Refine
Document Type
- Article (11)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (14)
Keywords
- Konversationsanalyse (10)
- Deutsch (8)
- Interaktion (6)
- German (3)
- Gesprochene Sprache (3)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (3)
- Multimodalität (3)
- Abfragesprache (2)
- Epistemics (2)
- Epistemische Logik (2)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (6)
- Postprint (4)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (4)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (14) (remove)
Publisher
The paper deals with the use of ICH WEIß NICHT (‘I don’t know’) in German talk-in-interaction. Pursuing an Interactional Linguistics approach, we identify different interactional uses of ICH WEIß NICHT and discuss their relationship to variation in argument structure (SV (O), (O)VS, V-only). After ICH WEIß NICHT with full complementation, speakers emphasize their lack of knowledge or display reluctance to answer. In contrast, after variants without an object complement, in contrast, speakers display uncertainty about the truth of the following proposition or about its sufficiency as an answer. Thus, while uses with both subject and object tend to close a sequence or display lack of knowledge, responses without an object, in contrast, function as a prepositioned epistemic hedge or a pragmatic marker framing the following TCU. When ICH WEIß NICHT is used in response to a statement, it indexes disagreement (independently from all complementation patterns).
Our paper deals with the use of ICH WEIß NICHT (‘I don’t know’) in German talk-in-interaction. Pursuing an Interactional Linguistics approach, we identify different interactional uses of ICH WEIß NICHT and discuss their relationship to variation in argument structure (SV (O), (O)VS, V-only). After ICH WEIß NICHT with full complementation, speakers emphasize their lack of knowledge or display reluctance to answer. In contrast, after variants without an object complement, in contrast, speakers display uncertainty about the truth of the following proposition or about its sufficiency as an answer. Thus, while uses with both subject and object tend to close a sequence or display lack of knowledge, responses without an object, in contrast, function as a prepositioned epistemic hedge or a pragmatic marker framing the following TCU. When ICH WEIß NICHT is used in response to a statement, it indexes disagreement (independently from all complementation patterns).
Analepses with topic-drop are frequent structures in German interaction. While hitherto the focus on analepses was a rather syntactic one, this paper deals with analeptic structures from a semantic perspective. It particularly concentrates on the semantic relations between the referents of the analepses and the prior interactional context. This analysis shows that even for rather simple analepses which just omit a constituent from the prior utterance, conceptual processes are more decisive for its interpretation than syntactic features of the antecedent constituents. This is even more the case for complex analepses that are only indirectly linked to the prior context, and for the interpretation of which hearers need to draw inferences. The paper argues that theoretical approaches like Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics can profit from adopting a semantic and conceptual perspective for the interpretation of interactional structures.
The recognizability of a stretch of conduct as social action depends on details of turn construction as well as the turn’s context. We examine details of turn construction as they enter into actions offering interpretations of prior talk. Such actions either initiate repair or formulate a conclusion from prior talk. We focus on how interpretation markers (das heißt [“that means”] vs. du meinst [“you mean”]) and interpretation formats (phrasal vs. clausal turn completions) each make their invariant contribution to specific interpreting practices. Interpretation marker and turn format go hand in hand, which leads to distinct patterns of interpreting practices: Das heißt+clause is especially apt for formulations, du meinst+phrase for repair. The results suggest that details of turn construction can systematically enter into the constitution of social action. Data are in German with English translation.
How Do Speakers Define the Meaning of Expressions? The Case of German x heißt y (“x means y”)
(2020)
To secure mutual understanding in interaction, speakers sometimes explain or negotiate expressions. Adopting a conversation analytic and interaction linguistic approach, I examine how participants explain which kinds of expressions in different sequential environments, using the format x heißt y (“x means y”). When speakers use it to clarify technical terms or foreign words that are unfamiliar to co-participants, they often provide a situationally anchored definition that however is rather context-free and therefore transferable to future situations. When they explain common (but indexical, ambiguous, polysemous, or problematic) expressions instead, speakers always design their explanation strongly connected to the local context, building on situational circumstances. I argue that x heißt y definitions in interaction do not meet the requirements of scientific or philosophical definitions but that this is irrelevant for the situational exigencies speakers face.
This study investigates how driving school instructors adapt their instructions to constraints and affordances of different activity types. Adopting a Conversation Analytic approach and building on a comparative corpus of theoretical and practical driving lessons in German, it compares sequences of instructions of the execution of the “shoulder check” (i.e., checking the blind spot) in stationary theoretical versus mobile practical driving lessons. In theoretical lessons, the instructor uses vivid and humorous embodied instructions. In practical driving lessons, the instructor orients to the complex multi‐activity and delivers instructions in a succinct manner, considering the students’ previous knowledge and the embeddedness into the global tasks. The paper shows how instructional practices are sensitive to contextual contingencies which they reflect and treat by their situated design.
Der Beitrag widmet sich der Ausgestaltung von Instruktionen und Aufforderungen zum rückwärts Einparken im theoretischen und praktischen Fahrschulunterricht in Abhängigkeit von den Eigenschaften der jeweiligen Unterrichtssituation. Verglichen werden dazu Instruktionssequenzen aus drei Vermittlungstypen: 1. die Instruktion anhand einer software-gestützten Einparksimulation im Theorie-Unterricht, 2. die Instruktion anhand einer Modellautodemonstration im Fahrschulauto, und 3. der direkt angeschlossene erste praktische Übungsvorgang. Eine Untersuchung der grammatischen Ausgestaltung der Instruktionen und der verkörperten Handlungen zeigt eine besondere Funktion der Modellautodemonstration: Dieser Vermittlungstyp vereint Aspekte sowohl der Unterrichtssituation im Fahrschulraum als auch im fahrenden Auto. Die Orientierungspunkte am Modell werden mit denen des 'realen' Autos und seiner Umgebung verbunden. Dabei offenbart sich in den Instruktionen und Aufforderungen ein Kontinuum von Theorie und Praxis, dessen Ausprägungen maßgeblich von der (Ent-)Kopplung bezüglich der Anwendungssituation und der (Nicht-)Mobilität des Autos abhängen. Die Untersuchung zeigt, wie grammatische und multimodale Formen an ihren lokalen und situativen Kontext angepasst und interpretiert werden.
Our paper examines how bodily behavior contributes to the local meaning of OKAY. We explore the interplay between OKAY as response to informings and narratives and accompanying multimodal resources in German multi-party interaction. Based on informal and institutional conversations, we describe three different uses of OKAY with falling intonation and the recurrent multimodal patterns that are associated with them and that can be characterized as ‘multimodal gestalts’. We show that: 1. OKAY as a claim to sufficient understanding is typically accompanied by upward nodding; 2. OKAY after change-of-state tokens exhibits a recurrent pattern of up- and downward nodding with distinctive timing; and 3. OKAY closing larger activities is associated with gaze-aversion from the prior speaker.
This study deals with interpretation practices that speakers employ in order to (re)formulate what another person has said or implied. Analyzing interpretations in a public televised mediation that resembles a public debate, I show which kinds of interpretation practices that speakers adopt and how they differ depending the participants' roles. Systematically comparing all interpretations of the mediator vs. the opposing participants’, I argue that interpretations can be described as general practices with specific interactional effects, but that they are designed and exploited in different ways (i.e., for clarification and discourse-organization vs. self- and other-positioning and constructing arguments). I point out that speakers use meta-pragmatic accounts that support the interactional effects of their interpretations.