Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (581)
- Conference Proceeding (561)
- Article (453)
- Book (66)
- Working Paper (26)
- Doctoral Thesis (21)
- Other (18)
- Part of Periodical (12)
- Preprint (12)
- Contribution to a Periodical (6)
Language
- English (1765) (remove)
Keywords
- Korpus <Linguistik> (416)
- Deutsch (410)
- Computerlinguistik (161)
- Konversationsanalyse (138)
- Interaktion (116)
- Englisch (112)
- Annotation (97)
- Gesprochene Sprache (93)
- Automatische Sprachanalyse (75)
- Wörterbuch (73)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (961)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (248)
- Postprint (236)
- Ahead of Print (6)
- Preprint (5)
- Erstveröffentlichung (2)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (828)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (410)
- Peer-review (24)
- Qualifikationsarbeit (Dissertation, Habilitationsschrift) (18)
- Verlags-Lektorat (14)
- Peer-Revied (8)
- Review-Status-unbekannt (6)
- Abschlussarbeit (Bachelor, Master, Diplom, Magister) (Bachelor, Master, Diss.) (3)
- (Verlags-)Lektorat (2)
- Peer review (2)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (104)
- Benjamins (87)
- IDS-Verlag (81)
- Springer (63)
- European Language Resources Association (ELRA) (56)
- Association for Computational Linguistics (46)
- European Language Resources Association (42)
- Oxford University Press (35)
- Elsevier (33)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (33)
Our everyday lives in any social community are shaped by rules (e.g., Roughley 2019; Schmidt/Rakoczy 2019). Rules (in a broad sense) are interactionally negotiated, monitored, enforced, and serve as an ‘orientation value‘ in social life. If someone‘s behavior is treated as norm-violating or problematic in certain way, it may be therefore confronted. Confronting interlocutors can immediately stop, modify, or retrospectively reprimand the misconduct of others in a moralizing manner. Such confrontations of a problem behavior occur commonly in informal interactions. On the basis of our corpus, specifically in informal interactions at the table, I observed that, for example, in Polish, German and British English, direct confrontations occur on average at least once every three minutes. Participants design these actions in a variety of ways, but like everything in interaction, the design is not arbitrary (Sacks 1984; Enfield/Sidnell 2019). A recurrent feature of such turns is connecting misconduct to some more general concepts. It is evident from the data that e.g. speakers of German and Polish use ‘generally valid statements’ in problematic moments (cf. Küttner/Vatanen/Zinken 2022) to reach the closure of the problem sequence, also specifically dealing there with distribution of deontic and epistemic rights (Rogowska in prep.). I ask, when and for what purpose generality, that is, abstracting from a concrete behaviour, is used as a tool while confronting others. The focus is on sequential and linguistic features of abstracting in confronting moments in language comparison. What are the methods to achieve abstraction: i) defocusing the confronted, specific agent (cf. Zinken et al. 2021; Siewierska 2008), e.g. nur derjenige der dran ist der darf die bedingungen für den handel stellen (only the one whose turn it is may set the conditions for the trade); using ii) extreme case formulations (Pomerantz 1986), e.g. na siostrę zawsze można liczyć (you can always count on a sister); iii) referring to stable character traits, e.g. Matylda bardzo chetne by podala. (.) Ona jest taka skora do pomocy (Matylda would be very happy to pass (it to you). (.) She is so eager to help); or iv) broader categorizing of the given referent, e.g. do not build (.) do do not build do not build swastikas (when a) German guy is filming us? Sometimes, even several locus of abstraction are combined in the same turn. Can we identify language-specific and cross-linguistic patterns? What are the interactional consequences: enforcing a compliant behavior in the future, eliciting an apology or cognitively simplifying complex problems? From a comparative perspective, I ask whether going beyond the here-and-now while confronting others is a practice that unites speakers across languages and is thus a human cognitive strategy to display normativity. This ongoing study is based on new comparable data from four European languages from informal interaction during activities around the table (Kornfeld/Küttner/Zinken 2023; Küttner et al. in prep.). The phenomenon was coded systematically in each of the four languages as part of a larger, quantitatively oriented study with different questions (Küttner et al. submitted). In the talk, I will show exemplarily Polish and German evidence. I use the methods of Conversation Analysis (Sidnell/Stivers (eds.) 2012) and Interactional Linguistics (Imo/Lanwer 2019).
This is an introduction to a special issue of Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America. It offers a characterization of neology and describes the Globalex-sponsored workshop at which the papers in the issue originated. It provides an overview of the papers, which treat lexicographical neology and neological lexicography in Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Frisian, Greek, Korean, Spanish, and Swahili and address relevant aspects of lexicography in those languages, presenting state-of-the-art research into neology and ideas about modern lexicographic treatment of neologisms in various dictionary types.
In this chapter, we will investigate smartphone-based showing sequences in everyday social encounters, that is, moments in which a personal mobile device is used for presenting (audio-)visual content to co-present participants. Despite a growing interest in object-centred sequences and mundane technology use, detailed accounts of the sequential, multimodal, and material dimensions of showing sequences are lacking. Based on video data of social interactions in different languages and on the framework of multimodal interaction analysis, this chapter will explore the link between mobile device use and social practices. We will analyse how smartphone showers and their recipients coordinate the manipulation of a technological object with multiple courses of action, and reflect upon the fundamental complexity of this by-now routine joint activity.
This paper aims at contributing to the analysis of overlaps in turns-at-talk from both a sequential and a multimodal perspective. Overlaps have been studied within Conversation Analysis by focusing mainly on verbal and vocal resources; taking into account multimodal resources such as gesture, bodily posture, and gaze contributes to a better understanding of participants’ orientations to the sequential organization of overlapping talk and their management of speakership. First, we introduce the way in which overlaps have been studied in Conversation Analysis, mainly by Jefferson (1973, 1983, 2004) and Schegloff (2000); then we propose possible implications of their multimodal analysis. In order to demonstrate that speakers systematically orient to the overlap onset and resolution we analyze the multimodal conduct of overlapped speakers. Findings show methodical variations in trajectories of overlap resolution: speakers’ gestures in overlap display themselves as maintaining or withdrawing their turn, thereby exhibiting the speakership achieved and negotiated during overlap.
Im ’Minimalistischen Programm’ (Chomsky 1995) werden A-Bewegungen (’A- movements’, d.h. N-Hebung, V-Hebung usw.) und A’-Bewegungen (’A-bar- movements’, d.h. Extraposition, VP-Adjunktion, ’scrambling’ usw.) als sehr ungleichwertige Operationen behandelt. Der vorliegende Aufsatz untersucht die distinkten Eigenschaften von A-Bewegungen und A’-Bewegungen anhand von drei Gruppen von Argumenten, nämlich Topikalisierung (Abschnitt 2), Verschiebung schwacher Pronomina (Abschnitt 3) und Verb-Zweit unter der Symmetrie-Annahme (Abschnitt 4). Die Konklusionen daraus sind, daß die hier vertretene Analyse eine Möglichkeit bietet, A-Bewegungen und A’- Bewegungen zu unterscheiden, ohne letztere aus dem Zuständigkeitsbereich der Grammatik zu verbannen.
The research project “German Today” aims to determine the amount of regional variation in (near-)standard German spoken by young and older educated adults and to identify and locate regional features. To this end, we compile an areally extensive corpus of read and spontaneous German speech. Secondary school students and 50-to-60-year-old locals are recorded in 160 cities throughout the German speaking area of Europe. All participants read a number of short texts and a word list, name pictures, translate words and sentences from English, answer questions in a sociobiographic interview, and take part in a map task experiment. The resulting corpus comprises over 1000 hours of speech, which is transcribed orthographically. Automatically derived broad phonetic transcriptions, selective manual narrow phonetic transcriptions, and variationalist annotations are added. Focussing on phonetic variation we aim to show to what extent national or regional standards exist in spoken German. Furthermore, the linguistic variation due to different contextual styles (read vs. spontaneous speech) shall be analysed. Finally, the corpus enables us to investigate whether linguistic change has occurred in spoken (near-)standard German.
In their article 'Psycholinguistics without "psychological reality" ', Maria Black and Shulamit Chiat have argued the case for abandoning 'the notion of "psychological reality"' (1981: 37), pointing to 'the contradictions and non sequiturs found whenever psychological reality is mentioned'
(1981: 58, n. 9) in linguistic literature. Interestingly, the same issue of Linguistics provides us with a case in point. Roland A. Wolff (henceforth W) reports on a test intended to address the 'general question ... : To what extent does a formal grammar (a linguist's account, or model) correspond to a speaker's internalized grammar (competence)?' (1981: 3; if not otherwise indicated in the following, page references are to Wo1ff, 1981).