Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T08:37:02.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2016

Ivana Marková
Ivana Marková
Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
The Dialogical Mind
Common Sense and Ethics
 , pp. 215 - 241
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramovitch, R. R. (1962). The Soviet Revolution 1917–1939. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Simons, R. J. and Niessen, T. (2006). ‘Considering diversity: multivoicedness in international academic collaboration’, Culture & Psychology, 12: 461–485.Google Scholar
Albertson, B. and Brehm, J. (2003). ‘Comments’, Political Psychology, 24: 765–768.Google Scholar
d’Alembert, Jean le Rond. (1751/1995). Preliminary Discourse to the Encyclopedia of Diderot. Trsl. R. N. Schwab with the collaboration of Walter E. Rex. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Allport, G. (1954/1968). ‘The historical background of modern social psychology’, in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, pp. 1–80.Google Scholar
Allwood, J. (2014). ‘Trust as a communicative and epistemic simplifier and facilitator’, in Linell, and Marková, (eds.), pp. 189–211.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. and Dedrick, R. F. (1990). ‘Development of the trust in physician scale: a measure to assess interpersonal trust in patient–physician relationships’, Psychological Reports, 97: 1091–1100.Google Scholar
Anscombre, J. C. and Ducrot, O. (1983). L’Argumentation dans la langue [Argumentation in language]. Bruxelles: Pierre Margate.Google Scholar
Aquinas, T. (2002). Treatise on Human Nature: Summa Theologiae 1A. Ed. Pasnau, R.. Boston: Hackett Company, pp. 75–89.Google Scholar
Arendt, H. (1977a). ‘What is authority?’, in Arendt, H. (ed.), Between Past and Future. New York: Penguin Books, pp. 91–141.Google Scholar
Arendt, H. (1977b). ‘The crisis of education’, in Arendt, H. (ed.), Between Past and Future. New York: Penguin Books, pp. 173–196.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . (1998). The Nicomachean Ethics. Trsl. and ed. Ross, W. D., Ackrill, J. L. and Urmson, J. O.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aronsson, K. and Osvaldsson, K. (2014). ‘Trust and the contestation of blame narratives: veiled stances in an institutional assessment context’, in Linell, and Marková, (eds.), pp. 29–49.Google Scholar
Arruda, A. (2003). ‘Living is dangerous: research challenges in social representations’, Culture & Psychology, 9: 339–359.Google Scholar
Arruda, A. (2014). ‘Social imaginary and social representations of Brazil’, Papers on Social Representations, 23: 13.1–13.22.Google Scholar
Asch, S. E. (1951). ‘Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments’, in Guetzkow, H. (ed.), Groups, Leadership and Men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press, pp. 177–190.Google Scholar
Asch, S. E. (1956). ‘Studies of independence and conformity. A minority of one against a unanimous majority’, Psychological Monographs, 70: 1–70.Google Scholar
Asserud, F. (2005). ‘Introduction’, in Asserud, F. (ed.), N. Bohr, Collected Works. The Political Arena (1934–1961), Vol. 11. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 3–83.Google Scholar
Bachelard, G. (1949). Le rationalisme appliqué [Applied rationalism]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Bachelard, G. (1963). Le materialisme rationel [Rational materialism]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Bachelard, G. (1993). La formation de l’esprit scientifique [The formation of scientific mind]. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Bacon, F. (1620/2007). New Organon. www.earlymoderntexts.com/f_bacon.html.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1919/1990). ‘Art and answerability’, in Bakhtin, M. M. (1990). Art and Answerability. Early Philosophical Essays. Ed. Holquist, M. and Liapunov, V.. Trsl. and notes Liapunov, V.. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1979/1986). ‘The problem of the text in linguistics, philology and the human sciences’, in Emerson, C. and Holquist, M. (eds.), Speech Genres and Other Late Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Trsl. McGee, V. W.. Austin: University of Texas, pp. 103–131.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin. Ed. Holquist, M.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984a). Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics. Ed. and trsl. Emerson, C.. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984b). Rabelais and His World. Trsl. Iswolsky, H.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1990). Art and Answerability. Early Philosophical Essays. Ed. Holquist, M. and Liapunov, V.. Trsl. and notes Liapunov, V.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. (1993). Towards a Philosophy of the Act. Trsl. and notes Liapunov, V.. Ed. Liapunov, V. and Holquist, M.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, J. M. (1897). Social and Ethical Interpretations in Mental Development. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Baldwin, J. M. (1910). Darwin and the Humanities. London: Swan Sonnenschein.Google Scholar
Barresi, J. (2002). ‘From “the thought is the thinker” to “the voice is the speaker”: William James and the dialogical self’, Theory & Psychology, 12: 237–250.Google Scholar
Bateson, A. and Fonagy, P. (2010). ‘Mentalization based treatment for borderline personality disorder’, World Psychiatry, 9: 11–15.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W. (2009). ‘Editorial’, Public Understanding of Science, 18: 378–382.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. W. and Gaskell, G. (1999). ‘Towards a paradigm for research on social representations’, Journal for Theory of Social Behaviour, 29: 163–186.Google Scholar
Bauman, Z. (1989). Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bauman, Z. and Donskis, L. (2013). Moral Blindness: The Loss of Sensitivity in Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bayer, T. I. (2008). ‘Vico’s principle of sensus communis and forensic eloquence’, Chicago-Kent Law Review, 83: 1131–1155.Google Scholar
Baym, N. K. (2006). ‘Interpersonal life online’, in Lievrouw, L. A. and Livingstone, S. (eds.), Handbook of New Media. London: Routledge, pp. 34–54.Google Scholar
Beebe, B., Lachmann, F. and Jaffe, J. (1997). ‘Mother–infant interaction structures and presymbolic self and object representations’, Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 7: 133–182.Google Scholar
Beer, G. (1993). ‘Wave theory and the rise of literary modernism’, in Levine, G. (ed.), Reality and Representation. Madison and London: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 193–213.Google Scholar
Benedict, R. (1942). Race and Racism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Berdyaev, N. (1931). The Russian Revolution. London: Sheed and Ward.Google Scholar
Bergson, H. (1907/1998). Creative Evolution. Trsl. Mitchell, A.. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Berlin, I. (1963). ‘History and theory: the concept of scientific history’, in Riasanovsky, A. V. and Riznik, B. (eds.), Generalizations in Historical Writings. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 60–113.Google Scholar
Berlin, I. (1976). Vico and Herder: Two Studies in the History of Ideas. London: The Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, I. (1985). ‘On Vico’, Philosophical Quarterly, 35: 281–290.Google Scholar
Berlin, I. (2000a). Three Critics of the Enlightenment. Vico, Hamann, Herder. Ed. Hardy, H.. London: Pimlico.Google Scholar
Berlin, I. (2000b). ‘Herder and the enlightenment’, in Berlin, (ed.), pp. 168–242.Google Scholar
Bernard-Donals, M. F. (1994). Mikhail Bakhtin: Between Phenomenology and Marxism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, R. J. (2002). ‘Evil and the temptation of theodicy’, in Critchley, S. and Bernasconi, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Levinas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 252–257.Google Scholar
Berteau, F. (2010). Dialogicality in Staff Development. Exploring Socially Shared Knowledge in Communication and Congenital Deafblindness. MSc in Educational Sciences, Communication and Congenital Deafblindness. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
de Bie, P., Lévi-Strauss, C., Nuttin, J. and Jacobson, E. (1954). Les Sciences Sociales dans l’enseignement supérieur; Sociologie, Psychologie Sociale et Anthropologie Culturelle [Social sciences in higher education: sociology, social psychology and cultural anthropology]. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (2008). The Hidden Roots of Critical Psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (2015). ‘Kurt Lewin’s leadership studies and his legacy to social psychology: is there nothing as practical as a good theory?’ Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45: 440–460.Google Scholar
Boffey, D. (2015). ‘“This is cultural barbarism”: experts line up to decry axeing of anthropology A-level’, The Observer, 8 February 2015, p. 17.Google Scholar
Bogdan, R. J. (ed.). (1991). Mind and Common Sense. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, N. (1949). ‘Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics’, in Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. New York: Tudor Publishing Company, pp. 199–241.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1955). ‘Science and the unity of knowledge’, in Leary, L. (ed.), Unity of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday, pp. 47–62.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (ed.). (1993/1999). La misère du monde. Paris: Seuil. Trsl. Polity Press as The Weight of the World. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P., Chamboredon, J.-C., Passeron, J.-C. and Krais, B. (1973/1991). Le métier de sociologie. Paris: Mouton. Trsl. R. Nice as The Craft of Sociology: Epistemological Preliminaries. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bråten, S. (ed.). (1998). Intersubjective Communication and Emotion in Early Ontogeny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brazelton, T. B. and Cramer, B. G. (2002). The Earliest Relationship: Parents, Infants and the Drama of Early Attachment. London: Karnac Books.Google Scholar
Bres, J. (1998). ‘Entendre des voix: de quelques marqueurs dialogiques en français’ [Hearing voices: some dialogical markers in French], in Bres, J., Delamotte-Legrand, R., Madray-Lesigne, F. and Siblot, P. (eds.), L’autre en discours [The other in discourse]. Montpellier et Rouen: Praxiling et Dyalang, pp. 191–212.Google Scholar
Bres, J. (1999). ‘Vous les entendez? Analyse du discours et dialogisme’ [Do you hear them? Analysis of discourse and dialogism], Modèles linguistiques, 20: 71–86.Google Scholar
Bres, J. and Verine, B. (2002). ‘Le bruissement des voix dans le discours: dialogisme et discours rapporté’ [The rustling of voices in discourse: dialogism and reported discourse], Faits de langues, 19: 159–169.Google Scholar
Broady, D. (1997). ‘The epistemological tradition in French sociology’, in Gripsrud, J. (ed.), Rhetoric and Epistemology: Papers from a Seminar in the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme in Paris, September 1996. Rhetoric-Knowledge-Mediation Working Papers No. 1 1997. Department of Media Studies, University of Bergen, pp. 97–119.Google Scholar
Brooks, D. M. (1933). The Necessity of Atheism. New York: Freethought Press.Google Scholar
Brushlinski, A. (1994). Problemy psichologii subjekta [Problems of the psychology of subject]. Moscow: Rossijskaja Akademia Nauk.Google Scholar
Buber, M. (1923/1962). I and Thou. Trsl. Smith, R. G.. Edinburgh: T&T. Clark.Google Scholar
Buxton, R. (ed.). (1999). From Myth to Reason? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). ‘Common sense, intuition and theory in personality and social psychology’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8: 114–122.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1975). ‘Degrees of freedom and the case study’, Comparative Political Studies, 8: 178–191.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. and Garnett, W. (1882). The Life of James Clerk Maxwell with a Selection from His Correspondence and Occasional Writings and a Sketch of His Contributions to Science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Campbell, N. R. (2007). Physics the Elements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P., Laurence, S. and Stich, S. (eds.). (2005). The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cassirer, E. (1946). The Myth of the State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S. (1980). ‘Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39: 752–766.Google Scholar
Chang, R. S. (ed.). (2009). Relating to Environments. A New Look at Umwelt. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Charta 77, in Prečan, V. (ed.). (1990). Charta 77 (1977–1998). [Charter 77 (1977–1998)]. Bratislava: Archa, pp. 9–13.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coelho, N. E. and Figueiredo, L. C. (2003). ‘Patterns of intersubjectivity in the constitution of subjectivity: dimensions of otherness’, Culture & Psychology, 9: 193–208.Google Scholar
Cohen, H. (1907/1977). System der Philosophie. Zweiter Teil. Ethik des reinen Willens. [System of philosophy. Second part: ethics of pure will]. Vol. 7 of the Collected Works, reprint of 2nd ed. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. (1930/1965). The Philosophy of History. London: The Historical Association, Bell and Co. Reprinted in Collingwood, R. G. (1965). Essays on the Philosophy of History. Ed. W. Debbins. Austin: Texas University Press, pp. 121–140.Google Scholar
Collins, S. and Marková, I. (1995). ‘Complementarity in the construction of a problematic utterance in conversation’, in Marková, I., Graumann, C. and Foppa, K. (eds.), Mutualities in Dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 238–263.Google Scholar
Collins, S. and Marková, I. (1999). ‘Interaction between impaired and unimpaired speakers: intersubjectivity and the interplay of culturally shared and situation specific knowledge’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 38: 339–368.Google Scholar
Conquest, R. (1990). The Great Terror. A Reassessment. London: Pimlico.Google Scholar
Cousin, M. V. (1853/1883). Du vrai, du beau et du bien. Trsl. Wight, O. W. as Lectures on True, the Beautiful and the Good. New York: D. Appleton.Google Scholar
Cousin, M. V. (1857). Philosophie écossaise [The Scottish philosophy]. Paris: Librarie nouvelle.Google Scholar
Croce, B. (1913). The Philosophy of Giambattista Vico. Trsl. Collinwood, R. G.. London: H. Latimer.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. R. (1859/1874). The Origin of Species. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Daukas, N. (2006). ‘Epistemic trust and social location’, Episteme, 3: 109–124.Google Scholar
De Cremer, D. and van Knippenberg, D. (2002). ‘How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 858–866.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1637/1955). ‘Discourse on the method of rightly conducting the reason and seeking for truth in science’, in Haldane, E. S. and Ross, G. R. T. (trsl. and eds.), The Philosophical Works of Descartes, Vol. I. London and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79–130.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1641/1955). ‘Meditations on first philosophy’, in Haldane, E. S. and Ross, G. R. T. (trsl. and eds.), The Philosophical Works of Descartes, Vol. I. London and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 131–199.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1641/1970). ‘Letter to Mersenne, 16 June 1641’, in Kenny, A. (trsl. and ed.), Descartes: Philosophical Letters. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 22–23.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1917). ‘The need for social psychology’, Psychological Review, 24: 266–277.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1929). The Quest for Certainty. New York: Minton, Balch and Co.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1948). ‘Common sense and science: their respective frames of reference’, The Journal of Philosophy, 45: 197–208.Google Scholar
Diderot, D. (1749/1916). ‘Letter on the blind for the use of those who see’, in Jourdain, M. (ed. and trsl.), Diderot’s Early Philosophical Works. Chicago and London: The Open Court Publishing Company, pp. 68–225.Google Scholar
Diriwächter, R. (2012). ‘Völkerpsychologie’, in Valsiner, J. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 43–57.Google Scholar
Dodds, E. R. (1951). The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Donahue, W. A. (1990) The New Freedom: Individualism and Collectivism in the Social Lives of Americans. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Donnelly, J. (2007). ‘The relative universality of human rights’, Human Rights Quarterly, 29: 281–306.Google Scholar
Dostal, R. J. (ed.). (2002). The Cambridge Companion to Gadamer. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit [Dire and the said]. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Dumont, L. (1977). From Mandeville to Marx. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dumont, L. (1986). Essays on Individualism. Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Durant, W. (1933). The Story of Philosophy. New York: Garden City Publishing.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1895/1982). The Rules of Sociological Method. Introduction Lukes, S.. Trsl. Halls, W. D.. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1979). Durkheim: Essays on Morals and Education. Ed. Pickering, W. S. F.. Trsl. Sutcliffe, H. L.. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1931/2009). On Cosmic Religion and Other Opinions and Aphorisms. With an appreciation by George Bernard Shaw. Mineola: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1944). ‘Remarks on Bertrand Russell’s theory of knowledge’, in Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell. Evanston, Chicago: Northwestern University, pp. 279–291.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1949). ‘Autobiographical notes’, in Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. New York: Tudor Publishing Company, pp. 3–95.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1954). Ideas and Opinions. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938/1961). The Evolution of Physics. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elkins, J. (1992). ‘Renaissance perspectives’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 53: 209–230.Google Scholar
Emerson, C. (2002). ‘Bakhtin after the boom: pro and contra’, Journal of European Studies, 32: 3–26.Google Scholar
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Eskin, M. (2000). Ethics and Dialogue in the Works of Levinas, Bakhtin, Mendel‘shtam and Celan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fantz, R. L. (1963). ‘Pattern vision in newborn infants’, Science, 140: 296–297.Google Scholar
Faucheux, C. and Moscovici, S. (1962). ‘Remarques critiques sur la « question microsociale»’ [Critical remarks on the ‘micro-social question’], Arguments, 6: 19–27.Google Scholar
Faulkner, P. (2007). ‘A genealogy of trust’, Episteme, 4: 305–321.Google Scholar
Faur, J. (1987). ‘Francisco Sanchez’s theory of cognition and Vico’s verum/factum’, New Vico Studies, 5: 131–148.Google Scholar
Feldman, R., Magori-Cohen, R., Galili, G. Singer, M. and Louzoun, Y. (2011). ‘Mother and infant coordinate heart rhythms through episodes of interaction synchrony’, Infant Behavior & Development, 34: 569–577.Google Scholar
Fichte, J. G. (2000). Foundations of Natural Right. Ed. Neuhouser, F.. Trsl. Bauer, M.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. (2007). ‘On prejudice & the brain’, Daedalus, 136 (Winter): 156–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flåm, A. M. and Haugstvedt, E. (2013). ‘Test balloons? Small signs of big events: a qualitative study on circumstances facilitating adults’ awareness of children’s first signs of sexual abuse’, Child Abuse & Neglect, 37: 633–642.Google Scholar
Fletcher, G. J. O. and Copeland, B. J. (1999). ‘Volk psychology and psychological science’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40 (Suppl.): 25–29.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). ‘Five misunderstandings about case-study research’, Qualitative Inquiry, 12: 219–245.Google Scholar
Fonagy, P. and Allison, E. (2014). ‘The role of mentalizing and epistemic trust in the therapeutic relationship’, Psychotherapy, 51: 372–380.Google Scholar
Fonagy, P. and Target, M. (1997). ‘Attachment and reflective function: their role in self-organization’, Development and Psychopathology, 9: 679–700.Google Scholar
Foster, M. B. (1957). Mystery and Philosophy. London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
Francis, R. (2013). ‘Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry’. www.midstaffspublicinquiry.com/sites/default/files/report/Executive%20summary.pdf.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1922). Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. Trsl. Strachey, J.. New York: Boni and Liveright.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1960). The Ego and the Id. Trsl. Riviere, J.. Ed. Strachey, J.. New York and London: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Fruteau De Laclos, F. (2009). ‘Le sens commun pense-t-il ? L’épistémologie, la raison et les normes’ [Does common sense think? The epistemology, reason and norms], in Gautier, C. and Laugier, S. (eds.), Normativité du sens commun [Normativity of common sense]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 235–258.Google Scholar
Fruteau De Laclos, F. (2011). ‘Présentation’ [Presentation], in Meyerson, E. (1931/2011), Du cheminements de la pensée [The paths of thought]. Paris: Vrin, pp. 7–14.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and Method. Trsl. Weinsheimer, J. and Marshall, D. G.. London and New York: Sheed and Ward and the Continuum Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G. (1984). ‘The hermeneutics of suspicion’, Man and World, 17: 313–323.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G. (2007a). ‘Text and interpretation’, in Palmer, R. E. (ed.), Gadamer Reader. Chicago: Northwestern University Press, pp. 157–191.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G. (2007b). ‘Greek philosophy and modern thinking’, in Palmer, R. E. (ed.), Gadamer Reader. Chicago: Northwestern University Press, pp. 267–273.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G. (2007c). ‘Hermeneutics as practical philosophy’, in Palmer, R. E. (ed.), Gadamer Reader. Chicago: Northwestern University Press, pp. 227–245.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G. (2007d). ‘Hermeneutics tracking the trace [on Derrida]’, in Palmer, R. E. (ed.), Gadamer Reader. Chicago: Northwestern University Press, pp. 376–408.Google Scholar
Gammut, G., Daanen, P. and Sartawi, M. (2010). ‘Interobjectivity: representations and artefacts in cultural psychology’, Culture & Psychology, 16: 451–463.Google Scholar
Gellner, E. (1992). Reason and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gellner, E. (1998). Language and Solitude. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gentile, E. (2000). ‘The sacralisation of politics: definitions, interpretations and reflections on the question of secular religion and totalitarianism’, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 1: 18–55.Google Scholar
Gianturco, E. (1990). ‘Introduction’, in Vico, G. (1709/1990), On the Study of Methods of Our Time. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, pp. xxi–xlv.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (1992). Correlations in Rosenzweig and Levinas. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Giles, D. C. (2002). ‘Parasocial interaction: a review of the literature and a model for future’, Media Psychology, 4: 279–305.Google Scholar
Gillespie, A. (2005). ‘GH Mead: the theorist of social act’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35: 19–39.Google Scholar
Gillespie, A. (2006). Becoming Other: From Social Interaction to Self-Reflection. Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Gillespie, A. (2012). ‘Dialogical dynamics of trust and distrust in the Cuban Missile Crisis’, in Marková, and Gillespie, (eds.), pp. 139–155.Google Scholar
Gillespie, A. and Cornish, F. (2010) ‘Intersubjectivity: towards a dialogical analysis’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40: 19–46.Google Scholar
Gillespie, A. and Cornish, F. (2014). ‘Sensitizing questions: a method to facilitate analyzing the meaning of an utterance’, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48: 435–452.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, F. J. (2006). ‘Dialectic and dialogue in the hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur and H. G. Gadamer’, Continental Philosophy Review, 39: 313–345.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. and Meltzoff, A. N. (1997). Words, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. (1999). ‘Hannah Arendt on authority: conservatism in education reconsidered’, Educational Theory, 49: 161–180.Google Scholar
Grassi, E. (1976). ‘The priority of common sense and imagination: Vico’s philosophical relevance today’, Social Research, 43: 553–575.Google Scholar
Greco, J. and Turri, J. (2013). ‘Virtue Epistemology’, in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2013 ed. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/epistemology-virtue/.Google Scholar
Greenwood, J. D. (2004). The Disappearance of the ‘Social’ in American Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gregoric, P. (2007). Aristotle on the Common Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grigorenko, P. G. (1982). Memoirs. Trsl. Whitney, T. P.. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Grim, P., Selinger, E., Braynen, W., Rosenberger, R., Au, R., Louie, N. and Connolly, J. (2004). ‘Reducing prejudice: a spatialized game-theoretic model for the contact hypothesis’, in Pollack, J., Bedau, M., Husbands, P., Ikegami, T. and Watson, R. A. (eds.), Artificial Life IX. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 244–249.Google Scholar
Gronow, J. (1988). ‘The element of irrationality: Max Weber’s diagnosis of modern culture’, Acta Sociologica, 31: 319–331.Google Scholar
Grossen, M. (2010). ‘Interaction analysis and psychology: a dialogical perspective’, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 44: 1–22.Google Scholar
Grossen, M. and Salazar Orvig, A. (2011). ‘Third parties’ voices in a therapeutic interview’, Text & Talk, 31: 53–76.Google Scholar
Grossen, M. and Salazar Orvig, A. (2014). ‘Forms of trust/distrust and dialogicality in focus groups discussions about medical confidentiality’, in Linell, and Marková, (eds.), pp. 3–27.Google Scholar
Gruber, H. E. (1974). Darwin on Man, Together with Darwin’s Early and Unpublished Notebooks. Transcribed and annotated Barret, P. H.. London: Wildwood.Google Scholar
Guareschi, P. A. (2006). ‘Mídia e cidadania’ [Media and citizenship], Conexão – Comunicação e Cultura [Connection – Communication and Culture], January/June 5: 27–40.Google Scholar
Guillen, M. (1995). Five Equations that Changed the World. London: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Guthrie, W. K. C. (1962). History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation Crisis. Trsl. McCarthy, T.. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1981/1984). The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and Rationalization in Society, Vol. 1. Trsl. McCarthy, T.. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1981/1987). The Theory of Communicative Action: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Vol. 2. Trsl. McCarthy, T.. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Halfin, I. (2003). Terror in My Soul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halfin, I. (2009). Stalinist Confessions. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (2000). ‘The subjection of muthos to logos: Plato’s citations of the poets’, The Classical Quarterly, New Series, 50: 94–112.Google Scholar
Hamel, J. (1997). ‘Sociology, common sense, and qualitative methodology: the position of Pierre Bourdieu and Alain Touraine’, The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 22: 95–112.Google Scholar
Haney, C., Banks, C. and Zimbardo, P. (1973). ‘Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison’, International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1: 69–97.Google Scholar
Harré, R. (1999). ‘Commentary on “psychologic and the study of memory”’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40 (Suppl.): 31–40.Google Scholar
Harris, R. (2009). Rationality and the Literate Mind. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Hart, R. and Tejera, V. (1997). Plato’s Dialogues: The Dialogical Approach. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Hartman, T. and Goldhoorn, C. (2011). ‘Horton and Wohl revisited: exploring viewers’ experience of parasocial interaction’, Journal of Communication, 61: 1104–1121.Google Scholar
Havel, V. (1983/1999). ‘Odpovědnost jako osud’ [Responsibility as a fate], in Spisy 4 [Ouevre 4]. Prague: Torst, pp. 402–417.Google Scholar
Havel, V. (1985–86/1999). Dálkový výslech [A distant interrogation], in Spisy 4 [Ouevre 4]. Prague: Torst, pp. 699–917.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1807/1977). The Phenomenology of the Spirit. Trsl. Miller, A. V.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1821/2001). Philosophy of Right. Trsl. Dyde, S. W.. Kitchener: Batoche Books.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1899/2007). The Philosophy of History. Trsl. Sibree, J.. New York: Cosimo.Google Scholar
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Foundations of Philosophy Series, eds. , E. and Beardsley, M.. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Herder, J. G. (1877–1913/1967). Sämtliche Werke [Complete works]. Ed. Suphon, B.. Reprinted Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Hermans, H. J. M. and Kempen, H. J. G. (1993). The Dialogical Self: Meaning as Movement. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hollis, M. and Lukes, S. (eds.). (1982). Rationality and Relativism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
van Holthoon, F. L. (1987). ‘Common sense and natural law: from Thomas Aquinas to Thomas Reid’, in van Holthoon, and Olson, (eds.), pp. 99–131.Google Scholar
van Holthoon, F. L. and Olson, D. R. (eds.). (1987). Common Sense: Foundation for Social Science. Lanham and New York: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Holton, G. (1973). ‘The roots of complementarity’, in Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 115–161.Google Scholar
Holton, G. (1975). ‘On the role of themata in scientific thought’, Science, 188: 328–334.Google Scholar
Holton, G. (2003). ‘Einstein’s third paradise’, Daedalus, 132 (Fall): 26–34.Google Scholar
Honneth, A. (1992/1995). The Struggle for Recognition. Trsl. Anderson, J.. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Horton, D. and Wohl, R. R. (1956). ‘Mass communication and para-social interaction. Observations on intimacy at a distance’, Psychiatry, 19: 215–229.Google Scholar
Hosking, G. (2014). Trust: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Houssaye, J. (2000). Le triangle pédagogique [The educational triangle]. 3rd ed. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Howarth, C. (2006). ‘A social representation is not a quiet thing: exploring the critical potential of social representations theory’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 45: 65–86.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2013). Systematicity: The Nature of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Humboldt, W. (1999). On Language: On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and Its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species. Ed. Losonsky, M.. Trsl. Heath, P.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hurn, C. (1985). ‘Changes in authority relationships in schools: 1960–1980’, Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 5: 31–57.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. (1913/1962). Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. Trsl. Gibson, W. R. Boyce. London and New York: Collier, Macmillan.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. (1936/1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Trsl. Carr, D.. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Ichheiser, G. (1968). ‘Six meanings of the terms “rational” and “irrational”’, Sociologia Internationalis, 6: 96–100.Google Scholar
Imber-Black, E. (1998). The Secret Life of Families. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. (2004). ‘Beyond biology and culture. The meaning of evolution in a relational world’, Social Anthropology, 12: 209–221.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. (1955/1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence. Trsl. Parsons, A. and Milgram, S.. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. (1959/1964). The Early Growth of Logic in the Child. Trsl. Lunzer, E. A. and Papert, D.. Abington: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Jacob, F. (1981/1982). The Possible and the Actual. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Published originally as Jacob, F. (1981). Le Jeu des possibles. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Jahoda, G. (1982). Psychology and Anthropology: A Psychological Perspective. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jahoda, G. (2007). A History of Social Psychology: From the Eighteenth-Century Enlightenment to the Second World War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism. A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. New York: Longmans, Green and Company.Google Scholar
Janssen, M. and Rødbroe, I. (eds.). (2007). Communication and Congenital Deafblindness. II: Contact and Social Interaction. St. Michielsgestel: VCDBF/Viataal.Google Scholar
Jarvie, I. C. (1984). Rationality and Relativism. In Search of a Philosophy and History of Anthropology. London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Jesuino, J. C. (2008). ‘Linking science to common sense’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38: 393–409.Google Scholar
Jesuino, J. C. (2012). ‘Back to common sense’, in Valentim, J. P. (ed.), Societal Approaches in Social Psychology. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 35–60.Google Scholar
Jodelet, D. (1989/1991). Madness and Social Representations. Trsl. Pownall, T.. Ed. Duveen, G.. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Joffe, H. (2008). ‘The power of visual material: persuasion, emotion and identification’, Diogenes, 217: 84–93.Google Scholar
Joffe, H. (2011). ‘Public apprehension of emerging infectious diseases’, Public Understanding of Science, 20: 448–460.Google Scholar
Johansen, T. K. (1999). ‘Myth and logos in Aristotle’, in Buxton, R. (ed.), From Myth to Reason? Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 279–291.Google Scholar
Jones, R. (1976). ‘Is Peirce’s theory of instinct consistently non-Cartesian?’ Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 12: 348–366.Google Scholar
Jones, S. S. (2000). ‘Representations in Durkheim’s masters: Kant and Renouvier’, in Pickering, W. S. F. (ed.), Durkheim and Representations. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 37–58.Google Scholar
Jovchelovitch, S. (2002). ‘Re–thinking the diversity of knowledge: cognitive polyphasia, belief and representation’, Psychologie & Societé, 5: 121–138.Google Scholar
Jovchelovitch, S. (2007). Knowledge in Context: Representations, Community and Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jovchelovitch, S. (2008). ‘The rehabilitation of common sense: social representations, science and cognitive polyphasia’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38: 431–448.Google Scholar
Jovchelovitch, S. and Priego-Hernandez, J. (2013). Underground Sociabilities: Identity, Culture, and Resistance in Rio de Janeiro’s Favelas. Brasilia: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2012). ‘A proposal to deal with questions about priming effects’. www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.6716.1349271308!/suppinfoFile/Kahneman%20Letter.pdf.Google Scholar
Kalampalikis, N. (2007). Les Grecs et le mythe d’Alexandre [The Greeks and the myth of Alexander]. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1784/1996). ‘An answer to the question: what is enlightenment?’, in Gregor, M. J. (ed. and trsl.), I. Kant: Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 15–22.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1790/2000). Critique of the Power of Judgment. Ed. Guyer, P.. Trsl. Guyer, P., and Matthews, E.. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. M. (2008). ‘Ricoeur’s critical theory’, in Kaplan, D. M. (ed.), Reading Ricoeur. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 197–212.Google Scholar
Kearney, R. (1998). Poetics of Imagining. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Kelley, D. R. (1970). Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship: Language, Law and History in the French Renaissance. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. (1954). ‘Science and the transformation of common sense: the basic problem of Dewey’s philosophy’, Journal of Philosophy, 51: 313–325.Google Scholar
Keucheyan, R. (2003). ‘Sens commun et réalité sociale: perspectives sociologiques et philosophiques’ [Common sense and social reality: sociological and philosophical perspectives], Social Science Information, 42: 209–228.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. (1925/1931). ‘A short view of Russia’, in Keynes, J. M., Essays in Persuasion. London: Macmillan and Co., pp. 297–311.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. (1926/1931). ‘The end of laissez-faire’, in Keynes, J. M., Essays in Persuasion. London: Macmillan and Co., pp. 312–322.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. (1947). Newton, the Man. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klautke, E. (2010). ‘The mind of the nation: the debate about Völkerpsychologie, 1851–1900’, Central Europe, 8: 1–19.Google Scholar
Koestler, A. (1940/2005). The Darkness at Noon. London: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Kojève, A. (1969). Introduction to the Reading of Hegel. New York and London: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kojève, A. (2004/2014). La notion de l’authorité. Mayenne: Gallimard. Trsl. H. Weslati as The Notion of Authority. New York and London: Verso.Google Scholar
Koyré, A. (1948). ‘Du monde de l’ « à-peu-près » à l’univers de la précision’ [From the world of ‘very nearly’ to the universe of precision]. Critique, 28: 806–823.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lambert, C. (2005). La société de la peur [Society of fear]. Paris: Plon.Google Scholar
Lana, R. E. (1979). ‘Giambatistta Vico and history of social psychology’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 9: 251–263.Google Scholar
Laney, J. T. (1991). ‘Can the humanities still humanize higher education?’, in Thompson, D. L. (ed.), Moral Values in Higher Education. Provo: Brigham Young University, pp. 125–133.Google Scholar
van Lange, P. A. M. (2006). Bridging Social Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lecourt, D. (1977). Proletarian Science? The Case of Lysenko. Introduction Althusser, L.. Trsl. Brewster, B.. London: NLB.Google Scholar
Lee, A. S. and Baskerville, R. L. (2003). ‘Generalizing generalizability in information systems research’, Information Systems Research, 14: 221–243.Google Scholar
LeGouis, C. (1997). Positivism and Imagination: Scientism and Its Limits in Emile Hennequin, Wilhelm Scherer and Dmitrii Pisarev. London: Associated University Presses.Google Scholar
Leiman, M. (2012). ‘Dialogical sequence analysis in studying psychotherapeutic discourse’, International Journal for Dialogical Science, 6: 123–147.Google Scholar
Lenin, V. I. (1913/1977). ‘Three sources and three component parts of Marxism’, in Collected Works, Vol. 19. Moscow: Progress Publishers, pp. 21–28.Google Scholar
Levinas, E. (1951/1996). ‘Is ontology fundamental?’, in Peperzak, A. T., Critchley, S. and Bernasconi, R. (eds.), Emmanuel Levinas: Basic Philosophical Writings. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Levinas, E. (1961/1969). Totality and Infinity. Trsl. Lingis, A.. Pittsburgh: The Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
Levinas, E. (1968/1996). ‘Substitution’, in Peperzak, A. T., Critchley, S. and Bernasconi, R. (eds.), Emmanuel Levinas: Basic Philosophical Writings. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 97–107.Google Scholar
Levinas, E. (1974/1998). Autrement que l’être ou au-delà de l’essence. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Trsl. Lingis, A. as Otherwise than Being, or, Beyond Essence. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
Levinas, E. (1988). ‘Useless suffering’, in Bernasconi, R. and Wood, D. (eds.), The Provocation of Levinas. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 156–167.Google Scholar
Levinas, E. (1998). ‘Philosophy, justice and love’, in Entre-nous: On Thinking of the Other. Trsl. Smith, M. B. and Harshav, B.. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 103–122.Google Scholar
Levine, G. (1993). Reality and Representation. Madison and London: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962/1966). La pensée sauvage. Paris: Plon. Trsl. Weidenfeld, and Nicolson, as The Savage Mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1970). The Raw and the Cooked. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. (2009) ‘Ce que je suis’ [What I am], Le Nouvel Observateur, Hors-série, November–December, 74: 30–38.Google Scholar
Lévy-Bruhl, L. (1910/1926). Les fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inferieures. Trsl. Clare, L. A. as How Natives Think. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Lévy-Bruhl, L. (1922/1923). La mentalité primitive. Trsl. Clare, L. A. as Primitive Mentality. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1938/1999). ‘Will and needs’, in Ellis, W. D. (ed.), A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 283–299.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1939/1951). ‘Field theory and experiment in social psychology’, in Cartwright, D. (ed.), Field Theory in Social Science. Selected Theoretical Papers by Kurt Lewin. New York: Harper, pp. 130–154.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1943). ‘Defining the “field at a given time”’, Psychological Review, 50: 292–310.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1947/1951). ‘Frontiers in group dynamics’, in Cartwright, D. (ed.), Field Theory in Social Science. Selected Theoretical Papers by Kurt Lewin. New York: Harper, pp. 188–237.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. D. (2002). ‘The dialogical brain. Contributions of emotional neurobiology to understanding the dialogical self’, Theory & Psychology, 12: 175–190.Google Scholar
Lindenberg, S. (1987). ‘Common sense and social structure: a sociological view’, in van Holthoon, F. and Olson, D. R. (eds.), Common Sense: Foundation for Social Science. Lanham and New York: University Press of America, pp. 199–215.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Linell, P. and Keselman, O. (2012). ‘Trustworthiness at stake: trust and distrust in investigative interviews with Russian adolescent asylum-seekers in Sweden’, in Marková, and Gillespie, (eds.), pp. 156–180.Google Scholar
Linell, P. and Marková, I. (eds.). (2014a). Dialogical Approaches to Trust in Communication. Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Linell, P. and Marková, I. (2014b). ‘Trust and distrust in interaction: some theoretical and methodological points’, in Linell, and Marková, (eds.), pp. 213–235.Google Scholar
Linell, P. and 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.Google Scholar
Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I. and Kelly, K. (2009). New Media: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. Abington and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Livingstone, S. (2008). ‘Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression’, New Media & Society, 10: 393–411.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1990). Demystifying Mentalities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lucas, J. R. (1993). Responsibility. Oxford: Clarendon University Press.Google Scholar
Luckmann, T. (1987). ‘Some thoughts on common sense and science’, in van Holthoon, and Olson, (eds.), pp. 179–197.Google Scholar
Mali, J. (2012). The Legacy of Vico in Modern Cultural History: From Jules Michelet to Isaiah Berlin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marañon, G. (1924). ‘Contribution à l’étude de l’action émotive de l’adrenaline’, [Contribution to the study of emotional action of adrenaline], Revue Française d’Endocrinologie, 21: 301–325.Google Scholar
Marková, I. (1982). Paradigms, Thought and Language. Chichester and New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Marková, I. (1990). ‘The development of self-consciousness: Baldwin, Mead and Vygotsky’, in Faulconer, J. E. and Williams, R. N. (eds.), Reconsidering Psychology: Perspectives from Continental Philosophy. Pittsburgh: Duquesne Press, pp. 151–174.Google Scholar
Marková, I. (1992). ‘Scientific and public knowledge of AIDS: the problem of their integration’, in Cranach, M., Doise, W. and Mugny, G. (eds.), Social Representations and the Social Bases of Knowledge. Bern: Huber, pp. 179–183.Google Scholar
Marková, I. (2003a). Dialogicality and Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marková, I. (2003b). ‘Constitution of the self: intersubjectivity and dialogicality’, Culture & Psychology, 9: 249–259.Google Scholar
Marková, I. (2006). ‘On “the inner alter” in dialogue’, International Journal for Dialogical Science, 1: 125–147.Google Scholar
Marková, I. (2008a). ‘Persuasion and propaganda’, Diogenes, 217: 37–51.Google Scholar
Marková, I. (2008b). ‘A dialogical perspective of social representations of responsibility’, in Sugiman, T., Gergen, K. J., Wagner, W. and Yamada, Y. (eds.). Meaning in Action. New York: Springer, pp. 253–270.Google Scholar
Marková, I. (2012) ‘Confession as a communication genre: the logos and mythos of the Party’, in Marková, and Gillespie, (eds.), pp. 181–200.Google Scholar
Marková, I. (2013). ‘Forms of resistance during Stalinism’, in Bauer, M. W., Harré, R. and Jensen, C. (eds.), Resistance and the Practice of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 137–156.Google Scholar
Marková, I. (2014a). ‘Complementarity as an epistemology of life’, in Wagoner, B., Chaudhary, N. and Hviid, P. (eds.), Cultural Psychology and Its Future: Complementarity in a New Key. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
Marková, I. (2014b). ‘Questioning interdisciplinarity: history, social psychology and the theory of social representations’, in Tileagă, C. and Byford, J. (eds.), Psychology and History. Interdisciplinary Explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–126.Google Scholar
Marková, I. (2016). ‘Dialogue and mutual understanding’, in de Saussue, L. and Rocci, A. (eds.), Verbal Communication. Handbooks of Communication Science. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 181–201.Google Scholar
Marková, I. and Gillespie, A. (eds.). (2008). Trust and Distrust: Sociocultural Perspectives. Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
Marková, I. and Gillespie, A. (eds.). (2012). Trust and Conflict: Culture, Representation and Dialogue. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marková, I., Linell, P. and Gillespie, A. (2008). ‘Trust and distrust in society’, in Marková, and Gillespie, (eds.), pp. 3–27.Google Scholar
Marková, I. and Wilkie, P. (1987). ‘Concepts, representations, and social change: the phenomenon of AIDS’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 17: 398–409.Google Scholar
Marková, I., Wilkie, P. A., Naji, S. and Forbes, C. (1990). ‘Self- and other-awareness of the risk of HIV/AIDS in people with haemophilia and implications for behavioural change’, Social Science and Medicine, 31: 73–79.Google Scholar
Märtsin, M., Wagoner, B., Aveling, E., Kadianaki, I. and Whittaker, L. (eds.) (2011). Dialogicality in Focus: Challenges, Reflections and Applications. Hauppauge. New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1843/1970). Contribution to Critique of Hegel’s ‘Philosophy of Right’. Ed., introduction and notes O’Malley, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mathias, E. (2008). ‘Economic success and social trust: evidence from the Baltic States’, in Marková, and Gillespie, (eds.), pp. 219–245.Google Scholar
Matusov, E. (2011). ‘Irreconcilable differences in Vygotsky’s and Bakhtin’s approaches to the social and the individual: an educational perspective’, Culture & Psychology, 17: 99–119.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1915). ‘Natural rights and the theory of the political institution’, Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Method, 12: 141–155.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (2011). ‘On the self and teleological behavior’, in da Silva, F. C. (ed.), G.H. Mead: A Reader. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 21–44.Google Scholar
Medvedev, Z. A. and Medvedev, R. A. (1971). A Question of Madness. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Meyerson, E. (1908/1930). Identity and Reality. Trsl. Loewenberg, K.. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Meyerson, E. (1931). Du cheminements de la pensée [The paths of thought]. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Mezník, J. (2005). Můj Život za Vlády Komunistů (1948–1989). [My life during the communist rule, (1948–1989)]. Brno: Matice moravská.Google Scholar
Michelet, J. (1827). ‘Discourse sur le système et la vie de Vico’ [Discourse about the system and life of Vico], in Vico, G., Principes de la philosophie d’ histoire[Principles of the philosophy of history]. Trsl. Michelet, J. (from Italian to French) of Vico’s The New Science. Paris: A. Colin, pp. v–lxx.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. (1975). ‘Albert Einstein and Max Wertheimer: a Gestalt psychologist’s view of the genesis of special relativity theory’, History of Science, 13: 75–103.Google Scholar
Minogue, K. (2010). The Servile Mind. How Democracy Erodes the Moral Life. New York: Encounter Books.Google Scholar
Moghaddam, F. M. (2003). ‘Interobjectivity and culture’, Culture & Psychology, 9: 221–232.Google Scholar
Moghaddam, F. M. (2010). ‘Commentary: intersubjectivity, interobjectivity, and the embryonic fallacy in developmental science’, Culture & Psychology, 16: 465–475.Google Scholar
Monas, S. (1990). ‘Did Bakhtin read Vico?’, New Vico Studies, 8: 156–157.Google Scholar
Moran, R. (2005). ‘Getting told and being believed’, Philosophers’ Imprint, 5: 1–29.Google Scholar
Morgan, K. A. (2004). Myth and Philosophy: From the Presocratics to Plato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morhenn, V. B., Park, J. W., Piper, E. and Zak, P. J. (2008). ‘Monetary sacrifice among strangers is mediated by endogenous oxytocin release after physical contact’, Evolution and Human Behavior 29: 375–383.Google Scholar
Morin, E. (1959). Autocritique [Self-criticism]. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Morris, B. (1987). Anthropological Studies of Religion. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morson, G. S. and Emerson, C. (1989) (eds). Rethinking Bakhtin: Extensions and Challenges. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Morson, G. S. and Emerson, C. (1990). Mikhail Bakhtin. Creation of Prosaics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1961). La psychanalyse: son image et son public [Psychoanalysis: its image and its public]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1970). ‘Préface’, in Jodelet, D., Viet, J. and Besnard, P., (eds.), La psychologie sociale, une discipline en mouvement [Social psychology, a discipline in movement]. Paris-La Haye: Mouton, pp. 9–64.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1972/2000). ‘Society and theory in social psychology’, in Israel, J. and Tajfel, H. (eds.), The Context of Social Psychology: A Critical Assessment. London and New York: Academic Press, pp. 17–68. Reprinted in Moscovici, S. (2000). Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology. Ed. Duveen, G.. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 78–119.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1976/2008). La psychanalyse: son image et son public. 2nd ed. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Trsl. Macey, D. as Psychoanalysis: Its Image and Its Public. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1977). Essai sur l’histoire humaine de la nature [Essay on the human history of nature]. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1979). ‘La dissidence d’un seul’ [The dissent of one], in Psychologie des minorités actives [Psychology of active minorities]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 241–266.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1981). ‘On social representations’, in Forgas, J. (ed.), Social Cognition: Perspectives on Everyday Understanding. New York: Academic Press, pp. 181–210.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1982). ‘The coming era of representations’, in Codol, J.-P. and Leyens, J.-P. (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Social Behavior. The Hague: M. Nijhoff, pp. 115–150.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1988/1993). La machine à faire des dieux: sociologie et psychologie. Paris: Fayard. Trsl. Hall, W. D. as The Invention of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1992). ‘The psychology of scientific myths’, in Cranach, M., Doise, W. and Mugny, G. (eds.), Social Representations and the Social Bases of Knowledge. Bern: Huber, pp. 3–9.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1993). ‘The return of the unconscious’, Social Research, 60: 39–93.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1997). Chronique des années égarées: récit autobiographique. Paris: Stock.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1998). ‘Social consciousness and its history’, Culture & Psychology, 4: 410–429.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (2003) ‘Le premier article’ [The first article], Journal des Psychologues, Numéro hors série, 10–13.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (2011). ‘An essay on social representations and ethnic minorities’, Social Science Information, 50: 441–461.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. and Hewstone, M. (1983). ‘Social representations and social explanations: from the “naïve” to the “amateur” scientist’, in Hewstone, M. (ed.), Attribution Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 98–125.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. and Marková, I. (2000). ‘Ideas and their development: a dialogue between Serge Moscovici and Ivana Marková’, in Moscovici, S., Social Representations. Ed. Duveen, G.. London: Polity Press, pp. 224–286.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. and Marková, I. (2006). The Making of Modern Social Psychology: The Hidden Story of How an International Social Science Was Created. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. and Vignaux, G. (1994/2000). ‘Le concept de thêmata’, in Guimelli, C., Structures et transformations des représentations sociales [Structures and transformations of social representations]. Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, pp. 25–72. Reprinted in Moscovici, S., Social Representations. Ed. Duveen, G.. London: Polity Press, pp. 156–183.Google Scholar
Most, G. W. (1999). ‘From logos to mythos’, in Buxton, R. (ed.) From Myth to Reason? Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–47.Google Scholar
Mure, G. R. G. (1940). An Introduction to Hegel. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Musgrave, A. (1993). Common Sense, Science and Scepticism. A Historical Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nafstad, A. V. (2015). ‘Communication as cure: communicative agency in persons with congenital deafblindness’, Journal of Deafblind Studies on Communication, 1: 23–39.Google Scholar
Nafstad, A. V. and Rødbroe, I. (1999). Co-creating Communication. Perspectives on Diagnostic Education for Individuals Who Are Congenitally Deafblind and Individuals Whose Impairments May Have Similar Effects. Dronninglund, Denmark: Forlager Nord-Press.Google Scholar
Nafstad, A. V. and Rødbroe, I. (2013). Kommunikative Relasjoner [Communicative relationships]. Aalborg: Materialecentret.Google Scholar
Nestle, W. (1942). Vom Mythos zum Logos: die Selbstentfaltung des griechischen Denkens von Homer bis auf die Sophistik und Socrates. Zweite Auflage [From myth to logos: the self-unfolding of Greek thought from Homer to the Sophists and Socrates]. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Kröner.Google Scholar
Neuhouser, F. (2000). ‘Introduction’, in Fichte, J. G., Foundations of Natural Right. Ed. Neuhouser, F.. Trsl. Bauer, M.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. vii–xxviii.Google Scholar
Nisbet, R. A. (1966). The Sociological Tradition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
North, J. D. (2008). Cosmos: An Illustrated History of Astronomy and Cosmology. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
O’Connor, C. (2014). ‘Neuroscience and social identity: the brain as an index of social difference’. Lecture presented at the meeting on Brains, Neuroscience, and Common Sense, of the study group Reconsidering Common Sense (RICOS), 18 September 2014, University of Neuchâtel.Google Scholar
O’Connor, C. and Joffe, H. (2014). ‘Gender on the brain: a case study of science communication in the new media environment’, Plos One, 9: e110830. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110830.Google Scholar
O’Connor, C. and Joffe, H. (2015). ‘How the public engages with brain optimization: the media-mind relationship’. Science, Technology & Human Values, 40: 712–743.Google Scholar
O’Connor, C., Rees, G. and Joffe, H. (2012). ‘Neuroscience in the public sphere’, Neuron, 74: 220–226.Google Scholar
O’Neill, O. (2002). ‘A question of trust. Reith lectures’, BBC 1. www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2002/lecture3.shtml.Google Scholar
Orfali, B. and Marková, I. (2002). ‘Analogies in focus groups: from the victim to the murderer and from the murderer to the victim’, European Review of Applied Psychology, 52: 263–271.Google Scholar
Otsuka, Y. (2014). ‘Face recognition in infants: a review of behavioral and near-infrared spectroscopic studies’, Japanese Psychological Research, 56: 76–90.Google Scholar
Oyler, C. (1996). Making Room for Students: Sharing Teacher Authority in Room 104. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Pace, J. L. and Hemmings, A. (2007). ‘Understanding authority in the classroom: a review of theory, ideology and research’, Review of Educational Research, 77: 4–27.Google Scholar
Panofsky, E. (1924/1968). Idea. A Concept in Art Theory. Trsl. Peake, J. J. S.. New York and London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Panofsky, E. (1956). ‘Galileo as a critic of the arts: aesthetic attitude and scientific thought’, Isis, 47: 3–15.Google Scholar
Panofsky, E. (1991). Perspective as Symbolic Form. Trsl. Wood, C. S.. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Paoletti, G. (2000). ‘Representation and belief. Durkheim’s rationalism and the Kantian tradition’, in Pickering, W. S. F. (ed.), Durkheim and Representations. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 118–135.Google Scholar
Paredes, E. C. and Jodelet, D. (eds.). (2009). Pensamento mitico e representações sociais [Mythical thinking and social representations]. Cuiabá: EdUFMT, pp. 11–23.Google Scholar
Pascal, B. (1670/1995). Pensées. Trsl. and introduction Krailsheimer, A. J.. London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
Patočka, J. (1973a/1989). ‘The dangers of technicization in science according to E. Husserl and the essence of technology as danger according to M. Heidegger’, in Kohák, E. (ed., trsl. and preface), Jan Patočka: Philosophy and Selected Writings. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, pp. 327–339.Google Scholar
Patočka, J. (1973b). ‘On the principle of scientific conscience’, Telos, 18 (December): 158–161.Google Scholar
Patočka, J. (1977a/1990). ‘O povinnosti bránit se proti bezpráví’ [About the duty to defend oneself against injustice], in Prečan, V. (ed.) (1990). Charta 77 (1977–1098). Bratislava: Archa, pp. 31–34.Google Scholar
Patočka, J. (1977b/1990). ‘Co můžeme očekávat od Charty 77?’ [What can we expect from the Charta 77?], in Prečan, V. (ed.) (1990). Charta 77 (1977–1098). Bratislava: Archa, pp. 38–42.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Vols. 1–6. Ed. Hartshorne, C. and Weiss, P., 1931–1935. Vols. 7–8. Ed. Burks, A. W., 1958. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Phelps, E. A. and Thomas, L. A. (2003). ‘“Race”, behavior, and the brain: the role neuroimaging in understanding complex social behaviors’, Political Psychology, 24: 747–758.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. (1993). Auguste Comte: An Intellectual Biography. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. (2009a). Auguste Comte: An Intellectual Biography. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. (2009b). Auguste Comte: An Intellectual Biography. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plato. (1991). The Republic of Plato. Trsl., notes, interpretive essay and a new introduction Bloom, A.. New York: Basic Books/Harper and Collins.Google Scholar
Pólya, G. (1945). How to Solve It. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pólya, G. (1984) ‘Two incidents’, in Pólya, G., Collected Papers. Vol. IV. Probability; Combinatorics; Teaching and Learning in Mathematics. Ed. Rota, G.-C.. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, pp. 165–168.Google Scholar
Pompa, L. (1990a). Human Nature and Historical Knowledge: Hume, Hegel and Vico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pompa, L. (1990b). Vico. A Study of the ‘New Science’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1979). An Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Power, M. (1999). The Audit Society. Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Power, M. (2000). ‘The audit society – second thoughts’, International Journal of Auditing, 4:111–119.Google Scholar
Reid, T. (1764/1801). An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense. Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute and William Creech.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. (1965/1970). De l’interpretation: essay sur Freud. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Trsl. Savage, D. as Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. (1969/1974). Le conflit des interpretations: essais, d’hermeneutique. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Trsl. McLaughlin, K., Sweeney, R., Domingo, W., McCormick, P., Savage, D. and Freilich, C. as Conflicts of Interpretations. Ed. Ihde, J.. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. (1990/1992). Oneself as Another. Trsl. Blamey, K.. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. (2004/2005). The Course of Recognition. Trsl. Pellauer, D.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Riddle, E. M. (1925). ‘Aggressive behaviour in a small social group’, Archives of Psychology, No. 78.Google Scholar
Rober, P., Walravens, G. and Versteynen, L. (2012). ‘“Search of a tale they can live with”: about loss, family secrets, and selective disclosure’, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38: 529–541.Google Scholar
Rochat, P. (2009). Others in Mind: Social Origins of Self-Consciousness. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rødbroe, I. and Janssen, M. (eds.). (2006). Communication and Congenital Deafblindness. I: Congenital Deafblindness and the Core Principles of Intervention. St. Michielsgestel: VCDBF/Viataal.Google Scholar
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Rommetveit, R. (1974). On Message Structure. Chichester and New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rommetveit, R. (1983). ‘In search of a truly interdisciplinary semantics. A sermon on hopes of salvation from hereditary sins’, Journal of Semantics, 2: 1–28.Google Scholar
Rommetveit, R. (1990). ‘On axiomatic features of a dialogical approach to language and mind’, in Marková, I. and Foppa, K. (eds.), The Dynamics of Dialogue. New York and London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 83–104.Google Scholar
Rommetveit, R. (1991a). ‘On epistemic responsibility in human communication’, in Rönning, H. and Lundby, K. (eds.), Media and Communication. Readings in Methodology, History and Culture. Oslo: Norwegian University Press, pp. 13–27.Google Scholar
Rommetveit, R. (1991b). ‘Dominance and asymmetries in a Doll’s House’, in Marková, I. and Foppa, K. (eds.), Asymmetries in Dialogue. New York and London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 195–220.Google Scholar
Rosa, A. and Valsiner, J. (2007). ‘Rationality, ethics and objectivity’, in Valsiner, J. and Rosa, A. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 692–707.Google Scholar
de Rosa, A. S. (2014). ‘The role of the iconic-imaginary dimensions in the Modelling Approach to social representations’, Papers on Social Representations, 23: 17.1–17.26.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, L. (1963/1979). ‘Niel’s Bohr’s contribution to epistemology’, in Cohen, R. S. and Stachel, J. J. (eds.), Selected Papers of Leon Rosenfeld. Dordrecht and London: D. Reidel, pp. 522–535.Google Scholar
Rosenstock-Huessy, E. (1924). ‘Angewandte Seelenkunde, eine pragmatische Ubersetzung’ [Applied psychology, a pragmatic translation]. Darmstadt: Roetherverlag.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, F. (1921/1971). Stern der Erlösung. Frankfurt: Kauffmann. Trsl. Hallo, W. W. as The Star of Redemption. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Rosnow, R. L. (1978). ‘The prophetic vision of Giambattista Vico: implications for the state of social psychological theory’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36: 1322–1331.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1920). The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1956). Our Knowledge of the External World. New York: Menton Books.Google Scholar
Salazar Orvig, A. (2005). ‘Les facettes du dialogisme dans une discussion ordinaire’ [The facets of dialogism in ordinary discussion], in Haillet, P. and Karmaoui, G. (eds.), Regards sur l’héritage de Mikhaïl Bakhtine [Views on the heritage of Mikhail Bakhtin]. Amiens: Encrage, pp. 35–66.Google Scholar
Salazar Orvig, A. and Grossen, M. (2008). ‘Le dialogisme dans l’entretien clinique’ [Dialogism in a clinical interview], Langage & Société, 123: 37–52.Google Scholar
Salgado, J. (2014).’Searching for trust in psychotherapy: the developmental dynamics of trust within a dialogical perspective’, in Linell, and Marková, (eds.), pp. 101–124.Google Scholar
Salgado, J., Cunha, C. and Bento, T. (2013). ‘Positioning microanalysis: studying the self through the exploration of dialogical processes’, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47: 325–353.Google Scholar
Salvatore, S. and Valsiner, J. (2010). ‘Between the general and the unique: overcoming the nomothetic versus idiographic opposition’, Theory & Psychology, 20: 817–833.Google Scholar
Schachter, S. and Singer, J. E. (1962). ‘Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional state’, Psychological Review, 69: 379–399.Google Scholar
Schütz, A. (1953). ‘Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 14: 1–38.Google Scholar
Scott-Baumann, A. (2009). Ricoeur and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Seikkula, J. (2011). ‘Becoming dialogical: psychotherapy or a way of life?’ Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 32: 179–193.Google Scholar
Seikkula, J., Laitila, A. and Rober, P. (2012). ‘Making sense of multi-actor dialogues in family therapy and network meetings’, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38: 667–687.Google Scholar
Seikkula, J. and Trimble, D. (2005). ‘Healing elements of therapeutic conversation: dialogue as an embodiment of love’, Family Process, 44: 461–475.Google Scholar
Seligman, A. B. (1997). The Problem of Trust. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Sennett, R. (1980). Authority. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Sense. ‘Congenital deafblindness’. www.sense.org.uk/content/congenital-deafblindness.Google Scholar
Service, R. (2000). Lenin: A Biography. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Shaftesbury, A. A. Cooper. (1711/1999). Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times. Ed. Klein, L. E.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, D. and Crider, A. (1969). ‘Psychophysiological approaches in social psychology’, in Lindsay, G. and Aronson, E. (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume 3. 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 1–49.Google Scholar
Shepherd, L. (2003). ‘Face to face: a call for radical responsibility in place of compassion’, St. John’s Law Review, 77: 445–514.Google Scholar
Shotter, J. (1986). ‘A sense of place: Vico and the social production of social identities’, The British Journal of Social Psychology, 25: 199–211.Google Scholar
Shotter, J. (1991). ‘A poetics of relational forms: the sociality of everyday social life’, Cultural Dynamics, 4: 379–396.Google Scholar
Shotter, J. (1999). ‘From within an external world’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40 (Suppl.): 81–84.Google Scholar
Shotter, J. (2007). ‘Vico, Wittgenstein, Bakhtin and the background: what is there before anything is’, Analysis and Metaphysics, 6: 195–223.Google Scholar
Shweder, R. A. (1990). ‘Cultural psychology: what is it?’, in Stigler, J. W., Shweder, R. A. and Herdt, G. H. (eds.), Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–43.Google Scholar
Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through Cultures. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shweder, R. A. and LeVine, R. A. (eds.). (1984) Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shweder, R. A., Minow, M. and Markus, H. R. (eds.). (2002). Engaging Cultural Differences: The Multicultural Challenge in Liberal Democracies. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Siep, L. (1979). Anerkennung als Prinzip der Praktische Philosophie: Untersuchungen zu Hegels Jenaer Philosophie des Geistes [Recognition as a principle of practical philosophy: studies in Hegel’s Jena philosophy of mind]. Freiburg: Karl Alber Verlag.Google Scholar
Simão, L. M. and Valsiner, J. (eds.). (2007). Otherness in Question. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Šimečka, M. (1984). The Restoration of Order: The Normalization of Czechoslovakia 1969–1976. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1950). The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Trsl., ed., introduction Wolff, K. H.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1978). Philosophy of Money. Ed. Frisby, D.. Trsl. Bottomore, T. and Frisby, D.. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smedslund, J. (1997). The Structure of Psychological Common Sense. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smedslund, J. (1999a). ‘Psychologic and the study of memory’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40 (Suppl.): 3–17.Google Scholar
Smedslund, J. (1999b). ‘Author’s response: psychologic in dialogue – reply to commentaries’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40 (Suppl.): 123–138.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (1995). ‘Common sense’, in Smith, B., and Smith, D. W. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Husserl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 394–437.Google Scholar
Sorokin, P. (1992). The Crisis of Our Age. Oxford: Oneworld Publishers.Google Scholar
Souriau, J. (2000). ‘Introduction: surdi-cécité et développement de la communication. Problèmes et stratégies adaptives’ [Introduction: deafblindness and communicative development. Problems and adaptive strategies], Revue Enfance, 53: 3–18.Google Scholar
Souriau, J. (2001). ‘La surdi-cécité’ [deafblindness], in Rondal, J. A. and Comblain, A. (eds.), Manuel de psychologie des handicaps. Sémiologie et principes de remédiation [Manual of the psychology of disabilities. Semiology and principles of remediation]. Sprimont: Mardaga, 391–418.Google Scholar
Souriau, J. (2013). ‘Comprendre et communiquer avec ceux qui ne parlent pas’ [To understand and to communicate with those who do not speak], Vie Sociale, 3: 93–116.Google Scholar
Souriau, J. (2015). ‘Blended spaces and Deixis in communicative activities involving persons with congenital deafblindness’, Journal of Deafblind Studies on Communication, 1: 5–22.Google Scholar
Souriau, J., Rødbroe, I. and Janssen, M. (eds.). (2008). Communication and Congenital Deafblindness. III: Meaning Making. St. Michielsgestel: VCDBF/Viataal.Google Scholar
Souriau, J., Rødbroe, I. and Janssen, M. (eds.). (2009). Communication and Congenital Deafblindness IV: Transition to the Cultural Language. St. Michielsgestel: VCDBF/Viataal.Google Scholar
Souvarine, B. (1939). Stalin – A Critical Survey of Bolshevism. New York: Alliance Book Cooperation.Google Scholar
Spiegelberg, H. (1971). The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical Introduction. Vol. II. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Spinoza, B. (1677/1967). Ethics. Trsl. Boyle, A., introduction Gregory, T. S.. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Stern, D. N. (1985). The Interpersonal World of the Infant. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Sutherland, S. (1992). Irrationality. London: Pinter and Martin.Google Scholar
Swidler, A. (1979). Organization without Authority: Dilemmas of Social Control in Free Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliacozzo, G. (1980). ‘Introductory remarks’, in Tagliacozzo, , Mooney, and Verene, (eds.), pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Tagliacozzo, G., Mooney, M. and Verene, D. P. (eds.). (1980). Vico and Contemporary Thought. London and Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press. Reprinted from Social Research, 1976, 43, numbers 3 & 4.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1975). Hegel. Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1991). ‘The dialogical self’, in Hiley, D. R., Bohman, J. F. and Shusterman, R. (eds.), The Interpretive Turn: Philosophy, Science, Culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 304–317.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (2002). ‘Modern social imaginaries’, Public Culture, 14: 91–124.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (2011). ‘Iris Murdoch and moral philosophy’, in Taylor, C., Dilemmas and Connections: Selected Essays. Cambridge and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. L. (ed.). (1991). Moral Values in Higher Education. Provo: Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
Tileagă, C. (2014). ‘“You can’t really trust anyone anymore”: trust, moral identity and coming to terms with the past’, in Linell, and Marková, (eds.), pp. 51–67.Google Scholar
Todorov, T. (1999/2001) The Fragility of Goodness. Why Bulgaria’s Jews Survived the Holocaust. Trsl. Denner, A.. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2014). A Natural History of Human Thinking. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., Kruger, A. and Ratner, H. (1993). ‘Cultural learning’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16: 495–552.Google Scholar
Tönnies, F. (1887/1957). Gemainschaft und Gesselschaft. Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag. Trsl. as Community and Society. Trsl. and ed. Loomis, C. P.. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
Trevarthen, C. (1992). ‘An infant’s motives for speaking and thinking in the culture’, in Heen Wold, A. (ed.), The Dialogical Alternative. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, pp. 99–137.Google Scholar
Trevarthen, C. (1998). ‘The concept and foundations of infant intersubjectivity’, in Bråten, S. (ed.), Intersubjective Communication and Emotion in Early Ontogeny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–46.Google Scholar
Tronick, E. (1989). ‘Emotions and emotional communication in infants’, American Psychologist, 44: 112–119.Google Scholar
Tucker, R. C. (1967) Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Twenge, J. and Campbell, W. K. (2009). The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Uexküll, J. (1934/1957). ‘A stroll through the world of animals and men: a picture book of invisible worlds’, in Schiller, C. H. (trsl. and ed.), Instinctive Behavior: The Development of a Modern Concept. New York: International Universities Press, pp. 5–80.Google Scholar
Vaculík, L. (1983). Český Snář [The Czech Dreambook]. Toronto: Sixty-Eight Publishers.Google Scholar
Valsiner, J. (1999). ‘Eliminating pseudoempiricism from psychology: a return to science’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40 (Suppl.): 93–94.Google Scholar
Valsiner, J. (2014). ‘What cultural psychologies need: generalizing theories!’ Culture & Psychology, 20: 147–159.Google Scholar
Valsiner, J. and Lescak, E. (2009). ‘The wisdom of the web: learning from spiders’, in Chang, R. S. (ed.), Relating to Environments. A New Look at Umwelt. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, pp. 45–65.Google Scholar
Vege, G. (2009). Co-presence is a Gift: Co-presence as a Prerequisite for a Sustained and Shared Here and Now. MSc. University of Groningen, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
Vege, G., Bjartvik, R. F., Nafstad, A. and Svendsen, R. A. (2007) Traces. DVD. Andebu Døvblindesenter and Skådalen Kompetansesenter.Google Scholar
Verene, D. P. (1981). Vico’s Science of Imagination. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Vico, G. (1709/1965). On the Study of Methods of Our Time. Trsl., introduction and notes Gianturco, E.. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.Google Scholar
Vico, G. (1710/2010). On the Most Ancient Wisdom of the Italians. Trsl. Taylor, J., introduction Miner, R.. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Vico, G. (1744/1948). The New Science of Giambattista Vico. Trsl. Bergin, T. G. and Fisch, M. H.. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Vico, G. (1963). The Autobiography of Giambattista Vico. Trsl. by Fish, M. H. and Bergin, T. G.. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Vico, G. (1972). ‘Letter a Francisco Saverio Estevan, 12 gennaio, 1729’ [Letter to Francisco Saverio Estevan, 12 January, 1729], in Parenti, R. (ed.), Opere. Vol. I. Naples: Casa Editrice Fulvio Rossi, pp. 455–460.Google Scholar
Vico, G. (1982). Vico: Selected Writings. Trsl. and ed. Pompa, L.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vion, R. (1998). ‘Le sujet en linguistique’ [Subject in linguistics], in Vion, R. (ed.), Les Sujets et Leurs Discours [Subjects and their discourse]. Aix en Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence, pp. 189–202.Google Scholar
Vion, R. (2001). ‘Modalités, Modalisations et Activités Langagières’ [Modalities, modalisations and language activities], Marges Linguistiques, 2: 209–231.Google Scholar
Voegelin, E. (1933/1997). The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, Race and State. Vol. 2. Trsl. Hein, R.. Ed. and introduction Vondung, K.. Baton Rouge and London: Louisiana State University Press, pp. 167–179.Google Scholar
Voelklein, C. and Howarth, C. (2005). ‘A review of controversies about social representations theory: a British debate’, Culture & Psychology, 11: 431–454.Google Scholar
Voloshinov, V. N. (1929/1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Trsl. Matejka, L. and Titunik, I. R.. New York and London: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, W. and Hayes, N. (2005). Everyday Discourse and Common Sense. The Theory of Social Representations. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Wagner, W., Kronberger, N. and Seifert, F. (2002). ‘Collective symbolic coping with new technology: knowledges, images and public discourse’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 41: 323–343.Google Scholar
Wagoner, B. (2010). ‘Introduction: what is a symbol?’, in Wagoner, B. (ed.), Symbolic Transformation: The Mind in Movement through Culture and Society. London: Routledge, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Wagoner, B. (2015). ‘Qualitative experiments in psychology: the case of Frederic Bartlett’s methodology’ [82 paragraphs], Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16 (3), Art. 23, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1503239.Google Scholar
Wagoner, B., Gillespie, A., Valsiner, J., Zittoun, T., Salgado, J. and Simão, L. (2011). ‘Repairing ruptures: multivocality of analyses’, in Märtsin, M., Wagoner, B., Aveling, E., Kadianaki, I. and Whittaker, L. (eds.), Dialogicality in Focus: Challenges, Reflections and Applications. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 105–127.Google Scholar
Walsh, W. H. (1946). ‘Hegel and intellectual intuition’, Mind, 55: 49–63.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1919/1946). ‘Science as a vocation’, in Gerth, H. H. and Wright Mills, C. (Trsl. and edited), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 129–156.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1920). Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism. Introduction and trsl. Kalberg, S.. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. New York: Bedminster Press.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. and Batiashvili, N. (2012). ‘Mnemonic standoffs in deep memory: Russia and Georgia’, in Marková, and Gillespie, (eds.), pp. 37–48.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A. N. (1919). An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Natural Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A. N. (1929/1979). Process and Reality. Ed. Griffin, D. R. and Sherburne, D. W.. New York and London: Free Press.Google Scholar
Whyte, L. L. (1962). The Unconscious Before Freud. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Wiener, N. (1964). God and Golem: A Comment on Certain Points Where Cybernetics Impinges on Religion. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wilholt, T. (2013). ‘Epistemic trust and science’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64: 233–253.Google Scholar
Wilkie, P. (2011) Penrose Inquiry. www.penroseinquiry.org.uk/downloads/transcripts/PEN0161297.pdf.Google Scholar
Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Commentary Moore, A. W.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Williams, R. R. (1992). Recognition: Fichte and Hegel on the Other. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Williams, R. R. (1997). Hegel’s Ethics of Recognition. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. R. (ed.). (1970). Rationality. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wright, T., Hughes, P., and Ainley, A. (1988). ‘The paradox of morality: an interview with Emmanuel Levinas’, in Bernasconi, R. and Wood, D. (eds.), The Provocation of Levinas. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 168–180.Google Scholar
Wundt, W. (1897/1902). Outlines of Psychology. Trsl. Judd, C. H.. St. Claires Shores, MI: Scholarly Press.Google Scholar
Wynne, E. A. (1985) ‘The great tradition in education: transmitting moral values’, Educational Leadership, 43: 1–9.Google Scholar
Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Zafirovski, M. (2005). ‘Is sociology the science of the irrational? Conceptions or rationality in sociological theory’, American Sociologist, 36: 85–110.Google Scholar
Zagorin, P. (1985). ‘Berlin on Vico’, Philosophical Quarterly, 35: 290–296.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. T. (2012). Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zak, P. (2008). ‘The neurobiology of trust’, Scientific American, 298 (6): 88–95.Google Scholar
Zee, A. (2007). Fearful Symmetry: the Search for Beauty in Modern Physics. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ziegler, D. J. (2002). ‘Freud, Rogers and Ellis: a comparative theoretical analysis’, Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 20: 75–91.Google Scholar
Zimmer, H. D. and Engelkamp, J. (1999). ‘Memory psychology: an empirical or an analytical science?’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40 (Suppl.): 119–122.Google Scholar
Zittoun, T. (2010). ‘How does an object become symbolic? Rooting semiotic artifacts in dynamic shared experiences’, in Wagoner, B. (ed.), Symbolic Transformation: The Mind in Movement through Culture and Society. London: Routledge, pp. 173–192.Google Scholar
Zittoun, T. (2014a). ‘Trusting for learning’, in Linell, and Marková, (eds.), pp. 125–151.Google Scholar
Zittoun, T. (2014b). ‘Three dimensions in dialogical movement’, New Ideas in Psychology, 32: 99–106.Google Scholar
Zittoun, T., Valsiner, J., Vedeler, D., Salgado, J., Gonçalves, M. M. and Ferring, D. (2013). Human Development in the Life Course: Melodies of Living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Ivana Marková, University of Stirling
  • Book: The Dialogical Mind
  • Online publication: 05 August 2016
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753602.014
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Ivana Marková, University of Stirling
  • Book: The Dialogical Mind
  • Online publication: 05 August 2016
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753602.014
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Ivana Marková, University of Stirling
  • Book: The Dialogical Mind
  • Online publication: 05 August 2016
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753602.014
Available formats
×