Communicative Analysis of Dialogical Interaction : Methodology of Research

• Authors: Oleksii Borysov , Olena Vasylieva

Abstracts

EN

Dialogue studies suggest keys to understanding communicative behavior. The purpose of this article is to put forth a more complex and comprehensive approach to the analysis of interaction that incorporates quantitative metrics to reveal its entire communicative depth. The methods of discourse-analysis, initiative-response analysis, a theory of speech acts, conversational, cognitive, stylistic, statistical analyses as well as descriptive and interpretative methods have been united in one system to interpret the procedure and results of the cooperative and conflict dialogues chosen as an example. The integrated methodology produces a broader investigative view of communication, also because it allows measuring the level of dominance of interlocutors and explaining it in terms of power relations. In this way, it contributes to a better understanding of the multifaceted nature of dialogue without any characteristics to be underestimated. The methodology is an open system and is suggested as a sample of dialogical communication research.

Keywords

EN

methodology; communication; dialogue; power; influence

• Publisher: Polskie Towarzystwo Komunikacji Społecznej
• Journal: Central European Journal of Communication
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 15
• Issue: 2(31)
• Pages: 286-303

Dates

published

2022

Contributors

author

Oleksii Borysov

• T. H. Shevchenko National University “Chernihivskyi Kolehium”, Ukraine

• https://orcid.org/000000016159199X

author

Olena Vasylieva

• T. H. Shevchenko National University “Chernihivskyi Kolehium”

• https://orcid.org/0000000332414892

References

• Acitelli, K. L. (2002). Relationship Awareness: Crossing the Bridge Between Cognition and Communication. Communication Theory, 12(1). 92–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00261.x
• Adelswärd, V., Aronsson, K., Jönsson, L., & Linell, P. (1987). The unequal distribution of interactional space: Dominance and control in courtroom interaction. Text, 7, 313–346.
• Appiah, A., & Lawrence, B. (2015). Pragmatic study of verbal threats among the Fantes: A case of Apewosika. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and Translation, 1(1), 8–17.
• Atkinson, M. (2013). Intergroup dialogue: A theoretical positioning. Journal of Dialogue Studies 1(1), 63–81.
• Barthes, R. (1994). Lekcija [The Lecture]. In K. Kosikova (Ed.), Semiotika. Pojetika (pp. 545–568). Moscow: “Progress, Univers”.
• Barth-Weingarten, D. (2008). Interactional Linguistics. In G. Antos, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 77–107). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
• Borysov, O. O. (2017). Typologhija brytanskykh ta ukrajinskykh dialoghovykh dyskursyvnykh praktyk [The typology of British and Ukrainian dialogical discourse practices]. The thesis of PhD Dissertation, National Pedagogical Dragomanov University, Kyiv, Ukraine.
• Carbaugh, D. (2013). On dialogue studies. Journal of Dialogue Studies, 1(1), 9–29.
• Connelly, M. (2002). Angels Flight. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
• Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste O., Tarja, P., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. Sage Open, 4(1). 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633
• Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
• Foucault, M. (1998). Istorija seksual’nosti. Zabota o sebe [The history of sex-appeal. The care of the self]. Kiev-Moskva: Gruntrefl-buk, 1998.
• Gill, F., & Azhar, A. M. (2018). Critical discourse analysis of PM N. Sharif’s UNOGA discourse deciphering covert rhetoric–dialectical perspective. Communication and Linguistics Studies, 4(1), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20180401.12
• Honghui, Z., & Dongchun, C. (2019). Understanding misunderstandings from socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 7(5), 194–201. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20190705.13
• Ivashkevych, E. & Prymachok, L. (2019). Psycholinguistic peculiarities of the development of communicative competence of teachers of secondary schools. Psycholinguistics, 26(2), 11–26.
• Jahedy, M., Faiz, A., & Mukundan, J. (2014). An overview of focal approaches of critical discourse analysis. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 2(4), 28–35.
• Jakubowska-Branicka, I. (2014). Language as a tool creating and dividing communities. Dangerous use of asymmetric counterconcepts. Psychology of Language and Communication, 18(1), 22–40. https://https://doi.org/10.2478/plc-2014-0002
• Jensen, M. (2018). A survey to find the most likely general reasons why people engage in communication. Central European Journal of Communication, 1, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.19195/1899-5101.11.1(20).2
• Karasik, V. I. (2013). Konceptualizacija social’nogo neravenstva [The social unequality conceptualization]. In A. Levickiy, S. Potapenko, & I. Nedajnova (Eds.), Lingvokonceptologija: perspektivnye napravlenija (pp. 536–571). Lugansk: Izd-vo “LNU imeni Tarasa Shevchenko”.
• Kelly, U. (2013). Studying dialogue – some reflections. Journal of Dialogue Studies, 1(1), 51–63.
• Koike, D., & Blyth, C. (2015). Introduction. In D. Koike, & C. Blyth (Eds.), Dialogue in Multilingual and Multimodal Communities (pp. 1–25). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Kucherenko, S. N. (2016). Power in communication: Revisiting power studies. Topics in Linguistics, 17(1), 92–110. https://doi.org/10.1515/topling-2016-0007
• Langlotz, A. (2015). Creating social orientation through language. A Socio-cognitive theory of situational social meaning. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Linell, P. (2015). Dialogism and the distributed language approach: A rejoinder to Steffensen. Language Sciences, 50, 120–126. https://doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2015.01.003
• Linell, P. (1990). The Power of dialogue dynamics. In I. Markova (Ed.), The Dynamics of Dialogue (pp. 147–177). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• Linell, P., Gustavsson, L., & Juvonen, P. (1988). Interactional dominance in dyadic communication: A presentation of initiative-response analysis. Linguistics, 26(3), 415–442.
• Liu, K., D’Arcey, T. J., Walker, M. & Tree, F. E. J. (2021). Referential communication between friends and strangers in the wild. Dialogue & Discourse, 12(1). 45–72. https://doi:10.5210/dad.2021.103
• Makarov, M. L. (2003). Osnovy teorii diskursa [Discourse theory basis]. Moskva: ITDGK “Gnozis”.
• Malchanau, A., Petukhova, V., & Bunt, H. (2018). Towards integration of cognitive models in dialogue management: designing the virtual negotiation coach application. Dialogue & Discourse, 9(2). 35–79.
• Martínez del Castillo, J. (2015). The meaningful intentional purpose of the individual speaker. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(6-1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2015030601.12
• Pitts, J. M., & Giles, H. (2008). Social psychology and personal relationships; Accomodation and relational influence across time and contexts. In G. Antos, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 15–33). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
• Pocheptsov, G. G. (1981). Predlozheniye. Teoreticheskaya grammatika sovremennogo angliyskogo yazyka [The Sentence. Theoretical grammar of the present-day English]. Moskva: Progress.
• Potapenko, S. (2016). Cognitive rhetoric of effect: energy as a means of persuasion in inaugurals. Topics in Linguistics, 17(2), 12–25. https://https://doi.org/10.1515/topling-2016-0010
• Potseluev, S. P. (2008). Politicheskie paradialogi [Political paradialogues]. Rostov n/D: Izd-vo JuFU.
• Povolná, R. (2016). A cross cultural analysis of conjuncts as indicators of the interaction and negotiation of meaning in research articles. Topics in Linguistics, 17(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1515/topling-2016-0004
• Preston, D. (2017). The cognitive foundations of language regard. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 53(1), 17–43. https://https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2017-0002
• Prihodko, G. (2018). Specific nature of evaluative speech acts. Advanced Education, 9, 201–205. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.128232
• Reuzel, E., Embregts, P., Bosman, A., Nieuwenhuijzen, van M., & Jahoda, A. (2013). Interactional Patterns between Staff and Clients with Borderline to Mild Intellectual Disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01515.x
• Rikjor, P. (2002). Istorija i istina [History and truth]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletejja.
• Rudnick, A., Priya, S., Hazel, M., & Cizman, J. (2014). Involving disadvantaged people in dialogue: arguments and examples from mental health care. Journal of Dialogue Studies, 2(2). 93–109.
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. (1974). Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4). 696–735.
• Schmied, J. (2020). Limits of discourse: Examples from political, academic, and human-agent interaction. Discourse and interaction, 13(2). 89–118. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2020-2-89
• Searle, J. (1971). Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Shejgal, E. I. (2001). Vlast’ kak koncept i kategorija diskursa [Power as a concept and discourse category]. Biblioteka Gumer – Politology. http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/Polit/Article/scheig_vlast.php
• Sheldon, S. (1985). If tomorrow comes. https://royallib.com/read/Sheldon_ Sidney/If_Tomorrow_Comes.html
• Simić, J., & Simić, R. (2019). Some Theoretical Observations on Discourse (and Text). International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 7(1). 8–12. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20190701.12
• Spirkin, A. G. (2006). Filosofija [Philosophy]. Moskva: Gardariki, 2006.
• Tarasov, E. F. (1990). Rechevoe vozdejstvie: metodologija i teorija [Speech influence: methodology and theory]. In V.F. Petrenko (Ed.), Optimizacija rechevogo vozdejstvija (pp. 5–18). Moscow: Nauka.
• van Dijk, T. (2008). Discourse and power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Vaskivska, H., Palamar, S., & Poriadchenko, L. (2019). Psycholinguistic aspects of formation of culture of dialogical communication. Psycholinguistics, 26(2), 11–26.
• Vraj, D., Sidarth, W., Anurag, A., & Bhisham, B. (2020). Text-Based Intent Analysis Using Deep Learning. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 5(7). 267–274.
• Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2015). Critical discourse studies: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 1–23). London: Sage Publications.

Identifiers

DOI

10.51480/1899-5101.15.2(31).6

Biblioteka Nauki

2152503