Thinkof it this way: This is also a good solution, especially if the button is absolutely positioned relatively to the dialog. We can conveniently make this happen by placing our close button as the first element of our dialog. If the close button lives in the flow of the dialog content, at the very end, it could be a problem if the dialog Ido not believe you can mix TV shows with natural dynamics in the dialog. If you do, it makes the dialog harder to hear and understand. How you choose to reduce the dialog dynamic range is up to you. It can be with the faders, clip level or compression. But restricting the dynamics is essential. Whendo you think the dialogue happen? In the afternoon In the evening In the morning In the morning DD D. Danti Master Teacher Jawaban terverifikasi Jawaban jawaban yang tepat adalah C atau D. Pembahasan Soal menanyakan kapan kiranya percapakan tersebut berlangsung. ForFallout 4: Game of the Year Edition on the PlayStation 4, a GameFAQs message board topic titled "Question/concern on quest mods. What will happen to player dialog choices??". Whatdo you think houses in the future will be like? How important is security? How do you make a house secure? Make a list of the 10 most important things you would look for when choosing a house to live in. Some people say houses are too much like boxes or cages. Do you agree or disagree? Vay Tiền Online Chuyển Khoản Ngay. By Last updated June 15, 2023 What does a typical conversation between two friends sound like in English? This may not be something you’ve covered in your English textbook or classes, but after all, it’s what every English learner aims to do Have a casual conversation in English! In this post, you’ll see and hear! six examples of a typical conversation between friends. By exposing yourself to these examples, you’ll feel more confident in your ability to engage in small talk, make plans and have personal conversations. Contents Greetings and Small Talk Conversation 1 Conversations Between Friends Conversation 2 Meeting Up with a Friend at a Restaurant Making Plans with Friends Conversation 1 Inviting a Friend for a Movie Conversation 2 Making Plans for a Get-together Having Personal Conversations with Friends Conversation 1 A Friend’s Advice Conversation 2 Talking About Opinions on a Book Download This blog post is available as a convenient and portable PDF that you can take anywhere. Click here to get a copy. Download Greetings and Small Talk Some people think of small talk unimportant, expected conversation as being shallow not honest or “real”. But it’s something that we do to make each other comfortable. For example, asking about someone’s job or how they’re doing is a way of showing that you care, and these questions can lead to more personal and interesting conversation. It’s true that close friends may not use small talk as much as people who don’t know each other well. But there are still times when using small talk with friends makes sense. For example, if you meet an old friend who you haven’t seen in a long time, or if you’re meeting with a friend who you just don’t see every day. Let’s look at a couple of conversations below to see what those situations might sound like. Conversation 1 Conversations Between Friends Here, we’re actually going to look at a video clip that contains two conversations. This clip can also be found on FluentU with interactive subtitles and a transcript with playable audio. With the FluentU language program, you can watch over 1,000 authentic videos like this one with personalized learning tools to improve your English in a fun and engaging way. You’ll find plenty of casual conversations to add to these six examples and get more familiar with what they sound like. Let’s read along to the conversations in the above video Sam Oh? Bob! Bob Hey Sam! Good to see you! Sam How’s it going? Bob Yeah, good. Working a lot. And you? Sam I went back to school. Bob Good for you! Mike and Jim Jim Mike? Mike Jim? Jim What have you been up to? Mike Working a lot. Jim That sounds hard. Mike How’s the family? Jim Everyone is good. Thanks! Now, let’s look at some useful phrases from the dialogues above. Useful Phrases “Good to see you!” This is a nice way to greet someone when you haven’t seen them in a while. “How’s it going?” This is a common greeting in English, like “How are you?” Don’t be surprised if you say this to someone and they don’t respond, or say “Yeah, how’s it going?” back. Bob replies to this question with “Yeah, good.” This might seem a little weird because Sam didn’t ask a yes or no question. But in this case, “yeah” doesn’t have any special meaning. It’s just a way to acknowledge Sam’s question and move on. “Good for you!” This is a nice way to congratulate a friend on their successes or accomplishments. Conversation 2 Meeting Up with a Friend at a Restaurant Small talk can happen with close friends who you see regularly and with friends you don’t see as often. Here’s an example of a conversation that could happen between two friends who know each other pretty well. Nathan Hey, Alicia? Alicia Oh hey, I didn’t see you there. Did you already get a table? Nathan Yeah, right over here. Alicia I’m glad we had time to meet up. Nathan Me too. So, what’s going on? Alicia Oh, not much. You? Nathan Not much. Hey, how did your interview go? Wasn’t that today? Alicia Oh, yeah. I think it went well. I don’t know if I got the job yet, but they said they would call in a few days. Nathan Well, I’m sure you did great. Good luck. Alicia Thanks. I’m just happy that it’s over. I was really nervous about it. Nathan I can understand that. I get nervous before interviews, too. Alicia Well, thanks for being supportive. I appreciate it. Nathan Sure, no problem. Useful Phrases “I’m glad we had time to meet up.” If you’re meeting a friend you don’t see every day, this is a nice way of saying that you appreciate them making an effort to see you. Other ways of saying this could be, “Thanks for making time to see me” or “We should do this more often.” “What’s going on?” Like with “How’s it going?” the other person might not always reply to this question. If they do, they’ll probably either actually tell you what’s going on, or just say, “Not much.” In the conversation above, Nathan and Alicia both say “not much” is going on with them, but then they end up talking about Alicia’s interview. This is pretty common. A person might sometimes even reply “not much,” and then immediately start talking about all the things that actually are going on. “I can understand that.” This is a good phrase to acknowledge a friend’s feelings or opinions. “Sure, no problem.” This is a casual way of saying “You’re welcome” when someone thanks you. Making Plans with Friends To see your friends in the first place, you have to make plans with them. Here are a couple of conversations that show how that could go. Conversation 1 Inviting a Friend for a Movie John Hello, Bob! Bob Hi, John! John Are you free this weekend? Bob I think so, why? John Want to see a movie? Bob Sure. John Great! Useful Phrases “Are you free this weekend?” This is a friendly, common way to open a conversation when you’re going to ask someone to do something with you. Conversation 2 Making Plans for a Get-together In the conversation above, Bob and John decide to see a movie together. But they don’t decide on what to see, or an exact time. Hopefully, they’ll talk about this later—otherwise, they won’t know what they’re doing! Below, we’ll look at a more detailed conversation about making plans. Trudy Hey, so I’m having a party at my place next weekend. Do you want to come? Ruth Sure! That sounds like fun. Who else is coming? Trudy Let’s see. I think it’s going to be Jerome, Talia, Anna, Juan, Celeste, Michelle and possibly Jamie. It’s not really going to be a party, more like a small get-together. I’m cooking dinner, and we can just hang out. Ruth What time should I be there? Trudy Oh, anytime between 6 and 7 would be fine. Ruth Can I bring anything? Trudy Oh, don’t worry about it. I have everything covered. Ruth Can I at least bring a bottle of wine? Trudy Well, I’m not going to say no to wine. I’m sure that would be appreciated. Ruth I’ll do that, then. Thanks for inviting me. Useful Phrases “That sounds like fun.” If someone invites you to an event, or just invites you to do something with them, this is a nice way to say “yes.” “Can I bring anything?” In the and some other English-speaking areas, this is a polite question to ask if someone invites you to a dinner, party or holiday event where there’s going to be food. It’s usually appropriate and sometimes even expected! to ask this question even if the person who invited you is a close friend or family member. Having Personal Conversations with Friends Once you’ve made plans and greeted your friends, all that’s left to do is just… well, be a friend. Friends go to each other for help, for advice and when they want to share their opinions and experiences. Conversations that are more personal are usually less structured and follow fewer rules. But there are still phrases that English speakers tend to use a lot in personal conversations, and there are still certain speech patterns we follow to show support for our friends. Let’s look at some examples. Conversation 1 A Friend’s Advice Makayla Hi, Gemma. You look terrible! Gemma Hey, Makayla. Mmm, I haven’t slept. Makayla Are you OK? What’s the matter? Gemma Well, you know that photo I sent to Clare on Friday night? Makayla Yeah? Gemma Well, she sent it to Justin. Makayla Oh no! How could she do that? It obviously was only for her. Gemma I know! I thought she’d find it funny. Makayla Well, it was quite funny. But you didn’t expect her to send it to anyone. Gemma No, of course not! Especially not Justin! Oh, it’s so embarrassing! Makayla Ah well, don’t worry. I know how you feel, though. Gemma And what if he puts it on Facebook or something? What if my mum sees it? Makayla No no, don’t worry. He won’t. It’s not that interesting for him or anyone else, to be honest. Gemma But what if he does? Makayla He won’t. But maybe ask Clare to speak to Justin… Get him to delete the photo? Gemma Yeah, maybe. But that might just make him even more interested. Makayla Yeah, true. Gemma What do you think I should do? Makayla Mmm… I’d just try to forget about it if I were you. Gemma But I’m so annoyed with Clare! Makayla Maybe speak to Clare, tell her how you feel. She shouldn’t be sharing people’s private photos. Gemma Okay, yeah. Thanks for the advice, Makayla. I’ll talk to her. Makayla Good idea. And don’t worry. Just be careful and don’t send any more embarrassing photos! Gemma Yeah, I know, I know. I won’t. Note The dialogue above is in British English. The only difference in how this conversation might go in American English is that Gemma would probably say “mom” instead of “mum.” Also, Americans tend to use “quite” less than British people. Useful Phrases “Are you okay?” / “What’s the matter?” The above two phrases are good for checking on your friends if it seems like something might be wrong. “What do you think I should do?” It isn’t always obvious when you’re looking for advice, in any language. If you want to know what a friend thinks you should do in a situation, just ask like this! “I know how you feel.” This is a good general phrase for showing sympathy, and it might not always be used literally. For example, we have no idea if Makayla really does know how Gemma feels. But what Makayla seems to be saying is that Gemma’s feelings still matter, even if the situation itself isn’t that bad. However, you may want to be careful of using this phrase if someone is telling you about a situation that you obviously can’t understand personally. In a case like that, it could seem rude and self-centered. Instead, you can say, “That sounds terrible.” Conversation 2 Talking About Opinions on a Book Friends can help you when you’re having problems. They’re also there to listen when you just want to talk about your feelings and opinions. Nina So I don’t know what you thought about the book, but I had a lot of mixed feelings about it. Sean Oh, really? Like what? Nina Well, I thought the main character’s situation was interesting, but his attitude toward women bothered me. Sean I can see that. It definitely seemed like he had some problems with women. Nina I would have liked to understand how that started. I mean, the book didn’t go into too much detail about why he felt that way. Sean I agree with that. I think the author could have handled that part better. I did enjoy the descriptions, though. Nina Oh yes, the writing was beautiful! That just made me more disappointed in the character. Sean Well, this is just my opinion, but maybe the character would have been easier to understand if the writing had been simpler. It seemed like the author spent a lot of time on the descriptions when he could have spent more time on the character’s thoughts. Nina I’m not sure if I agree with that. I just think that the writing could have been more thoughtful while still being beautiful, if that makes sense. Sean That does make sense. I think maybe the problem for me is just that not much actually happened. Nina You’re right about that. There wasn’t much of a story. Sean I still enjoyed parts of the book, though. Nina Oh, I did, too. And I appreciate hearing your point of view. Useful Phrases “I don’t know what you thought about…” This is a nice way to let someone know that you would be open to hearing their thoughts. “I can see that.” This is a good way to acknowledge someone’s thoughts, whether or not you agree with them. “I agree with that.” / “I’m not sure if I agree with that.” “I’m not sure if I agree with that” is nicer than “I don’t agree with you.” “…if that makes sense.” This is a common way that people end sentences when giving their opinions or explaining something. Often, this has the meaning of “Does that make sense?” or “Do you understand what I mean?” Good friendships are rewarding and worthwhile, no matter what language you speak. Hopefully, the above conversations between two friends have given you a better idea of how to communicate and connect with your English-speaking friends. Download This blog post is available as a convenient and portable PDF that you can take anywhere. Click here to get a copy. Download Source wollyvonwolleroy/Pixabay It has now been two years since my post “The Crisis of Meaning”—which introduced and drew upon the wisdom of psychiatrist Viktor E. Frankl, author of the classic book, Man’s Search for Meaning1—was published on this site. To be sure, the various symptoms of this crisis—among individuals, organizations, and societies—continue to persist, and humanity’s call for meaning can still be heard loud and clear. So what can we, individually and collectively, do to answer the call? Besides serving as a conceptual starting point, I propose that the process of authentic dialogue offers an antidote to this existential crisis. In this regard, the Ancient Greeks advanced what they referred to as a common education “to heal disunion and division of spirit,” and, importantly, viewed dialogue as a way to build a spiritual community not to be confused with church and religion. In turn, this kind of meaningful connection between citizens, especially between the governed and the governors, increased the likelihood of identifying and achieving aims that best served the common good. Now fast forward to today’s highly polarized world. I suspect that most readers would agree that humanity would benefit from a similar approach as that espoused and practiced by the Ancient Greeks, one that provided a “common education” and leveraged the process of authentic dialogue to heal the disunion and division of spirit that currently exists. These days we frequently hear people throwing out phrases like “Let’s dialogue,” “Let’s have an authentic conversation,” “Let’s have a convo,’” “Let’s talk,” etc., which may, intended or not, leave the impression that actual dialogue is going to take place. While this kind of invitation to engage with others is commendable and, to be sure, much needed in the contemporary era, even the very best of intentions is not enough to make it happen. We need to dig deeper in order to understand why the process of engaging in authentic dialogue is easier said than done, as well as uncover what this particular kind of meaningful engagement between people actually means and implies. Let’s begin to address this challenge by first seeking to understand the meaning of the word dialogue at its “root” level. The word actually comes from two Greek words—dia, meaning “through,” and logos, most frequently but only roughly translated in English as “the meaning.” Upon closer examination, the various translations of the word "logos," a common Greek word λγο, reveal that it has deep spiritual roots. In fact, the concept of logos can be found in most of the great works describing the history of Christianity, as well as throughout the literature on religion and Western philosophy. In this regard, one of the first references to logos as “spirit” came from the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, around 500 The logos of Heraclitus has been interpreted in various ways, as “logical,” as “meaning,” and as “reason," but, as the German philosopher Martin Heidegger pointed out, “What can logic ... do if we never begin to pay heed to the logos and follow its initial unfolding?” To Heraclitus, this “initial unfolding” viewed the logos as responsible for the harmonic order of the universe, as a cosmic law which declared that “One is All, and Everything is One.” The doctrine of the logos was the linchpin of the religious thinking by the Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, who, while not always consistent in his use of the term, clearly established it as belonging only to the “spiritual” realm. Indeed, Philo sometimes suggested that logos is the “highest idea of God that human beings can attain ... higher than a way of thinking, more precious than anything that is merely thought.” For Philo, the logos was Divine, it was the source of energy from which the human soul became manifest. Consistent with the logocentric character of Philo’s thought, “It is through the Logos and the Logos alone that man is capable of participating in the Divine.” Moreover, Philo’s confidence in the human mind rests on the self-assurance that the human intellect is ultimately related to the divine Logos, “being an imprint, or fragment or effulgence of that blessed nature, or ... being a portion of the divine ether.” To Philo, the origins of logos as “spirit” were clearly well-documented in the writings of the early Greek philosophers and the theologians of his era. This kind of interpretation of logos also received attention more recently in Karen Armstrong's bestseller, A History of God, in which she notes that St. John had made it clear that Jesus was the Logos and, moreover, that the Logos was God. Herein, however, lies the difficulty associated with engaging people in “authentic dialogue"—it cannot and will not happen if we are “prisoners of our thoughts.”2 In this connection, I learned a long time ago that you can never connect meaningfully with others if you believe that you have a monopoly on truth. A true dialogue will only occur if the participating stakeholders are willing to enter the spiritual realm of the logos and “converse,” if you will, on this deeper level. Cognitive, so-called “knowledge-based” interactions, which can be described as discussions or ordinary conversations, are not enough for authentic dialogue to occur. One must be open and willing to entertain a diversity of thought and discover a common ground by going to a higher ground It is time to return to the literal meaning of psychology—the study of the soul—and apply it to all aspects of life, work, and society. Interpreting logos in this way, that is, viewing it as a manifestation of spirit or soul, carries with it significant implications, both conceptual and Authentic dialogue, as a concept, takes on a new and deeper meaning when it is perceived as a group’s accessing a larger pool of common spirit through a distinctly spiritual connection between the members. This suggests more than just collective thinking, although dialogue certainly is a determinant of such a holistic process. Spirit flowing through and resonating among the participants in true dialogue leads to collective thinking, which, in turn, facilitates a common understanding, thereby resulting ideally in what we now refer to as collective learning. Authentic dialogue enables individuals to acknowledge that they each are part of a greater whole, that they naturally resonate with others within this whole, and that the whole is, indeed, greater than the sum of its various parts. As participants in such a holistic process, together they can produce greater results than they would just as individuals without this meaningful connection. References 1. Frankl, Viktor E. 1984. Man’s Search for Meaning, 3rd ed. New York, NY Simon and Schuster/Pocket Books. 3. It is interesting to note that Viktor Frankl shared this interpretation of the common Greek word logos, which he told me was the basis for calling his unique system of psychotherapy, “Logotherapy.” Moreover, in Dr. Frankl’s book, The Doctor and the Soul, he wrote the following “A psychotherapy which not only recognizes man’s spirit, but actually starts from it may be termed logotherapy. In this connection, logos is intended to signify the spiritual’ and, beyond that, the meaning.’” It should also not come as a surprise that one of the main techniques used in Frankl's System of Logotherapy is Socratic Dialogue. Language is the hallmark of humanity—it allows us to form deep relationships and complex societies. But we also use it when we’re all alone; it shapes even our silent relationships with ourselves. In his book, The Voices Within, Charles Fernyhough gives a historical overview of “inner speech”—the more scientific term for “talking to yourself in your head.”Fernyhough, a professor at Durham University in the says that inner speech develops alongside social speech. This idea was pioneered by Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist who studied children in the 1920s and noted that when they learned to talk to other humans, they also learned how to talk to themselves, first out loud, and eventually, in their speech, Fernyhough writes, isn’t bound by many of the conventions of verbal speech. For one, we can produce it much faster when we don’t have to go at the pace required to use tongues and lips and voice boxes. One researcher the book cites clocks inner speech at an average pace of 4,000 words per minute—10 times faster than verbal speech. And it’s often more condensed—we don’t have to use full sentences to talk to ourselves, because we know what we it does maintain many of the characteristics of dialogue. We may imagine an exchange with someone else, or we may just talk to ourselves. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a conversation. Our minds contain many different perspectives, and they can argue or confer or talk over each other.“We are all fragmented,” Fernyhough writes. “There is no unitary self. We are all in pieces, struggling to create the illusion of a coherent me’ from moment to moment.”I spoke with Fernyhough about how the fragments of ourselves communicate through inner speech, the difficulty in studying the phenomenon, and what it might teach us. A lightly edited and condensed transcript of our conversation is Beck In your view, is there a difference between “inner speech” and just thinking? Is inner speech a subcategory of thought or are they one and the same?Charles Fernyhough I think “thinking” is a tricky word. Thinking means a lot of different things and we’re not often very good at being clear what we mean by it. So I try to avoid it—quite a difficult term to avoid. But it’s kind of everything the mind does. A certain category of thinking that we call verbal thinking, and that's essentially inner speech, the stuff that we do in words. But I certainly think you can be intelligent and do lots of really clever stuff without language. Babies prove it every day; animals prove it every The obvious challenge to studying this is that the only thoughts you can really know with any certainty are your own. So what are the ways researchers have devised to get around that?Fernyhough It is a tricky thing to study, and when I was starting out there wasn’t much research on it. There were some studies done in the Soviet Union in the ’20s and ’30s, but there wasn’t much going on in the West, for some very good reasons. It’s impossible to see into someone’s mind, you can't read their thoughts, you’ve got to get them to report on their thoughts. That's tricky because the very act of observing the process could change the a long time, people were saying you just can't turn the focus on consciousness in this way because it’s so open to distortion. And that started to change, I'd say, in the last 20 years or so. People are studying consciousness as a scientific topic of inquiry. And they're getting better techniques for studying things like inner can look at individual differences between people and how much they seem to use inner speech and how that relates to their cognitive profile. We can look to see if you block the language system through giving people a secondary task like repeating a word over and over, does that affect the primary thing that you're interested in? You can ask people, you can give them questionnaires, you can use different methods of experience sampling, and with new techniques, you can start to look at what’s going on in the brain when people seem to be doing inner Obviously there's going to be a wide variety of what people report their inner speech looks like and acts like, but have you been able to determine any overarching, seemingly universal qualities to people’s inner speech?Fernyhough We’ve started to realize that inner speech isn’t just one thing. I think it was assumed that inner speech was just this kind of monologue, the output of a solitary voice chattering away in your head. And we now think there are a few main kinds of inner speech. Inner speech varies according to how compressed it is, how condensed. We think inner speech varies according to how much it’s like a conversation between different points of view. We’re starting to tease apart these different qualities. And that fits with the idea that inner speech has a lot of different functions. It has a role in motivation, it has a role in emotional expression, it probably has a role in understanding our selves as Let’s talk a little bit more about what the different purposes or uses of it are. I know one common example is in sports, people talk to themselves to improve their performance. But what are some other reasons why we might do this?Fernyhough If you buy into the theory of Vygotsky, inner speech is there because it’s a sort of internalized version of what we used to do out loud. As young children, we engaged in social dialogues, we talked to other people, and we went through a stage known as private speech, where we talk to ourselves out loud. Then that becomes completely internalized, it’s all going on silently in the head. For Vygotsky, that self-directed language had all sorts of different functions, so a key one was planning out what you’re going to do. If you watch a small child playing with her toys, you'll probably see her talking to herself. She’s sometimes talking about irrelevant stuff, but often she's saying "I’m going to build a train track” or “I'm going to build a house,” or “This house is going to look like my aunty's house," or whatever. There's a commentary, which is apparently helping her to think through what she's doing, and plan what she's going to we use inner speech to reflect on the past as well. It has functions in imagination, in creating alternative realities. And it has these roles in motivation, very commonly as you see in sports. Where people will psych themselves up, but also tell themselves off. They'll use private speech to give themselves a ticking off after they've done something dumb. And I think we all do that, it's just sort of accentuated in So I talk to myself all the time, out loud. As well as in my head. You mentioned that Vygotsky's theory is that all these things we used to do as kids, talking to ourselves out loud, moves inside the mind. And for me, I'm still wandering around my room muttering like “OK, where are my keys, here they are, got my phone, got my wallet blah blah blah…” Is that a similar process, do you think? Whether it's out loud or in your head?Fernyhough I don’t see any reason to think it’s something different. I think it’s the same private speech we used to do a lot when we were kids. As adults, in particular situations, we find it really useful to say it out loud rather than just in our heads. The words are out there, echoing through the air for a split second. They’re a little bit more tangible, you can have a memory trace of what you just said. So it sticks in your head a bit like to hazard a guess that when you talk to yourself out loud, things are just a little bit more difficult or challenging or stressful than usual. I think we particularly start to say things out loud when the going gets tough. That certainly fits with how private speech works with children, children will talk to themselves more when things are more very fact that adults do talk to themselves does suggest we need to rethink that bit of Vygotsky's theory. Although the inner speech in our heads comes from that social language initially, and then this out loud private speech, when it goes underground, it can come back out again. It doesn't go underground permanently. It's not a one-way street. I would say most people talk to themselves, but there's still a sort of social embarrassment about doing quite nice to speculate about why we do this from an evolutionary point of view. When we acquired language and when we started to use language in out-loud private speech, we'd have learned pretty quickly that it’s not a good idea to talk to yourself out loud when you're in a difficult dangerous situation. We wouldn’t have lasted very long with that saber-toothed tiger if we were muttering away to ourselves in the bushes. And then there's a sort of social and cultural pressure as well. If you're going around saying what you think, your competitors, your rivals, the other people around you will know what you’re thinking and then it’s hard to fulfill your plans. So there are some good reasons for doing it Of course, most of the situations we're doing it in now are not that extreme. It's funny, I always find I talk to myself out loud most at the grocery store. Just something about the grocery store stresses me out, all the people looking at you while you're trying to buy your Although this is solitary speech, it's speech for the self, it seems to be stimulated by the presence of other people. Children do it more when there are other kids around. And I think that might apply to adults as well—if you're in a context where everybody else is muttering to themselves, [you might, too]. I do it in the supermarket because I'm trying to remember the last things on the Or you can't find something, it's supposed to be over here but it's There's a neat study that shows that kind of self-talk actually helps you do exactly that—pick items from a supermarket array. That’s one of the benefits that's been proven for You mention that part of Vygotsky's theory is that as we're learning social speech, we're also learning internal speech. Walk me through How does the development of spoken language correspond with the development of inner speech?Fernyhough So Vygotsky thought that two things come together in early childhood. You have some basic intelligence, which any one-year-old baby is showing. They're able to do all sorts of things, initiate actions, work stuff out, remember stuff. But that's intelligence before language—it’s prelinguistic intelligence. And then you’ve got this thing that comes along which is language. It's quite phenomenal how quickly most kids acquire language. The idea is not that you need language for thinking but that when language comes along, it sure is useful. It changes the way you think, it allows you to operate in different ways because you can use the words as tools. Somewhere around age 2, language comes together with intelligence and bang! Something really special is created. And the thing that is created might well be unique in the don’t have to have the kind of language that we’re speaking now, you can have a sign language, you can have any kind of language. Lots of people say, “Well how do people who are deaf think?” And I say, “Well, they use their language.” There's lots of evidence that there's people who have a kind of inner sign conversation going on. They use sign to regulate their thinking just like we use spoken fascinating because people who become deaf have differing amounts of exposure to language. Some people are born completely deaf, some people are born with a bit of hearing and get exposed to a bit of language, some people go deaf in early childhood, and so on. So you tend to get a bit of a mix. Some people, depending a bit on their language experience will say they have a more acoustic inner speech that’s probably like your and my inner speech, but others will say it’s much more sign-y, it's much more of a visual thing going You think of inner speech in terms of a dialogue. If it's between the self and the self, how does that splitting of the self work out internally? Is it like the old Freudian superego telling the id, “Don’t eat that donut?”Fernyhough That can be part of it. The key thing is that the self is multiple, that we have different parts to the self. Whether you want to fit that into a Freudian frame or not, that can be useful, but it’s not really the way I take it. The most important thing is that there's this basic structure of a dialogue where somebody’s speaking and somebody’s listening. It can be you as a listener but it can also be another person. I can have an inner dialogue with my mum, for example. A few people have told me over the years that they have inner dialogues with people who aren’t here anymore. It can be a dead person, it can be an imaginary person, it can be God. In the book I tried to use this as a way of rethinking the idea of spiritual meditation and of prayer. The idea of having a conversation with another being. To me, it’s all made possible by that dialogic structure that's created because of the way we develop as children. Because we internalize social dialogues, we bring in that dialogic structure and it's right there at the heart of our People are not very good generally at reporting the specifics of what’s going on in their minds, right?Fernyhough When we use descriptive experience sampling [in which people are asked to report on their own inner speech] , we assume that a lot of what people say when they are asked about their experience is kind of generalizations about what they think is in their own minds rather than what is actually in their own minds. And that's why people can be surprised by DES. People can think their thoughts are a bit negative but they turn out to be quite joyful, or vice versa. And that is a really fascinating philosophical question, because it suggests we can be mistaken about our own experience. And if we can be wrong about what goes on in our heads, then that's pretty So people might have fundamental assumptions about their personality or their thought patterns and then find out they're not true?Fernyhough Yeah, exactly, and it even could apply to certain aspects of mental health. Russ Hurlburt, [who created DES], has an example of somebody with OCD in one of his papers, where he talks about this character who complained of having constant intrusive obsessive thoughts, but when he did DES, he found there wasn't nearly so much of He was just noticing those ones more perhaps?Fernyhough Yes. So I think what is happening is we make a lot of self-generalizations about our experience, we have a kind of self-theoretical approach to our experience that doesn't always match up with what's actually there when you try and capture it moment by So how does that apply to trying to understand what happens to people who hear voices or have auditory hallucinations?Recommended ReadingFernyhough The basic story is quite a simple one. Hearing voices is a frequently very distressing experience. It's usually associated with severe mental illness, with a lot of different psychiatric diagnoses. It’s not particularly specific to schizophrenia. And it also happens to a lot of people who don’t have mental illness. A lot of regular people will have relatively fleeting or one-off experiences of hearing a voice at some point in their can be very very distressing. It can also be rather neutral and it can even be positive, uplifting, and guiding in certain cases. The idea is that when somebody hears a voice, what's happening is that they’re actually producing some inner speech but for some reason they don’t recognize that speech as having been produced by themselves. It’s experienced as something that doesn’t belong to the self, that comes from also a lot of problems with that idea. Many people who hear voices reject the idea that it’s just their inner speech. They can be quite distressed by the idea that what they’re hearing is just themselves speaking, often because what is said is so unpleasant. And also other factors must be involved, memory seems to play a huge part in this. Hearing voices is strongly associated with traumatic events. Somehow those traumatic events seem to be breaking back in to consciousness in a transformed way. So any account of hearing voices has to bring memory into it in some way. We propose that there may be different kinds of hearing voices, I think it’s likely that it’s not just one You write, “Another area in which inner speech might turn out to be important is in our reasoning about right and wrong.”—I know there hasn’t been any research on that yet really, but I’d like to hear what you think. How might the way we talk to ourselves, or the way we interrogate our own beliefs in our minds affect our moral judgments? Is this how we can change our own minds?Fernyhough I would say I talk to myself when I’m grappling with a dilemma. Not solely, but I do a fair bit of it when I’ve got a problem to solve that may be a moral problem. It makes sense to me that something that is a useful tool for cognition would be useful when we come to reason about moral issues. Of course a lot about morality is instant and emotional and not really thought through. But it wouldn't surprise me if, for a particular kind of moral thinking if we turned out to use language quite a an element of all this, which is about gut instincts. I do tend to trust my gut instincts a lot of the time, because I feel I'm doing some processing, I'm doing some intellectual work, but it may not be conscious, it may not be anything I could put into words. But I’m sure there are some other parts where thinking it through, talking it through [internally is helpful.] Just like talking a problem through with a friend works partly because we’re able to put it into words, and have that dialogue and have that to and fro of perspective—that can be amazingly useful. Even just saying the thing out loud can be incredibly helpful.

when do you think the dialog happen