Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (18)
- Part of a Book (6)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Language
- English (15)
- German (9)
- French (1)
- Multiple languages (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (26)
Keywords
- Konversationsanalyse (26) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (26) (remove)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (26) (remove)
Publisher
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (7)
- Benjamins (6)
- Wiley-Blackwell (2)
- de Gruyter (2)
- Cambridge University Press (1)
- Erich Schmidt (1)
- Frankfurt Business Media GmbH (1)
- L'Harmattan (1)
- Narr Francke Attempto (1)
- Routledge (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.
Wissenschaftskommunikation gehört auch in den Sprachwissenschaften inzwischen zu den regelmäßigen Aufgaben neben Forschung und Lehre. Die Aktivitäten reichen von "kleineren Formaten" wie TikTok-Videos zu linguistischen Themen bis zum Aufbau des "Forum Deutsche Sprache" durch das IDS Mannheim als eine Art "Museum für Sprachwissenschaft". Im Rahmen des Uni.Stadt.Fests 2019, einer ganztägigen Veranstaltung anlässlich des 50jährigen Jubiläums der Universität Bielefeld, haben wir – Gesprächsforschende der Universität – die Gesprächsanalyse an einem Stand als Forschungsmethode erlebbar gemacht: in einem sogenannten "Plauderlabor". Die Idee zu diesem Projekt basiert auf dem "Conversational Rollercoaster" von Albert et al. (2018), einem partizipatorischen Format zur Demonstration der konversationsanalytischen Methode, entwickelt für eine Wissenschaftsmesse in London 2016. Zur Vorbereitung des Plauderlabors organisierte sich in Bielefeld eine interdisziplinäre Gruppe mit den Lehrstuhlinhaberinnen Ruth Ayaß (Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung mit dem Schwerpunkt qualitative Methoden, Fakultät für Soziologie), Barbara Job (Sprache und Kommunikation, Fakultät für Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft) und Friederike Kern (Germanistik/Frühe sprachliche Bildung und frühes Lernen, Fakultät für Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft) sowie ca. 30 wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter*innen, Doktorand*innen und studentischen Hilfskräften, teils aus dem Zentrum für Lehren und Lernen (ZLL) und der Bielefeld School of Education (BiSEd). Unsere Erfahrungen mit dem Plauderlabor wollen wir im Folgenden teilen.
This article makes an empirical and a methodological contribution to the comparative study of action. The empirical contribution is a comparative study of three distinct types of action regularly accomplished with the turn format du meinst x (“you mean/think x”) in German: candidate understandings, formulations of the other’s mind, and requests for a judgment. These empirical materials are the basis for a methodological exploration of different levels of researcher abstraction in the comparative study of action. Two levels are examined: the (coarser) level of conditionally relevant responses (what a response speaker must do to align with the action of the prior turn) and the (finer) level of “full alignment” (what a response speaker can do to align with the action of a prior turn). Both levels of abstraction provide empirically viable and analytically interesting descriptive concepts for the comparative study of action. Data are in German.
This article examines how the most frequent imperative forms of the verb to show in German (zeig mal) and Czech (ukaž) are deployed in object-centred sequences. Specifically, it focuses on smartphone-based showing activities as these were the main sequential environments of show imperatives in the datasets investigated. In both languages, the imperative form does not merely aim to elicit a responsive action from the smartphone holder (such as making the device available) but projects an individual course of action from the requester’s side in the form of an immediate visual inspection of the digital content. This inspection is carried out as part of a joint course of action, allowing the recipient to provide a more detailed response to a prior action. Therefore, this specific imperative form is proven to be cross-linguistically suited to technology-mediated inspection sequences.
Spontan kreierte Okkasionalismen sind rekurrenter Bestandteil verbaler Interaktionen. Vor dem Hintergrund, dass die Bedeutung von Okkasionalismen nicht konventionalisiert und damit potenziell unbekannt ist, untersucht der vorliegende Beitrag aus gesprächsanalytischer Perspektive die Frage, unter welchen Bedingungen die Bedeutung okkasioneller Ausdrücke in Folgeäußerungen selbstinitiiert oder fremdinitiiert erklärt wird und wann dies nicht der Fall ist. Es zeigt sich, dass die überwältigende Mehrheit der 1.068 analysierten Okkasionalismen aus verschiedenen Gründen kein Verstehensproblem darstellt. Wird die Bedeutung eines Okkasionalismus dennoch selbstinitiiert erklärt, dient dies oft anderen Zwecken als der Verstehenssicherung. Wird dagegen die Bedeutung eines nicht problemlos erschließbaren Okkasionalismus nicht unmittelbar selbstinitiiert erläutert, dient der ‚rätselhafte‘ Ausdruck als interaktive Ressource dazu, Rezipient/-innen neugierig zu machen, Nachfragen zu elizitieren und damit Folgeäußerungen zu lizenzieren.
In this chapter, I will focus on the phenomenon of drop out, i.e., withdrawal from the turn due to overlapping talk, in order to reflect on the link between “unfinished” turns and participation framework. With the help of a sequential and multimodal analysis inspired by the conversation analytical approach, I will show that dropping out from a turn is strongly linked to the availability displayed by potential recipients of a turn-at-talk. Although conversation analysis has described in detail the systematics of overlapping talk, especially of its onset (Jefferson 1973, 1983, 1986) and its resolution (Scheg-loff 2000; Jefferson 2004), the phenomenon of withdrawal from a turn due to simultaneous talk has not been investigated in detail. While it seems to bedifficult to describe this interactional practice by referring exclusively to syntactic features (incompleteness of the turn), I suggest looking at turn withdrawal from a multimodal perspective (e.g. Goodwin 1980, 1981; Mondada2007a; Schmitt 2005), taking into account visible resources like gaze or gesture. The problem of continuing or stopping a turn-in-progress in overlapping talk can be closely linked to the participation framework (Goodwin and Goodwin 2004), as speakers do visibly take into account their recipient’s availability and coordinate their turn construction with the dynamic changes of the participation framework and the interactional space.
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.
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.