Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 423–446 | Cite as

Ragnar Rommetveit’s Approach to Everyday Spoken Dialogue from Within

  • Sabine KowalEmail author
  • Daniel C. O’Connell
Article
  • 207 Downloads

Abstract

The following article presents basic concepts and methods of Ragnar Rommetveit’s (born 1924) hermeneutic-dialogical approach to everyday spoken dialogue with a focus on both shared consciousness and linguistically mediated meaning. He developed this approach originally in his engagement of mainstream linguistic and psycholinguistic research of the 1960s and 1970s. He criticized this research tradition for its individualistic orientation and its adherence to experimental methodology which did not allow the engagement of interactively established meaning and understanding in everyday spoken dialogue. As a social psychologist influenced by phenomenological philosophy, Rommetveit opted for an alternative conceptualization of such dialogue as a contextualized, partially private world, temporarily co-established by interlocutors on the basis of shared consciousness. He argued that everyday spoken dialogue should be investigated from within, i.e., from the perspectives of the interlocutors and from a psychology of the second person. Hence, he developed his approach with an emphasis on intersubjectivity, perspectivity and perspectival relativity, meaning potential of utterances, and epistemic responsibility of interlocutors. In his methods, he limited himself for the most part to casuistic analyses, i.e., logical analyses of fictitious examples to argue for the plausibility of his approach. After many years of experimental research on language, he pursued his phenomenologically oriented research on dialogue in English-language publications from the late 1980s up to 2003. During that period, he engaged psycholinguistic research on spoken dialogue carried out by Anglo-American colleagues only occasionally. Although his work remained unfinished and open to development, it provides both a challenging alternative and supplement to current Anglo-American research on spoken dialogue and some overlap therewith.

Keywords

Spontaneous spoken dialogue Intersubjectivity Perspective Meaning potential Epistemic responsibility 

References

  1. Albrechtsen, H., & Hjørland, B. (1994). Understandings of language and cognition: Implications for classification research. SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop. doi: 10.7152/acro.v5/1.13774.
  2. Amhag, L. (2009). Voices and meaning potentials in asynchronous dialogues. Paper presented at AACE, E-Learn 2009, world conference on E-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, & higher education, October 26–30, Vancouver. Retrieved from http://dspace.mah.se/dspace/bitstream/handle/2043/10162/AmhagElearn09.pdf.
  3. Anderson, C., & McCune, V. (2013). Fostering meaning: fostering community. Higher Education, 66, 283–296. doi: 10.1007/s10734-012-9604-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogical imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  5. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, B13–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cassirer, E. (1944). An essay on man. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, H. H. (1977). Bridging. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 411–420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, H. H. (1983). Making sense of nonce sense. In G. B. Flores D’Arcais & R. J. Jarvella (Eds.), The process of language understanding (pp. 297–331). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, H. H. (2004). Pragmatics of language performance. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 365–382). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, H. H. (2012). Spoken discourse and its emergence. In M. J. Soivey, K. McRae, & M. F. Joanisse (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 541–557). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1987). Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, H. H., Schreuder, R., & Buttrick, S. (1983). Common ground and understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Dilthey, W. (1894). Ideen über eine beschreibende und zergliedernde Psychologie. Sitzungsberichte, 2, 1309–1407.Google Scholar
  17. Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Über das Gedächtnis: Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie. Leipzig: Veit.Google Scholar
  18. Farr, R. M., & Rommetveit, R. (1995). The communicative act: An epilogue to mutualities in dialogue. In I. Marková, C. Graumann, & K. Foppa (Eds.), Mutualities in dialogue (pp. 264–274). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fugelli, P. (2010). Intersubjectivity and objects of knowledge: Making sense across sites in software development (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo). Retrieved from http://folk.uio.no/palfu/Ph.d-thesis_Fugelli.pdf.
  20. Fujita, K., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2012). Seeing the big picture: A construal level analysis of self-control. In R. R. Hassin, K. N. Ochsner, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Self control in society, mind, and brain (pp. 408–427). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.Google Scholar
  22. Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27, 181–218.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Alignment in dialogue. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 443–451). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, I & II. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  25. Hagtvet, B. E., & Wold, A. H. (2003). On the dialogical basis of meaning: Inquiries into Ragnar Rommetveit’s writings on language, thought, and communication. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10, 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herrmann, T. (2003). Die Sprachpsychologie und ihr Kommunikations–Prozeß–Dilemma. In H. Richter & H. W. Schmitz (Eds.), Kommunikation - ein Schlüsselbegriff der Humanwissenschaften? (pp. 81–88). Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar
  28. Ibsen, H. (1961). A doll’s house (J. W. McFarlane, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Josephs, I. E. (1998). Do you know Ragnar Rommetveit? On dialogue and silence, poetry and pedantry, and cleverness and wisdom in psychology (An interview with Ragnar Rommetveit). Culture & Psychology, 4, 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knobloch, C. (2003). Geschichte der Psycholinguistik. In G. Rickheit, T. Herrmann, & W. Deutsch (Eds.), Psycholinguistik/Psycholinguistics: Ein internationales Handbuch/An international handbook (pp. 15–33). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  31. Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1996). Social psychological models of interpersonal communication. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 655–701). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Linell, P. (1981). Language, thought and verbal communication [Review of the book Studies of language, thought and verbal communication, by R. Rommetveit & R. M. Blakar (Eds.)]. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 4, 29–53.Google Scholar
  34. Linell, P. (2005). The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Linell, P., & Rommetveit, R. (1998). The many forms and facets of morality in dialogue: Epilogue for the special issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31, 465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lyons, J., & Wales, R. J. (Eds.). (1966). Psycholinguistic papers: Proceedings of the 1966 Edinburgh conference. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Marková, I., & Foppa, K. (Eds.). (1990). The dynamics of dialogue. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mentzel, H. (1978). Meaning—Who needs it? In M. Brenner, P. Marsh, & M. Brenner (Eds.), The social contexts of method (pp. 140–171). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  41. Michotte, A. (1954). La perception de la causalité. Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
  42. Miller, G. A. (1962). Some psychological studies of grammar. American Psychologist, 17, 748–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller, G. A. (1980). Computation, consciousness and cognition. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 146.Google Scholar
  44. Nafstadt, H. E., & Blakar, R. M. (1982). Current trends in Norwegian social psychology: A brief review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. O’Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. (2012). Dialogical genres: Empractical and conversational listening and speaking. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olson, D. R., & Torrance, N. G. (1985). Literacy and cognitive development: A conceptual transformation in the early school years. In S. Meadows (Ed.), Issues in childhood cognitive development. London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
  47. Ommundsen, R., & Teigen, K. H. (2005). Social psychology in Norway. European Bulletin of Social Psychology, 17, 31–38.Google Scholar
  48. Osgood, C. E. (1952). The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 49, 197–237.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Piaget, J. (1952). The origin of intelligence in children. New York: International University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–190.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 329–347. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12001495. pp. 1-49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2014). Interactive alignment and language use. In T. M. Holtgraves (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 131–140). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1980). Computation and cognition: Issues in the foundations of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 111–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rodi, F. (1987). Die Ebbinghaus–Dilthey–Kontroverse: Biographischer Hintergrund und sachlicher Ertrag. In W. Traxel (Ed.), Ebbinghaus-Studien 2 (pp. 145–154). Passau: Passavia Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
  55. Rommetveit, R. (1955a). Model construction in psychology: A defense of “surplus meanings” of psychological concepts. Acta Psychologica, 11, 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rommetveit, R. (1955b). Social norms and roles. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  57. Rommetveit, R. (1962). In search of lost components of meaning in psychological studies of language. Unpublished manuscript. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  58. Rommetveit, R. (1968a). Review of the book Psycholinguistic papers: The proceedings of the 1966 Edinburgh Conference by J. Lyons & R. J. Wales (Eds.). Lingua, 19, 305–311.Google Scholar
  59. Rommetveit, R. (1968b). Words, meanings, and messages: Theory and experiments in psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Rommetveit, R. (1980). On ‘meanings’ of acts and what is meant and made known by what is said in a pluralistic social world. In M. Brenner (Ed.), The structure of action (pp. 108–149). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  62. Rommetveit, R. (1983a). Prospective social psychological contributions to a truly interdisciplinary understanding of ordinary language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rommetveit, R. (1983b). In search of a truly interdisciplinary semantics: A sermon on hopes of salvation from hereditary sins. Journal of Semantics, 2, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rommetveit, R. (1987). Meaning, context, and control: Convergent trends and controversial issues in current social-scientific research on human cognition and communication. Inquiry, 30, 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rommetveit, R. (1988). On literacy and the myth of literal meaning. In R. Säljö (Ed.), The written world: Studies in literate thought and action (pp. 13–40). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rommetveit, R. (1990). On axiomatic features of a dialogical approach to language and mind. In I. Marková & K. Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue (pp. 83–104). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. Rommetveit, R. (1991). On epistemic responsibility in human communication. In H. Rønning & K. Lundby (Eds.), Media and communication: Readings in methodology, history and culture (pp. 13–27). Oslo: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Rommetveit, R. (1992). Outlines of a dialogically based social-cognitive approach to human cognition and communication. In A. H. Wold (Ed.), The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind (pp. 19–44). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Rommetveit, R. (1998a). On divergent perspectives and controversial issues in studies of language and mind. In M. Janse & A. Verlinden (Eds.), Productivity and creativity: Studies in general and descriptive linguistics in honor of E. M. Uhlenbeck (pp. 179–189). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  70. Rommetveit, R. (1998b). Intersubjective attunement and linguistically mediated meaning in discourse. In S. Bråten (Ed.), Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny (pp. 354–371). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Rommetveit, R. (2003). On the role of “a psychology of the second person” in studies of meaning, language, and mind. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10, 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rommetveit, R. (2008). Språk, individuell psyke, og kulturelt kollektiv. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag.Google Scholar
  73. Rommetveit, R., & Blakar, R. M. (Eds.). (1979). Studies of language, thought and verbal communication. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  74. Rorty, R. (1980). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: University of Princeton Press.Google Scholar
  75. Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Georgetwon University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1981 (pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Schober, M. (2007). Epilogue: Language at the heart of social psychology. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 435–440). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  79. Searle, J. (1974). On speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Shotter, J. (2009). Moments of common reference in dialogic communication: A basis for unconfused collaboration in unique contexts. International Journal of Collaborative Practices, 1, 31–39.Google Scholar
  81. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  83. Svartvik, J., & Quirk, R. (Eds.). (1980). A corpus of English conversation. C. W. K Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
  84. Trevarthen, C. (1998). The concept and foundations of infant intersubjectivity. In S. Bråten (Ed.), Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny (pp. 15–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Uhlenbeck, E. M. (1992). Distinctions in the study of linguistic semantics. In A. H. Wold (Ed.), The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind (pp. 273–291). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Vološinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik, Trans.). New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
  88. Wertsch, J. V. (1992). A dialogue on message structure: Rommetveit and Bakhtin. In H. Wold (Ed.), The dialogical alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind (pp. 65–76). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Wertsch, J. V. (2003). Ragnar Rommetveit: His work and influence. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10, 183–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wertsch, J. V., & Kasaz, S. (2005). Intersubjectivity through the mastery of semiotic means in teacher-student discourse. Retrieved from http://eprints.lib.hokudai.acjp/dspace/bitstream/2115/25364/1/27_P1-11.pdf.
  91. Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  92. Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Wittgenstein’s lectures: Cambridge, 1932–1935: From the notes of Alice Ambrose and Margaret McDonald (Alice Ambrose, Ed.). New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical University BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations