In this chapter we propose a methodological approach: we intend to explore the relations between children’s representations of moral issues as elaborated in dialogue (dialogue on ethics, DoE) and the ethical dimension of the children’s moral conduct towards each other (ethics of dialogue, EoD), where we expect to find interesting relations to explore. For example, if a child expresses tolerance towards a character in a video, to what extent does that child express tolerance towards the ideas and utterances of other children present in the interactive situation? The values we intend to focus on are the three main values at the heart of DIALLS: tolerance, empathy, and inclusion. We will examine the possible reciprocity between talking and doing, form and content, meta-dialogue and dialogue.

No abstract

The goal of this contribution is to distinguish between the implied-author and other narrative voices in order to answer the question of how the implied-author conveys criticism. For this purpose, I introduce three pragmatic cues. I argue that these serve as a mechanism connecting text and context, allowing the implied-author to convey ironic/humoristic criticism. I found the combination of footing and narrative entities a useful methodology. I offer an analysis of Jerome K. Jerome’s novel Three Men in a Boat using these cues. This theoretical-methodological combination enabled me to distinguish between the speaker-meanings of the implied-author and the narrator in this novel; describe the three-way relations between the implied-author/implied-reader/narrator; and expose the implied-author’s critical stance towards its narrator.