During the latter part of the twentieth century, psychoanalysts of various stripes espoused the move from free association and neutrality to various forms of intersubjectivity and dialogue. This shift is studied from the vantage point of conversational rules in terms of the shift from monologue to dialogue, using the concepts of semantics, syntax, and pragmatics. Viewing the data of analysis in this manner offers a means of evaluating the contributions of both monologue and dialogue to our understanding of the conduct of an analysis and the kind of information that can be expected to emerge. Exclusive devotion to either stance, it is argued, renders less understanding than would emerge from a balanced use of both.