Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Liminality in Language Use: Some Thoughts on Interactional Analysis from a Dialogical Perspective

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay traces my engagement with Michèle Grossen’s ideas of a dialogical perspective on interaction analysis (Grossen Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 1–22, 2009) and highlights a process account of self in interaction. Firstly I draw on Turner’s concept of liminality with respect to the transformative, temporal significance in interaction. Secondly I explored further the conversation analytic concepts such as formulation and reformulation as a viable analytical tool for a dialogical perspective. Lastly, I addressed the issue of interaction in institutional settings, in particular with interactional asymmetries of interaction, whilst relativising the I-position dialogical perspective. I explore insights from social anthropology as well as revisiting conversation analysis and discursive psychology, concluding that a promising direction would be sought through a cross-fertilisation between dialogism and other sibling perspectives concerning language use, communication, social action and discourse- and narrative-based analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond identity. Theory and Society, 29, 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttny, R. (1993). Social accountability in communication. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diriwächter, R. (2009). Idiographic microgenesis: Re-visiting the experimental tradition of Aktualgenese. In J. Valsiner, P. Molenaar, N. Chaudhary, & M. Lyra (Eds.), Dynamic process methodology in the social and developmental sciences (pp. 319–352). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In: P. Drew, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossen, M. (2009). Interaction analysis and psychology: A dialogical perspective. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 1–22. doi:10.1007/s12124-009-9108-9.

  • Harré, R. (2003). The discursive turn in social psychology. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 688–706). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. (2009). Language and psychology for the third millennium (Keynote Speech). 10th Inter-University Graduate Conference: Culture, cognition & construction (22–23 May). London School of Economics and Political Science.

  • Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an “overhearing” audience. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, vol. III: Discourse and dialogue (pp. 95–119). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, J. A., & Valsiner, J. (2003). Making personal sense: An account of basic internalization and externalization processes. Theory & Psychology, 13(6), 723–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contexual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mühlhäusler, P., & Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay, M. (1979). Science and the sociology of knowledge. London: George Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murakami, K. (2007). Positioning in accounting for redemption and reconciliation. Culture & Psychology, 13(4), 431–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rommetveit, R. (1998). 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 

  • Rumsey, A. (2000). Agency, personhood and the ‘I’ of discourse in the Pacific and beyond. Journal of the Royal Antrholopological Institute, 6(1), 101–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, V. W. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gennep, A. (1909). The rites of passage. (Trans. By Monika B. Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffe.) London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

  • Wagoner, B. (2008). Narrative form and content of remembering. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42(3), 315–323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath, England, UK

    Kyoko Murakami

Authors
  1. Kyoko Murakami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyoko Murakami.

Additional information

Grossen, M. (2009) “Interaction Analysis and Psychology: A Dialogical Perspective”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Murakami, K. Liminality in Language Use: Some Thoughts on Interactional Analysis from a Dialogical Perspective. Integr. psych. behav. 44, 30–38 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-010-9115-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-010-9115-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation