Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (7)
- Part of a Book (3)
- Book (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Keywords
- Intersubjektivität (12) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (5)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (5)
- Postprint (3)
- Ahead of Print (1)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (8)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (3)
Publisher
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (3)
- Benjamins (2)
- Cambridge University Press (2)
- Elsevier (1)
- Frontiers Media SA (1)
- Peter Lang (1)
- Universität (1)
Meaning in interaction
(2024)
This editorial to the Special Issue on “Meaning in Interaction” introduces to the approach of Interactional Semantics, which has been developed over the last years within the framework of Interactional Linguistics. It discusses how “meaning” is understood and approached in this framework and lays out that Interactional Semantics is interested in how participants clarify and negotiate the meanings of the expressions that they are using in social interaction. Commonalities and differences of this approach with other approaches to meaning are flagged, and the intellectual origins and precursors of Interactional Semantics are introduced. The contributions to the Special Issue are located in the larger field of research.
This study investigates other-initiated repair and its embodied dimension in casual English as lingua franca (ELF) conversations, thereby contributing to the further understanding of multimodal repair practices in social interaction. Using multimodal conversation analysis, we focus on two types of restricted other-initiation of repair (OIR): partial repeats preceded or followed by the question word what (i.e., what X?/X what?) and copular interrogative clauses (i.e., what is X). Partial repeats with what produced with rising final intonation are consistently accompanied by a head poke and treated as relating to troubles in hearing, with the repair usually consisting of a repeat. In contrast to these partial repeats, copular interrogative clauses are produced with downward final intonation and accompanied by face-related embodied conduct. The what is X OIRs primarily target code-switched lexical items, the understanding of which is critical for maintaining the repair initiator’s involvement in the ongoing sequence. This study also contributes some general reflections on the possible complexity of OIR and repair practices from a multimodal perspective.
Dieses Buch schließt eine Lücke in der Konnektorenforschung, indem es den Gebrauch von Konnektoren im gesprochenen Deutsch untersucht. Die Fragestellung bringt Elemente aus dem traditionellen grammatischen Ansatz und aus der pragmatisch basierten Forschung zur gesprochenen Sprache zusammen. In Anlehnung an die Methode der Interaktionalen Linguistik analysiert der Autor den Gebrauch der Konjunktoren «und», «aber» und der Adverbkonnektoren «also», «dann» in zwei Korpora von autobiographischen Interviews. Die Untersuchung zeigt, wie Konnektoren zur Bewältigung von verschiedenartigen kommunikativen Aufgaben zur Stiftung von Intersubjektivität und zur Gesprächsorganisation eingesetzt werden können.
While the role of intentions in the constitution of actions gives rise to complex and heavily controversial questions, it appears to be indisputable that action ascription in interaction mostly does without any overt ascription of intention. Yet, sometimes participants explicitly ascribe intentions to their interlocutors in order to make sense of their prior actions. The chapter examines intention ascriptions in response to a partner’s adjacent prior turn using the German modal verb construction willst du/wollen Sie (do you want). The analysis focuses on the aspect of the prior action the intention ascription addresses (action type, projected next action, motive etc.), the action the intention ascription performs itself, and the next action they make relevant from the prior speaker. It was found that intention ascriptions are used to clarify and intersubjectively ground the meaning of the prior turn, which seems otherwise underspecified, ambiguous or puzzling. Yet, they are also used to adumbrate criticism, e.g., that the prior turn projects a course of future actions which is considered to be inadequate, or to expose a concealed, problematic allegedly “real” meaning of the prior turn.
Action ascription can be understood from two broad perspectives. On one view, it refers to the ways in which actions constitute categories by which members make sense of their world, and forms a key foundation for holding others accountable for their conduct. On another view, it refers to the ways in which we accountably respond to the actions of others, thereby accomplishing sequential versions of meaningful social experience. In short, action ascription can be understood as matter of categorisation of prior actions or responding in ways that are sequentially fitted to prior actions, or both. In this chapter, we review different theoretical approaches to action ascription that have developed in the field, as well as the key constituents and resources of action ascription that have been identified in conversation analytic research, before going on to discuss how action ascription can itself be considered a form of social action.
Drawing on naturalistic video and audio recordings of international meetings, and within the framework of conversation analysis, ethnomethodology and interactional linguistics, this chapter studies how multilingual resources are mobilized in social interactions among professionals, how available linguistic and embodied resources are identified and used by the participants, which solutions are locally elaborated by them when they are confronted with various languages spoken but not shared among them, and which definition of multilingualism they adopt for all practical purposes. Focusing on the multilingual solutions emically elaborated in international professional meetings, we show that the participants orient to a double principle: on the one hand, they orient to the progressivity of the interaction, adopting all the possible resources that enable them to go on within the current activity; on the other hand, they orient to the intersubjectivity of the interaction, treating, preventing and repairing possible troubles and problems of understanding. Specific multilingual solutions can be adopted to keep this difficult balance between progressivity and intersubjectivity; they vary according to the settings, the competences at hand, the linguistic and embodied resources locally defined by the participants as publicly available, the multilingual resources treated as totally or partially shared, as transparent or opaque, and as needing repair or not. The paper begins by sketching the analytical framework, including the methodology and the data collected; it then presents some general findings, before offering an analysis of various ways in which participants keep the balance between progressivity and intersubjectivity in different multilingual interactional contexts.
Genau tritt im aktuellen Sprachgebrauch nicht nur in seiner klassischen Bedeutung als Adjektiv oder Adverb auf, sondern wird auch als Fokus- bzw. Gradpartikel sowie Gesprächspartikel verwendet. Bisherige Beschreibungen haben sich nur in geringem Maße und unter Verwendung heterogener Begriffe mit seinem interaktionalen Gebrauch auseinandergesetzt. In diesem Beitrag werden mit Hilfe eines sequenziellen und multimodalen Ansatzes verschiedene interaktionale Verwendungen von genau in Videoaufnahmen deutscher Alltagsgespräche untersucht. Ausgehend von seiner Funktion als Gradpartikel wird genau sowohl als redebeitragsinterne Bestätigungspartikel in Wortfindungsprozessen als auch als responsive Bestätigungspartikel eingesetzt. Da genau häufig das Ende eines Verstehensprozesses bzw. einer Wissensverhandlung markiert, könnte allgemeiner die Bezeichnung des Intersubjektivitätsmarkers in Erwägung gezogen werden. Aus dem responsiven, bestätigenden Gebrauch heraus entsteht eine stärker sequenzschließende und sequenzstrukturierende Funktion von genau, woraus sich auch der zunehmende Gebrauch dieses Lexems als rein diskursstrukturierende Partikel innerhalb eines Redezugs erklären könnte.
Research on multimodal interaction has shown that simultaneity of embodied behavior and talk is constitutive for social action. In this study, we demonstrate different temporal relationships between verbal and embodied actions. We focus on uses of German darf/kann ich? (“may/can I?”) in which speakers initiate, or even complete the embodied action that is addressed by the turn before the recipient’s response. We argue that through such embodied conduct, the speaker bodily enacts high agency, which is at odds with the low deontic stance they express through their darf/kann ich?-TCUs. In doing so, speakers presuppose that the intersubjective permissibility of the action is highly probable or even certain. Moreover, we demonstrate how the speaker’s embodied action, joint perceptual salience of referents, and the projectability of the action addressed with darf/kann ich? allow for a lean syntactic design of darf/kann ich?-TCUs (i.e., pronominalization, object omission, and main verb omission). Our findings underscore the reflexive relationship between lean syntax, sequential organization and multimodal conduct.
This paper asks whether and in which ways managing coordination tasks in traffic involve the accomplishment of intersubjectivity. Taking instances of coordinating passing an obstacle with oncoming traffic as the empirical case, four different practices were found.
1. Intersubjectivity can be presupposed by expecting others to stick to the traffic code and other mutually shared expectations.
2. Intersubjective solutions emerge step by step by mutual responsive-anticipatory adaptation of driving decisions.
3. Intersubjectivity can be accomplished by explicit interactive negotiation of passages.
4. Coordination problems can be solved without relying on intersubjectivity by unilateral, responsive-anticipatory adaptation to others’ behaviors.
Der vorliegende Beitrag beschreibt auf der Basis authentischer Alltagsinteraktionen das Formen- und Funktionsspektrum der äußerungsmodalisierenden Kommen-tarphrase ohne Scheiß im gesprochenen Deutsch. Die Konstruktion wird von Inter-agierenden insbesondere als Ressource zur Steigerung des Geltungsanspruchs einer Bezugsäußerung genutzt, wodurch diese als wahr und/oder ernstgemeint modali-siert wird. Damit leistet ohne Scheiß einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Bearbeitung des Erwartungsmanagements durch den/die SprecherIn sowie zur Herstellung von In-tersubjektivität. Die Konstruktion ist syntaktisch variabel und kann somit Äußerun-gen sowohl prospektiv als auch retraktiv modalisieren. Zudem wird mit der Wahl des Lexem Scheiß ein nähesprachliches Register aktiviert, was in Verbindung mit weiteren (prosodischen und/oder lexikalischen) Elementen zu affektiver Aufladung führen kann. Eine abschließende Darstellung häufiger lexikalischer Kookkurrenz-partner und deren funktionaler Bedeutung sowie ein Abgleich zu intrakonstruktio-nalen Varianten wie ohne Witz/ohne Spaß zeigt die Produktivität der Konstruktion im alltäglichen Sprachgebrauch auf.