Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (146)
- Article (127)
- Book (32)
- Other (8)
- Conference Proceeding (7)
- Part of Periodical (5)
- Working Paper (5)
- Review (4)
- Doctoral Thesis (3)
- Master's Thesis (1)
Keywords
- Interaktion (339) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (153)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (69)
- Postprint (34)
- Ahead of Print (2)
Reviewstate
Publisher
- de Gruyter (32)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (22)
- Narr (19)
- Benjamins (17)
- Taylor & Francis (17)
- Narr Francke Attempto (12)
- Winter (10)
- De Gruyter (9)
- Springer (9)
- Elsevier (8)
In this contribution we analyse how mobile device users in face-to-face communication jointly negotiate the boundaries and action spaces between digital and non-digital, shared and individual, public and private. Instead of conceptualising digital and face-to-face, i. e., non-digital, communication as separate, more recent research emphasises that social practices relying on mobile devices increasingly connect physical and virtual communicative spaces. Using multimodal conversation analysis, we investigate the situated use of mobile devices and media in social interaction. Excerpts from videotaped everyday conversations illustrate how participants frame their smartphone use in the presence of others, such as when looking at digital pictures, or when recording voice messages. A detailed analysis of verbal and embodied conduct shows how participants negotiate and interpret the connection or separation of digital and non-digital activities and possible forms of participation within these. (Digital) publicness or privacy are therefore to be understood as an interactive accomplishment.
The article deals with communicative failures of journalists in “YouTube” celebrity video interviews in the Ukrainian and German linguacultures from the point of view of social interaction and the theory of speech genres at all structural levels of the communicative genre construction, establishing common and distinctive features in both linguacultures. The analysis made it possible to conclude that behind a language (speech) failure there is a violation caused by a journalist, a respondent, or an external noise.
Wie gelingt es den Beteiligten an Brandeinsatzübungen der Feuerwehr, die ‚Einsatzräume‘ durch multimodale Interaktion herzustellen? Wie machen sie Orte unter der Perspektive des Einsatzes als organisationale Schauplätze erst verständlich und damit benutzbar? Und welche Rolle spielen alte und neue technische Medien für die Orientierung und Navigation? Institutionelle Handlungspraktiken von Feuerwehrleuten mit eigens für und durch sie (mit )entwickelten neuen digitalen Medien – sogenannten ‚Landmarken‘ – werden beispielhaft für derartige Interaktionsprozesse analysiert und Settings mit ausschließlich herkömmlichen Hilfsmitteln gegenübergestellt. Methodisch schließt die Untersuchung an die Angewandte Gesprächsforschung und die ethnomethodologisch-konversationsanalytisch geprägten ‚Studies of Work‘ und ‚Workplace Studies‘ an.
Die Arbeit wurde von der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik (GAL) mit dem doctima-Preis 2015 ausgezeichnet.
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.
Fragen, meist mit systemisch-lösungsorientiertem Hintergrund, gelten im Coaching als Königsweg für den Erfolg. Entsprechend ist eine große Anzahl an Publikationen entstanden, die diese zentrale Intervention in den Blick nehmen. In dieser Praxisliteratur werden Fragen dabei oftmals rezeptartig nach Typus, Funktion und möglichen Anwendungskontexten wie etwa Phasen geordnet sowie anhand dekontextualisierter Beispiele beschrieben. Fragen, die in Praxis- und Lehrbuchsammlungen aufgenommen wurden, sind aus der Theorie hergeleitet und in der Praxis erprobt. Allerdings finden sich in dieser Literatur auch empirisch nicht haltbare Aussagen wie etwa die negative Bewertung geschlossener Fragen. Außerdem stellt ihre dekontextualisierte Darstellungsform insbesondere für unerfahrene Coaches eine Herausforderung bei der Umsetzung ins konkrete Coaching-Handeln dar: Fragen sind immer eingebettet in einen Kontext und müssen auf die Anwesenden, die jeweilige kommunikative Interaktion mit ihnen sowie die lokale sequenzielle Struktur des Gesprächs übersetzt werden. Die wissenschaftliche Überprüfung, wie diese Fragensammlungen im Coaching (erfolgreich) ein- und umgesetzt werden, ist dabei insgesamt noch ganz am Anfang. Der vorliegende Beitrag berichtet von einem aktuellen interdisziplinären Forschungsprojekt, das Fragen in den empirischen Blick nimmt und dabei einen Übergang von Eminenz zur Evidenz ermöglicht. Der Beitrag liefert auch Ideen und Anregungen für Coaches, diese Übersetzungsarbeit zu leisten.
Mit den Methoden der Interaktionalen Linguistik und der Konversationsanalyse untersucht die vorliegende Arbeit syntaktische Ko-Konstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch, wobei der Fokus auf Vervollständigungen eines zweiten Sprechers vor einem möglichen syntaktischen Abschlusspunkt liegt. Auf der Basis von 199 Ko-Konstruktionen aus informellen Interviews und Tischgesprächen leistet die Arbeit eine erste umfassende Analyse der gemeinsamen Konstruktion einer syntaktischen Gestalt durch zwei Sprecher im Deutschen.
Die Struktur der Ko-Konstruktionen wird in einem ersten Schritt über die Basisoperationen der Online-Syntax, Projektion und Retraktion, beschrieben. Im Fokus steht hier die Frage, an welchen Projektionen sich der zweite Sprecher orientiert, wobei sowohl syntaktische und prosodische als auch semanto-pragmatische Aspekte in die Analyse miteinbezogen werden. In einem zweiten Schritt wird die zeitliche und sequenzielle Organisation der Ko-Konstruktionen detailliert herausgearbeitet. Ein Schwerpunkt liegt hier auf einer genauen Darstellung und Analyse der verschiedenen Handlungsoptionen des ersten Sprechers nach der ko-konstruierten Vervollständigung.
Rejecting the validity of inferred attributions of incompetence in German talk-in-interaction
(2024)
This paper deals with pragmatic inference from the perspective of Conversation Analysis. In particular, we examine a specific variety of inferences - the attribution of incompetence which Self constructs on the basis of Other's prior action, hearable as positioning Self as incompetent (e.g., instructions, offers of assistance, advice); this attribution of incompetence concerns Self's execution of some practical task. This inference is indexed in Self's response, which highlights Self's expertise, or competence concerning the task at hand. We focus on two recurrent types of such responses in our data: (i) accounting for competence through formulations of prior experience with carrying out a practical action and (ii) explicit claims of competence for accomplishing this action. We analyze the interactional environments in which these responses occur, the ways in which the two practices index Self's understanding of being positioned as incompetent and the interactional work they do. Finally, we discuss how through rejecting and inferred attribution of incompetence, Self implicitly seeks to restore their face and defend their autonomy as an agent, yet, without entering an explicit identity-negotiation. Findings rest on the analysis of 20 cases found in video-recordings of naturally occurring talk-in-interaction in German from the corpus FOLK.
The idea of this article is to take the immaterial and somehow ethereal nature of aesthetic concepts seriously by asking how aesthetic concepts are negotiated and thus formed in communication. My examples come from theatrical production where aesthetic decisions naturally play a major role. In the given case, an aesthetic concept is introduced with which only the director, but none of the actors is familiar in the beginning of the rehearsals. The concept, Wabi Sabi, comes from Japanese culture. As the whole rehearsal process was video recorded, it is possible to track the process of how the concept is negotiated and acquired over time. So, instead of defining criteria what Wabi Sabi as an aesthetic concept “consists of,” this article seeks to show how the concept is introduced, explained and “used” within a practical context, in this case a theater rehearsal. In contrast to conventional models of aesthetic experience, I am interested in the ways in which an aesthetic concept is configured in and through socially organized interaction, and — vice versa — how that interaction contributes to the situational accomplishment of the same concept. In short: I am interested in the “doing” of aesthetic concepts, especially in “doing Wabi Sabi.”
Our everyday lives in any social community are shaped by rules (e.g., Roughley 2019; Schmidt/Rakoczy 2019). Rules (in a broad sense) are interactionally negotiated, monitored, enforced, and serve as an ‘orientation value‘ in social life. If someone‘s behavior is treated as norm-violating or problematic in certain way, it may be therefore confronted. Confronting interlocutors can immediately stop, modify, or retrospectively reprimand the misconduct of others in a moralizing manner. Such confrontations of a problem behavior occur commonly in informal interactions. On the basis of our corpus, specifically in informal interactions at the table, I observed that, for example, in Polish, German and British English, direct confrontations occur on average at least once every three minutes. Participants design these actions in a variety of ways, but like everything in interaction, the design is not arbitrary (Sacks 1984; Enfield/Sidnell 2019). A recurrent feature of such turns is connecting misconduct to some more general concepts. It is evident from the data that e.g. speakers of German and Polish use ‘generally valid statements’ in problematic moments (cf. Küttner/Vatanen/Zinken 2022) to reach the closure of the problem sequence, also specifically dealing there with distribution of deontic and epistemic rights (Rogowska in prep.). I ask, when and for what purpose generality, that is, abstracting from a concrete behaviour, is used as a tool while confronting others. The focus is on sequential and linguistic features of abstracting in confronting moments in language comparison. What are the methods to achieve abstraction: i) defocusing the confronted, specific agent (cf. Zinken et al. 2021; Siewierska 2008), e.g. nur derjenige der dran ist der darf die bedingungen für den handel stellen (only the one whose turn it is may set the conditions for the trade); using ii) extreme case formulations (Pomerantz 1986), e.g. na siostrę zawsze można liczyć (you can always count on a sister); iii) referring to stable character traits, e.g. Matylda bardzo chetne by podala. (.) Ona jest taka skora do pomocy (Matylda would be very happy to pass (it to you). (.) She is so eager to help); or iv) broader categorizing of the given referent, e.g. do not build (.) do do not build do not build swastikas (when a) German guy is filming us? Sometimes, even several locus of abstraction are combined in the same turn. Can we identify language-specific and cross-linguistic patterns? What are the interactional consequences: enforcing a compliant behavior in the future, eliciting an apology or cognitively simplifying complex problems? From a comparative perspective, I ask whether going beyond the here-and-now while confronting others is a practice that unites speakers across languages and is thus a human cognitive strategy to display normativity. This ongoing study is based on new comparable data from four European languages from informal interaction during activities around the table (Kornfeld/Küttner/Zinken 2023; Küttner et al. in prep.). The phenomenon was coded systematically in each of the four languages as part of a larger, quantitatively oriented study with different questions (Küttner et al. submitted). In the talk, I will show exemplarily Polish and German evidence. I use the methods of Conversation Analysis (Sidnell/Stivers (eds.) 2012) and Interactional Linguistics (Imo/Lanwer 2019).
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.