Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (79) (remove)
Keywords
- Konversationsanalyse (43)
- Deutsch (37)
- Interaktion (30)
- conversation analysis (16)
- Multimodalität (9)
- Gesprochene Sprache (8)
- Pragmatik (6)
- Theaterprobe (6)
- Fahrschule (5)
- Kommunikation (5)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (26)
- Postprint (17)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (12)
- Ahead of Print (2)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (45)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (2)
Publisher
- Elsevier (11)
- Benjamins (6)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (6)
- de Gruyter (6)
- Taylor & Francis (5)
- Springer (4)
- Springer Nature (3)
- Buske (2)
- Erich Schmidt (2)
- Frontiers Media SA (2)
In psychotherapy, therapists often formulate interpretations of clients' prior talk which are ‘unilateral’ in the sense that therapists index that they are themselves the author of an interpretive inference which may not be acceptable to the client. Based on 100 German-language recordings of brief psychodynamic psychotherapy (4 clients with 25 sessions each), we describe a multimodal practice of constructing extended multi-unit turns of delivering therapeutic interpretations. The practice includes gaze aversion until the main point of the interpretation is reached, perceptive and cognitive formulae, epistemic hedges, inserted accounts, parenthesis, self-repair, and self-reformulations. These design-features work together to index that the therapist produces an interpretation that can be heard as being tentative. The design of the therapists' turns reflexively indexes the expectation that the client might resist the interpretation; at the same time they are constructed to avoid resistance and to invite the client's self-exploration into new directions, often with a focus on emotions.
In workplace settings, skilled participants cooperate on the basis of shared routines in smooth and often implicit ways. Our study shows how interactional histories provide the basis for routine coordination. We draw on theater rehearsals as a perspicuous setting for tracking interactional histories. In theater rehearsals, the process of building performing routines is in focus. Our study builds on collections of consecutive performances of the same instructional task coming from a corpus of video-recordings of 30 h of theater rehearsals of professional actors in German. Over time, instructions and their implementations are routinely coordinated by virtue of accumulated shared interactional experience: Instructions become shorter, the timing of responses becomes increasingly compacted and long negotiations are reduced to a two-part sequence of instruction and implementation. Overall, a routine of how to perform the scene emerges. Over interactional histories, patterns of projection of next actions emanating from instructions become reliable and can be used by respondents as sources for anticipating and performing relevant next actions. The study contributes to our understanding of how shared knowledge and routines accumulate over shared interactional experiences in publicly performed and reciprocally perceived ways and how this impinges on the efficiency of joint action.
Instruieren in kreativen Settings – wie Vorgaben der Regie durch Schauspielende ausgestaltet werden
(2021)
Instruktionen sind darauf angelegt, ein festgelegtes Ergebnis zu erzielen, v.a. in instrumentellen Arbeitskontexten oder Lehr-Lern-Settings. In kreativen Settings dagegen existieren häufig keine klar definierten Lerninhalte. Das Endprodukt und der Weg dorthin werden vielmehr bewusst offen gehalten, um Kreativität zu ermöglichen. Trotzdem machen Instruktionen auch in kreativen Settings einen Großteil der Äußerungen aus. Wir zeigen an zwei typischen Fällen aus Theaterproben, wie Instruktionen in kreativen Settings Neues hervorzubringen vermögen. Regisseur*innen arbeiten mit relativ offenen Rahmeninstruktionen, die von Schauspielenden in Folgehandlungen auszugestalten sind. Instruierte Handlungen haben so ein hohes Potenzial an Eigeninitiative und liefern die Grundlage für Regisseur*innen, um Aspekte des vorgängigen Spiels der Schauspieler*innen affirmativ aufzugreifen, die sie selbst zuvor so nicht instruiert haben. Diese Selektionen der Regie greifen einen Teil des dargebotenen Schauspiels auf und machen es für das zukünftige Handeln verbindlich. Unsere Studie untersucht, wie Instruktionen Folgehandeln evozieren, auf das sie selbst wiederum aufbauen. Grundlage ist ein Korpus von 800 Stunden Videoaufnahmen von Theaterproben.
In theater as a bodily-spatial art form, much emphasis is placed on the way actors perform movements in space as an important multimodal resource for creating meaning. In theater rehearsals, movements are created in series of directors' instructions and actors' implementations. Directors' instructions on how to conduct a movement often draw on embodied demonstrations in contrast to verbal descriptions. For instance, to instruct an actress to act like a school girl a director can use depictive (he demonstrates the expected behavior) instead of descriptive (“can you act like a school girl”) means. Drawing on a corpus of 400 h video recordings of rehearsal interactions in three German professional theater productions, from which we selected 265 cases, we examine ways to instruct movement-based actions in theater rehearsals. Using a multimodally extended ethnomethodological-conversation analytical approach, we focus on the multimodal details that constitute demonstrations as complex action types. For the present article, we have chosen nine instances, through which we aim to illuminate (1) The difference in using embodied demonstrations versus verbal descriptions to instruct; (2) typical ways directors combine verbal descriptions with embodied demonstrations in their instructions. First, we ask what constitutes a demonstration and what it achieves in comparison to verbal descriptions. Using a typical case, we illustrate four characteristics of demonstrations that all of the cases we studied share. Demonstrations (1) are embedded in instructional activities; (2) show and do not tell; (3) are responded to by emulating what was shown; (4) are rhetorically shaped to convey the instruction's focus. However, none of the 265 demonstrations we investigated were produced without verbal descriptions. In a second step we therefore ask in which typical ways verbal descriptions accompany embodied demonstrations when directors instruct actors how to play a scene. We distinguish four basic types. Verbal descriptions can be used (1) to build the demonstration itself; (2) to delineate a demonstration verbally within an instruction; (3) to indicate positive (what should be done) and negative (what should be avoided) versions of demonstrations; (4) as an independent means to describe the instruction's focus in addition to the demonstration. Our study contributes to research on how embodied resources are used to create meaning and how they combine with and depend on verbal resources.
In workplace settings, skilled participants cooperate on the basis of shared routines in smooth and often implicit ways. Our study shows how interactional histories provide the basis for routine coordination. We draw on theater rehearsals as a perspicuous setting for tracking interactional histories. In theater rehearsals, the process of building performing routines is in focus. Our study builds on collections of consecutive performances of the same instructional task coming from a corpus of video-recordings of 30 h of theater rehearsals of professional actors in German. Over time, instructions and their implementations are routinely coordinated by virtue of accumulated shared interactional experience: Instructions become shorter, the timing of responses becomes increasingly compacted and long negotiations are reduced to a two-part sequence of instruction and implementation. Overall, a routine of how to perform the scene emerges. Over interactional histories, patterns of projection of next actions emanating from instructions become reliable and can be used by respondents as sources for anticipating and performing relevant next actions. The study contributes to our understanding of how shared knowledge and routines accumulate over shared interactional experiences in publicly performed and reciprocally perceived ways and how this impinges on the efficiency of joint action.
Der vorliegende Artikel diskutiert die ethnographische Forschung in der Jugendsoziologie und problematisiert ihre Grenzen und Reichweite. Auf der Grundlage der Kritik der bisherigen Forschungspraxis wird ein Vorschlag zur konzeptionell-methodischen Neuorientierung ethnographischer Jugendforschung entwickelt. Die Diskussion geht nicht von einer theoriegeleiteten Perspektive aus, sondern befragt einschlägige Untersuchungen unter methodischem Blickwinkel. Dabei wird deutlich, daß die Forscher der Sicht der Akteure verhaftet bleiben, da ihr Datenmaterial aus den rekonstruierenden Darstellungen der Alltagspraxis durch die Akteure besteht (= Sekundärdatenstatus), nicht aber aus Dokumentationen der Alltagspraxis selbst. Die Forschung ist also noch nicht bei der Alltagspraxis der Akteure angekommen. Dies zeigt sich insbesondere am Beispiel des sog. Jugendsoziologischen Interviews. Als Alternative werden theoretische und methodische Konturen einer Ethnographie jugendlicher Kommunikationskulturen auf gesprächsanalytischer Basis umrissen. Abschließend wird die Fruchtbarkeit dieser Forschungsperspektive für traditionelle und neuartige jugendsoziologische Fragestellungen diskutiert.
Der Beitrag schlägt das Konzept der 'Positionierung' als Instrument zur empirischen Erforschung narrativer Identitäten auf der Basis von autobiographischen Erzählungen vor. Es wird dafür argumentiert, dass die Perspektive der Positionierung einen materialgestützten und materialadäquaten Zugang zu Prozessen der Identitätskonstitution in mündlichen Stegreiferzählungen bietet, da es die identitätsrelevanten darstellerischen wie performativen Handlungen von Erzählern zu rekonstruieren erlaubt. Dabei wird zwischen verschiedenen Ebenen und Bezügen unterschieden: Selbst- und Fremdpositionierungen, Positionierungen dargestellter Figuren innerhalb der Erzählzeit und von Erzähler und Zuhörern in der erzählten Zeit sowie die Relation zwischen erzählenden und erzähltem Ich. Diese Differenzierungen erlauben nicht nur eine detaillierte Rekonstruktion unterschiedlicher Facetten und Verfahren der Herstellung narrativer Identität, sie eröffnen auch psychologisch und soziologisch aufschlussreiche Einblicke in die Relationen zwischen Identitätsentwürfen auf den verschiedenen Ebenen.
This paper explores speakers’ notions of the situational appropriacy of linguistic variants. We conducted a web-based survey in which we collected ratings of the appropriacy of variants of linguistic variables in spoken German. A range of quantitative methods (cluster analysis, factor analysis and various forms of visualization techniques) is applied in order to analyze metalinguistic awareness and the differences in the evaluation of written vs. spoken stimuli. First, our data show that speakers’ ratings of the appropriacy of linguistic variants vary reliably with two rough clusters representing formal and informal speech situations and genres. The findings confirm that speakers adhere to a notion of spoken standard German which takes genre and register-related variation into account. Secondly, our analysis reveals a written language bias: metalinguistic awareness is strongly influenced by the physical mode of the presentation of linguistic items (spoken vs. written).
The paper deals with the use of ICH WEIß NICHT (‘I don’t know’) in German talk-in-interaction. Pursuing an Interactional Linguistics approach, we identify different interactional uses of ICH WEIß NICHT and discuss their relationship to variation in argument structure (SV (O), (O)VS, V-only). After ICH WEIß NICHT with full complementation, speakers emphasize their lack of knowledge or display reluctance to answer. In contrast, after variants without an object complement, in contrast, speakers display uncertainty about the truth of the following proposition or about its sufficiency as an answer. Thus, while uses with both subject and object tend to close a sequence or display lack of knowledge, responses without an object, in contrast, function as a prepositioned epistemic hedge or a pragmatic marker framing the following TCU. When ICH WEIß NICHT is used in response to a statement, it indexes disagreement (independently from all complementation patterns).