Sprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Gegenwartssprache
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (23)
- Part of a Book (20)
- Book (1)
Keywords
- Deutsch (35)
- Konversationsanalyse (16)
- Interaktion (14)
- conversation analysis (5)
- Gesprochene Sprache (4)
- Pragmatik (4)
- Englisch (3)
- Gesprächsanalyse (3)
- Verstehen (3)
- Epistemics (2)
Publicationstate
- Postprint (9)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (6)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (2)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (9)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (7)
Publisher
- Benjamins (6)
- de Gruyter (6)
- Elsevier (5)
- Stauffenburg (5)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (4)
- Fink (2)
- Schmidt (2)
- De Gruyter (1)
- Elsevier B.V. (1)
- Equinox Publ. (1)
Rejecting the validity of inferred attributions of incompetence in German talk-in-interaction
(2024)
This paper deals with pragmatic inference from the perspective of Conversation Analysis. In particular, we examine a specific variety of inferences - the attribution of incompetence which Self constructs on the basis of Other's prior action, hearable as positioning Self as incompetent (e.g., instructions, offers of assistance, advice); this attribution of incompetence concerns Self's execution of some practical task. This inference is indexed in Self's response, which highlights Self's expertise, or competence concerning the task at hand. We focus on two recurrent types of such responses in our data: (i) accounting for competence through formulations of prior experience with carrying out a practical action and (ii) explicit claims of competence for accomplishing this action. We analyze the interactional environments in which these responses occur, the ways in which the two practices index Self's understanding of being positioned as incompetent and the interactional work they do. Finally, we discuss how through rejecting and inferred attribution of incompetence, Self implicitly seeks to restore their face and defend their autonomy as an agent, yet, without entering an explicit identity-negotiation. Findings rest on the analysis of 20 cases found in video-recordings of naturally occurring talk-in-interaction in German from the corpus FOLK.
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).
Der vorliegende Beitrag erkundet den Zusammenhang zwischen der Komplexität politischer Argumentationsprozesse und der Diversifikation der Semantik von Schlüsselwörtern, deren Bedeutung im Argumentationsprozess umkämpft und in zahlreichen Facetten entfaltet widAdegenstand der Untersuchung ist die Verwendung von „Ökologie" in den Schlichtungsgesprächen zum Bahnprojekt Stuttgart 21. Im Unterscheid zu bisher vorliegenden Analysen zu semantischen Kämpfen geht es weniger darum, wie ein Ausdruck von einer Partei im Gegensatz zu anderen semantisiert wird. Es wird vielmehr gezeigt, wie semantische Diversifizierung und Ambiguität von „Ökologie" im expertischen Argumentationsprozess entstehen und welche kommunikativen Effekte dies für die Möglichkeit der Bürgerbeteiligung mit sich bringt. Es werden drei Praktiken identifiziert, mit denen die Interaktionsteilnehmer selbst auf semantische Diversifizierung und Ambiguität reagieren und versuchen, den Ausdruck eindeutig interpretierbar und die Quaestio entscheidbar zu machen: Strategieunterstellungen, Popularisierungen und Populismus. Die Interaktionsanalysen zeigen dabei, dass diese Praktiken selbst die Problematik, die sie lösen sollen, reproduzieren.