A Dialogic Approach to Pragmatics

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

This paper focuses on how the limits of pragmatics - as long as it is restricted to the analysis of one utterance at a time - are overcome by including the hearer not only as interpreter who tries to understand the speaker’s utterance but as an interlocutor who tries to come to an understanding with the speaker. The goal of the paper is not to describe and analyze the dialogue approach rather explain what inner developments in the pragmatics paradigm have made it necessary to move in a dialogic direction, specifically emphasizing the importance of evaluating speaker meaning from the perspective of the speaker rather than from the perspective of the hearer and the double role of the interlocutor (speaker-hearer).

About the authors

Istvan Kecskes

State University of New York

Author for correspondence.
Email: ikecskes@albany.edu
1400 Washington Ave., 12222 Albany, USA

References

  1. Airenti, Gabriella, Bruno G. Bara, & Colombetti Marco. 1993. Conversation and behavior games in the pragmatics of dialogue. Cognitive Science 17(2). 197-256
  2. Bach, Kent. 2001. You don’t say? Synthese. 128: 15-44
  3. Bach, Kent. 2005. “Context ex Machina”. In Semantics vs. Pragmatics, Szabó Zoltán Gendler (ed.), 15-44. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  4. Bach, Kent. 2007. “Regressions in pragmatics (and semantics).” In Pragmatics (Advances in Linguistics), Burton-Roberts Noël (ed.), 24-44. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan
  5. Bara, Bruno. 2011. Cognitive pragmatics: The mental processes of communication. Intercultural Pragmatics 8-3 (2011), 443-485
  6. Barr, Dale J. 2004. “Establishing conventional communication systems: Is common knowledge necessary?” Cognitive Science 28.6: 937-962
  7. Barr, Dale J. and Boaz, Keysar. 2005. “Making sense of how we make sense: The paradox of egocentrism in language use.” In Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and cultural influences, Colston Herbert L. and Albert N. Katz (eds), 21-43. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
  8. Buber, M. 1955. Dialogue. In between man and man (R. G. Smith, Trans.; pp. 1-39). Boston, MA: Beacon Press
  9. Bunt, H.C. 2011. The Semantics of Dialogue Acts. Proceedings 9th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2011). Bos, J. & Pulman, S. (eds.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University, p. 1-14
  10. Burton-Roberts, Noël. 2006. “Cancellation and intention.” Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 1-12
  11. Carbaugh, Donal. 2013. On Dialogue Studies. Journal of Dialogue Studies 1.1 (2013): 9-28
  12. Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell
  13. Cooren, F. 2010. Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation, and ventriloquism. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
  14. Davis, Wayne. 1998. Conversational Implicature: Intention, convention and principle in the failure of Gricean theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  15. de Saussure, Louis. 2007. Pragmatic Issues in Discourse Analysis. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis. Across Disciplines 1 (1): 179-195
  16. GarfinkeI, H. 1972. Remarks on ethnomethodology. In J.J. Gumperz & D.H. Hymes (Eds.) Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
  17. Giora, Rachel. 1997. “Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis.” Cognitive Linguistics 8.3: 183-206
  18. Giora, Rachel. 2003. On Our Mind: Salience context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press
  19. Horn, Laurence R. 2007. Neo-Gricean pragmatics: a Manichaean manifesto, in N. Burton-Roberts (ed.) Pragmatics, Basingstoke: Palgrave
  20. House, Juliane. 2002. Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca. In Lingua Franca Communication, K. Knapp and C. Meierkord (eds.), Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 245-267
  21. Jaszczolt, K.M. 2005. Default Semantics. Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  22. Kecskes, Istvan. 2007. Formulaic language in English Lingua Franca. In Kecskes, I. & L. Horn (eds.) Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 191-219
  23. Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling context: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (3): 385-406
  24. Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society 1(1). 50-73
  25. Kecskes, I. 2012. Is there anyone out there who really is interested in the speaker? Language and Dialogue. Vol. 2. No. 2: 285-299
  26. Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
  27. Kecskes, I. & F. Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition. 17(2). 331-355
  28. Keysar, Boaz. 2007. “Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes.” Intercultural Pragmatics 4.1: 71-84
  29. King, Jeffrey C. and Jason, Stanley. 2005. “Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content.” In Semantics versus Pragmatics, Szabó Zoltán Gendler (ed.), 111-164. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  30. Moeschler, J. 2004. Intercultural Pragmatics: a cognitive approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1, 1: 49-70
  31. Morante, R., Keizer, S. & Bunt, H.C. 2007. A dialogue act based model for context updating. Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (DECALOG 2007). Trento, Italy: [s.n.], p. 9-16
  32. Psathas, O. (Ed.). 1979. Everyday language. Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington
  33. Puig, Margarida Bassols. 2003. Pragmatics and discourse analysis. Noves SL. Revista de Sociolingüística http://www.gencat.cat/llengua/noves Winter 2003
  34. Rapaport, William J. 2003. “What did you mean by that? Misunderstanding, negotiation, and syntactic semantics.” Minds and Machines 13.3: 397-427
  35. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language, 50, 696-735
  36. Saul, Jennifer. 2002. What is said and psychological reality: Grice’s project and relevance theorists’ criticisms. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 347-72
  37. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  38. Schenkein, J. (Ed.). 1978. Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic
  39. Schiffer, S.R. 1972. Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  40. Searle, John. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. London: Allen Lane, The Penguin Press
  41. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre, Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell
  42. Taboada, M. and W.C. Mann. 2006. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking Back and Moving Ahead. Discourse Studies. 8(3): 423-459
  43. Tracy, Karen and Robert T. Craig. 2010. “Studying interaction in order to cultivate communicative practices: Action-Implicative discourse analysis.” In New Adventures in Language and Interaction, Streeck Jürgen (ed.), 145-166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  44. Turner, R. (Ed.).1974. Ethnomethodology: Selected readings. Harmondsworth, England:Penguin
  45. Weigand, Edda. 2001. Negotiation and Power in Dialogic Interaction, ed. by Edda Weigand and Marcelo Dascal. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 214)
  46. Weigand, Edda. 2004. Emotions in Dialogic Interaction. Advances in the Complex, ed. by Edda Weigand. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 248)
  47. Weigand, Edda. 2006. Argumentation - The mixed game. Argumentation 20/1, 59-87
  48. Weigand, Edda. 2010. Language as dialogue. Intercultural Pragmatics. Vol. 7. No. 3: 505-515
  49. Weigand, Edda. 2010b. Dialogue: the mixed game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins

Copyright (c) 2016 Kecskes I.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies