Language as Dialogue

Weigand, Edda

doi:10.1075/ds.5

Cited by 106 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Differently, I have demonstrated that, if someone advocates for a intentional use that expresses personal inclination towards a particular thing x, it seems correct to vindicate also the idea that when two speakers utter their personal view about the particular x, they disagree only if they are integrated in a dialogical interaction (as defended by Weigand 2009, and Feller 2010. So, if someone uses "x is p" it seems adequate to conclude that she expresses some particular properties that characterize it as p from her point of view.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…They normally appeal to some kind of judge parameter to illustrate that this kind of situation involves embedded subjective meaning. 1 That is to say, situations of faultless disagreement include sentences that are not truth-evaluable until speaker and audience coincide in the attitude that the situation reports, as it has been claimed by the dialogic speech act theory (Weigand 2009(Weigand , 2010Feller 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Disagreement and the speaker’s point of view

Colomina-Almiñana

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article defends an intentionalist solution to cases of disagreement. Unlike conventionalist approaches, the paper shows that the truth-value of some sentences is shifted and relative to the concrete way the assertion is made. Unlike relativist accounts, it argues that cases of subjective meaning are just apparent, and really express normative content as included in embedded sentences. The paper advocates for a solution based on what I call the speaker's point of view, which understands disagreement as expressing the speaker's perspective in conversation about a particular matter without constraining the truth-value of the sentences of our natural language. Consequently, the speaker's utterance is a speech act necessarily related to the interlocutor's utterance, which is another speech act, since only by integrating the level of the communicative function into a dialogic interaction the real meaning of the utterances can completely show up.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Disagreement and the speaker’s point of view

Colomina-Almiñana

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the conversational process is primarily not predetermined (see Weigand, 2009), it demands linguistic co-ordination between the two interlocutors for communication to succeed (Clark 1996;Clark and Schaefer 1989). The speakers' ability to co-ordinate their linguistic behaviour during dialogue is fundamental to reaching a common goal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent studies (e.g., Pickering 2007a, 2009) have shown that "parallel lower level interaction mechanisms" (Colston 2008, 151) such as the priming effect are enormously influential in constructing a dialogue. Current psycholinguistic studies on dialogue (Garrod and Pickering 2007a, 2007b, 2009) have shown, for instance, that the mechanism underlying dialogue largely depends on joint action. That is, interlocutors "work together to establish a joint understanding of what they are talking about" (Garrod and Pickering 2004, 8).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic alignment in L1–L2 dialogue

Purmohammad

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to investigate alignment in L1-L2 dialogue. More specifically, I examine to what extent alignment in L1-L2 is different from alignment in L1-L1 dialogue. I investigate different variables that may affect linguistic alignment in the course of L1-L2 dialogue. As more variables, such as differences in language proficiency of interlocutors, affect the linguistic alignment in L1-L2 dialogue, it appears that linguistic alignment in L1-L2 dialogue is different from linguistic alignment in L1-L1 dialogue both quantitatively and quantitatively. I also discuss the mechanisms that permit lexical alignment during dialogue. This study interprets the alignment process in terms of the activation threshold hypothesis (Paradis 1993) and a link is made between the activation threshold hypothesis and Pickering and Garrods' (2013) account that language production and language comprehension are interwoven. Based on Swiss multilingualism, language selection is proposed as the macro-linguistic alignment process.

show abstract

“…Delin 2000;Fairclough 2001;Gerhardt 2010;Jung 2010) being new channels for communication, mostly representing a more casual, informal style in language use, more in line with a natural dialogue between equals than a "top-down" kind of communication. Weigand (2006Weigand ( , 2010 has highlighted the dialogic character of communication in a theory called The Mixed Game Model. It describes human beings as involved in a dialogue with a real or presumed interlocutor.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dialogue features in football articles over a period of fifty years

Lundin

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Language as Dialogue

Cited by 106 publications

References 0 publications

Disagreement and the speaker’s point of view

Disagreement and the speaker’s point of view

Linguistic alignment in L1–L2 dialogue

Dialogue features in football articles over a period of fifty years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About