O'Connell Daniel C, Kowal Sabine
Department of Psychology, DH615, Loyola University of Chicago, 6525 North Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL 60626, USA.
Am J Psychol. 2003 Summer;116(2):191-212.
The contention of this article is that, since its inception in the mid-twentieth century, mainstream psycholinguistics has been monologistic, that is, has concentrated on monologue as its source of empirical material and has, largely implicitly, involved a monologistic epistemology. The article is not a comprehensive history of psycholinguistics but does attempt to establish a historical perspective. Monologism has been the historical bias of Cartesianism, positivism, behaviorism, and cognitivism. Monologism is concerned only with the person in whom cognition takes place and from whom communication proceeds. It is essentially asocial. By contrast, the merits of dialogism include an openness to the sociocultural, interactive nature of all cognition and communication and an empirical engagement of contextualized discourse situations. Dialogism is presented here not as a supplement to mainstream psycholinguistics but as a radical innovation that construes mainstream psycholinguistics as "strongly misleading if presented as a full theory of communication through spoken interaction" (Linell, 1998, p. 23). Some approaches to dialogism and research on dialogue are critically reviewed.
本文的论点是,自20世纪中叶诞生以来,主流心理语言学一直是独白式的,也就是说,它专注于将独白作为其实证材料的来源,并且在很大程度上隐含地涉及一种独白式认识论。本文并非心理语言学的全面历史,但确实试图确立一种历史视角。独白主义一直是笛卡尔主义、实证主义、行为主义和认知主义的历史偏见。独白主义只关注认知发生的个体以及交流所源自的个体。它本质上是反社会的。相比之下,对话主义的优点包括对所有认知和交流的社会文化、互动本质持开放态度,以及对情境化话语情境进行实证研究。本文提出对话主义并非作为主流心理语言学的补充,而是作为一种激进的创新,认为主流心理语言学“如果被当作通过口语互动进行交流的完整理论呈现,会极具误导性”(林内尔,1998,第23页)。本文对一些对话主义方法和对话研究进行了批判性综述。