Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (42) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (42) (remove)
Keywords
- Konversationsanalyse (23)
- Deutsch (22)
- Interaktion (9)
- conversation analysis (8)
- Gesprächsanalyse (4)
- Jugendlicher (4)
- Patient (4)
- Arzt (3)
- Englisch (3)
- Gesprochene Sprache (3)
Publicationstate
- Postprint (5)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (3)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (8)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (2)
Publisher
- Elsevier (6)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (4)
- de Gruyter (4)
- Benjamins (2)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (2)
- Psychosozial-Verl. (2)
- Schmidt (2)
- Springer (2)
- Equinox Publ. (1)
- Friedrich (1)
Der vorliegende Artikel diskutiert die ethnographische Forschung in der Jugendsoziologie und problematisiert ihre Grenzen und Reichweite. Auf der Grundlage der Kritik der bisherigen Forschungspraxis wird ein Vorschlag zur konzeptionell-methodischen Neuorientierung ethnographischer Jugendforschung entwickelt. Die Diskussion geht nicht von einer theoriegeleiteten Perspektive aus, sondern befragt einschlägige Untersuchungen unter methodischem Blickwinkel. Dabei wird deutlich, daß die Forscher der Sicht der Akteure verhaftet bleiben, da ihr Datenmaterial aus den rekonstruierenden Darstellungen der Alltagspraxis durch die Akteure besteht (= Sekundärdatenstatus), nicht aber aus Dokumentationen der Alltagspraxis selbst. Die Forschung ist also noch nicht bei der Alltagspraxis der Akteure angekommen. Dies zeigt sich insbesondere am Beispiel des sog. Jugendsoziologischen Interviews. Als Alternative werden theoretische und methodische Konturen einer Ethnographie jugendlicher Kommunikationskulturen auf gesprächsanalytischer Basis umrissen. Abschließend wird die Fruchtbarkeit dieser Forschungsperspektive für traditionelle und neuartige jugendsoziologische Fragestellungen diskutiert.
Der Beitrag schlägt das Konzept der 'Positionierung' als Instrument zur empirischen Erforschung narrativer Identitäten auf der Basis von autobiographischen Erzählungen vor. Es wird dafür argumentiert, dass die Perspektive der Positionierung einen materialgestützten und materialadäquaten Zugang zu Prozessen der Identitätskonstitution in mündlichen Stegreiferzählungen bietet, da es die identitätsrelevanten darstellerischen wie performativen Handlungen von Erzählern zu rekonstruieren erlaubt. Dabei wird zwischen verschiedenen Ebenen und Bezügen unterschieden: Selbst- und Fremdpositionierungen, Positionierungen dargestellter Figuren innerhalb der Erzählzeit und von Erzähler und Zuhörern in der erzählten Zeit sowie die Relation zwischen erzählenden und erzähltem Ich. Diese Differenzierungen erlauben nicht nur eine detaillierte Rekonstruktion unterschiedlicher Facetten und Verfahren der Herstellung narrativer Identität, sie eröffnen auch psychologisch und soziologisch aufschlussreiche Einblicke in die Relationen zwischen Identitätsentwürfen auf den verschiedenen Ebenen.
The paper deals with the use of ICH WEIß NICHT (‘I don’t know’) in German talk-in-interaction. Pursuing an Interactional Linguistics approach, we identify different interactional uses of ICH WEIß NICHT and discuss their relationship to variation in argument structure (SV (O), (O)VS, V-only). After ICH WEIß NICHT with full complementation, speakers emphasize their lack of knowledge or display reluctance to answer. In contrast, after variants without an object complement, in contrast, speakers display uncertainty about the truth of the following proposition or about its sufficiency as an answer. Thus, while uses with both subject and object tend to close a sequence or display lack of knowledge, responses without an object, in contrast, function as a prepositioned epistemic hedge or a pragmatic marker framing the following TCU. When ICH WEIß NICHT is used in response to a statement, it indexes disagreement (independently from all complementation patterns).
Our paper deals with the use of ICH WEIß NICHT (‘I don’t know’) in German talk-in-interaction. Pursuing an Interactional Linguistics approach, we identify different interactional uses of ICH WEIß NICHT and discuss their relationship to variation in argument structure (SV (O), (O)VS, V-only). After ICH WEIß NICHT with full complementation, speakers emphasize their lack of knowledge or display reluctance to answer. In contrast, after variants without an object complement, in contrast, speakers display uncertainty about the truth of the following proposition or about its sufficiency as an answer. Thus, while uses with both subject and object tend to close a sequence or display lack of knowledge, responses without an object, in contrast, function as a prepositioned epistemic hedge or a pragmatic marker framing the following TCU. When ICH WEIß NICHT is used in response to a statement, it indexes disagreement (independently from all complementation patterns).
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.
The transition between phases of activities is a practical problem which participants in an interaction have to deal with routinely. In meetings, the sequence of phases of activity is often outlined by a written agenda. However, transitions still have to be accomplished by local interactional work of the participants. In a detailed conversation analytic case study based on video-data, it is shown how participants collaboratively accomplish an emergent interactional state of affairs (a break-like activity) which differs widely from the state of affairs which was projected by awritten agenda (the next presentation), although in doing so, the participants still show their continuous orientation to the agenda. The paper argues that the reconstruction of emergent developments in interaction calls for a multimodal analysis of interaction, because the fine-grained multimodal co-ordination of bodily and verbal resources provides for opportunities of sequentially motivated, relevant next actions. These, however, can amount to emergent activity sequences, which may be at odds with the activity types which are projected by an interactional agenda or expected on behalf of some institutional routine.
This paper attempts a critique of the notion of 'dialogue' in dialogue theory as espoused by Linell, Markova, and others building on Bakhtin’s writings. According to them, human communication, culture, language, and even cognition are dialogical in nature. This implies that these domains work by principles of other-orientation and interaction. In our paper, we reject accepting other-orientation as an a priori condition of every semiotic action. Instead, we claim that in order to be an empirically useful concept for the social sciences, it must be shown if and how observable action is other-oriented. This leads us to the following questions: how can we methodically account for other-orientation of semiotic action? Does other-orientation always imply interaction? Is every human expression oriented towards others? How does the other, as s/he is represented in semiotic action, relate to the properties which the other can be seen to exhibit as indexed by their observable behavior? We study these questions by asking how the orientation towards others becomes evident in different forms of communication. For this concern, we introduce ‘recipient design’, ‘positioning’ and ‘intersubjectivity’ as concepts which allow us to inquire how semiotic action both takes the other into account and, reflexively, shapes him/her as an addressee having certain properties. We then specifically focus on actions and situations in which other-orientation is particularly problematic, such as interactions with children, animals, machines, or communication with unknown recipients via mass media. These borderline cases are scrutinized in order to delineate both limits and constitutive properties of other-orientation. We show that there are varieties of meaningful actions which do not exhibit an orientation towards the other, which do not rest on (the possibility of) interaction with the other or which even disregard what their producer can be taken to know about the other. Available knowledge about the other may be ignored in order to reach interactional goals, e. g. in strategical interactions or for concerns of socialization. If semiotic action is otherorientated, its design depends on how the other is available to and matters for their producer. Other-orientation may build on shared biographical experiences with the other, knowledge about the other as an individual and close attention to their situated conduct. However, other-orientation may also rest on (stereo-)typification with respect to institutional roles or group membership. In any case, others as they are represented in semiotic action can never be just others-as-such, but only othersas-perceived-by-the-actor. We conclude that the strong emphasis which dialogue theories put on otherorientation obscures that other-orientation is neither universal in semiotic action, that it must be distinguished from an interactive relationship, and that the ways in which the other figures in semiotic actions is not homogeneous in any of its most general properties. Instead, there is a huge variation in the ways in which the other can be taken into account. Therefore close scrutiny of how the other precisely figures in a certain kind of semiotic action is needed in order to lend the concept of ‘other-orientation’ empirical substance and a definite sense.
Anhand einer konversationsanalytischen Untersuchung wird eine unter männlichen Jugendlichen weit verbreitete Praktik aggressiven Sprechens, das sog. gissen“, dargestellt. Die Untersuchung der sequenziellen Organisation, der Teilnehmerkonstellation und der spezifischen semantischen und gestalterischen Eigenschaften von ,Diss-Scquenzen‘ zeigt, dass,Dissen1 zur spielerischen Herabsetzung des Opponenten vor einem w-groi/p-Publikum abzielt. Dabei zeigt sich eine charakteristische Doppelstruktur von Spaß und Ernst: Entgegen der offiziellen Modali- sierung der Aktivität als unernst, stellt ,Dissen* ein prominentes Verfahren zur Verhandlung von Charakter, Status und moralischen Ansprüchen in jugendlichen peer-groups dar.
In diesem Artikel wird aus einer konservationsanalytischer Perspektive untersucht, wie in der letzten Stunde der psychoanalytischen Behandlung »Amalie« die Aufgabe des Abschiednehmens interaktiv thematisiert und ausgehandelt wird. Anhand von drei zentralen Interaktionssequenzen wird rekonstruiert, wie die Patientin den Abschied systematisch de-thematisiert. Sie benutzt unterschiedliche Verfahren der Selbstpositioniernng und der Fremdpositionierung des Therapeuten zur Legitimierung ihrer Verweigerung der Bearbeitung und zur Negierung der Relevanz des Abschieds. Darüber hinaus löst sie die Aufgabe des Abschieds, indem sie ihn symbolisch aufhebt durch die Behauptung einer mentalen Verschmelzung mit dem Therapeuten, die den bevorstehenden Verlust der Realbeziehung irrelevant mache.
The paper studies how the German connectives "also" and "dann" are used as displays of understanding in talk-in-interaction. It is shown that the use of also at turn-beginnings in pre-front-field position is a routine practice to explicate implicit meanings of the prior turn of the partner, which is presented for confirmation. Also thus indexes that explicated meanings are taken to be intersubjective, i.e. part of the interlocutors’ common ground. Turn-initial dann(in front-field position), in contrast, is routinely used to (a) index the formulation of a unilateral inference from the partner’s prior turn which is not claimed to have already been communicated by the partner, and is (b) used to preface different kinds of next actions which are framed as being a consequence from the preceding action of the partner. Drawing on data from four genres of talkin- interaction (conversation, psychotherapy, doctor-patient interaction, broadcasted talk shows), the paper discusses how functions of also and dann are related to their positions concerning turn-construction and topological fields, prosodic design, collocations, sequential structures and participation frameworks of the interaction.
Die Relevanz der Gesprächsforschung steht außer Frage: Gespräche sind grundlegend für jede Form menschlicher Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Ob in Unternehmen, im Schulunterricht oder in der Politik, ob im privaten Liebesgeflüster, in der Talk-Show oder im Internet-Chat: Unablässig erzeugen, verändern und repräsentieren wir unsere Welt in Gesprächen. Gesellschaft, Kultur und Geschichte wären undenkbar ohne verbale Interaktion. So ubiquitär Gespräche sind, so unendlich vieles ist involviert, wenn Gespräche geführt und verstanden werden sollen. Sicher, zuallererst Sprache, doch noch vieles mehr: Stimme, Blicke, Gesten, Gefühle und Hintergedanken, soziale Voraussetzungen und Folgen, physische Prozesse und historische Situationen. Dies sind natürlich, recht verstanden, nicht verschiedene "Dinge", die man sorgsam nebeneinander stellen könnte. Diese Mannigfaltigkeit von Perspektiven zeigt an, dass das, was in Gesprächen und durch sie geschieht, nicht auf einen einzigen Zugang, etwa den einer einzigen Disziplin oder Schule zu reduzieren ist.
Grammatik und Interaktion
(2005)
Grammatik und Interaktion
(2005)
Der vorliegende Aufsatz untersucht, wie Negationen in Gesprächen verwendet werden können, um Interpretationen des Sprecherhandelns durch den Partner zu beeinflussen und zu steuern. Zunächst werden die dafür benötigten theoretischen und methodischen Werkzeuge vorgestellt: die interaktionsanalytischen Konzepte des Adressatenzuschnitts und des common ground (CG), Grundzüge der Syntax und Semantik der Negation sowie ihre Funktionsweise als Verfahren zur Abwahl von Annahmen erster, zweiter und dritter Ordnung. Im empirischen Teil wird im Einzelnen gezeigt, wie Negationen genutzt werden, um im Gesprächsverlauf prospektiv und retrospektiv die Deutung von Sprecherhandlungen durch den Adressaten zu beschränken. Die interaktionalen Motivationen und die rhetorischen Potenziale des Einsatzes von Negationen zur Interpretationsrestriktion werden aufgezeigt. Die Analyse demonstriert die Notwendigkeit einer differenzierenden Sicht auf das Konzept des Adressatenzuschnitts.
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.