ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-NAV-G01-013 · ATLAS 259

Dialogue

Dialogue connects utterances from different voices through reciprocal responsiveness.

Part of the subject path Rhetoric and Style

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

G · Foundational concept R2 · Necessary foundation

Dialogue is needed to distinguish reciprocal uptake from the mere coexistence of several voices. Alternating speakers does not by itself establish a dialogic relation among their contributions.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

Dialogue connects utterances from different voices through reciprocal responsiveness. What matters is not simply the number of speakers but whether replies can affect what follows. Literary dialogue represents this openness and may be organised entirely by a single author. Unequal power does not exclude dialogue in a descriptive sense, though it shapes participants' options. The profile therefore separates alternating speech as a form, responsiveness as a structure and understanding as a possible goal.

Movement of thought

1. Identify a first turn and the response it calls for. 2. Treat the reply as an action rather than merely a sentence. 3. Observe how it changes the next turn. 4. Ask who controls topics, questions and participation. 5. Establish the resulting common ground or continuing disagreement.

Scientific use case

Conversation analysis and literary studies can examine sequential connections, role changes and the distribution of interpretive authority.

Example

“Why are you silent?” — “Because my answer was ignored yesterday.” — “Then let us discuss that first.” The reply redirects the exchange.

Counterexample

Two prerecorded lectures played consecutively are not a dialogue if neither addresses the other. A staged question-and-answer sequence does not prove shared control.

Distinction

Distinguish monologue, mere speaker alternation, dialogismus and consensus. Dialogue does not automatically entail equality or agreement.

Effect on thought and perception

Perspectives become responsive to one another; exchange may enable understanding or sharpen conflict.

Resonance

One voice meets an answer that changes its next sentence.

Provenance

Parallel source review reconciled 2026-10-07; human specialist review not claimed.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Dialogue“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-NAV-G01-013. ATLAS 259, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-NAV-G01-013

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-NAV-G01-013

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.