Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (918)
- Conference Proceeding (327)
- Part of a Book (235)
- Review (46)
- Book (25)
- Part of Periodical (14)
- Report (9)
- Other (6)
- Working Paper (5)
- Image (1)
Language
- English (822)
- German (715)
- French (21)
- Portuguese (6)
- Multiple languages (5)
- Russian (5)
- Ukrainian (4)
- Polish (3)
- Latvian (2)
- Croatian (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (1586) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (529)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (302)
- Konversationsanalyse (129)
- Interaktion (119)
- Computerlinguistik (110)
- Gesprochene Sprache (94)
- Rezension (85)
- Wörterbuch (76)
- Kommunikation (60)
- Annotation (58)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (1004)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (410)
- Postprint (165)
- Ahead of Print (6)
- Hybrides Open Access (2)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
- Preprint (1)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (1586) (remove)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (97)
- IDS-Verlag (91)
- Erich Schmidt (75)
- Association for Computational Linguistics (35)
- Schmidt (34)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (34)
- Erich Schmidt Verlag (33)
- European Language Resources Association (33)
- Springer (28)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (27)
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.
The present paper explores how rules are enforced and talked about in everyday life. Drawing on a corpus of board game recordings across European languages, we identify a sequential and praxeological context for rule talk. After a game rule is breached, a participant enforces proper play and then formulates a rule with an impersonal deontic statement (e.g. “It’s not allowed to do this”). Impersonal deontic statements express what may or may not be done without tying the obligation to a particular individual. Our analysis shows that such statements are used as part of multi-unit and multi-modal turns where rule talk is accomplished through both grammatical and embodied means. Impersonal deontic statements serve multiple interactional goals: they account for having changed another’s behavior in the moment and at the same time impart knowledge for the future. We refer to this complex action as an “instruction.” The results of this study advance our understanding of rules and rule-following in everyday life, and of how resources of language and the body are combined to enforce and formulate rules.
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.
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 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.
When formulating a request for an object, speakers can choose among different grammatical resources that would all serve the overall purpose. This paper examines the social contexts indexed and created by the choice of the turn format can I have x to request a shared good (the pepper grinder, a tissue from a box on the table, etc.) in British English informal interaction. The analysis is based on a video corpus of approximately 25 h of everyday interaction among family and friends. In its home environment, a request in the format can I have x treats the other as being in control over the relevant material object, a control that is the contingent outcome of ongoing courses of action. This contingent control over a shared good produces an obligation to make it available. This analysis is supported by an examination of similarly formatted request turns in other languages, of can I have x in another interactional environment (after a relevant offer has been made) in British English, and of deviant cases. The results highlight the intimate connection of request format selection to the present engagements of (prospective) request recipients.
This paper introduces a method for computer-based analyses of metaphor in discourse, combining quantitative and qualitative elements. This method is illustrated with data from research on German newspaper discourse concerning the ongoing system transformations of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Methodological aspects of the research procedure are discussed and it is argued that quantitative elements can enhance comparability in cross-cultural and cross-lingual research. Some basic findings of the research are presented. The peculiarities of the German Wende discourse - especially the salience of a passive perspective on the ongoing political and social changes - are outlined.
W artykule przedstawiono analizç struktury metaforycznej polskich dyskursów na temat konca komunizmu panst wowego. Analizç przeprowadzono w oparciu o bazç danych, zawierajqcq 1008 metafor pochodzqcych z tekstów prasowych z 1999 roku, upamiçtniajqcych wazne wydarzenia z 1989 roku. Jak siç okazuje, struktury metaforyczne róznych dyskursów wyrazajq i utrwalajq ideologjcznie uksztaltowane interpretacje historii. Szczegolowiej badano interpretacje metaforyczne dwóch zjawisk: zachowania siç przedstawicieli wladzy i opozycji przy Okrqglym Stole oraz pytania o ciqglosc historii. Te dwa zjawiska — których konceptualizacja gra waznq rolç w okreáleniu autostereotypu Polaka w III RP — sq interpretowane za pomocq róznego rodzaju metafor. Metaforyczne rozumienie ciqglosci historii da siç analizowac za pomocq tak zwanej „konceptualnej teorii metafory" LakofFa i Johnsona. Natomiast zachowania komunistów i opozycjonistów sq. interpretowane za pomoc^ metafor intertekstualnych. Sq one skonstruowane nie na podstawie doswiadczenia cielesnego, lecz doswiadczenia specyficznego dia danej kultury. Wydaje siç zatem, ze ksztaltowanie róznego rodzaju pojçc w dyskursie aktywizuje rózne strefy bazy doswiadczeniowej.