Skip to main content
Log in

Ragnar Rommetveit’s Approach to Everyday Spoken Dialogue from Within

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Initiating a dialogue . . . is to ‘transform a certain kind of silence into speech’ (Merleau-Ponty 1962, p. 184). Once the other person accepts the invitation to engage in the dialogue, his life situation is temporarily transformed. The two participants leave behind them whatever were their preoccupations at the moment when silence was transformed into speech. From that moment on, they become inhabitants of a partly shared social world, established and continuously modified by their acts of communication

(Rommetveit 1974, p. 23).

We view Rommetveit’s integration of conceptions like perspectival relativity and meaning potentials into a social-cognitive theory of language and communication as a unique contribution to present-day psycholinguistic theory integrating disciplines and scientific traditions

(Hagtvet and Wold 2003, p. 194).

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Anderson, C., & McCune, V. (2013). Fostering meaning: fostering community. Higher Education, 66, 283–296. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9604-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogical imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

  • Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75, B13–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cassirer, E. (1944). An essay on man. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1987). Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 19–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dilthey, W. (1894). Ideen über eine beschreibende und zergliedernde Psychologie. Sitzungsberichte, 2, 1309–1407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Über das Gedächtnis: Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie. Leipzig: Veit.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27, 181–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, I & II. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ibsen, H. (1961). A doll’s house (J. W. McFarlane, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Linell, P. (2005). The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J., & Wales, R. J. (Eds.). (1966). Psycholinguistic papers: Proceedings of the 1966 Edinburgh conference. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marková, I., & Foppa, K. (Eds.). (1990). The dynamics of dialogue. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Michotte, A. (1954). La perception de la causalité. Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1962). Some psychological studies of grammar. American Psychologist, 17, 748–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1980). Computation, consciousness and cognition. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nafstadt, H. E., & Blakar, R. M. (1982). Current trends in Norwegian social psychology: A brief review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 195–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. (2012). Dialogical genres: Empractical and conversational listening and speaking. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ommundsen, R., & Teigen, K. H. (2005). Social psychology in Norway. European Bulletin of Social Psychology, 17, 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. E. (1952). The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 49, 197–237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1952). The origin of intelligence in children. New York: International University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–190.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1980). Computation and cognition: Issues in the foundations of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 111–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rommetveit, R. (1955a). Model construction in psychology: A defense of “surplus meanings” of psychological concepts. Acta Psychologica, 11, 335–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rommetveit, R. (1955b). Social norms and roles. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rommetveit, R. (1962). In search of lost components of meaning in psychological studies of language. Unpublished manuscript. Oslo: University of Oslo.

  • 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.

  • Rommetveit, R. (1968b). Words, meanings, and messages: Theory and experiments in psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework for the study of language and communication. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rommetveit, R. (1983a). Prospective social psychological contributions to a truly interdisciplinary understanding of ordinary language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2, 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rommetveit, R. (2008). Språk, individuell psyke, og kulturelt kollektiv. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rommetveit, R., & Blakar, R. M. (Eds.). (1979). Studies of language, thought and verbal communication. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. (1980). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: University of Princeton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Searle, J. (1974). On speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svartvik, J., & Quirk, R. (Eds.). (1980). A corpus of English conversation. C. W. K Lund: Gleerup.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vološinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik, Trans.). New York: Seminar Press.

  • 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 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (2003). Ragnar Rommetveit: His work and influence. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10, 183–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabine Kowal.

Additional information

We wish to dedicate the following article to the memory of Robert W. Rieber, a good friend, wise editor, and loyal colleague. We also wish to express our special thanks to the anonymous reviewer of this article who has provided critical commentary and worthwhile suggestions for its improvement.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kowal, S., O’Connell, D.C. Ragnar Rommetveit’s Approach to Everyday Spoken Dialogue from Within. J Psycholinguist Res 45, 423–446 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9404-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9404-0

Keywords

Navigation