Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (63)
- Part of a Book (6)
- Part of Periodical (4)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
- Book (2)
- Other (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (53)
- German (19)
- French (6)
- Multiple languages (1)
- Ukrainian (1)
Keywords
- Interaktion (80) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (80) (remove)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (80) (remove)
Publisher
- Taylor & Francis (12)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (6)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (6)
- de Gruyter (5)
- Benjamins (4)
- Springer (4)
- Springer Nature (4)
- IDS-Verlag (3)
- Budrich (2)
- Frontiers Media SA (2)
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.
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.
In so-called Let’s Plays, video gaming is presented and verbally commented by Let’s Players on the internet for an audience. When only watched but not played, the most attractive features of video games, immersion and interactivity, get lost – at least for the internet audience. We assume that the accompanying reactions (transmitted via a so-called facecam) and verbal comments of Let’s Players on their game for an audience contribute to an embodiment of their avatars which makes watching a video game more attractive. Following an ethnomethodological conversation analytical (EMCA) approach, our paper focusses on two practices of embodying avatars. A first practice is that Let’s Players verbally formulate their actions in the game. By that, they make their experiences and the 'actions' of avatars more transparent. Secondly, they produce response cries (Goffman) in reaction to game events. By that, they enhance the liveliness of their avatars. Both practices contribute to a co-construction of a specific kind of (tele-)presence.
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.
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.