Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Book (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (9)
Keywords
- Interaktion (9) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (4)
- Postprint (1)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (1)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (6)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (2)
Publisher
- Elsevier (3)
- Cambridge University Press (1)
- Erich Schmidt (1)
- Narr Francke Attempto (1)
- University of Maribor (1)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (1)
- Winter (1)
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).
Analepsen mit Topik-Drop sind hochfrequente sprachliche Strukturen in Interaktionen. In dieser Arbeit stehen neben der interaktionslinguistischen Untersuchung der Diskursfunktionen, Bedingungen und Restriktionen von Analepsen diskurssemantische Perspektiven und Fragestellungen im Mittelpunkt, insbesondere die detaillierte Beschreibung der semantischen Relationen zwischen Analepsen und ihrem Präkontext. Die Analepsenresolution muss dabei situiert erklärt werden, da das Verstehen von Analepsen von der kontextuellen Einbettung sowie von grammatischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Merkmalen der Äußerung abhängt.
Es wird gezeigt, dass kognitive Zuschreibungen hinsichtlich der Interaktionsbeteiligten auch mit interaktionslinguistischen Methoden möglich sind. Die Studie demonstriert außerdem, dass die Kombination von qualitativen und quantitativen Methoden erkenntnisträchtig ist, um spezifische Verwendungspräferenzen von analeptischen im Vergleich zu anaphorischen Äußerungen herauszuarbeiten.
Jesus in der Alltagssprache
(2020)
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.
Action ascription is an emergent process of mutual displays of understanding. Usually, the kind of action that is ascribed to a prior turn by a next action remains implicit. Sometimes, however, actions are overtly ascribed, for example, when speakers expose the use of strategies. This happens particularly in conflictual interaction, such as public debates or mediation talks. In these interactional settings, one of the speakers’ goals is to discredit their opponents in front of other participants or an overhearing audience. This chapter investigates different types of overt strategy ascriptions in a public mediation: exposing the opponent’s use of rhetorical devices, exposing the opponent’s use of false premises, and exposing that an opponent is telling only a half-truth. This chapter shows how speakers use ascriptions of acting strategically as accusations to disclose their opponents’ intentions and ‘truths’ that the opponents allegedly conceal and that are detrimental to their position.
Spontan kreierte Okkasionalismen sind rekurrenter Bestandteil verbaler Interaktionen. Vor dem Hintergrund, dass die Bedeutung von Okkasionalismen nicht konventionalisiert und damit potenziell unbekannt ist, untersucht der vorliegende Beitrag aus gesprächsanalytischer Perspektive die Frage, unter welchen Bedingungen die Bedeutung okkasioneller Ausdrücke in Folgeäußerungen selbstinitiiert oder fremdinitiiert erklärt wird und wann dies nicht der Fall ist. Es zeigt sich, dass die überwältigende Mehrheit der 1.068 analysierten Okkasionalismen aus verschiedenen Gründen kein Verstehensproblem darstellt. Wird die Bedeutung eines Okkasionalismus dennoch selbstinitiiert erklärt, dient dies oft anderen Zwecken als der Verstehenssicherung. Wird dagegen die Bedeutung eines nicht problemlos erschließbaren Okkasionalismus nicht unmittelbar selbstinitiiert erläutert, dient der ‚rätselhafte‘ Ausdruck als interaktive Ressource dazu, Rezipient/-innen neugierig zu machen, Nachfragen zu elizitieren und damit Folgeäußerungen zu lizenzieren.
We present a collection of (currently) about 5.500 commands directed to voice-controlled virtual assistants (VAs) by sixteen initial users of a VA system in their homes. The collection comprises recordings captured by the VA itself and with a conditional voice recorder (CVR) selectively capturing recordings including the VA-directed commands plus some surrounding context. Next to a description of the collection, we present initial findings on the patterns of use of the VA systems during the first weeks after installation, including usage timing, the development of usage frequency, distributions of sentence structures across commands, and (the development of) command success rates. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the applied collection-specific recording approach and describe potential research questions that can be investigated in the future, based on the collection, as well as the merit of combining quantitative corpus linguistic approaches with qualitative in-depth analyses of single cases.