Russian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of Linguistics2687-00882686-8024Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)1514610.22363/2687-0088-15146ArticlesСтатьиArticlesResearch ArticleA Dialogic Approach to PragmaticsДиалогический подход к прагматикеKecskesIstvanКечкешИштванikecskes@albany.eduState University of New YorkУниверситет Штата Нью-Йорк15122016204Discourse Analysis in the 21st Century: Theory and Practice (I)Дискурс-анализ в 21 веке: теория и практика (I)264208022017Copyright ©; 2016, Kecskes I.Copyright ©; 2016, Кечкеш И.Copyright ©; 2016, Kecskes I.2016Kecskes I.Кечкеш И.Kecskes I.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0https://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/article/view/15146This 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).В данной статье показано, как преодолеваются границы прагматики, ориентированной на одно высказывание, когда слушающий становится не только реципиентом, пытающимся понять смысл услышанного, но также и собеседником, стремящимся достичь взаимопонимания с говорящим. Цель статьи - не столько описать и проанализировать диалогический подход к прагматике, сколько объяснить, какие внутренние процессы развития прагматической парадигмы послужили стимулом к изучению диалога, и, в особенности, подчеркнуть важность оценки значения высказывания говорящего именно с точки зрения говорящего, а не слушающего, а также указать на двойнную роль собеседников (говорящий-слушающий) в диалоге.interlocutordialogue approachpragmatics paradigmspeaker-hearerсобеседникдиалогический подходпрагматическая парадигмаговорящий-слушающий1.Airenti, Gabriella, Bruno G. Bara, & Colombetti Marco. 1993. Conversation and behavior games in the pragmatics of dialogue. Cognitive Science 17(2). 197-2562.Bach, Kent. 2001. You don’t say? Synthese. 128: 15-443.Bach, Kent. 2005. “Context ex Machina”. In Semantics vs. Pragmatics, Szabó Zoltán Gendler (ed.), 15-44. Oxford: Oxford University Press4.Bach, Kent. 2007. “Regressions in pragmatics (and semantics).” In Pragmatics (Advances in Linguistics), Burton-Roberts Noël (ed.), 24-44. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan5.Bara, Bruno. 2011. Cognitive pragmatics: The mental processes of communication. Intercultural Pragmatics 8-3 (2011), 443-4856.Barr, Dale J. 2004. “Establishing conventional communication systems: Is common knowledge necessary?” Cognitive Science 28.6: 937-9627.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 Erlbaum8.Buber, M. 1955. Dialogue. In between man and man (R. G. Smith, Trans.; pp. 1-39). Boston, MA: Beacon Press9.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. 1-1410.Burton-Roberts, Noël. 2006. “Cancellation and intention.” Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 1-1211.Carbaugh, Donal. 2013. On Dialogue Studies. Journal of Dialogue Studies 1.1 (2013): 9-2812.Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell13.Cooren, F. 2010. Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation, and ventriloquism. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins14.Davis, Wayne. 1998. Conversational Implicature: Intention, convention and principle in the failure of Gricean theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press15.de Saussure, Louis. 2007. Pragmatic Issues in Discourse Analysis. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis. Across Disciplines 1 (1): 179-19516.GarfinkeI, H. 1972. Remarks on ethnomethodology. In J.J. Gumperz & D.H. Hymes (Eds.) Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston17.Giora, Rachel. 1997. “Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis.” Cognitive Linguistics 8.3: 183-20618.Giora, Rachel. 2003. On Our Mind: Salience context and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press19.Horn, Laurence R. 2007. Neo-Gricean pragmatics: a Manichaean manifesto, in N. Burton-Roberts (ed.) Pragmatics, Basingstoke: Palgrave20.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, 245-26721.Jaszczolt, K.M. 2005. Default Semantics. Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press22.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: 191-21923.Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling context: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (3): 385-40624.Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. The paradox of communication: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Society 1(1). 50-7325.Kecskes, I. 2012. Is there anyone out there who really is interested in the speaker? Language and Dialogue. Vol. 2. No. 2: 285-29926.Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press27.Kecskes, I. & F. Zhang. 2009. Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition. 17(2). 331-35528.Keysar, Boaz. 2007. “Communication and miscommunication: The role of egocentric processes.” Intercultural Pragmatics 4.1: 71-8429.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 Press30.Moeschler, J. 2004. Intercultural Pragmatics: a cognitive approach. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1, 1: 49-7031.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. 9-1632.Psathas, O. (Ed.). 1979. Everyday language. Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington33.Puig, Margarida Bassols. 2003. Pragmatics and discourse analysis. Noves SL. Revista de Sociolingüística http://www.gencat.cat/llengua/noves Winter 200334.Rapaport, William J. 2003. “What did you mean by that? Misunderstanding, negotiation, and syntactic semantics.” Minds and Machines 13.3: 397-42735.Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language, 50, 696-73536.Saul, Jennifer. 2002. What is said and psychological reality: Grice’s project and relevance theorists’ criticisms. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 347-7237.Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press38.Schenkein, J. (Ed.). 1978. Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic39.Schiffer, S.R. 1972. Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press40.Searle, John. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. London: Allen Lane, The Penguin Press41.Sperber, Dan and Deirdre, Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell42.Taboada, M. and W.C. Mann. 2006. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking Back and Moving Ahead. Discourse Studies. 8(3): 423-45943.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 Benjamins44.Turner, R. (Ed.).1974. Ethnomethodology: Selected readings. Harmondsworth, England:Penguin45.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, 59-8748.Weigand, Edda. 2010. Language as dialogue. Intercultural Pragmatics. Vol. 7. No. 3: 505-51549.Weigand, Edda. 2010b. Dialogue: the mixed game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins