Cover not available

In:From Pragmatics to Dialogue
Edited by Edda Weigand and István Kecskés
[Dialogue Studies 31] 2018
► pp. 189–216

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Types and functions of pseudo-dialogues

Published online: 5 October 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.31.10mus
In pure dialogues, the speakers address their words to recipients who concentrate on listening, while in pseudo-dialogues the recipients are not able to listen, or prefer not to listen. The speaker may be fully aware of the recipient’s mental absence. The aim of the chapter is to study how pseudo-dialogues are used in everyday communication. We differentiate four main categories of pseudo-dialogues based on the role of the recipient: a human recipient who is present in the situation but whose role in the interaction is secondary; a physically remote human recipient; a non-human recipient (a dog, a computer, etc.); a speaker who speaks to himself/herself (no other recipients than oneself). In most cases, the manner of speaking in pseudo-dialogues largely resembles that of pure dialogues. Examples of the usage of pseudo-dialogues are taken from the St. Petersburg One Day of Speech Corpus.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Constituents influencing the course of communication
  • 3.Types of dialogues
  • 4.Types of pseudo-dialogues
  • 5.Observations on pseudo-dialogues in ORD material
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
References (64)
References
Abercrombie, David. 1965. Studies in Phonetics and Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asinovsky, Alexander, Natalia Bogdanova, Marina Rusakova, Anastassia Ryko, Svetlana Stepanova, and Tatiana Sherstinova. 2009. “The ORD Speech Corpus of Russian Everyday Communication “One Speaker’s Day”: Creation Principles and Annotation.” In Text, Speech and Dialogue, ed. by Vaclav Matoušek and Pavel Mautner, 250–257. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, translated by Vern W. McGee; edited by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bargh, John A. and Tanya L. Chartrand. 1999. “The Unbearable Automaticity of Being.” American Psychologist 54, 462–476. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bogdanova-Beglarian, Natalia, Tatiana Sherstinova, Olga Blinova, Olga Ermolova, Ekaterina Baeva, Gregory Martynenko, and Anastasia Ryko. 2016. ”Sociolinguistic Extension of the ORD Corpus of Russian Everyday Speech.” In Speech and Computer, SPECOM 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by A. Ronzhin, R. Potapova, and G. Németh, vol. 9811, 659–666. Springer, Switzerland. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohm, David. 2006. On Dialogue. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brooks, David. 2011. Social Science Palooza II. New York Times, March 17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buber, Martin. 1923/2008. Ich und Du. Stuttgart: Raclam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary and Kira Hall. 2005. “Identity and Interaction. A Socio-Cultural Linguistic Approach.” Discourse Studies 7(4–5): 585–614. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bunz, Ulla and Scott W. Campbell. 2004. “Politeness Accommodation in Electronic Mail.” Communication Research Reports 21: 11–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burnard, Lou (ed.). 2007. Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (XML edition). Published for the British National Corpus Consortium by Oxford University Computing Services, 2007. Available at: < [URL] >. Retrieved: February 2, 2016.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 2016. Reference Guide for the British National Corpus(XML edition). Published for the British National Corpus Consortium by Oxford University Computing Services, 2007. Available online at [URL], accessed on February 2, 2016.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, Nick. 2004. “Speech & Expression; the Value of a Longitudinal Corpus.” LREC 2004: 183–186.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carbaugh, Donal. 2013. “On Dialogue Studies.” Journal of Dialogue Studies 1(1), 9–18.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Thomas B. Carlson. 1982. “Hearers and Speech Acts.” Language 58(2): 332–372. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, Ap. 2004. “Think Different: The Merits of Unconscious Thought in Preference Development and Decision Making.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87(5): 586–598. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dynel, M. 2010. Not Hearing Things – Hearer/listener Categories in Polylogues. mediAzioni 9. Available online at [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ermolova, O. 2015. “Lingvisticheskie osobennosti obschenija cheloveka s domashnimi zhivotnymi.” [Linguistic features of human conversation with domestic animals] Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Rossijskaja i zarubezhnaja filologija 4(32): 58–66.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fiehler, Reinhar, Birgit Barden, Mechthild Elstermann and Barbara Kraft. 2004. Eigenschaften gesprochener Sprache. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fields, Chris. 2002. “Why We Talk to Ourselves?” Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 14: 255–272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giles, Howard and Jordan Soliz. 2014. “Accommodation Theory: A Situated Framework for Relational, Family and Intergroup Dynamics.” In Engaging Interpersonal Theories, second edition, ed. by D. Braitewaite and P. Schrodt, 159–167. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erwing. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 2: Speech Acts, ed. by P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gu, Yueguo. 1994. “Pragmatics and Rhetoric: A Collaborative Approach to Conversation.” In Pretending to Communicate, ed. by H. Parret, 173–195. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, Kathy and Rebecca Treiman. 1982. “Doggerel: Motherese in a New Context.” Journal of Child Language 9(1): 229–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Isaacs, William. 1999. Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kallio, Tomi J. and Johan Sandström. 2009. “Academic Writing as Autocommunication – the Case of Doctoral Dissertations on CSR.” Culture and Organization 15(1): 75–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “Is the Idiom Principle Blocked in Bilingual L2 Production?” In Bilingual Figurative Language Processing, ed. by R. R. Heredia and A. B. Cieśliska, 28–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F. 2013. “Constructing Identity.” In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, 2nd edition, ed. by J. K. Chambers and N. Schilling-Estes, 448–467. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. “Language and Tact.” In G. Leech Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics, 79–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddicoat, Anthony J. 2007. An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “On the Nature of Language: Formal Written-Language Biased Linguistics vs. Dialogical Language Sciences.” In Cognitive Dynamics in Linguistic Interactions, ed. by A. Kravchenko, 107–124. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publ.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “Dialogue, Dialogicality and Interactivity.” Language and Dialogue 7 (3): 301–335. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lotman, Yuri M. 1990. Universe of the Mind, translated by A. Shukman. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marková, Irina. 1982. Paradigms, Thought, and Language, . Chichester New York: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mitcell, Robert W. 2001. “Americans’ Talk to Dogs: Similarities and Differences with Talk to Infants.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 34(2): 183–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Risks of Miscommunication in Various Speech Genres.” In Understanding by Communication, ed. by E. Borisova and O. Souleimanova, 33–53. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publ.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017a. “The Issue of Theorizing: Object-of-Study and Methodology.” In Language and Dialogue: A Handbook of Key Issues in the Field, ed. by E. Weigand, 234–250. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017b. “Why is Miscommunication More Common in Everyday Life than in Lingua Franca Conversation?” In Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, vol. 274), ed. by I. Kecskes and S. Assimakopoulos, 55–74. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Connell, Daniel C. and Sabine Kowal. 2008. Communicating with One Another: Towards a Psychology of Spontaneous Spoken Discourse. New York etc.: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Dialogical Genres: Empractical and Conversational Listening and Speaking. New York etc.: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pascual, Esther. 2006. “Fictive Interaction within the Sentence: A Communicative Type of Fictivity of Grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics 17(2): 245–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pavlidou, Theodossia. 1991. “Cooperation and the Choice of Linguistic Means: Some Evidence from the Use of Subjunctive in Modern Greek.” Journal of Pragmatics 15: 11–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pietikäinen, Kaisa S. 2016. “Misunderstandings and Ensuring Understanding in Private ELF Talk.” Applied Linguistics 1–26.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Gareth, Benjamin Langstein and Bruno Galantucci. 2016. “(In)sensitivity to Incoherence in Human Communication.” Language & Communication 47: 15–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rogers, John, Lynette A. Hart and Ronald P. Boltz. 1993. “The Role of Pet Dogs in Casual Conversations of Elderly Adults.” The Journal of Social Psychology 133(3): 265–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saunders, Harold. 1999. A Public Peace Process. New York: Saint Martin’s Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant K. and Slembrouck, Stefaan. 1992. “Non-Cooperation in Communication: A Reassessment of Gricean Pragmatics.” Journal of Pragmatics 17: 117–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Senge, Peter. 1990. The Fifth discipline. The Art & Practice of Learning Organisations. Currency: Doubleday.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sherstinova, Tatiana. 2015. “Macro Episodes of Russian Everyday Oral Communication: Towards Pragmatic Annotation of the ORD Speech Corpus.” In Speech and Computer, SPECOM 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. by A. Ronzhin, R. Potapova, and N. Fakotakis, vol. 9391, 268–276. Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintel, Hadas and Boaz Keysar. 2009. “Less is More: a Minimalist Account of Joint Action in Communication.” Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 260–273.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 2004. “Talking the Dog: Framing Pets as Interactional Resources in Family Discourse.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(4): 399–420. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vepreva, I. T. 2012. “Razgovory avtomobolista za ruljom i tipy kvaziadresata.” [Conversations of car-drivers and types of quasi-addressees] Russkii iazyk segodnja, vypusk 5, 82–92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N. and Fabrizi Macagno. 2007. “Types of Dialogue, Dialectical Relevance and Textual Congruity.” Anthropology & Philosophy 8(1–2): 101–119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2004. “Emotions: The simple and the Complex.” In Emotions in Dialogic Interaction, ed. by E. Weigand, 3–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Paradigm Changes in Linguistics: From Reductionism to Holism.” Language Sciences 33: 544–549. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zanadvorova, A. V. 2008. “Obshchenie cheloveka s komjuterom” [Interaction of a human with a computer]. In Russkii iazyk. Aktyvnye protsessy na rubezhe XX-XXI vekov, ed. by L. P. Krysin, 579–611. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskih kul’tur.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zemskaja, E. A. 1987. Russkaja razgovornaja rech’: lingvisticheskii analiz i problemy obucheniia [Russian colloquial language: linguistic analysis and problems of teaching]. Moscow: Russkii jazyk.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Hashmi, Syed Ghufran, Sameera Khanam & S. Imtiaz Hasnain
2023. What Providers Seek to Do with ‘Questions’ in Patient-Provider Interaction. Health Communication 38:14 ► pp. 3326 ff. DOI logo
Galantucci, Bruno, Benjamin Langstein, Eliyahu Spivack & Nathaniel Paley
2020. Repair Avoidance: When Faithful Informational Exchanges Don't Matter That Much. Cognitive Science 44:10 DOI logo
Mustajoki, Arto & Alla Baikulova
2020. The risks of misunderstandings in family discourse. Language and Dialogue 10:3 ► pp. 340 ff. DOI logo
Săftoiu, Răzvan
2019. The Dialogic Turn in Language Study. Language and Dialogue 9:3 ► pp. 471 ff. DOI logo
Săftoiu, Răzvan
2020. Angela Smith & Michael Higgins, The Language of Journalism. A Multi-genre Perspective, 2nd edition, Bloomsbury, London, 2020, 224 p.. Diacronia :12 DOI logo
Săftoiu, Răzvan
2020. Angela Smith & Michael Higgins, The Language of Journalism. A Multi-genre Perspective, 2nd edition, Bloomsbury, London, 2020, 224 p.. Diacronia :12 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue