Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (96)
- Part of a Book (10)
- Part of Periodical (5)
- Conference Proceeding (4)
- Book (1)
- Other (1)
- Review (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (74)
- German (34)
- French (8)
- Multiple languages (2)
- Ukrainian (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (119) (remove)
Keywords
- Interaktion (119) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (79)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (22)
- Postprint (16)
- Ahead of Print (2)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (119) (remove)
Publisher
- Taylor & Francis (17)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (13)
- Elsevier (8)
- de Gruyter (8)
- Benjamins (7)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (6)
- Springer (5)
- Springer Nature (4)
- IDS-Verlag (3)
- Budrich (2)
In their analysis of methods that participants use to manage the realization of practical courses of action, Kendrick and Drew (2016/this issue) focus on cases of assistance, where the need to be addressed is Self’s, and Other lends a helping hand. In our commentary, we point to other forms of cooperative engagement that are ubiquitously recruited in interaction. Imperative requests characteristically expect compliance on the grounds of Other’s already established commitment to a wider and shared course of actions. Established commitments can also provide the engine behind recruitment sequences that proceed nonverbally. And forms of cooperative engagement that are well glossed as assistance can nevertheless be demonstrably oriented to established commitments. In sum, we find commitment to shared courses of action to be an important element in the design and progression of certain recruitment sequences, where the involvement of Other is best defined as contribution. The commentary highlights the importance of interdependent orientations in the organization of cooperation. Data are in German, Italian, and Polish.
Sometimes in interaction, a speaker articulates an overt interpretation of prior talk. Such moments have been studied as involving the repair of a problem with the other’s talk or as formulating an understanding of the matter at hand. Stepping back from the established notions of formulations and repair, we examine the variety of actions speakers do with the practice of offering an interpretation, and the order within this domain. Results show half a dozen usage types of interpretations in mundane interaction. These form a largely continuous territory of action, with recognizably distinct usage types as well as cases falling between these (proto)typical uses. We locate order in the domain of interpretations using the method of semantic maps and show that, contrary to earlier assumptions in the literature, interpretations that formulate an understanding of the matter at hand are actually quite pervasive in ordinary talk. These findings contribute to research on action formation and advance our understanding of understanding in interaction. Data are video- and audio-recordings of mundane social interaction in the German language from a variety of settings.
We examine moments in social interaction in which a person formulates what another thinks or believes. Such formulations of belief constitute a practice with specifiable contexts and consequences. Belief formulations treat aspects of the other person's prior conduct as accountable on the basis that it provided a new angle on a topic, or otherwise made a surprising contribution within an ongoing course of actions. The practice of belief formulations subjectivizes the content that the other articulated and thereby topicalizes it, mobilizing commitment to that position, an account, or further elaboration. We describe how the practice can be put to work in different activity contexts: sometimes it is designed to undermine the other's position as a subjective 'mere belief', at other times it serves to mobilize further topic talk. Throughout, belief formulations show themselves to be a method by which we get to know ourselves and each other as mental agents.
Linguistic relativists have traditionally asked 'how language influences thought', but conversation analysts and anthropological linguists have moved the focus from thought to social action. We argue that 'social action' should in this context not become simply a new dependent variable, because the formulation 'does language influence action' suggests that social action would already be meaningfully constituted prior to its local (verbal and multi-modal) accomplishment. We draw on work by the gestalt psychologist Karl Duncker to show that close attention to action-in-a-situation helps us ground empirical work on cross-cultural diversity in an appreciation of the invariances that make culture-specific elements of practice meaningful.
The human ability to anticipate upcoming behavior not only enables smooth turn transitions but also makes early responses possible, as respondents use a variety of cues that provide for early projection of the type of action that is being performed. This article examines resources for projection in interaction in three unrelated languages—Finnish, Japanese, and Mandarin—in sequences where speakers make evaluative assertions on a topic. The focus is on independently agreeing responses initiated in early overlap. Our cross-linguistic analysis reveals that while projection based on the ongoing turn-constructional unit relies on language-specific grammatical constructions, projection based on the larger context seems to be less language-dependent. A crucial finding is that in the target sequences, stances taken toward the topic already during earlier talk, as well as other structural patterns, are among the resources that recipients use for projecting how and when the ongoing turn will end.
Cette contribution propose une analyse qualitative et quantitative des reformulations sur des données interactionnelles. Pour la constitution du corpus d’étude, nous nous appuyons sur un outil de détection automatique des hétéro-répétitions, considérées comme indices de reformulation. Après avoir illustré les éléments qui ont présidé à la conception de l’outil, nous présentons le paramétrage de cette ressource, que nous avons testée sur quatre enregistrements de la base de données CLAPI. Cette étude souligne la pertinence de l’approche interactionnelle dans l’analyse des hétéro-répétitions, en en montrant les fonctionnalités multiples, notamment dans les pratiques de reformulation dans la conversation.
Argumentation gilt als zentrales rationales Verfahren gewaltfreier Problem- und Konfliktlösung. Die dabei vorausgesetzte Prämisse der Intersubjektivierbarkeit und Rationalitätsbestimmtheit wurde aber nie daraufhin geprüft, ob sie mit den Bedingungen und Zwängen der Herstellung und Durchführung von Gesprächen vereinbar ist. Auf der Basis einer detaillierten linguistischen Gesprächsanalyse von mehr als 60 alltagsweltlichen Problem- und Konfliktgesprächen wird in dem Beitrag skizziert, wie Argumentation in Gesprächen hergestellt und durchgeführt wird. Interaktive Sequenzierung und inhaltliche Bezugnahmen machen dabei deutlich, dass Gesprächsteilnehmer stets auf interaktionskonstitutive Elemente abheben: Was zur Herstellung von Gesprächen notwendig ist, wird in Gesprächen als Argument gewendet. Argumentation wird damit als eine soziale Handlungspraxis bestimmt, deren Ursprung in den Bedingungen, Möglichkeiten und Zwängen von Gesprächen, von sozialer Interaktion überhaupt liegt. Die für Argumentation konstitutive Anbindung an übergeordnete Handlungsorientierungen widerspricht dabei fundamental der Idee rein sachbezogener und interesseloser Aushandlung, wie sie seit der Antike in den Wissenschaften, aber auch im Alltagsdenken vorherrscht. Was Gesprächsteilnehmer beim Argumentieren antreibt, ist die Kraft intersubjektiven Glaubens an Argumentation als ein Verfahren zur Entwicklung einer gemeinsam geteilten Perspektive, und der Anspruch an das Verfahren als ein Validität garantierendes Verfahren wird dabei außerdem noch mit dem Anspruch auf die Validität des Ergebnisses einer Argumentation verwechselt. Die Kraft des intersubjektiven Glaubens und der Anspruch an das Verfahren sind die zentralen Bestandteile dessen, was hier Kommunikationsideologie genannt wird.
This study documents change over time and across proficiency levels in French second-language (L2) speakers’ practices for initiating complaints. Prior research has shown that speakers typically initiate complaints in a stepwise manner that indexes the contingent, moral, and delicate nature of the activity. Although elementary speakers in my data often launch complaint sequences in a straightforward way, they sometimes embodiedly foreshadow verbal expressions of negative stance or delay negative talk through brief positively valenced prefaces. More advanced speakers in part rely on the same initiation practices as elementary speakers. In addition, they recurrently use extensive prefatory work that accounts for and legitimizes the upcoming complaint, and they regularly initiate complaints jointly with coparticipants through a progressive escalation of negative stance expressions. I document interactional resources involved in this change and discuss the findings in terms of speakers’ development of L2 interactional competence. Data are in French with English translations.