Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (16)
- Article (7)
Language
- English (23) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (23)
Keywords
- Interaktion (23) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (23) (remove)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (15)
- Peer-Review (8)
Publisher
- Benjamins (7)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (4)
- Cambridge University Press (2)
- De Gruyter Mouton (1)
- Elsevier (1)
- Metzler (1)
- Palgrave Macmillan (1)
- Routledge (1)
- Springer (1)
- Waxmann (1)
Meaning in interaction
(2024)
This editorial to the Special Issue on “Meaning in Interaction” introduces to the approach of Interactional Semantics, which has been developed over the last years within the framework of Interactional Linguistics. It discusses how “meaning” is understood and approached in this framework and lays out that Interactional Semantics is interested in how participants clarify and negotiate the meanings of the expressions that they are using in social interaction. Commonalities and differences of this approach with other approaches to meaning are flagged, and the intellectual origins and precursors of Interactional Semantics are introduced. The contributions to the Special Issue are located in the larger field of research.
The idea of this article is to take the immaterial and somehow ethereal nature of aesthetic concepts seriously by asking how aesthetic concepts are negotiated and thus formed in communication. My examples come from theatrical production where aesthetic decisions naturally play a major role. In the given case, an aesthetic concept is introduced with which only the director, but none of the actors is familiar in the beginning of the rehearsals. The concept, Wabi Sabi, comes from Japanese culture. As the whole rehearsal process was video recorded, it is possible to track the process of how the concept is negotiated and acquired over time. So, instead of defining criteria what Wabi Sabi as an aesthetic concept “consists of,” this article seeks to show how the concept is introduced, explained and “used” within a practical context, in this case a theater rehearsal. In contrast to conventional models of aesthetic experience, I am interested in the ways in which an aesthetic concept is configured in and through socially organized interaction, and — vice versa — how that interaction contributes to the situational accomplishment of the same concept. In short: I am interested in the “doing” of aesthetic concepts, especially in “doing Wabi Sabi.”
The ubiquity of smartphones has been recognised within conversation analysis as having an impact on conversational structures and on the participants’ interactional involvement. However, most of the previous studies have relied exclusively on video recordings of overall encounters and have not systematically considered what is taking place on the device. Due to the personal nature of smartphones and their small displays, onscreen activities are of limited visibility and are thus potentially opaque for both the co-present participants (“participant opacity”) and the researchers (“analytical opacity”). While opacity can be an inherent feature of smartphones in general, analytical opacity might not be desirable for research purposes. This chapter discusses how a recording set-up consisting of static cameras, wearable cameras and dynamic screen captures allowed us to address the analytical opacity of mobile devices. Excerpts from multi-source video data of everyday encounters will illustrate how the combination of multiple perspectives can increase the visibility of interactional phenomena, reveal new analytical objects and improve analytical granularity. More specifically, these examples will emphasise the analytical advantages and challenges of a combined recording set-up with regard to smartphone use as multiactivity, the role of the affordances of the mobile device, and the prototypicality and “naturalness” of the recorded practices.
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.
The first International Summer Institute for Interactional Linguistics (henceforth ISIIL) took place from July 18 to 23 at the Leibniz-Institute for the German Language (IDS) in Mannheim, Germany. The local organizers, Arnulf Deppermann and Alexandra Gubina, collaborated with five other facilitators in preparing this Summer Institute: Emma Betz (University of Waterloo), Elwys De Stefani (University of Heidelberg & KU Leuven), Barbara A. Fox (University of Colorado), Chase Raymond (University of Colorado) and Jörg Zinken (Leibniz-Institute for the German Language, Mannheim). The goal of ISIIL was to bring together both early-career researchers and established scholars from the fields of Conversation Analysis (CA) and Interactional Linguistics (IL) in order to foster the development of new skills for doing research using IL. The participants and organizers had diverse backgrounds, both in terms of their research interests (e.g., classroom interaction, second language acquisition, cross-linguistic comparison, particles, grammar-in-interaction) and institutional affiliations, with many participants from institutions from around Europe (i.e., Belgium, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland) as well as overseas (Canada, U.S.A., South Africa). Because of the compact nature of the Institute, the advanced topics covered, as well as the original research projects the participants would engage in, participation was limited to 24 participants, selected on the basis of their prior training and experience in CA/IL.
This article examines how the most frequent imperative forms of the verb to show in German (zeig mal) and Czech (ukaž) are deployed in object-centred sequences. Specifically, it focuses on smartphone-based showing activities as these were the main sequential environments of show imperatives in the datasets investigated. In both languages, the imperative form does not merely aim to elicit a responsive action from the smartphone holder (such as making the device available) but projects an individual course of action from the requester’s side in the form of an immediate visual inspection of the digital content. This inspection is carried out as part of a joint course of action, allowing the recipient to provide a more detailed response to a prior action. Therefore, this specific imperative form is proven to be cross-linguistically suited to technology-mediated inspection sequences.
Meta-communicative practices are generally reflexive in a fairly obvious sense: Inasmuch as speakers use them to talk about or comment on earlier/subsequent talk, they use language self-reflexively. In this paper, we explore a practice that is reflexive not only in this meta-communicative sense but also in a sequential-interactional one: Prefacing a conversational turn with I was gonna say. We show that the I was gonna say-preface furnishes the following general semantic-pragmatic affordances: (1) It retroactively relates the speaker’s subsequent talk to preceding talk from a co-participant, (2) it embodies a claim to prior, now-preempted, communicative intent with regard to what their co-participant has (just) said/done, (3) it therefore displays its speaker’s orientation to the relevance or the appropriate placement of the action(s) done in their own subsequent talk at an earlier moment in the interaction, and (4) it reflexively re-invokes, or retrieves, this earlier moment as the relevant sequential context for their action(s). We then go on to illustrate how speakers draw on these sequentially reflexive affordances for managing recurrent interactional contingencies in specific sequential environments. The paper ends with a discussion of the role that reflexivity plays in and for the deployment of this practice.
The article addresses Solution-Oriented Questions (SOQs) as an interactional practice for relationship management in psychodiagnostic interviews. Therapeutic alliance results from the concordance of alignment, as willingness to cooperate regarding common goals, and of affiliation, as relationship based upon trust. SOQs particularly allow for both: They are situated at the end of a troublesome topic area, which is linked to low agency on the patient’s side, and they reveal understanding of and interest in the patient. Following the paradigm of Conversation Analysis and German Gesprächsanalyse this paper analyzes the design and functions of SOQs as a means for securing and enhancing the relationship in the process of therapy. Our data comprise 15 videotaped first interviews following the manual of the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnostics. The analyses refer to all SOQs found but will be illustrated by means of a single conversation.
Action ascription can be understood from two broad perspectives. On one view, it refers to the ways in which actions constitute categories by which members make sense of their world, and forms a key foundation for holding others accountable for their conduct. On another view, it refers to the ways in which we accountably respond to the actions of others, thereby accomplishing sequential versions of meaningful social experience. In short, action ascription can be understood as matter of categorisation of prior actions or responding in ways that are sequentially fitted to prior actions, or both. In this chapter, we review different theoretical approaches to action ascription that have developed in the field, as well as the key constituents and resources of action ascription that have been identified in conversation analytic research, before going on to discuss how action ascription can itself be considered a form of social action.