Sprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Gegenwartssprache
Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (5)
- Article (1)
- Book (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Keywords
- Deutsch (4)
- Gesprochene Sprache (2)
- Interaktion (2)
- Konversationsanalyse (2)
- Berufliche Integration (1)
- Callcenter (1)
- Diskursanalyse (1)
- Flüchtling (1)
- Fremdsprache (1)
- Identität (1)
- Kommunikation (1)
- Kultur (1)
- Pragmatik (1)
- Prosodie (1)
- Selbstkorrektur (1)
- Semantik (1)
- Sprachkurs (1)
- Sprachverhalten (1)
- Standardsprache (1)
- Wortwahl (1)
- mündliche Kommunikation (1)
Publicationstate
- Postprint (3)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (3)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (7) (remove)
Publisher
In her overview, Margret Selting makes the case for the claim that dealing with authentic conversation necessarily lies at the heart of an interactionallinguistic approach to prosody (see Selting this volume, Section 3.3). However, collecting and transcribing corpora of authentic interaction is a time-consuming enterprise. This fact often severely restricts what the individual researcher is able to do in terms of analysis within the scope of his or her resources. Still, for dealing with many of the desiderata Margret Selting points out in Section 5 of her extensive overview, the use of larger corpora seems to be required. In this commenting paper, I want to argue that future progress in research on prosody in interaction will essentially rest on the availability and use of large public corpora. After reviewing arguments for and against the use of public corpora, I will discuss some upshots regarding corpus design and issues of transcription of public corpora.
One major issue in the accomplishment of contrasts in conversation is lexical choice of items which carry the semantic Ioad of the two states of affair which are represented as being opposed to one another. These items or expressions are co-selected to be understood as being contrastively related to each other. In this paper, it is argued that the activity of contrasting itself provides them with a specific local opposite meaning which they would not obtain in other contexts. Practices of contrastingare thus seen as an example of conversational activities which creatively and systematically affect situated meanings. Basedon data from various genres, such as meetings, mediation sessions and conversations, the paper discusses two practices of contrasting, their sequential construction and their interpretative effects. It is concluded that the interpretative effects of conversational contrasting rest on the sequential deployment oflinguistic resources and on the cognitive procedures of frame-based interpretation and constructing a maximally contrastive interpretation for the co-selected expressions.