Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (115)
- Article (79)
- Book (10)
- Working Paper (2)
- Habilitation (1)
Keywords
- Konversationsanalyse (100)
- Deutsch (79)
- Interaktion (76)
- Gesprochene Sprache (26)
- conversation analysis (21)
- Interaktionsanalyse (17)
- Pragmatik (15)
- Multimodalität (13)
- Verstehen (13)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (11)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (43)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (33)
- Postprint (31)
- Ahead of Print (2)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (49)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (41)
- Verlags-Lektorat (5)
- (Verlags-)Lektorat (1)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (1)
Publisher
- Benjamins (19)
- de Gruyter (19)
- Stauffenburg (16)
- Elsevier (11)
- De Gruyter (10)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (10)
- Springer (8)
- Verl. für Gesprächsforschung (8)
- Narr (7)
- Lang (5)
Zum Geleit
(2018)
Response particles manage intersubjectivity. This conversation analytic study describes German eben (“exactly”). With eben, speaker A locally agrees with the immediately prior turn of B (the “confirmable”) and establishes a second indexical link: A relates B’s confirmable to a position A herself had already displayed (the “anchor”). Through claiming temporal priority, eben speakers treat a just-formulated position as self-evident and mark independence. Further evidence for the three-part structure “anchor-confirmable-eben” that eben sets in motion retrospectively comes from instances where eben speakers supply a missing/opaque anchor via a postpositioned display of independent access. Data are in German with English translation.
OKAY originates from English, but it is increasingly used across languages. This chapter presents data from 13 languages, illustrating the spectrum of possible uses of OKAY in responding and claiming understanding in contexts of informings. Drawing on a wide range of interaction types from both informal and institutional contexts, including those crucially involving embodied practices, we show how OKAY can be used to (i) claim sufficient understanding, (ii) mark understanding of the prior informing as preliminary or not complete, and (iii) index discrepancy of expectation.
Zur Einführung
(2017)
How do people communicate in mobile settings of interaction? How does mobility affect the way we speak? How does mobility exert influence on the manner in which talk itself is consequential for how we move in space? Recently, questions of this sort have attracted increasing attention in the human and social sciences. This Special Issue contributes to the emerging body of studies on mobility and talk by inspecting an ordinary and ubiquitous phenomenon in which communication among mobile participants is paramount: participation in traffic. This editorial presents previous work on mobility in natural settings, as carried out by interactionally oriented researchers. It also shows how the investigation into traffic participation adds new perspectives to research on language and communication.
Parmi les nombreuses contributions de Charles Goodwin à l’étude des interactions sociales, ses travaux sur les gestes de pointage (1986, 2003, 2007) et la vision professionnelle (1994) constituent un apport majeur. Forts de l’enseignement goodwinien, nous examinons le recours aux gestes de pointage lors des instructions de navigation observables dans des leçons de conduite. Nous décrivons quatre exécutions indexicales différentes des gestes de pointage employés pour indiquer un parcours à suivre : les gestes trajectoire, les gestes géométriques, schématiques et contrastifs. Les gestes trajectoire tracent une ligne dans l’espace, révélant ainsi une composante déictique et une composante iconique. Les gestes géométriques instaurent une relation vectorielle avec la configuration routière visible, alors que les gestes schématiques reposent sur une représentation sémiotique stylisée de l’environnement. Ni complètement géométriques, ni schématiques, les gestes contrastifs se basent sur une représentation oppositionnelle de l’espace ambiant. La mobilité des interactants, leur asymétrie épistémique, l’activité didactique, et la séquentialité de l’interaction contribuent à donner leur sens à ces gestes de pointage.
Die Konversationsanalyse ist aufgrund ihrer empirischen und gegenstandsfundierten Methodologie vielen anderen Ansätzen der Erforschung von Gesprächen überlegen. Diese Überlegenheit hat jedoch einen gravierenden Mangel: Die Konversationsanalyse verfügt über keine adäquate Interpretationstheorie und ignoriert deshalb, wie grundlegend die Wissensvoraussetzungen des Analytikers und ihr Einsatz für Prozess und Resultate konversationsanalytischer Untersuchungen sind. Am Beispiel ethnographischen Wissens wird gezeigt, an welchen systematischen Stellen spezifische Hintergrundwissensbestände genutzt werden können, um zu einer adäquateren konversationsanalytischen Auswertung zu gelangen. Abschließend wird diskutiert, welchen Prüfkriterien der Einsatz ethnographischen Wissens bei der Konversationsanalyse zu genügen hat.
Conversation Analysis (CA) and Discursive Psychology (DP) reject the view that assumptions
about cognitive processes should be used to account for discursive phenomena. Instead, cognitive
issues are respecified as discursive phenomena. Discursive psychologists do this by
studying discursive practices of talking about mental phenomena and using mental predicates.
This approach is exemplified by a study of the use of constructions with German verstehen
(‘to understand’) in conversation. Some conversation analysts take another approach,
namely, inquiring into how participants display mental states in talk-in-interaction. This is
exemplified by a study of how grammatical constructions are used to display different types
of inferences drawn from a partner’s prior turn. It will be argued that the constructivist, antiessentialist
stance which CA and DP take with regard to cognition is a prosperous line of
research, which has much in its favor from a methodological point of view. However, it
can be shown that tacit assumptions about cognitive processes are still inevitable when
doing CA and DP. As a conclusion, the paper pleads for an enhanced awareness of how cognitive
processes come into play when analysing talk-in-interaction and it advocates the integration
of a more explicit cognitive perspective into research on talk-in-interaction.
Based on German speaking data from various activity types, the range of multimodal resources used to construct turn-beginnings is reviewed. It is claimed that participants in talk-in-interaction need to deal with four tasks in order to construct a turn which precisely fits the interactional moment of its production:
1. Achieve joint orientation: The accomplishment of the socio-spatial prerequisites necessary for producing a turn which is to become part of the participants’ common ground.
2. Display uptake: Next speaker needs to display his/her understanding of the interaction so far as the backdrop on which the production of the upcoming turn is based.
3. Deal with projections from prior talk: The speaker has to deal with projections which have been established by (the) previous turn(s) with respect to the upcoming turn.
4. Project properties of turn-in-progress: The speaker needs to orient the recipient to properties of the turn s/he is about to produce.
Turn-design thus can be seen to be informed by tasks related to the multimodal, embodied, and interactive contingencies of online-construction of turns. The four tasks are ordered in terms of prior tasks providing the prerequisite for accomplishing a later task.
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.
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.
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.
Anglizismen in Skatermagazinen : zur Behandlung jugendkultureller Medien im Deutschunterricht
(1998)
Verstehen im Gespräch
(2008)
Die Hermeneutik und die empirisch-psychologische Textrezeptionsforschung haben sich
damit befasst, wie Leser Texten Sinn zuschreiben. Sozialphilosophen (wie Weber, Schütz,
Mead, Habermas) sehen in Prozessen der symbolvermittelten Verständigung das alltagsweltliche
Fundament der sozialen Welt und der Möglichkeit gesellschaftlicher Integration.
Wie aber verhalten sich diese, aus der Textanalyse und der zeichen-und sozialtheoretischen
Reflexion entstandenen Konzeptionen des Verstehens zum alltagsweltlichen Verstehen im
Gespräch? Ist hier eigentlich vorn gleichen Vorgang die Rede? Sind mentalistische, noemalive
und leserbezogene Konzepte des Verstehens brauchbar für die Analyse beobachtbarer
Prozesse der Herstellung von Intersubjektivität in Gesprächen?
Dieser Aufsatz umreißt zunächst kurz den wissenschaftlichen Diskussionskontext, innerhalb
dessen Verstehen zum Gegenstand geworden ist (1). Kontrastiv dazu werden die
Prämissen einer Untersuchung von Verstehen in Gesprächen bestimmt, die sich aus den
spezifischen Situationsparametern mündlicher Interaktion ergeben (2). Den Hauptleil der
Abhandlung bildet der Aufweis der elementaren sequenziellen Organisationsform und
typischer sprachlicher Manifeslationen der Dokumentation und der Verhandlung von Verstehen
im Gespräch {3). Abschließend werden einige allgemeine Eigenschaften resümiert,
die die Dokumentation von Verstehen in Gesprächen auszuzeichnen scheinen (4).
Aus psychologischer Sicht wird Verstehen als ein kognitiver Prozess begriffen. Im Gegensatz dazu stellt der Aufsatz einen konversationsanalytischen Zugang zu Verstehen dar. Es wird rekonstruiert, wie Verstehen in Gesprächen durch verschiedene Verfahren der Verstehensdokumentation verdeutlicht und durch wechselseitig aufeinander bezogene Reaktionen ausgehandelt wird. Anhand von sechs Gesprächssequenzen wird eine linguistische Typologie von Verstehensdokumentationen in der Interaktion vorgestellt. Auf Basis der Fallanalysen werden grundlegende Eigenschaften von Verstehensdokumentationen sowie Aufgaben, die die Interaktionsteilnehmer bei der Produktion von und bei der Reaktion auf Verstehensdokumentationen bearbeiten, rekonstruiert. Dazu gehören: Identifikation des Bezugs von Verstehensdokumentationen, Interpretation des Verstehensgegenstands, Sicherung der Verständlichkeit und Legitimität (accountability) der Verstehensdokumentation, Herstellung des Bezugs der Verstehensdokumentation zu den praktischen Zwecken der laufenden Interaktion, Aushandlung intersubjektiven Verständnisses, rhetorische Nutzung von Verstehensdokumentationen und ihr indikativer Bezug auf Beteiligungsrollen und sozialstrukturelle Rahmen der Interaktion.