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)
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.
Anglizismen in Skatermagazinen : zur Behandlung jugendkultureller Medien im Deutschunterricht
(1998)
Based on German speaking data from various activity types, the range of multimodal resources used to construct turn-beginnings is reviewed. It is claimed that participants in talk-in-interaction need to deal with four tasks in order to construct a turn which precisely fits the interactional moment of its production:
1. Achieve joint orientation: The accomplishment of the socio-spatial prerequisites necessary for producing a turn which is to become part of the participants’ common ground.
2. Display uptake: Next speaker needs to display his/her understanding of the interaction so far as the backdrop on which the production of the upcoming turn is based.
3. Deal with projections from prior talk: The speaker has to deal with projections which have been established by (the) previous turn(s) with respect to the upcoming turn.
4. Project properties of turn-in-progress: The speaker needs to orient the recipient to properties of the turn s/he is about to produce.
Turn-design thus can be seen to be informed by tasks related to the multimodal, embodied, and interactive contingencies of online-construction of turns. The four tasks are ordered in terms of prior tasks providing the prerequisite for accomplishing a later task.
Conversation Analysis (CA) and Discursive Psychology (DP) reject the view that assumptions
about cognitive processes should be used to account for discursive phenomena. Instead, cognitive
issues are respecified as discursive phenomena. Discursive psychologists do this by
studying discursive practices of talking about mental phenomena and using mental predicates.
This approach is exemplified by a study of the use of constructions with German verstehen
(‘to understand’) in conversation. Some conversation analysts take another approach,
namely, inquiring into how participants display mental states in talk-in-interaction. This is
exemplified by a study of how grammatical constructions are used to display different types
of inferences drawn from a partner’s prior turn. It will be argued that the constructivist, antiessentialist
stance which CA and DP take with regard to cognition is a prosperous line of
research, which has much in its favor from a methodological point of view. However, it
can be shown that tacit assumptions about cognitive processes are still inevitable when
doing CA and DP. As a conclusion, the paper pleads for an enhanced awareness of how cognitive
processes come into play when analysing talk-in-interaction and it advocates the integration
of a more explicit cognitive perspective into research on talk-in-interaction.