Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (36)
- Article (2)
- Book (2)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (41)
Keywords
- Konversationsanalyse (17)
- Deutsch (14)
- Interaktion (14)
- Gesprochene Sprache (9)
- Interaktionsanalyse (5)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (4)
- Semantik (4)
- Multimodalität (3)
- Berufliche Integration (2)
- Diskursmarker (2)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (17)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (17)
- Postprint (7)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (41) (remove)
Publisher
Wie ein Event zum Event wird
(2000)
In diesem Beitrag werden Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer konversationsanalytischen Erforschung wortsemantischer Fragestellungen exploriert. Anhand der Verwendung des Ausdrucks „Freiheit“ in unterschiedlichen Phasen einer umweltpolitischen Diskussion wird gezeigt, wie Gesprächsteilnehmer durch metasemantische Aktivitäten die Bedeutung des Ausdrucks kontextsensitiv lokal jeweils neu und in konkurrierender Weise konstituieren. Aus der Fallanalyse werden Überlegungen zur Adäquatheit semantiktheoretischer Konzepte als Instrumente zur Rekonstruktion situierter Wortverwendung und zu möglichen Leistungen der Konversationsanalyse als Methodologie semantischer Untersuchungen entwickelt.
One major issue in the accomplishment of contrasts in conversation is lexical choice of items which carry the semantic Ioad of the two states of affair which are represented as being opposed to one another. These items or expressions are co-selected to be understood as being contrastively related to each other. In this paper, it is argued that the activity of contrasting itself provides them with a specific local opposite meaning which they would not obtain in other contexts. Practices of contrastingare thus seen as an example of conversational activities which creatively and systematically affect situated meanings. Basedon data from various genres, such as meetings, mediation sessions and conversations, the paper discusses two practices of contrasting, their sequential construction and their interpretative effects. It is concluded that the interpretative effects of conversational contrasting rest on the sequential deployment oflinguistic resources and on the cognitive procedures of frame-based interpretation and constructing a maximally contrastive interpretation for the co-selected expressions.
Using instances of conversations of among German adolescents, this paper aims at an empirical, conversation analytic reconstruction of interactional procedures by which participants accomplish locally relevant meanings of words. Object of the study is the evaluative adjective assi, which is a common item of German adolescents' slang. Evaluative adjectives are said to be either polysemous or underspecified in meaning. The paper shows how interactionalists accomplish local meanings of the item by using it in certain sequential environments (story prefaces, comments and conclusions) which are related to genres of moral entertainment (e.g. gossip, fictitious stories). Locally relevant features of word-meaning (such as affective meaning, lexical opposition, exclusion of semantic features) are specified in more detail by interactionalists as they use specialized practices (such as expressive enactments, contrasting, blocking implications) which are realized by specific linguistic means (such as paraverbal strategies, negation, disjunctive connectives).
In her overview, Margret Selting makes the case for the claim that dealing with authentic conversation necessarily lies at the heart of an interactionallinguistic approach to prosody (see Selting this volume, Section 3.3). However, collecting and transcribing corpora of authentic interaction is a time-consuming enterprise. This fact often severely restricts what the individual researcher is able to do in terms of analysis within the scope of his or her resources. Still, for dealing with many of the desiderata Margret Selting points out in Section 5 of her extensive overview, the use of larger corpora seems to be required. In this commenting paper, I want to argue that future progress in research on prosody in interaction will essentially rest on the availability and use of large public corpora. After reviewing arguments for and against the use of public corpora, I will discuss some upshots regarding corpus design and issues of transcription of public corpora.
Speakers’ dialogical orientation to the particular others they talk to is implemented by practices of recipient-design. One such practice is the use of negation as a means to constrain interpretations of speaker’s actions by the partner. The paper situates this use of negation within the larger context of other recipient-designed uses of negation which negate assumptions the speaker makes about what the addressee holds to be true (second-order assumptions) or what the addressee assumes the speaker holds to be true (third- order assumptions). The focus of the study is on the ways in which speakers use negation to disclaim interpretations of their turns which partners have displayed or may possibly arrive at. Special emphasis is given to the positionally sensitive uses of negation, which may occur before, after or inserted between the nucleus actions whose interpretation is constrained by the negation. Interactional motivations and rhetorical potentials of the practice are pointed out, partly depending on the position of the negation vis-à-vis the nucleus action. The analysis shows that the concept of ‘recipient design’ is in need of distinctions which have not been in focus in prior research.
This paper analyses paramedic emergency interaction as multimodal multiactivity. Based on a corpus of video-recordings of emergency drills performed by professional paramedics during advanced training, the focus is on paramedics’ participation in multiple joint projects which become simultaneously relevant. Simultaneity and fast succession of multiactivity does not only characterise work on the team level, but also the work profile of the individual paramedic. Participants have to coordinate their own participation in more than one joint project intrapersonally. In the data studied, three patterns of allocating multimodal resources stood out as routine ways of coordinating participation in two simultaneous projects intrapersonally:
1. Talk and hearing vs. manual action monitored by gaze,
2. Talk and hearing vs. gazing (and pointing),
3. Manual action vs. gaze (and talk and hearing).