Book review essay

Culture & Psychology

19(3) 421–430
Dialogism in detail: ! The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
Per Linell’s Rethinking sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354067X12456715

language, mind, and world cap.sagepub.com

dialogically and its

potentials
Pedro Lourenço
Maia Institute of Higher Education, Portugal

Isabel Basto
University of Coimbra, Portugal

Carla Cunha
Maia Institute of Higher Education, Portugal

Tiago Bento
Maia Institute of Higher Education, Portugal

Per Linell
Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human
Sense-making, Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishers, 2009, ISBN 978-1-59311-995-9
(pbk) 978-1-59311-996-6 (hcv)

Abstract
Per Linell’s (2009) book Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically offers an inte-
grated view upon the many strands of Dialogism, establishing itself as an essential ref-
erence to the field. In this review of his book we aim to discuss a few selected topics,
building upon these with our own views. Initially, we focus on the relevance and urgency
of such book by summing up the most important dialogical concepts presented by it.
Following our initial argument, we move on to the discussion of contrasts between
monological and dialogical perspectives, the concepts of extended mind and the inter-
world, suggesting Dialogism as an ontology, and finally, reflecting upon the relation
between intersubjectivity and alterity. We conclude our review by stressing how
Linell’s book contributes to the unification of an entanglement of different dialogical
theories and perspectives, crafting a solid meta-theory. This integration paves the way

Corresponding author:
Carla Cunha, ISMAI – Instituto Superior da Maia, Av. Carlos Oliveira Campos – Castêlo da Maia, 4475-690
Avioso S. Pedro, Maia, Portugal.
Email: [email protected]
422 Culture & Psychology 19(3)

for a deeper understanding of what constitutes the nature of knowledge and human
phenomena, as conceptualized by Dialogism.

Keywords
Alterity, dialogism, extended mind, intersubjectivity, interworld

In the past few years, we have watched a growth in the emergence of theories
implying a perception of reality as built by the relation between the human
being and the world that surrounds it (Branco & Valsiner, 2010; Cunha &
Gonçalves, 2009; Cunha & Salgado, 2008; Ferreira, Salgado, & Cunha, 2006;
Hermans & Gieser, 2012; Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010; Salgado &
Cunha, 2012; Salgado & Gonçalves, 2006; Salvatore & Valsiner, 2010; Toomela
& Valsiner, 2010). Among these meta-theories, dialogism stands out by looking at
reality as neither being something enclosured in the human mind (as centered on
the ego) or something that exists exclusively on the outer world (as diluted in the
context). Dialogism and its arguments have been addressed by many authors who
made an effort to clarify the concepts inherent to this theory and, although these
approaches have contributed to its expansion, they also brought a few disparities to
the field (Linell, 2009).
Per Linell’s (2009) book Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically rep-
resents a significant effort of the author to gather and synthesize the most relevant
concepts by articulating them in a way that is simultaneously easy-reading and
intricate, and has become to us, since its publication, an outstanding, obligatory
reference for anyone who wants to become familiarized with this theory. As put by
Gillespie (2010, p. 463) in his review, Linell’s book ‘‘consolidates dialogism as a
distinctive, synthetic, and fruitful paradigm’’.
Linell’s book starts by outlining the most basic principles of dialogism. The first
dialogical principle views the human mind as a meaning-making system. Assuming
that knowledge derives from the interaction with others and with the world, we can
speak of the human mind as a social mind, which perceives information through
the interactions with others and in contact with the outside world (Linell, 2009).
This seems to be an important and revolutionary argument that allows us to
understand our psychic functions as a system that contains not only our inner
life, but also the outer world, in an integrated way. Meaning is not just a construc-
tion of the individual, neither is a photographic image taken from what reality has
to offer. In fact, it is a combination between our vision of the world, the other’s
vision of the world and the characteristics from the world itself. This allows mean-
ing to be shared and provides mutual understanding, but at the same time does not
eradicate the individual signature from the meaning attributed to the world. In this
sense, reality is not merely an individual or a social construction – it is instead an
integrated surplus of both social, material and subjective worlds. In fact, reality has
its own properties that we use to build meaning. So, this three-partied combination
offers an innovative way of understanding how meaning is co-constructed.
Lourenço et al. 423

The second theoretical principle, named intersubjectivity, emphasizes the role

of the other in the acquisition of knowledge. Thus, ‘‘Humans are always inter-
dependent with others, although the degree and kinds of interdependencies will of
course vary with individuals, cultures and situations’’ (Linell, 2009, p. 13).
Since birth, human beings communicate with the outer world. They use communi-
cation to create meaning from what surrounds them. The other is the main source of
information and communication and is essential to provide the information needed. It
seems only logical to look at the mind as a social mechanism; we conceptualize thoughts
or cognitions as something that is not enclosed inside our heads, individual and intim-
ate, but as a social product that derives from the social process that is meaning-making
(Marková, 2000). When we are in contact with the world we communicate and at the
same time we elaborate thoughts. Our thoughts are a form of communication, as they
are constituted by signs; so what is the difference between thoughts and words? The
vision proposed by Linell is interesting, seeing thoughts in the same way as language, as
two similar processes, embedded in each other through their social roots.
For all that we have said earlier, we have to agree with this argument. When we
are talking with the other, the words and the thoughts emerge in a very similar way,
and we create new thoughts as the dialogue continues, and we modify our com-
munication as the thoughts change. So, it seems that their difference could be
thought as a matter of internalization versus externalization. Thoughts seem to
be a type of internalized communication and are created as a form of response to
the other, so we also conceive the acquisition of knowledge as a process directly
dependent of the relationship we maintain with the world, so meanings are not
merely intra-subjective (belonging only to the individual) but inter-subjective
(belonging to the individual and the world that surrounds him).
The statement above meets the third theoretical principle, interactionism, where
the construction of meaning is dependent on the interconnection with others, looking
at both communication and cognition as interactional processes of knowledge acqui-
sition. That is, as with communication, cognition is not an isolated process of the
individual, but rather built on the relationship with others (Linell, 2009).
Contextualism comes as the fourth principle of dialogism, and reflects on how
knowledge is acquired, being dependent on the context in which it operates. The
context is referred to as dynamic and as a resource to be used (Linell, 2009). Thus,
if the context provides elements that allow us to construct a reality, we can say that
this construction takes into account not only the vision of the individual, but also
the elements that are provided by this same reality. Of course the image that we get
of reality is constructed through the relationship with others and the use of lan-
guage as a semiotic mediator. However, some elements that are taken into this
construction exist in fact in the outer world. It is assumed therefore that reality
does not exist only from the perspective of each individual, which brings us to the
fifth dialogical principle: the communicative constructionism, that is, reality exists
outside the individual but is also built through communication with others (Linell,
2009, p. 19). Assuming that reality exists in fact, and that this reality is constructed
through language, we can state that reality is not immediately built, but mediated
424 Culture & Psychology 19(3)

through its own semiotic resources, such as language. Language is therefore

assumed as a form of semiotic mediation, that is, the use of symbols as interme-
diaries of knowledge acquisition (Linell, 2009).
As we have said earlier, knowledge and meaning-making imply that communi-
cation is constituted by signs. These signs represent reality but they are not the
reality in itself. They are created by the individual, who is embedded by a cultural
background and a dynamic context. So, signs integrate individual, social and cul-
tural perspectives (Zittoun, 2007). It is common to see signs with different meanings
in different cultures, but that evolves as the context in itself changes. For example,
tilting the head at an angle to each side in many cultures represents not knowing
how to answer a question, or ‘‘I am not sure about that’’. In Southern India, this
head gesture means precisely the opposite – ‘‘Yes’’. Different cultures, different
signs, different meanings. But signs develop as the context changes. Probably,
due to globalization, signs will tend to evolve in a similar way, and the meaning
of signs will become closer to each other, even in different contexts. It is also
interesting to see how new signs appear in new micro-cultures, like Facebook,
and how the internet context and its dynamic clearly shows, and in a short
period of time, how meanings evolve as the context changes and how the process
of meaning-making is dependent on the process of communicating with others. The
signs ‘‘:S’’ usually mean a punctuation sign (:) and the letter S; while nowadays, for
people who use Facebook, it can mean ‘‘I am embarrassed’’. So, Linell’s argument
about the communicative constructionism, where reality exists outside the individ-
ual but is also built through communication, gains new strength when we analyze
and reflect on the meanings emerging from new ways of communicating (e.g.
internet or text messages in mobile phones).
By wrapping up these principles in the very beginning of his book, Linell sets the
levelling ground upon which he builds deeper and deeper in dialogism. Such an
early clarification gives the reader a structured path through which one can safely
get in touch with the book’s posterior developments.

Monological versus dialogical theories

Throughout the entire book, one can sense a tension between the so-called mono-
logical theories and the dialogical ones. To put it as Linell does, in a rough way,
dialogism should be thought as a counter-theory of monologism, a counter-theory
that tends to depict phenomena as a product of a reciprocal interaction process
rather than a rigid one-way process. For instance, dialogism conceives meaning-
making as constructed in the dynamics of interaction and properly accounting its
contextuality and historicity. On the other hand, monologism views meaning-
making as a process that takes place in the encapsulated mind of the individual,
not accounting the variables mentioned before like time and context.
Even though their ontological and epistemological principles are different in
theory, when one tries to state a practical distinction it becomes very hard to clearly
establish what belongs to one or the other. Let us take the psychoanalytic theory
Lourenço et al. 425

for instance; at first sight it seems obvious that it is a fully monological theory
because its focus is mainly in the intrapsychic apparatus and the construction of
meaning is mainly internal to the individual mind where the tension between the id,
the ego, and the super-ego takes place. Despite this, the overcoming of the Oedipus
complex that presupposes the identification with the other is taken as a vital step to
the build-up of the intrapsychic apparatus, which can be seen as a dialogical move-
ment of meaning-making towards the other. Our identity, our self is built with the
help of an other being that according to the psychoanalytic theory resides on the
outside of the individual mind, which seems to be allusive of the dialogical concept
of ‘‘extended mind’’.

Extended mind and the notion of interworld

The concept of ‘‘extended mind’’ is highlighted by the author as: ‘‘the mind extends
beyond one’s skin, and its work is distributed on the individual in his or her
environment’’ (Linell, 2009, p. 146). Such expression implies that the mind is
embodied because it cannot be separated from our bodily nature, nor is its activity
possible without the biological component of our organic system that allows us to
connect to the world. This connection allows us to interact with others and the
world, which grounds our meaning-making activity. This is also why we may call it
extended, because if the mind is the main source of meaning-making and if others
are a fundamental part of such process then we can assume that the mind is not
circumscribed to its basic core and is distributed throughout the world.
If we conceive that meaning-making is a process constituted by far more than
the individual self, then it is possible to think about the existence of a common
ground between individuals. As Linell (2009) highlights, such possibility is some-
what related to the concept of ‘‘interworld’’, which states that ‘‘meanings, under-
standings, contents (thoughts) and ideas are interrelational phenomena between
individual and between the subject (who thinks, understands, means) and the
affordances of his or her ecosocial’’ (p. 160). The thinking activity for instance is
inherent to our existence as human beings and it seems impossible to determine the
exact moment when our first thought took place. Despite this, it is known that the
content of our thoughts reflects the experiences that we previously had in the outer
world and because its content is mainly linked to language use – which is a process
learned in the interaction with others – then thinking can be situated in the
‘‘interworld’’.

Dialogism as ontology
For us, the elaboration of reality as a concept may very well be the most substantial
development of this book’s initial section: in an historical journey, reality has been
conceptualized in many (usually conflicting) ways. The central discussion fre-
quently becomes whether reality is a sole product of the mind – one that is encap-
sulated inside our very own intrapsychic windings – or something that exists merely
426 Culture & Psychology 19(3)

in the outer world, like if reality itself would be completely independent from our
existence. To these contrasting perspectives, Dialogism responds with an integra-
tive view, by which reality is conceptualized as a human construction that takes
into account the external elements presented by the world. In a similar manner,
culture is embodied in our view of the world and its historicity transcends the
precise moment of interaction, which implies that meaning-making is not merely
a creation that takes place on a given relational moment. As highlighted by
Gillespie, ‘‘Linell insists that ‘situation transcending’ phenomena precede any inter-
action, framing the interaction and providing resources for it, and, in turn, are
incrementally transformed through the interaction’’ (2010 p. 461).
In a way, culture acts as an organizational framework that introduces a priori
elements that precede and influence the situated interaction, therefore framing the
meaning-making processes and the construction of an identity. The relationships
that make way for the individual development occur in a cultural framework that
influences and is influenced by the intersubjectivity (Cunha & Gonçalves, 2009). As
Cunha and Salgado (2008) affirm, ‘‘there is no such thing as a solipsistic and
isolated mind or thinking in complete isolation’’ (p. 168). In this assumption resides
the possibility of human interaction resulting in a viable construction between two
knowing subjects who carry different backgrounds. So, the perception of a
common reality elicits the necessary commonality that is an essential property of
intersubjectivity. If individuals would apprehend their own conceptions of reality
based solely on their individual constructions without accounting for all the pre-
existent properties, each and every individual would have its own ‘‘personal chaos’’
and there would not be any bridges with what others depict as their realities.
Dialogism, as Linell sees it, tries to depict how we acquire knowledge through
the interaction with others but also emphasizes how knowledge – and therefore
reality – is constituted. So, as Linell implies, we may say that Dialogism is not only
an epistemology but also an ontology, in the sense that it ‘‘emphasizes the onto-
logical primacy of relationship which leads to a conception of the psychological
realm as inextricably interconnected with communicational processes.’’ (Ferreira
et al., 2006, p. 27).

Intersubjectivity versus alterity

In terms of the discussion between intersubjectivity and alterity, Linell almost
merges the concept of intersubjectivity with the one of commonality, viewing this
as the most essential property of the communication process because it creates a
common ground between two or more participants in a dialogue, and that is what
makes an interaction possible: common knowledge, norms, same language, among
other things. This common ground justifies why people begin to interact in the first
place. The interest in sharing information with someone that has partially the same
perspectives of the word, the same meanings, is stimulating – but is that enough?
For us, if it would be that way, then new meanings of the world would not exist
because we would all share the same thoughts, meanings and visions, and there
Lourenço et al. 427

would be no innovation. To incorporate innovation in an interaction we have to

rely on alterity as an essential property of interaction (Cunha & Gonçalves, 2009).
The confrontation between different perspectives allows new meanings to emerge.
This is what promotes an adaptive functioning on a world that is constantly chan-
ging: innovation, creativity, difference. But conflict and tension are also present. So
these two properties, in spite of being very different, work inseparably from each
other. Which is the most important one? Some say that if there was not anything
similar between two participants in an interaction there would be no interest in
interacting at all (Ferreira et al., 2006). But this is just what initially compels us to
communicate. Then, our differences appear, and sharing those differences becomes
the main objective of interaction.
For all that has been said, if we see commonality and alterity as different but
part of the same process, we have to disagree with Linell when it comes to saying
that commonality and intersubjectivity are the same concept, and then, alterity is
treated as a different thing. For us, intersubjectivity implies these two concepts: it
encompasses both commonality and alterity. If neither one is present then we
cannot talk of a real intersubjectivity. As we stated, our view goes in another
direction, one in which alterity assumes an equivalent (if not primary) role in
communication. We do need a common ground for communication to take place
but, to construe a valuable outcome from that process, we must face an essential
conflict brought by the differences between the two entities of such communica-
tional act. We believe that it is the negotiation between different perspectives and
ideas that creates the space for novelty in interaction. As Cunha and Salgado
(2008) strongly suggest,

for communication between individuals to occur, there must be not only (some degree
of) coordination, reciprocity and mutuality between them, but also complementarity,
asymmetries and difference (since a mutual coordination and communion will never
be absolute) that feeds the dialogue forward. (p. 167)

This may become very clear when we think about the therapeutic relationship
where the balance between commonality and alterity seems essential to promote
a good outcome. Empathy is assumed as the foundation that connects both client
and therapist and allows for the joining of perspectives. Along the therapeutic
process, the empathic connection will defy the client’s monological view of his
world and promote change by facing the conflict (alterity) with the therapist’s
view or with the views of significant others in the client’s life (a confrontation
with real otherness). By creating an environment where the client may step outside
of his/her problematic pattern and place himself/herself in a more distanced pos-
ition – an observer position (Leiman, in press) or a metaposition (Hermans &
Kempen, 1993) – the therapist’s interventions may foster the necessary space
between the client and his/her problem, enabling the necessary innovations in the
way of seeing him/herself and eliciting change (Ribeiro, Bento, Gonçalves, &
Salgado, 2010; Ribeiro & Gonçalves, 2010).
428 Culture & Psychology 19(3)

For all that has been said, dialogism brought an innovative but clear and simple
way of understanding how we create meaning of the world that surrounds us. This
helps us to comprehend how we build our personal identity and how we develop an
image of ourselves and all that is around us. Meaning is not just a representation of
the reality, neither an individual representation. If we look at this process as a
continuous dialogue with others and the world, we can integrate the different per-
spectives that contribute to create new meanings: individual, social and cultural
perspectives. Linell has made a strong contribution with his book, bringing
together the different dialogical constructs and theories and creating a dialogical
manual that can serve as a guide to understand, in a new and enlightening way,
how we know what we know, and ultimately why we are what we are. The problem
of understanding the nature of knowledge is therefore closer from resolution.

Fundings
This article was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT)
Grant PTDC/PSI-PCL/103432/2008 (Decentering and Change in Psychotherapy) and by the
PhD Grants SFRH/BD/48266/2008 and DFRH-SFRH/BD/77180/2011.

References
Branco, A. U., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Towards cultural psychology of affective processes:
Semiotic regulation of dynamic fields. Estudios de Psicologia, 31(3), 243–251.
Cunha, C., & Gonçalves, M. M. (2009). Accessing the experience of a dialogical self: Some
needs and concerns. Culture & Psychology, 15, 120–133.
Cunha, C., & Salgado, J. (2008). Being human: Experiencing and communicating.
Integrative Psychological and Behavioural Science, 1, 164–170.
Ferreira, T., Salgado, J., & Cunha, C. (2006). Ambiguity and the dialogical self: In search for
a dialogical psychology. Estudios de Psicologı´a, 27, 19–32.
Gillespie, A. (2010). The dialogical turn: Turning the corner? Theory & Psychology, 20(3),
461–463.
Hermans, H. J. M., & Gieser, T. (Eds.) (2012). Handbook of Dialogical Self Theory.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hermans, H. J. M., & Hermans-Konopka, A. (2010). Dialogical Self Theory: Positioning and
Counter-Positioning in a Globalizing Society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hermans, H., & Kempen, H. (1993). The Dialogical Self: Meaning as Movement. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Marková, I. (2000). Amédée or how to get rid of it: Social representations from a dialogical
perspective. Culture & Psychology, 6, 419–460.
Ribeiro, A. P., Bento, T., Gonçalves, M. M., & Salgado, J. (2010). Self-narrative recon-
struction in psychotherapy: Looking at different levels of development. Culture &
Psychology, 16, 195–212.
Ribeiro, A. P., & Gonçalves, M. M. (2010). Innovation and stability within the dialogical
self: The centrality of ambivalence. Culture & Psychology, 16(1), 195–212.
Salgado, J., & Cunha, C. (2012). Positioning microanalysis: The development of a
dialogical-based method for idiographic psychology. In S. Salvatore, A. Gennaro,
Lourenço et al. 429

& J. Valsiner (Eds.), Making Sense. Generating Uniqueness. Yearbook of Idiographic

Science - Volume 4. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
Salgado, J., & Gonçalves, M. (2006). The dialogical self: Social, personal, and (un)conscious.
In A. Rosa, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Social Cultural Psychology.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Salvatore, S., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Between the general and the unique: Overcoming the
nomothetic versus idiographic opposition. Theory & Psychology, 20, 6, 817–833.
Toomela, A., & Valsiner, J. (Eds.) (2010). Methodological Thinking in Psychology: 60 Years
Gone Astray? Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Zittoun, T. (2007). Review symposium: Symbolic resources in dialogue, dialogical symbolic
resources. Culture & Psychology, 13, 365–376.

Author Biographies
Pedro Lourenço, MA, is currently a full-time research assistant in the granted
project Decentering and Change in Psychotherapy, at ISMAI (Maia Institute of
Higher Education – Maia, Portugal), headed by Professor João Salgado (FCT
Grant PTDC/PSI-PCL/103432/2008, 2010–2013). He is also a therapist at the
University Counseling Center of the same institution. His main research interests
are theoretically focused on the change processes in psychotherapy from a dia-
logical perspective, having presented some papers in international conferences
regarding this issue.

Isabel Basto is a PHD student of the Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology at

the School of Psychology of University of Coimbra (Coimbra, Portugal) with a
scholarship from the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT – Portuguese
Foundation for Science and Technology). In her PhD research studies, her advisor
is Professor João Salgado (ISMAI, Portugal) and Professor Daniel Rijo
(University of Coimbra, Portugal). She participates as a researcher in the granted
project Decentering and Change in Psychotherapy, headed by João Salgado (FCT
Grant PTDC/PSI PCL/103432/2008, 2010–2013). She is also a therapist at the
University Counseling Center of ISMAI (Maia Institute of Higher Education –
Maia, Portugal). Her main research interests are focused in the assimilation model
and how its theoretical assumptions help to explain the change process in
psychotherapy.

Carla Cunha, PhD, works in the Department of Social and Behavioural Sciences at
ISMAI – Instituto Superior da Maia, Portugal. She pursued her PhD in Clinical
Psychology at University of Minho (Portugal) with a scholarship from the FCT
(Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology). Her PhD thesis, advised by
Miguel Gonçalves (University of Minho, Portugal) and Jaan Valsiner (Clark
University, EUA), has the title Narrative Change In Emotion-Focused Therapy:
Co-Constructing Innovative Self-Narratives (2011). Her main publications concern
narrative and dialogical perspectives on psychotherapy and human development,
with a special interest on therapists’ contributions for the promotion of client
430 Culture & Psychology 19(3)

change, and appear in peer-reviewed journals and internationally published books.

She is currently also a researcher and therapist in the project Decentering and
change in psychotherapy (financed by FCT), with training and supervision in
Emotion-Focused Therapy with Leslie Greenberg (York University, Canada).

Tiago Bento is a PhD candidate in clinical psychology at ISMAI (Maia Institute of

Higher Education – Maia, Portugal) with a PhD grant from the Portuguese
Foundation for Science and Technology (SFRH/BD/48266/2008). His main
research interests are focused on the processes of narrative and discursive change
in psychotherapy and on the dialogical self theory.