Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (10)
- Article (7)
Has Fulltext
- yes (17)
Keywords
- Konversationsanalyse (17) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (17) (remove)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (12)
- Peer-Review (5)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (17) (remove)
Die Rationale der psychodynamischen Psychotherapie (und anderer Therapieformate) besteht darin, belastende und teils der bewussten Reflexion unzugängliche Erfahrungen der PatientInnen aufzuklären, ihre Ursachen zu identifizieren und alternative Wahrnehmungs- und Handlungsweisen zu ermöglichen. Dazu bedient sie sich eines bestimmten Settings: der Therapie über mehrere Sitzungen hinweg, in denen PatientInnen ihre Beschwerden und Erfahrungen berichten und TherapeutInnen mithilfe kommunikativer Praktiken gemeinsam mit den PatientInnen die Beschwerden aufzuklären, die Erfahrungen zu vertiefen und die Probleme zu lösen suchen. In der konversationsanalytischen Psychotherapieforschung (Peräkylä et al. 2008) werden dazu vier Grundtypen verständigungsbegünstigender kommunikativer Praktiken der Psychotherapie identifiziert: äußerungsfortführende Extensionen, Musterhaftigkeit herstellende Interpretationen, reformulierende formulations und Fragen (Weiste & Peräkylä 2015). Der vorliegende Beitrag widmet sich der Untersuchung von drei Fragetypen: Beispielnachfrage, Kollaborative Erklärungsfindungsfrage und Lösungsorientierte Frage und deren sequenzieller Organisation in psychodiagnostischen Gesprächen. Ziel ist es, deren unterschiedliche produktive Potenziale hinsichtlich der Handlungsrationale diagnostischer und therapeutischer Aufgabenstellungen herauszuarbeiten.
Im Beitrag werden drei sprachwissenschaftliche Zugänge zu Diagnosen vorgestellt: In der Gesprächsanalyse wird die Diagnoseherstellung in der mündlichen Arzt-Patienten-Interaktion beleuchtet. Diagnosen entstehen kollaborativ,indem Gesprächsphasen durchlaufen und charakteristische Handlungen in bestimmten Äußerungsformaten vollzogen werden. Im Blickpunkt der Text- und Kommunikationsgeschichte steht hingegen das schriftsprachliche Handeln. Das Herstellen einer Diagnose erfordert hier die nachträgliche Bearbeitung vorgängiger mündlicher Interaktionen gemäß einer etablierten Textsorte: dem Erhebungsbogen. Von diesen Formen der Diagnoseherstellung unterscheidet sich, wie ein diskurslinguistischer Zugriff zeigt, die massenmediale Faktizitätsherstellung in Diskursen wie dem Impfdiskurs, die auch für ein medizinisches Laienpublikum relevant sind. Mit dem Beitrag soll nicht nur deutlich gemacht werden, in welchengem Zusammenhang mündliche Interaktion und schriftliche Fixierung stehen, sondern auch betont werden, dass das massenmedial vermittelte medizinische Lai*innen in relative Expert*innen verwandeln kann.
The term “pivot” usually refers to two overlapping syntactic units such that the completion of the first unit simultaneously launches the second. In addition, pivots are generally said to be characterized by the smooth prosodic integration of their syntactic parts. This prosodic integration is typically achieved by prosodic-phonetic matching of the pivot components. As research on such turns in a range of languages has illustrated, speakers routinely deploy pivots so as to be able to continue past a point of possible turn completion, in the service of implementing some additional or revised action. This article seeks to build on, and complement, earlier research by exploring two issues in more detail as follows: (1) what exactly do pivotal turn extensions accomplish on the action dimension, and (2) what role does prosodic-phonetic packaging play in this? We will show that pivot constructions not only exhibit various degrees of prosodic-phonetic (non-)integration, i.e., differently strong cesuras, but that they can be ordered on a continuum, and that this cline maps onto the relationship of the actions accomplished by the components of the pivot construction. While tighter prosodic-phonetic integration, i.e., weak(er) cesuring, co-occurs with post-pivot actions whose relationship to that of the pre-pivot tends to be rather retrospective in character, looser prosodic-phonetic integration, i.e., strong(er) cesuring, is associated with a more prospective orientation of the post-pivot’s action. These observations also raise more general questions with regard to the analysis of action.
This paper offers an exploratory Interactional Linguistic account of the role that inferences play in episodes of ordinary conversational interaction. To this end, it systematically reconsiders the conversational practice of using the lexico-syntactic format oh that’s right to implicitly claim “just-now” recollection of something previously known, but momentarily confused or forgotten. The analyses reveal that this practice typically occurs as part of a larger sequential pattern that the participants orient to and which serves as a procedure for dealing with, and generating an account for, one participant’s production of an inapposite action. As will be shown, the instantiation and progressive realization of this sequential procedure requires local inferential work from the participants. While some facets of this inferential work appear to be shaped by the particular context of the ongoing interaction, others are integral to the workings of the sequence as such. Moreover, the analyses suggest that participants’ understanding of oh that’s right as embodying an implicit memory claim rests on an inference which is based on a kind of semanticpragmatic compositionality. The paper thus illustrates how inferences in conversational interaction can be systematically studied and points to the merits of combining an interactional and a linguistic perspective.
Psychotherapy talk is characterized by epistemic, emotional and professional asymmetries of knowledge, which are continuously adjusted to by the participants in joint process of negotiation. Adjustment is based on structural features of communication: the fundamental sequentiality of verbal interaction, i.e. interrelated succession of utterances of at least two interlocutors, provides for and guarantees the achievement of intersubjectivity and therapeutic efficiency. Solution-oriented questions as a rhetorical practice serve to produce forward-looking awareness, expansion of knowledge and reorganization of knowledge on the patient’s side as well as an increased ability to act. These processes become apparent not only locally in the immediate context of solution-oriented questions but also globally in the course of the interaction as a whole. The data for this research consists of psychodiagnostic interviews conducted according to the concept and manual of the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnostics (OPD Task Force 2009).
Der Beitrag plädiert für eine Untersuchung der gesprochenen Sprache als integralem Bestandteil multimodaler Interaktionspraktiken. Das leibliche Handeln bildet die Infrastruktur für die Verwendung von Sprache, es schafft Bedingungen, Möglichkeiten und Motivationen für die Verwendung spezifischer sprachlicher Strukturen; umgekehrt wird es seinerseits durch sprachliches Handeln organisiert. Zunächst werden in dem Beitrag grundlegende Eigenschaften multimodaler Interaktion dargestellt: die Vielfalt der leiblichen Handlungsressourcen und ihre Koordination, Sequenzialität und Simultaneität von Aktivitäten, multimodale Beteiligung an der Interaktion, der Stellenwert von Raum, Objekten, Multiaktivität und Bewegung. Ebenso wird kurz auf die methodischen Grundlagen der Untersuchung eingegangen: Videoaufnahme und multimodale Transkription. An drei sprachlichen Phänomenbereichen wird dann exemplarisch gezeigt, wie sprachliche Praktiken durch ihr Zusammenspiel mit anderen leiblichen Ressourcen der Kommunikation geprägt sind. Im Einzelnen geht es um die Disambiguierung sprachlicher Praktiken durch ihre Koordination mit anderen Ressourcen, die Erweiterung sprachlicher Strukturen, die aufgrund von Rezipientenreaktionen simultan zur Turn-Produktion stattfindet, und die Verwendungen minimaler Referenzformen, die sich auf die multimodale Ko-Orientierung der Beteiligten stützt.
This paper argues that conversation analysis has largely neglected the fact that meaning in interaction relies on inferences to a high degree. Participants treat each other as cognitive agents, who imply and infer meanings, which are often consequential for interactional progression. Based on the study of audio- and video-recordings from German talk-in-interaction, the paper argues that inferences matter to social interaction in at least three ways. They can be explicitly formulated; they can be (conventionally) indexed, but not formulated; or they may be neither indexed nor formulated yet would be needed for the correct understanding of a turn. The last variety of inferences usually remain tacit, but are needed for smooth interactional progression. Inferences in this case become an observable discursive phenomenon if misunderstandings are treated by the explication of correct (accepted) and wrong (unaccepted) inferences. The understanding of referential terms, analepsis, and ellipsis regularly rely on inferences. Formulations, third-position repairs, and fourth-position explications of erroneous inferences are practices of explicating inferences. There are conventional linguistic means like discourse markers, connectives, and response particles that index specific kinds of inferences. These practices belong to a larger class of inferential practices, which play an important role for indexing and accomplishing intersubjectivity in talk in interaction.
Analepses with topic-drop are frequent structures in German interaction. While hitherto the focus on analepses was a rather syntactic one, this paper deals with analeptic structures from a semantic perspective. It particularly concentrates on the semantic relations between the referents of the analepses and the prior interactional context. This analysis shows that even for rather simple analepses which just omit a constituent from the prior utterance, conceptual processes are more decisive for its interpretation than syntactic features of the antecedent constituents. This is even more the case for complex analepses that are only indirectly linked to the prior context, and for the interpretation of which hearers need to draw inferences. The paper argues that theoretical approaches like Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics can profit from adopting a semantic and conceptual perspective for the interpretation of interactional structures.
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.
Alltagsgespräche
(2001)
Die Kommunikation älterer Menschen (untereinander wie mit jüngeren) ist in der sprachwissenschaftlichen Forschung der Bundesrepublik ein sträflich vernachlässigtes Feld (Abschnitt 1). Zunächst werden drei verschiedene alltagsweltliche Konzepte von Alter vorgestellt (Abschnitt 2). Auf der Grundlage der Analyse authentischer Aufzeichnungen versucht der Beitrag dann, einige der Besonderheiten des Kommunikationsverhaltens älterer Menschen exemplarisch zu veranschaulichen, und er stellt die Frage, ob sich diese Besonderheiten als ein eigenständiger Kommunikationsstil auffassen lassen (Abschnitt 3). In methodologischer Hinsicht charakterisiert der Beitrag drei verschiedene Zugänge zur Erfassung altersspezifischer Phänomene: die Erfassung spezifischer Phänomene in Listenform, die Rekonstruktion der Verfahren zur interaktiven Konstitution und Akzentuierung von Alter und letztlich die Herleitung altersspezifischer Phänomene im Kommunikationsverhalten aus den Veränderungen der sozialen Lebenssituation im Alter (Abschnitt 4). Die beiden letztgenannten Zugänge werden durch empirische Analysen exemplifiziert (Abschnitt 5.2 und 5.3). Zuvor (Abschnitt 5.1) werden noch vier verschiedene typische Konstellationen unterschieden, in denen alte Menschen kommunizieren.