Vantaggi dell'abbonamento Vantaggi dell'abbonamento
  • Accedi ad un universo di contenuti audio, senza limiti d'ascolto.
  • Ascolta dove vuoi, quando vuoi, anche offline.
  • Dopo i primi 30 giorni gratis l’iscrizione si rinnova automaticamente a EUR 9,99 al mese.
  • Cancella la tua iscrizione in ogni momento.

Sintesi dell'editore

Inner speech, also known as self-talk, is distinct from ordinary language. It has several functions and structures, from everyday thinking and self-regulation to stream of consciousness and daydreaming. Inner Speech and the Dialogical Self provides a comprehensive analysis of this internal conversation that people have with themselves to think about problems, clarify goals and guide their way through life.

Norbert Wiley shrewdly emphasizes the semiotic and dialogical features of the inner speech, rather than the biological and neurological issues. He also examines people who lack control of their inner speech - such as some autistics and many emotionally disturbed people who use trial and error rather than self-control - to show the power and effectiveness of inner speech.

Inner Speech and the Dialogical Self takes a humanistic social theorist approach to its topic. Wiley acknowledges the contributions of inner speech theorists, Lev Vygotsky and Mikhail Bakhtin, and addresses the classical pragmatism of Charles Sanders Peirce, John Dewey, William James and George Herbert Mead to show the range and depth of this largely unexplored field.

The book is published by Temple University Press.

©2016 Temple University of The Commonwealth System of Higher Education (P)2017 Redwood Audiobooks

Cosa ne pensano gli iscritti

Non ci sono recensioni disponibili
Ordina per:
  • Totali
    2 out of 5 stars
  • Interpretazione
    4 out of 5 stars
  • Storia
    2 out of 5 stars
  • Robin Debreuil
  • 01 05 2018

Very little actual substance

It felt like a cable news round table of journalists getting opinions from other journalists with no presentation of actual information. Lots quoting people who once made claims, but basically no evidence or even thought experiments to hang ideas on. And to be honest most ideas were either lame or obvious, very ‘academic pissing match’ level of reasoning.

Maybe it’s how science used to work, but at this point it feels like rambling drunks talking philosophy at what you thought would be a fun party.

3 su 3 utenti hanno ritenuto utile questa recensione