Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (182) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (182)
Keywords
- Konversationsanalyse (182) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (85)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (36)
- Postprint (26)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (119)
- Peer-Review (14)
- Verlags-Lektorat (2)
- (Verlags-)lektorat (1)
Publisher
- Narr (23)
- Benjamins (20)
- de Gruyter (19)
- Lang (13)
- Narr Francke Attempto (13)
- Stauffenburg (11)
- Westdeutscher Verlag (8)
- Niemeyer (7)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (7)
- Peter Lang (4)
It is a ubiquitous phenomenon of everyday interaction that participants confront their co-participants for behaviour that they assess as undesirable or in some other way untoward. In a set of video data of informal interaction from the PECII corpus (Parallel European Corpus of Informal Interaction), cases of such sanctions have been collected in English, German, Italian and Polish data. This study presents work in progress and focuses on interrogatively formatted sanctions, in particular on non-polar interrogatives. It has already been shown that interrogatives can do much more than ask questions (Huddleston 1994). They can also function as directives (Lindström et al. 2017) or, more specifically, as requests (Curl/Drew 2008), as invitations (Margutti/Galatolo 2018) or reproaches (Klattenberg 2021), among others. What makes them interesting for cross-linguistic comparison is that the four languages that are considered provide different morphological and (morpho-)syntactical ressources for the realization of interrogative phrases. For example, German provides the option of building in the modal particle denn that reveals a previous lack of clarity and obliges the co-participant(s) to deliver the missing information (Deppermann 2009). Of course, the other three languages have modal particles, too (e.g. allora in Italian or though in English), but they do not seem to convey the same semantic and interactional qualities as denn. From an interactional point of view, one could think that interrogatives are a typical and effective way of solliciting accounts, since formally they open up a conditionally relevant space for an answer or a
reaction. But as the data shows, this does not guarantee that they are actually responded to. Another relevant aspect in the context of sanctions is that the interrogative format seems to carry a certain ‚openness‘ that might be seen as a mitigating effect and thus provides an interesting point of comparison with other mitigating devices. This study uses the methods of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics. It is based on a collection of 148 interrogative sanctions (out of which 84 are non-polar interrogatives) covering the four languages. I draw on coded data from roughly 1000 cases to get a first overall idea of how the interrogative format might differ from other formats, and how it might interrelate with specific features – for example, if subsequently an account is delivered. Going more into depth, the interrogative sanctions will then be analyzed with respect to their formal design (e.g. polar questions vs. content questions vs. tag questions, Rossano 2010; Hayano 2013) and to their pragmatic implications. I also analyze reactions to such sanctions – both formally (cf. Enfield et al. 2019, 279) and, again, from an interactional perspective (e.g. acceptance/compliance vs. challenging/defiance; Kent 2012; Cekaite 2020). A more detailed zooming in on the sequential unfolding of some particularly interesting
instances of sanctioning interrogatives will make the picture complete.
The ubiquity of smartphones has been recognised within conversation analysis as having an impact on conversational structures and on the participants’ interactional involvement. However, most of the previous studies have relied exclusively on video recordings of overall encounters and have not systematically considered what is taking place on the device. Due to the personal nature of smartphones and their small displays, onscreen activities are of limited visibility and are thus potentially opaque for both the co-present participants (“participant opacity”) and the researchers (“analytical opacity”). While opacity can be an inherent feature of smartphones in general, analytical opacity might not be desirable for research purposes. This chapter discusses how a recording set-up consisting of static cameras, wearable cameras and dynamic screen captures allowed us to address the analytical opacity of mobile devices. Excerpts from multi-source video data of everyday encounters will illustrate how the combination of multiple perspectives can increase the visibility of interactional phenomena, reveal new analytical objects and improve analytical granularity. More specifically, these examples will emphasise the analytical advantages and challenges of a combined recording set-up with regard to smartphone use as multiactivity, the role of the affordances of the mobile device, and the prototypicality and “naturalness” of the recorded practices.
Interactants who encounter co-participant conduct which they find to be socio-normatively problematic or troublesome are faced with a range of choices. First and foremost, this includes the issue of whether to directly address it, or to simply ‘let it pass’ (at least for now) (Emerson/Messinger 1977). In the case of the former, the issue then becomes how to address it. Across the various ways in which participants can pragmatically engage with what they perceive to be transgressive or untoward behavior (e.g., Pomerantz 1978; Schegloff 1988b; Dersley/Wootton 2000; Günthner 2000; Bolden/Robinson 2011; Potter/Hepburn 2020; see also Rodriguez 2022), they sometimes meta-pragmatically formulate the co-participant’s doings in terms of specific actions. Such action descriptions are necessarily selective (Sacks 1963; Schegloff 1972, 1988a; Sidnell/Barnes 2013): They foreground certain aspects of the co-participant’s conduct, while backgrounding others, and thus contribute to publically construeing the formulated conduct in particular ways (Jayyusi 1993), viz. as socio-normatively problematic, transgressive or untoward, and interactionally accountable (Robinson 2016; Sidnell 2017).
In this presentation I show first results from an ongoing study about syntactic complexity of sanctioning turns in spoken language. This study is part of a larger project on sanctioning of misconduct in social interaction in different European languages (English, German, Italian and Polish). For the study I use video recordings of different everyday settings (family breakfasts, board game interactions and car rides) with three or four participants. These data come from the Parallel European Corpus of Informal Interaction (Kornfeld/Küttner/Zinken 2023; Küttner et al. submitted). I focus on sanctioning turns with more than one turn-constructional unit (see among others for TCUs: Sacks/Schegloff/Jefferson 1974; Clayman 2013). The study asks how often TCUs are linked to each other in the different languages, for what function, and how language diversity enters into this. Note that complex sanctioning turns do not always come as complex sentences.
Metadaten zu Gesprächen und den beteiligten Sprecher/-innen enthalten Informationen, die für die Beschreibung, Erschließung und Analyse von Korpora wichtig sind. Bisher werden sie jedoch in der Konversationsanalyse und der Interaktionalen Linguistik so gut wie nicht genutzt. Dieser Beitrag zeigt exemplarisch, wie Metadaten des Gesprächskorpus „Forschungs- und Lehrkorpus Gesprochenes Deutsch“ (FOLK) im Rahmen einer interaktionslinguistischen Untersuchung verwendet werden können, um Regularitäten der Verwendung einer untersuchten Gesprächspraktik zu identifizieren und ihren Zusammenhang mit den Eigenschaften von Aktivitäten und Sprecherrollen zu klären. In allgemeinerer Perspektive diskutiert der Beitrag, wie und an welchen Stellen einer interaktionslinguistischen Untersuchung Metadaten von Nutzen sein können und wie ihr Stellenwert im Rahmen dieser Methodologie kritisch reflektiert werden muss.
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.
Die Rolle der antizipatorischen Verstehensdokumentation erweist sich in den Interviews aus dem Israelkorpus m. E. als besonders wichtig. Es wird von der Tatsache ausgegangen, dass es sich bei den Informanten um Personen mit besonders delikaten biographischen Hintergründen handele. Die Interviewerinnen müssen demzufolge mit der starken emotionalen Belastung rechnen, der die Interviewten während der Rekonstruktion ihrer Lebensgeschichte ausgesetzt sind. Ein sehr direkter Frage-Antwort-Stil könnte wegen dieser emotionalen Belastung als unangenehm empfunden werden. Der Einsatz von Verfahren antizipatorischer Verstehensdokumentation weist stattdessen m. E. eindeutig darauf hin, wie sich die Interviewerinnen offensichtlich um Empathie bemühen und im Sinne einer intersubjektiven Inreraktionskonstitution mit den Interviewten kooperieren. Ziel dieses Beitrages ist es zu zeigen, wie solche Verfahren der antizipatorischen Verstehensdokumentation durch den systematischen Einsatz der Konnektoren und, also, dann realisiert werden können.
Within a rapidly digitalising society, it is important to understand how the learning and teaching of digital skills play out in situ, particularly amongst older adults who acquire these skills later in life. This paper focuses on participants engaged in the process of learning digital skills in adult education courses. Using video recordings from adult education centres in Finland and Germany, we explore how students mobilise their teachers’ assistance when encountering problems with their smartphones, laptops or tablets. Prior research on social interaction has shown that assistance can be recruited through a variety of verbal and embodied formats. In this specific educational setting, participants can use complaints about their digital skills or mobile devices to obtain assistance. Utilising multimodal conversation analysis, we describe two basic sequence types involving students’ complaints, discuss their cross-linguistic characteristics, and reflect on their connection to this educational setting and digital devices.
Audio-based interpreting (by telephone or comparable devices) has lately become a widespread communicative practice in multilingual encounters, especially as a consequence of the refugee crisis. Despite the growing need for location-independent assistance, its linguistic-communicative requiremehts have hardly been explored. The central question posed by this paper is therefore: How do the participants in interpreter-mediated counselling sessions conducted via the telephone compensate for the lack of the co-presence and which strategies are (preferably) employed when determining turn-taking in such exceptional circumstances?