Refine
Document Type
- Article (13)
- Part of a Book (10)
- Book (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (25)
Keywords
- Deutsch (16)
- Konversationsanalyse (12)
- Interaktion (9)
- Gesprochene Sprache (5)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (5)
- Epistemische Logik (3)
- German (3)
- Interaktionsanalyse (3)
- Multimodalität (3)
- conversation analysis (3)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (9)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (7)
- Postprint (4)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (14)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (6)
Publisher
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 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.
Jesus in der Alltagssprache
(2020)
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.
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).
Der vorliegende Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit ICH WEIß NICHT und der Frage danach, ob einige der Verwendungen als Diskursmarker bezeichnet werden können oder nicht. Es wird zunächst ein Überblick über die Kriterien gegeben, die in der interaktionalen Linguistik für die Diskursmarkerdefinition diskutiert wurden. Dabei wird versucht, definitorische Kriterien von empirischen Befunden abzugrenzen. Es folgt eine Analyse verschiedener Verwendungen von ICH WEIß NICHT. Ein Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf Verwendungen als epistemischer und pragmatischer Marker, die sowohl mit prospektiver Orientierung als auch mit retrospektiver Orientierung vorkommen. Abschließend wird der Unterschied zwischen definitorischen und empirischen Kriterien für die Diskursmarkerdefinition systematisiert. Auf dieser Basis argumentieren wir dafür, dass alle Verwendungen von ICH WEIß NICHT, die diskursfunktionale Eigenschaften haben und syntaktisch desintegriert sind, Diskursmarkerverwendungen sind. Einige davon sind prototypischer, während andere Fälle eher marginal sind, da sie einige Merkmale, die die meisten Diskursmarker kennzeichnen, nicht aufweisen.
Zur Einführung
(2017)