Living Being and Speaking Being: Toward a Dialogical Approach to Intentionality

One of the main goals of cognitive science is to shed light on human knowledge. This paper states that, if daily conversations, literature, and private thought, are proper expressions of human behavior, then cognitive sciences ought to elaborate a concept of knowledge suited to this kind of activities. I draw upon the notion of discourse in Bakhtin to specify the attributes of knowing needed to account for human behavior, whose manifestations in everyday life are not reduced to representing objects but essentially oriented toward responding to others. As a central aspect of knowledge, I focus on intentionality and offer a discussion about different aspects of it. Specifically, I examine the difference between intentionality as the faculty of representation (aboutness) and intentionality as the subjective positioning toward contextually relevant ideological perspectives (meaning).

Shot through with voices: Dissociation mediates the relationship between varieties of inner speech and auditory hallucination proneness

Inner speech is a commonly experienced but poorly understood phenomenon. The Varieties of Inner Speech Questionnaire (VISQ; McCarthy-Jones & Fernyhough, 2011) assesses four characteristics of inner speech: dialogicality, evaluative/motivational content, condensation, and the presence of other people. Prior findings have linked anxiety and proneness to auditory hallucinations (AH) to these types of inner speech. This study extends that work by examining how inner speech relates to self-esteem and dissociation, and their combined impact upon AH-proneness. 156 students completed the VISQ and measures of self-esteem, dissociation and AH-proneness. Correlational analyses indicated that evaluative inner speech and other people in inner speech were associated with lower self-esteem and greater frequency of dissociative experiences. Dissociation and VISQ scores, but not self-esteem, predicted AH-proneness. Structural equation modelling supported a mediating role for dissociation between specific components of inner speech (evaluative and other people) and AH-proneness. Implications for the development of “hearing voices” are discussed.     

Being Human: Experiencing and Communicating

Haye’s article Living being and speaking being highlights a confusion that the traditional cognitive science has been making between cognition and representation, reducing semantics (meaning) to the syntax (computation with symbols). This traditional view cannot fully grasp the dependence of meaning on the relational context, opening space for the need to take into account the Bakhtinian notions of responsivity and addressivity to an other as defining features of the communicational social act. Socialized signs are conceived here as central tools to our relation to the world and to the others. We pursue some of the implications of this radical dialogical commitment specifying their implications to an ontological level of human beings: relationships are the ground for the depiction of human beings and otherness as a necessary complementarity of our own existence.     

Persons as dialogical-hermeneutical-relational beings – New circumstances ‘call out’ new responses from us

Shifting from a world of already-made-things to a world of things-continually-in-the-making changes everything. Psychology, like all other sciences, tries to proceed by analysis, by breaking down a living, unique, always developing organic whole into a set of general, already-existing, nameable elements. But as Bakhtin makes clear, in discussing how Dostoevsky portrays the inner dynamics of people worrying over how to act for the best in living their lives, such an itemization of merely observed behavioural characteristics leads to a degrading reification of a person's unfinalizability, of their still-developing nature. Below, I first examine the Cartesianism that still seems present in much of our thinking in social inquiry today. I then turn attention to the primacy of our living movements out in the world and their responsiveness to events occurring around us. While finally turning to the fact that, as living beings, what ‘goes on inside us’, is not so important as ‘what we go on inside of’. Although Dostoevsky portrays this indivisible, flowing reality, in terms of a set of discontinuous fragments —because that is the nature of our experience in everyday life — as hermeneutical-dialogical-relational beings, we have a basic capability of organizing them into unitary wholes which sit in the background to everything we think and do.     

Three dimensions of dialogical movement

After recalling historical and current approaches, I propose a semiotic approach to dialogicality, with a specific focus on cultural elements as markers in the flow of thinking or discourse. My core proposition is to consider dialogical dynamics as taking place in a space organised along three dimensions: 1) a temporal orientation, 2) degrees of fiction, and 3) degrees of generalization. I support my presentation with examples taken from a young woman's diary. Altogether, this raises the question of the possibility of inner dialogicality, and calls for a closer attention to the ethical underpinning of dialogical approaches.