Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (2)
- Article (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3) (remove)
Keywords
- Mediation (3) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (2)
- Postprint (1)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (2)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (1)
- Elsevier (1)
- Narr Francke Attempto (1)
Action ascription is an emergent process of mutual displays of understanding. Usually, the kind of action that is ascribed to a prior turn by a next action remains implicit. Sometimes, however, actions are overtly ascribed, for example, when speakers expose the use of strategies. This happens particularly in conflictual interaction, such as public debates or mediation talks. In these interactional settings, one of the speakers’ goals is to discredit their opponents in front of other participants or an overhearing audience. This chapter investigates different types of overt strategy ascriptions in a public mediation: exposing the opponent’s use of rhetorical devices, exposing the opponent’s use of false premises, and exposing that an opponent is telling only a half-truth. This chapter shows how speakers use ascriptions of acting strategically as accusations to disclose their opponents’ intentions and ‘truths’ that the opponents allegedly conceal and that are detrimental to their position.
As part of our project "German at Work: The Linguistic and Communicative Integration of Refugees" at the Leibniz-Institute for the German Language (Mannheim, Germany), we are conducting several ethnographic field studies to investigate the integration process of refugees into various professional fields. The guiding questions are which linguistic and communicative problems arise in workplace interactions between refugees and their colleagues and with which communicative practices the participants ensure mutual understanding. In the present article, we further focus on the question whether and how the professional trainers use the work interactions as opportunities for language mediation and which practices they use.
This study deals with interpretation practices that speakers employ in order to (re)formulate what another person has said or implied. Analyzing interpretations in a public televised mediation that resembles a public debate, I show which kinds of interpretation practices that speakers adopt and how they differ depending the participants' roles. Systematically comparing all interpretations of the mediator vs. the opposing participants’, I argue that interpretations can be described as general practices with specific interactional effects, but that they are designed and exploited in different ways (i.e., for clarification and discourse-organization vs. self- and other-positioning and constructing arguments). I point out that speakers use meta-pragmatic accounts that support the interactional effects of their interpretations.