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)
Dieses Buch stellt die Gesprächsanalyse als Methodik zur Erforschung linguistischer Fragestellungen dar. Ihr Ziel ist die umfassende Analyse sprachlicher Phänomene in ihren formalen, funktionalen und kontextuellen Dimensionen. Grundlegende Eigenschaften der verbalen Interaktion werden zunächst auf ihre sprachtheoretischen Konsequenzen befragt. Sodann werden aus ihnen methodologische Prinzipien für die Erhebung und Analyse von Gesprächskorpora entwickelt. Das methodische Vorgehen wird an einer grammatischen und einer semantischen Fragestellung demonstriert. Untersucht werden freie Infinitivkonstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch und die Effekte von Kontrastierungsaktivitäten auf die Semantik von Ausdrücken im Gespräch. Theoretische Basis bildet hier die Integration der Gesprächsanalyse mit der construction grammar und der kognitiven Linguistik.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
Pragmatics and grammar
(2011)
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.
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.