Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (57)
- Article (42)
- Book (7)
- Habilitation (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (107) (remove)
Keywords
- Konversationsanalyse (56)
- Deutsch (45)
- Interaktion (30)
- conversation analysis (10)
- Gesprochene Sprache (9)
- Gesprächsanalyse (7)
- Jugendlicher (7)
- Patient (6)
- Verstehen (6)
- Arzt (5)
Publicationstate
- Postprint (10)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (6)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (9)
- Peer-Review (8)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (1)
Publisher
- Verl. für Gesprächsforschung (8)
- de Gruyter (8)
- Benjamins (7)
- De Gruyter (7)
- Narr (7)
- Stauffenburg (7)
- Elsevier (6)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (6)
- Lang (5)
- VS, Verl. für Sozialwissenschaften (3)
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.
Cet article étudie les définitions en contexte d’instructions dans les leçons d’auto-école. Les observations s’appuient sur un corpus de 70 heures de leçons enregistrées par vidéo en Allemagne. Le moniteur utilise des définitions pour introduire des nouvelles expressions techniques qui sont étroitement liées aux buts de l’apprentissage de conduite. Pour leur production, l’emploi des ressources multimodales est fondamental. La définition ostensive par pointage et une assertion existentielle (ça/ici c’est X) est complétée par des définitions descriptives et des démonstrations gestuelles du maniement des objets. L’objectif des actes de définition ici n’est pas de délivrer une définition de l’expression en soi, qui soit valable pour tous les contextes possibles, mais de produire une définition qui soit efficace dans le contexte pratique concerné. Les définitions donc sont plutôt fragmentées, indexicales et situées, et elles sont adaptées aux pré-connaissances de l’interlocuteur.
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).
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).
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.
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.
In diesem Beitrag soll versucht werden, den Begriff „gesprochenes Standarddeutsch“ (vgl. a. Schneider 2011) aus Sicht der interaktionalen Linguistik (IL, Selting/Couper- Kuhlen 2000) zu beleuchten. Dies mag überraschen, denn „Standardsprache“ ist ein Begriff, der in der IL keine Rolle spielt. So sehr „Standardsprache“ in der Soziolinguistik ein umstrittenes Thema ist (vgl. Bex 1999, Milroy/Milroy 2005, Ammon 2005, Hundt 2010), so wenig ist er es in der IL. Daher gibt es auch keinen etablierten Zugang, keine etablierte Definition o. ä. aus IL-Sicht. Die Frage wird daher zunächst sein, ob und warum es auch für die IL nützlich sein kann, sich mit der Frage zu befassen, und vielleicht sogar notwendig ist, zu einem Begriff von „gesprochener Standardsprache“ zu gelangen. Allerdings müssen wir vorausschicken, dass dieser Beitrag keineswegs eine ausgearbeitete Lösung anbieten wird. Wir werden einige konzeptbezogene und methodische Überlegungen entwickeln, wie man den Begriff „Standard“ aus IL-Sicht als „Gebrauchsstandard“ fassen und einem so verstandenen Standard auf die Spur kommen kann.
This special issue of the Journal of Pragmatics has its origins in the International Conference on Conversation Analysis 10 (ICCA10), which took place in Mannheim (Germany) in July 2010. More than 650 scholars attended the conference, whose theme was ‘‘multimodal interaction’’. This volume includes papers based on the four plenary talks given at ICCA10 and four additional contributions related to the conference theme.
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.
"Standard language" is a contested concept, ideologically, empirically and theoretically. This is particularly true for a language such as German, where the standardization of the spoken language was based on the written standard and was established with respect to a communicative situation, i.e. public speech on stage (Bühnenaussprache), which most speakers never come across. As a consequence, the norms of the oral standard exhibit many features which are infrequent in the everyday speech even of educated speakers. This paper discusses ways to arrive at a more realistic conception of (spoken) standard German, which will be termed "standard usage". It must be founded on empirical observations of speakers linguistic choices in everyday situations. Arguments in favor of a corpus-based notion of standard have to consider sociolinguistic, political, and didactic concerns. We report on the design of a large study of linguistic variation conducted at the Institute for the German Language (project "Variation in Spoken German", Variation des gesprochenen Deutsch) with the aim of arriving at a representative picture of "standard usage" in contemporary German. It systematically takes into account both diatopic variation covering the multi-national space in which German an official language, and diastratic variation in terms of varying degrees of formality. Results of the study of phonetic and morphosyntactic variation are discussed. At least for German, a corpus-based notion of "standard usage" inevitably includes some degree of pluralism concerning areal variation, and it needs to do justice to register-based variation as well.
This article advocates an understanding of ‘positioning’ as a key to the analysis of identities in interaction within the methodological framework of conversation analysis. Building on research by Bamberg, Georgakopoulou and others, a performative, interaction-based approach to positioning is outlined and compared to membership categorization analysis. An interactional episode involving mock stories to reveal and reproach an inadequate identity-claim of a co-participant is analysed both in terms of practices of membership categorization and positioning. It is concluded that membership categorization is a core element of positioning. Still, positioning goes beyond membership categorization in a) revealing biographical dimensions accomplished by narration and b) by uncovering implicit performative claims of identity, which are not established by categorization or description.
Das Interview ist nach wie vor das beliebteste sozialwissenschaftliche Verfahren des Datengewinns. Ökonomie der Erhebung, Vergleichbarkeit und die Möglichkeit, Einsicht in Praxisbereiche und historisch-biografische Dimensionen zu erhalten, die der direkten Beobachtung kaum zugänglich sind, machen seine Attraktivität aus. Zugleich mehren sich Kritiken, die seine Leistungsfähigkeit problematisieren, indem sie auf die begrenzte Reichweite der Explikationsfähigkeiten der Befragten, die Reaktivität der Erhebung oder die Differenz zwischen Handeln und dem Bericht über Handeln verweisen. Im Beitrag wird zwischen Ansätzen, die das Interview als Text, und solchen, die es als Interaktion verstehen, unterschieden. Nach dem Text-Verständnis werden Interviews unter inhaltlichen Gesichtspunkten analysiert und als Zugang zu einer vorgängigen sozialen oder psychischen Wirklichkeit angesehen. Das Interaktions-Verständnis versteht Interviews dagegen als situierte Praxis, in welcher im Hier und Jetzt von InterviewerInnen und Befragten gemeinsam soziale Sinnstrukturen hergestellt werden. Anhand ubiquitärer Phänomene der Interviewinteraktion – Fragen, Antworten und die Selbstpositionierung von InterviewerInnen und Befragten – werden Praktiken des interaktiv-performativen Handelns im Interview dargestellt. Ihre Relevanz für die Interviewkonstitution und ihre Erkenntnispotenziale für die Interviewauswertung werden aufgezeigt. Es wird dafür plädiert, die interaktive Konstitutionsweise von Interviews empirisch zu erforschen und methodisch konsequent zu berücksichtigen.
Analytikerwissen, Teilnehmerwissen und soziale Wirklichkeit in der ethnographischen Gesprächsanalyse
(2013)
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.
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.
Der vorliegende Beitrag soll nun diese Diskussion um Sinn, Unsinn und Definition der Kategorie "Satz" als Grundeinheit der gesprochenen Sprache nicht fortsetzen. Ich will vielmehr kurz darlegen, in welcher Weise ein traditioneller Satzbegriff m.E. für die Analyse gesprochener Sprache relevant ist, und wie er sich zu gesprächsanalytischen Kategorien wie "Turn" und "Turnkonstruktionseinheit" verhält. Dies geschieht aber nur als Voraussetzung, um sodann die traditionelle Fragerichtung umzukehren: Anstatt zu fragen, warum in Gesprächen oft nicht-sentenzielle Strukturen vorkommen, gehe ich vom Befund aus, dass ein großer Teil von Turns aus nicht-sentenziellen Strukturen besteht und frage umgekehrt, wieso in Gesprächen überhaupt Sätze (im Sinne der eingangs gegebenen klassischen Definition) verwendet werden. Den Schlüssel zur Antwort suche ich dabei in der temporalen Struktur der Äußerungsproduktion und der Position, die Sätze in Bezug auf diese einnehmen.
In developing an interdisciplinary approach integrating Conversation Analysis (“CA”), audiology and User Centered Design, the applied goal of this international collaboration is to analyze real-world social interaction from the perspective of the participants in order to build an empirical basis for innovation in the field of communication with hearing impairment and hearing aid use. In reviewing theory, methodology and analysis of eight cases analyzed in this volume, the editors assess the potential of application for the various stakeholders in communication with hearing loss and hearing aids, including the estimated impact factor. The chapter closes with a consideration of desiderata for future research.
This paper deals with a case study of a first visit of a person with hearing loss to her family doctor. In the first part of the paper, basic properties of doctor-patient interaction, which are also relevant for treatment of hearing loss, are outlined: the relevance of institutional conditions for interaction, asymmetries between the participants, goal-orientation, specific conditions of trust, and the relevance of the specific genre of doctor-patient interaction. The second part of the paper presents a case study, which focuses on three interactional phenomena: a) the negotiation of the hearing loss as an existential threat to the patient and her identity; b) the discrepancy of illness theories between doctor and patient; c) the collaborative work of negotiating an intersubjectively viable description of the experience of hearing loss.
Introduction
(2012)
Hearing loss is a prevalent communication disability, yet to date there is almost no research on naturally occurring interaction which examines how participants handle hearing loss and the use of hearing aids in communication. In contrast, research focussing on the medical and technological dimensions has advanced tremendously. Still, the social reaction to hearing loss is frequently stress, withdrawal and isolation. Despite the enormous technological development, most people who could benefit from a hearing aid do not use it. The goal of this edited volume is to present a theoretically founded, interdisciplinary research approach geared at understanding and improving social interaction impacted by hearing loss and (non-)use of hearing technologies. Towards this end, we are integrating Conversation Analysis, audiology and User Centered Design.
In this brief presentation of Conversation Analysis (“CA”), we take up some of the communication problems associated with hearing loss and link them to conversation analytic concepts. We explain how attempts to control the conversation, embarrassment and miscommunication can be analyzed as interactional achievements in the areas of turn-taking, repair and nonverbal actions. The chapter also explains which kinds of data are used in CA, how the participants’ perspective is analyzed and some of the theoretical assumptions underlying the analysis. Examples of transcribed interactional sequences with hearing loss illustrate how turn-taking, eye gaze and trouble in hearing/understanding (“repair”) are sensitive to this communication disorder.
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.
Der Beitrag diskutiert vor dem Hintergrund allgemeiner Eigenschaften von gesprochener Sprache in Interaktionen, inwiefern die Konstruktionsgrammatik (KxG) aus Sicht der Interaktionalen Linguistik (IL) eine geeignete Basis für eine Grammatik der gesprochenen Sprache abgeben kann. Affinitäten und Perspektivenunterschiede zwischen KxG und IL sowie Potenziale und Grenzen ihrer Integration werden aufgezeigt. Am Beispiel einer Untersuchung von dann und also als Inferenzindikatoren wird das konstruktionsgrammatische Zeichenverständnis problematisiert, und es werden einige generelle Überlegungen zum Stellenwert von Grammatik im Kontext einer Theorie der verbalen Interaktion formuliert.
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.
Pragmatics and grammar
(2011)
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.
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.
Die Autoren beschäftigen sich in diesem Beitrag mit einem spezifischen Typ der Transition von Interaktionsräumen. Die Transitionen, die sie analysieren, ereignen sich zwar im Rahmen einer bereits etablierten globalen Situationsstruktur (eines Filmsets), stellen jedoch lokal die Herstellung einer personell, räumlich und pragmatisch jeweils neuen Konstellation dar. Aus diesem Grund konzeptualisieren sie diesen Transitionstyp als Eröffnung einer neuen Situation. Neben der Spezifik des jeweiligen Falles interessieren sie vor allem rekurrente Verhaltensaspekte der Beteiligten, die im Kontext dieser Transitionen beobachtbar sind.
In linguistischen Untersuchungen erscheint sprachliche Raumreferenz gemeinhin als eine Aktivität, die notwendig ist, um dem Hörer/Leser die räumliche Lokalisierung von Objekten zu ermöglichen. In diesem Beitrag wollen wir zeigen, dass die sprachliche und kinesische Konstitution von Raum in der multimodalen Interaktion eine flexible kommunikative Ressource ist, die auch unabhängig von solchen Referenz-identifizierenden Erfordernissen eingesetzt werden kann. Anhand der Videoaufnahme einer Lehr-Lern-Interaktion zeigen wir, wie die sprachliche und körperlich enaktierende Konstitution eines imaginären Raums eingesetzt wird, um eine komplexe Sachverhaltsdarstellung auf einen spezifischen Adressaten und dessen Verständnisprobleme zuzuschneiden. Im Zentrum der Datenanalyse steht zum einen die Rekonstruktion der interaktionsstrukturellen Einbettung der Raumkonstitution, die verdeutlicht, dass sie als Verfahren kommunikativ verwendet wird, weil andere Verfahren der Vermittlung abstrakter Sachverhalte bereits gescheitert sind. Zum anderen zeigen wir, wie sprachliche und kinesische Aktivitäten der Akteure systematisch bei der multimodalen Raumkonstitution zusammenwirken und wie durch sie vier unterschiedliche Dimensionen von Raum in der Interaktion (objektiv-physikalischer Raum, Interaktionsraum, individueller Verhaltensraum und imaginärer Raum) organisiert und aufeinander bezogen werden. Dabei wird deutlich, dass die sozialsymbolische Kodierung von Räumen und die Überblendung verschiedener Dimensionen von „Raum“ als rekurrente Phänomene in der multimodalen Raumkonstitution eingesetzt werden.
"damit sie mich verstehen" : Genese, Verfahren und recipient design einer narrativen Performance
(2009)
Während die Relevanz von Patientenerzählungen und therapeutischen Deutungen für den Therapieprozess viel diskutiert wird, wird den therapeutischen Fragen weniger Beachtung geschenkt. In diesem Artikel wird dafür argumentiert, therapeutische Fragen als potenziell veränderungsrelevante Verfahren der gemeinsamen Konstruktion von Erzählungen zu betrachten. Therapeutische Fragen sind maieutisch ausgerichtet, das heißt sie regen den Patienten an, von sich aus die Erzählung zu expandieren und dabei zu psychologisch relevanten Deutungen des Erzählten zu gelangen. Therapeuten scheinen in ihren Reaktionen auf Patientenerzählungen der Präferenzreihenfolge Produktion von Continuern (Fortsetzungssignalen) Schweigen Fragen Deuten zu folgen. Sie greifen also erst zur selbstproduzierten Deutung, wenn der Patient von sich aus keine produziert. Diese Präferenzreihenfolge der Therapeutenreaktionen reflektiert eine Präferenz für die Selbstdeutung des Patienten, die maieutisch, das heißt durch sokratisches Fragen, unterstützt wird.
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).