Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Keywords
- conversation analysis (3) (remove)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (2)
Publisher
- Elsevier (1)
- Erich Schmidt (1)
- de Gruyter (1)
The paper studies how the German connectives "also" and "dann" are used as displays of understanding in talk-in-interaction. It is shown that the use of also at turn-beginnings in pre-front-field position is a routine practice to explicate implicit meanings of the prior turn of the partner, which is presented for confirmation. Also thus indexes that explicated meanings are taken to be intersubjective, i.e. part of the interlocutors’ common ground. Turn-initial dann(in front-field position), in contrast, is routinely used to (a) index the formulation of a unilateral inference from the partner’s prior turn which is not claimed to have already been communicated by the partner, and is (b) used to preface different kinds of next actions which are framed as being a consequence from the preceding action of the partner. Drawing on data from four genres of talkin- interaction (conversation, psychotherapy, doctor-patient interaction, broadcasted talk shows), the paper discusses how functions of also and dann are related to their positions concerning turn-construction and topological fields, prosodic design, collocations, sequential structures and participation frameworks of the interaction.
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.
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.