political dialogue is the so-called fable of the belly, which tells the story of a dispute between the seemingly ‘lazy’ stomach/ruler and the more ‘active’ body members/citizens over the right to receive food. One of its most famous renditions can be found in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, where it is embedded in a debate between the character of the senator Menenius and rebellious citizens. This dialogic frame and the dispute ‘within’ the fable establish a multi-layered inter-dialogic pattern. Whilst the literary construction of this dialogue system in Shakespeare’s play is unique, it underlines the more general aspect of metaphor’s dialogic role, which is discussed further with regard to the present-day use of body-based metaphor in political discourse. These case studies are interpreted as evidence for the necessity to integrate this dialogic function as a central aspect in cognitive metaphor analysis.

Mediation is the action of a third party that helps two conflicting parties to reach a mutually acceptable settlement. This action implies promoting the parties’ empowerment and new narratives by facilitating their communication. The analysis of dialogue, and in particular of mediators’ dialogic actions in the interaction, is a way to gain an empirical knowledge of mediation. It shows the ways in which dialogue may promote empowerment and new narratives, enhancing active participation and sensitivity of the participants in interaction. This kind of analysis is applied to international camps for peace promotion involving small groups of adolescents from different countries. In particular, videorecordings and transcriptions of group meetings make it possible to highlight the kinds of dialogic actions used to help adolescents to keep their turns, as well as to support their initiatives and coordinate their reflections, thus managing their conflicts. By looking at how meditators use language in the interaction, research can help improving the theory and practice of mediation.

Power in dialogic interaction can be understood as a force which is used to influence our interlocutors by various communicative means. As such it is an integrated component of any action game. The paper gives a short overview of how power is usually dealt with in the literature, namely from the observer perspective. However, power as an integrated component means power-in-action. Power-in-action can be considered as negative or positive power depending on whether it is used in favour of or against the interlocutor. Power needs some basis to draw upon and this can range from emotional relationships to the law or practical actions involving violence. Specific rhetorical means are used to achieve the desired effect. The paper analyses pronouns of address and specific communicative means in representative and directive action games. Persuasion also means exercising some influence or power on the interlocutor. Finally, the question of moral benchmarks or norms of behaviour is dealt with.

Among the Akan, one of the parameters for assessing a person’s communicative competence is to see how much s/he is conversant with giving an account of his/her mission anytime he/she plays the role as a guest, a host, or a spokesperson. The aim of this paper is to discuss the Akan narrative concept called amannebɔ. The paper defines the concept called amannebɔ and what it entails in Akan sociocultural norms and values and goes on to discuss amannebɔ under the frameworks of narratives and politeness. The paper further analyses the language and pragmatics of amannebɔ and highlights the major literary devices used including euphemisms, proverbs, idioms personification and the use of titles and address forms. It also considers the structure of amannebɔ and the major sociocultural contexts in which it is used. We will consider data from (1) durbar of chiefs, (2) naming and marriage encounters (3) funerals and (4) funeral donations. The paper finally discusses the sociocultural functions of amannebɔ and provides findings and recommendations for its sustenance in contemporary Akan.

Over the past half-century, Noam Chomsky has established a powerful intellectual presence in two apparently unrelated domains of discourse — the field of theoretical linguistics and the arena of anti-establishment politics. This paper examines Chomsky’s use of metaphor across these domains, arguing that in Chomsky’s work metaphor enables an undercover, perhaps even classically ‘anarchic’ dialogue between disciplines. Organizationally as well as psychologically, the two major inquiries into human nature undertaken by him are, the paper suggests, structured and unified in relation to each other via the seemingly innocuous agency of metaphor. The paper also traces Chomsky’s innovative production of metaphors to engage in dialogue with both the past and the future. To reconstruct Chomsky through his metaphors is to attempt to read him not as a doctrinaire Cartesian but as someone who has responded with extreme ‘context-sensitivity’ to changing circumstances in both his fields. Finally, the paper contends that a study of Chomsky’s metaphorical practice could, inter alia, offer unprecedented insights into the creative and essentially unified thought processes of a major 20th century thinker.

Contemporary researchers can rely upon a wide repertoire of different and legitimized ways of representing field dialogues in scientific texts. This article addresses the issue of the crucial role these ways of reporting dialogues play in creating different data from the ‘same’ raw material and in the construction of very different kinds of scientific understanding of the phenomenon the original dialogues supposedly enlighten. By empirically illustrating this point, the author concludes by arguing in favor of the unavoidable rhetorical roots of scientific understanding. This typical relativistic claim does not lead to some kind of nihilistic stance. Rather, it delineates a clear zone of distributed responsibility. By defining what kind of knowledge they expect from a scientific account, the scientific community and, in a less visible way, the readers are crucial agents in orienting the researcher’s rhetorical choice as to represent dialogues-in-the-field. The researcher’s choice is, therefore, a profoundly dialogical decision.