Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (146)
- Article (127)
- Book (32)
- Other (8)
- Conference Proceeding (7)
- Part of Periodical (5)
- Working Paper (5)
- Review (4)
- Doctoral Thesis (3)
- Master's Thesis (1)
Keywords
- Interaktion (339) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (153)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (69)
- Postprint (34)
- Ahead of Print (2)
Reviewstate
Publisher
- de Gruyter (32)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (22)
- Narr (19)
- Benjamins (17)
- Taylor & Francis (17)
- Narr Francke Attempto (12)
- Winter (10)
- De Gruyter (9)
- Springer (9)
- Elsevier (8)
In their analysis of methods that participants use to manage the realization of practical courses of action, Kendrick and Drew (2016/this issue) focus on cases of assistance, where the need to be addressed is Self’s, and Other lends a helping hand. In our commentary, we point to other forms of cooperative engagement that are ubiquitously recruited in interaction. Imperative requests characteristically expect compliance on the grounds of Other’s already established commitment to a wider and shared course of actions. Established commitments can also provide the engine behind recruitment sequences that proceed nonverbally. And forms of cooperative engagement that are well glossed as assistance can nevertheless be demonstrably oriented to established commitments. In sum, we find commitment to shared courses of action to be an important element in the design and progression of certain recruitment sequences, where the involvement of Other is best defined as contribution. The commentary highlights the importance of interdependent orientations in the organization of cooperation. Data are in German, Italian, and Polish.
Sometimes in interaction, a speaker articulates an overt interpretation of prior talk. Such moments have been studied as involving the repair of a problem with the other’s talk or as formulating an understanding of the matter at hand. Stepping back from the established notions of formulations and repair, we examine the variety of actions speakers do with the practice of offering an interpretation, and the order within this domain. Results show half a dozen usage types of interpretations in mundane interaction. These form a largely continuous territory of action, with recognizably distinct usage types as well as cases falling between these (proto)typical uses. We locate order in the domain of interpretations using the method of semantic maps and show that, contrary to earlier assumptions in the literature, interpretations that formulate an understanding of the matter at hand are actually quite pervasive in ordinary talk. These findings contribute to research on action formation and advance our understanding of understanding in interaction. Data are video- and audio-recordings of mundane social interaction in the German language from a variety of settings.
We examine moments in social interaction in which a person formulates what another thinks or believes. Such formulations of belief constitute a practice with specifiable contexts and consequences. Belief formulations treat aspects of the other person's prior conduct as accountable on the basis that it provided a new angle on a topic, or otherwise made a surprising contribution within an ongoing course of actions. The practice of belief formulations subjectivizes the content that the other articulated and thereby topicalizes it, mobilizing commitment to that position, an account, or further elaboration. We describe how the practice can be put to work in different activity contexts: sometimes it is designed to undermine the other's position as a subjective 'mere belief', at other times it serves to mobilize further topic talk. Throughout, belief formulations show themselves to be a method by which we get to know ourselves and each other as mental agents.
Linguistic relativists have traditionally asked 'how language influences thought', but conversation analysts and anthropological linguists have moved the focus from thought to social action. We argue that 'social action' should in this context not become simply a new dependent variable, because the formulation 'does language influence action' suggests that social action would already be meaningfully constituted prior to its local (verbal and multi-modal) accomplishment. We draw on work by the gestalt psychologist Karl Duncker to show that close attention to action-in-a-situation helps us ground empirical work on cross-cultural diversity in an appreciation of the invariances that make culture-specific elements of practice meaningful.
This chapter describes the resources that speakers of Polish use when recruiting assistance and collaboration from others in everyday social interaction. The chapter draws on data from video recordings of informal conversation in Polish, and reports language-specific findings generated within a large-scale comparative project involving eight languages from five continents (see other chapters of this volume). The resources for recruitment described in this chapter include linguistic structures from across the levels of grammatical organization, as well as gestural and other visible and contextual resources of relevance to the interpretation of action in interaction. The presentation of categories of recruitment, and elements of recruitment sequences, follows the coding scheme used in the comparative project (see Chapter 2 of the volume). This chapter extends our knowledge of the structure and usage of Polish with detailed attention to the properties of sequential structure in conversational interaction. The chapter is a contribution to an emerging field of pragmatic typology.
This book analyses requests for action on the basis of natural video-recorded data of everyday interaction in British English and Polish families. Jorg Zinken describes in his analyses the features of interactional context that people across cultures might be sensitive to in designing a request, as well as aspects of cultural diversity.
Speakers’ linguistic experience is for the most part experience with language as used in conversational interaction. Though highly relevant for usage-based linguistics, the study of such data is as yet often left to other frameworks such as conversation analysis and interactional linguistics (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2001). On the basis of a case study of salient usage patterns of the two German motion verbs kommen and gehen in spontaneous conversation, the present paper argues for a methodological integration of quantitative corpus-linguistic methods with qualitative conversation analytic approaches to further the usage-based study of conversational interaction.
Pädiatrische Gespräche
(2015)
In der face-to-face Kommunikation wirken sprachbegleitende Merkmale i. S. der Verständnissicherung. Durch die räumlich-zeitliche Kopräsenz der Beteiligten ist es zudem leichter, einen „common ground" zu etablieren als in der computervermittelten Kommunikation, bei der die nonverbalen Ausdrucksmöglichkeiten entfallen. Offen ist dabei, inwieweit sich dieser Unterschied der Modalitäten auf die Kommunikation auswirkt. In einer Untersuchung der Interaktion innerhalb von Arbeitsgruppen aus vier Teilnehmern, die entweder face-to-face oder computervermittelt miteinander kommunizierten, wurden Unterschiede in der Frequenz spezieller Interaktionsformen und in der Art der Verdeutlichung der jeweiligen Standpunkte gefunden. Diese Ergebnisse werden vor dem Hintergrund theoretischer Annahmen zum Stellenwert der räumlich-zeitlichen Kopräsenz diskutiert.