ON LYRA ’ S “ ON ABBREVIATION ; DIALOGUE IN EARLY LIFE ” Chris Sinha

Lyra presents a methodologically sophisticated analysis of the ontogenetic course of microgenetic processes in infant-caretaker interaction. The article raises important issues concerning the relationship between microgenesis and ontogenesis. Lyra’s argument that the microgenetic phase of abbreviated dialogue constitutes a seed of, or precursor to, the semiotic function is convincing. I question, however, both Lyra’s extension of this to an assumption that symbolic dialogicality is thereby already established, and her interpretation of the common ground of co-participation in terms of shared knowledge. I conclude by noting that developmental analyses such as Lyra’s have an important role to play in the conceptual clarification of dialogic theory. Maria Lyra (2007, this issue) addresses a fundamental and complex developmental problem: the ontogenetic and systemic roots of the nexus binding symbolization, dialogicality and subjectivity. The theoretical and methodological difficulty for researchers lies in the mutuality and interdependence, not only of the conceptual categories of symbolization, dialogicality and selfhood, but also of the developmental processes that construct these categories as competences and attributes of persons. Lyra herself points this out, by noting that the synthetic notion of the “dialogical self” implies a space of shared symbolic resources and a symbolic capacity. Yet, she maintains, infants already inhabit a shared dialogical space considerably before symbolization and language, even while the latter is as much a condition for, as a consequence of, selfhood as understood by classical thinkers such as George Herbert Mead. Maria Lyra (2007, this issue) addresses a fundamental and complex developmental problem: the ontogenetic and systemic roots of the nexus binding symbolization, dialogicality and subjectivity. The theoretical and methodological difficulty for researchers lies in the mutuality and interdependence, not only of the conceptual categories of symbolization, dialogicality and selfhood, but also of the developmental processes that construct these categories as competences and attributes AUTHOR NOTE. Please address correspondence for this article to the author at the University of Portsmouth, Department of Psychology, King Henry Building, King Henry I Street, Porstmouth PO1 2DY, United Kingdom. Email: [email protected]