Refine
Year of publication
- 2011 (6) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Part of a Book (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Deutsch (3)
- Konversationsanalyse (3)
- Englisch (2)
- interaktionale Semanitik (2)
- Arzt-Patient-Interaktion (1)
- Bedeutung (1)
- Einführung (1)
- Fragen (1)
- Grammatik (1)
- Interaktion (1)
Publisher
- Springer (2)
- De Gruyter Mouton (1)
- Equinox Publ. (1)
- Stauffenburg (1)
- de Gryuter (1)
As an Introduction to the Special Issue on "Formulation, generalization,
and abstraction in interaction,’’ this paper discusses key problems of a conversation
analytic (CA) approach to semantics in interaction. Prior research in CA and
Interactional Linguistics has only rarely dealt with issues of linguistic meaning in
interaction. It is argued that this is a consequence of limitations of sequential
analysis to capture meaning in interaction. While sequential analysis remains the
encompassing methodological framework, it is suggested that it needs to be complemented
by analyzing semantic relationships between choices of formulation in
the interaction, ethnography, and structural techniques of comparing selected
options with possible alternatives. The paper describes the methodological approach
taken to interactional semantics by the papers in the Special Issue, which analyse
practices of generalization and abstraction in interaction as they are accomplished
by formulations of prior versions of reference and description.
Pragmatics and grammar
(2011)
This paper analyses one specific conversational practice of formulation
called ‘notionalization’. It consists in the transformation of a description by a prior
speaker into a categorization by the next speaker. Sequences of this kind are a
‘‘natural laboratory’’ for studying the differences between descriptions and categorizations
regarding their semantic, interactional, and rhetorical properties:
Descriptive/narrative versions are often vague and tentative, multi unit turns,
which are temporalized and episodic, offering a lot of contingent, situational,
and indexical detail.
Notionalizations turn them into condensed, abstract, timeless, and often
agentless categorizations expressed by a noun (phrase) within one turn
constructional unit (TCU).
Drawing on audio- and video-taped German data from various types of interaction,
the paper focuses on one particular practice of notionalization, the formulation
of purportedly common ground by TCUs prefaced with the connective also.
The paper discusses their turn-constructional and morphological properties, pointing
out affinities of notionalization with language for special purposes. Notionalizations
are used for reducing detail and for topical closure. They provide grounds for
emergent keywords, which can be reused to re-contextualize topical issues and
interactional histories efficiently. Notionalizations are powerful means for accomplishing
intersubjectivity while pursuing (sometimes one-sided) practical relevancies
at the same time. Their inevitably perspective design thus may lead to re-open
the issue they were deemed to settle. The paper closes with an outlook to other
practices of notionalization, pointing to dimensions of interactionally relevant
variation and commonalities.
Der Beitrag diskutiert vor dem Hintergrund allgemeiner Eigenschaften von gesprochener Sprache in Interaktionen, inwiefern die Konstruktionsgrammatik (KxG) aus Sicht der Interaktionalen Linguistik (IL) eine geeignete Basis für eine Grammatik der gesprochenen Sprache abgeben kann. Affinitäten und Perspektivenunterschiede zwischen KxG und IL sowie Potenziale und Grenzen ihrer Integration werden aufgezeigt. Am Beispiel einer Untersuchung von dann und also als Inferenzindikatoren wird das konstruktionsgrammatische Zeichenverständnis problematisiert, und es werden einige generelle Überlegungen zum Stellenwert von Grammatik im Kontext einer Theorie der verbalen Interaktion formuliert.
Based on German data from history-taking in doctor-patient interaction, the paper shows that the three basic syntactic types of questions (questions fronted by a question-word (w-questions), verb-first (V1) questions, and declarative questions) provide different opportunities for displaying understanding in medical interaction. Each syntactic questionformat is predominantly used in a different stage of topical sequences in history taking: w-questions presuppose less knowledge and are thus used to open up topical sequences; declarative questions are used to check already achieved understandings and to close topical sequences. Still, the expected scope of answers to yes/no-questions and to declarative questions is less restricted than previously thought. The paper focuses in detail on the doctors’ use of formulations as declarative questions, which are designed to make patients elaborate on already established topics, giving more details or accounting for a confirmation. Formulations often involve a shift to psychological aspects of the illness. Although patients confirm doctors’ empathetic formulations, they, however, regularly do not align with this shift, returning to the description of symptoms and to biomedical accounts instead. The study shows how displays of understanding are responded to not only in terms of correctness, but also (and more importantly) in terms of their relevance for further action.