Sprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Gegenwartssprache
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (20)
- Part of a Book (14)
- Book (1)
Keywords
- Deutsch (35) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Postprint (7)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (4)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (1)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (8)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (4)
Publisher
- Benjamins (5)
- Elsevier (5)
- Stauffenburg (4)
- de Gruyter (3)
- Fink (2)
- Schmidt (2)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (2)
- De Gruyter (1)
- Elsevier B.V. (1)
- Equinox Publ. (1)
"damit sie mich verstehen" : Genese, Verfahren und recipient design einer narrativen Performance
(2009)
"Standard language" is a contested concept, ideologically, empirically and theoretically. This is particularly true for a language such as German, where the standardization of the spoken language was based on the written standard and was established with respect to a communicative situation, i.e. public speech on stage (Bühnenaussprache), which most speakers never come across. As a consequence, the norms of the oral standard exhibit many features which are infrequent in the everyday speech even of educated speakers. This paper discusses ways to arrive at a more realistic conception of (spoken) standard German, which will be termed "standard usage". It must be founded on empirical observations of speakers linguistic choices in everyday situations. Arguments in favor of a corpus-based notion of standard have to consider sociolinguistic, political, and didactic concerns. We report on the design of a large study of linguistic variation conducted at the Institute for the German Language (project "Variation in Spoken German", Variation des gesprochenen Deutsch) with the aim of arriving at a representative picture of "standard usage" in contemporary German. It systematically takes into account both diatopic variation covering the multi-national space in which German an official language, and diastratic variation in terms of varying degrees of formality. Results of the study of phonetic and morphosyntactic variation are discussed. At least for German, a corpus-based notion of "standard usage" inevitably includes some degree of pluralism concerning areal variation, and it needs to do justice to register-based variation as well.
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).
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 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.
Anglizismen in Skatermagazinen : zur Behandlung jugendkultureller Medien im Deutschunterricht
(1998)
Deontische Infinitivkonstruktionen : Syntax, Semantik, Pragmatik und interaktionale Verwendung
(2006)
Based on German data from history-taking in doctor-patient interaction, the paper shows that the three basic syntactic types of questions (questions fronted by a question-word (w-questions), verb-first (V1) questions, and declarative questions) provide different opportunities for displaying understanding in medical interaction. Each syntactic questionformat is predominantly used in a different stage of topical sequences in history taking: w-questions presuppose less knowledge and are thus used to open up topical sequences; declarative questions are used to check already achieved understandings and to close topical sequences. Still, the expected scope of answers to yes/no-questions and to declarative questions is less restricted than previously thought. The paper focuses in detail on the doctors’ use of formulations as declarative questions, which are designed to make patients elaborate on already established topics, giving more details or accounting for a confirmation. Formulations often involve a shift to psychological aspects of the illness. Although patients confirm doctors’ empathetic formulations, they, however, regularly do not align with this shift, returning to the description of symptoms and to biomedical accounts instead. The study shows how displays of understanding are responded to not only in terms of correctness, but also (and more importantly) in terms of their relevance for further action.
Die Relevanz der Gesprächsforschung steht außer Frage: Gespräche sind grundlegend für jede Form menschlicher Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Ob in Unternehmen, im Schulunterricht oder in der Politik, ob im privaten Liebesgeflüster, in der Talk-Show oder im Internet-Chat: Unablässig erzeugen, verändern und repräsentieren wir unsere Welt in Gesprächen. Gesellschaft, Kultur und Geschichte wären undenkbar ohne verbale Interaktion. So ubiquitär Gespräche sind, so unendlich vieles ist involviert, wenn Gespräche geführt und verstanden werden sollen. Sicher, zuallererst Sprache, doch noch vieles mehr: Stimme, Blicke, Gesten, Gefühle und Hintergedanken, soziale Voraussetzungen und Folgen, physische Prozesse und historische Situationen. Dies sind natürlich, recht verstanden, nicht verschiedene "Dinge", die man sorgsam nebeneinander stellen könnte. Diese Mannigfaltigkeit von Perspektiven zeigt an, dass das, was in Gesprächen und durch sie geschieht, nicht auf einen einzigen Zugang, etwa den einer einzigen Disziplin oder Schule zu reduzieren ist.