Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Fernsehsprache (3) (remove)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (2)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
Publisher
Tollpatschig interviewen oder interviewt werden – Kurzvideos im ukrainischen und deutschen Fernsehen
(2016)
Kurzinterviews im Fernsehen stellen nicht nur für die kontrastive Medienlinguistik, sondern auch für die Gesprächsanalyse, Textsortenlinguistik und Pragmatik einen aufschlussreichen Gegenstand dar, besonders wenn es sich um kommunikative Abweichungen handelt. Der Beitrag stellt die Klassifizierung der Abweichungen bzw. der Deviationen in den Fernsehinterviews in Bezug auf die Kommunikation und die Sprache vor. Dabei werden die Kommunikationsdeviationen vom Standpunkt des Adressanten, des Kommunikationsprozesses, des gegenseitigen Verständnisses und des Adressaten sowie sprachliche Abweichungen betrachtet. Im Beitrag werden gemeinsame und unterschiedliche Merkmale der Deviationen in ukrainischen und deutschen Kurzinterviews im Fernsehen festgestellt, was zur Erarbeitung eines Modells der Deviationen und zu einer tieferen kontrastiven Untersuchung beider Sprachen verhilft.
In the present article we argue that all communication is medial in the sense that every human sign-based interaction is shaped by medial aspects from the outset. We propose a dynamic, semiotic concept of media that focuses on the process-related aspect of mediality, and we test the applicability of this concept using as an example the second presidential debate between Clinton and Trump in 2016. The analysis shows in detail how the sign processing during the debate is continuously shaped by structural aspects of television and specific traits of political communication in television. This includes how the camerawork creates meaning and how the protagonists both use the affordances of this special mediality. Therefore, it is not adequate in our view to separate the technical aspects of the medium, the ‘hardware’, from the processual aspects and the structural conditions of communication. While some aspects of the interaction are directly constituted by the medium, others are more indirectly shaped and influenced by it, especially by its institutional dimension – we understand them as second-order media effects. The whole medial procedure with its specific mediality is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition of meaning-making. We distinguish the medial procedure from the semiotic modes employed, the language games played and the competence of the players involved.