Sprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Gegenwartssprache
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (21) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (21) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (19)
- Konversationsanalyse (9)
- Interaktion (5)
- conversation analysis (5)
- Gesprächsanalyse (3)
- Englisch (2)
- Epistemics (2)
- Epistemische Logik (2)
- Fragen (2)
- German (2)
Publicationstate
- Postprint (4)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (2)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (6)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
Publisher
- Elsevier (5)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (3)
- Benjamins (2)
- Schmidt (2)
- de Gruyter (2)
- Equinox Publ. (1)
- Friedrich (1)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (1)
Our 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).
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).
Das Interview ist nach wie vor das beliebteste sozialwissenschaftliche Verfahren des Datengewinns. Ökonomie der Erhebung, Vergleichbarkeit und die Möglichkeit, Einsicht in Praxisbereiche und historisch-biografische Dimensionen zu erhalten, die der direkten Beobachtung kaum zugänglich sind, machen seine Attraktivität aus. Zugleich mehren sich Kritiken, die seine Leistungsfähigkeit problematisieren, indem sie auf die begrenzte Reichweite der Explikationsfähigkeiten der Befragten, die Reaktivität der Erhebung oder die Differenz zwischen Handeln und dem Bericht über Handeln verweisen. Im Beitrag wird zwischen Ansätzen, die das Interview als Text, und solchen, die es als Interaktion verstehen, unterschieden. Nach dem Text-Verständnis werden Interviews unter inhaltlichen Gesichtspunkten analysiert und als Zugang zu einer vorgängigen sozialen oder psychischen Wirklichkeit angesehen. Das Interaktions-Verständnis versteht Interviews dagegen als situierte Praxis, in welcher im Hier und Jetzt von InterviewerInnen und Befragten gemeinsam soziale Sinnstrukturen hergestellt werden. Anhand ubiquitärer Phänomene der Interviewinteraktion – Fragen, Antworten und die Selbstpositionierung von InterviewerInnen und Befragten – werden Praktiken des interaktiv-performativen Handelns im Interview dargestellt. Ihre Relevanz für die Interviewkonstitution und ihre Erkenntnispotenziale für die Interviewauswertung werden aufgezeigt. Es wird dafür plädiert, die interaktive Konstitutionsweise von Interviews empirisch zu erforschen und methodisch konsequent zu berücksichtigen.
This article advocates an understanding of ‘positioning’ as a key to the analysis of identities in interaction within the methodological framework of conversation analysis. Building on research by Bamberg, Georgakopoulou and others, a performative, interaction-based approach to positioning is outlined and compared to membership categorization analysis. An interactional episode involving mock stories to reveal and reproach an inadequate identity-claim of a co-participant is analysed both in terms of practices of membership categorization and positioning. It is concluded that membership categorization is a core element of positioning. Still, positioning goes beyond membership categorization in a) revealing biographical dimensions accomplished by narration and b) by uncovering implicit performative claims of identity, which are not established by categorization or description.
The paper studies how the German connectives "also" and "dann" are used as displays of understanding in talk-in-interaction. It is shown that the use of also at turn-beginnings in pre-front-field position is a routine practice to explicate implicit meanings of the prior turn of the partner, which is presented for confirmation. Also thus indexes that explicated meanings are taken to be intersubjective, i.e. part of the interlocutors’ common ground. Turn-initial dann(in front-field position), in contrast, is routinely used to (a) index the formulation of a unilateral inference from the partner’s prior turn which is not claimed to have already been communicated by the partner, and is (b) used to preface different kinds of next actions which are framed as being a consequence from the preceding action of the partner. Drawing on data from four genres of talkin- interaction (conversation, psychotherapy, doctor-patient interaction, broadcasted talk shows), the paper discusses how functions of also and dann are related to their positions concerning turn-construction and topological fields, prosodic design, collocations, sequential structures and participation frameworks of the interaction.
This special issue of the Journal of Pragmatics has its origins in the International Conference on Conversation Analysis 10 (ICCA10), which took place in Mannheim (Germany) in July 2010. More than 650 scholars attended the conference, whose theme was ‘‘multimodal interaction’’. This volume includes papers based on the four plenary talks given at ICCA10 and four additional contributions related to the conference theme.
Der vorliegende Aufsatz untersucht, wie Negationen in Gesprächen verwendet werden können, um Interpretationen des Sprecherhandelns durch den Partner zu beeinflussen und zu steuern. Zunächst werden die dafür benötigten theoretischen und methodischen Werkzeuge vorgestellt: die interaktionsanalytischen Konzepte des Adressatenzuschnitts und des common ground (CG), Grundzüge der Syntax und Semantik der Negation sowie ihre Funktionsweise als Verfahren zur Abwahl von Annahmen erster, zweiter und dritter Ordnung. Im empirischen Teil wird im Einzelnen gezeigt, wie Negationen genutzt werden, um im Gesprächsverlauf prospektiv und retrospektiv die Deutung von Sprecherhandlungen durch den Adressaten zu beschränken. Die interaktionalen Motivationen und die rhetorischen Potenziale des Einsatzes von Negationen zur Interpretationsrestriktion werden aufgezeigt. Die Analyse demonstriert die Notwendigkeit einer differenzierenden Sicht auf das Konzept des Adressatenzuschnitts.
The transition between phases of activities is a practical problem which participants in an interaction have to deal with routinely. In meetings, the sequence of phases of activity is often outlined by a written agenda. However, transitions still have to be accomplished by local interactional work of the participants. In a detailed conversation analytic case study based on video-data, it is shown how participants collaboratively accomplish an emergent interactional state of affairs (a break-like activity) which differs widely from the state of affairs which was projected by awritten agenda (the next presentation), although in doing so, the participants still show their continuous orientation to the agenda. The paper argues that the reconstruction of emergent developments in interaction calls for a multimodal analysis of interaction, because the fine-grained multimodal co-ordination of bodily and verbal resources provides for opportunities of sequentially motivated, relevant next actions. These, however, can amount to emergent activity sequences, which may be at odds with the activity types which are projected by an interactional agenda or expected on behalf of some institutional routine.