Pragmalinguistik / Kommunikationsforschung
Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (4)
- Article (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (7)
Keywords
- Konversationsanalyse (5)
- Interaktion (3)
- Deutsch (2)
- Multimodalität (2)
- Anapher <Syntax> (1)
- Argumentation (1)
- Aufforderung (1)
- Aufforderungen (1)
- Bedeutung (1)
- Beschuldigung (1)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (5)
- Postprint (2)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (1)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (4)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (2)
Publisher
Action ascription is an emergent process of mutual displays of understanding. Usually, the kind of action that is ascribed to a prior turn by a next action remains implicit. Sometimes, however, actions are overtly ascribed, for example, when speakers expose the use of strategies. This happens particularly in conflictual interaction, such as public debates or mediation talks. In these interactional settings, one of the speakers’ goals is to discredit their opponents in front of other participants or an overhearing audience. This chapter investigates different types of overt strategy ascriptions in a public mediation: exposing the opponent’s use of rhetorical devices, exposing the opponent’s use of false premises, and exposing that an opponent is telling only a half-truth. This chapter shows how speakers use ascriptions of acting strategically as accusations to disclose their opponents’ intentions and ‘truths’ that the opponents allegedly conceal and that are detrimental to their position.
Der Beitrag widmet sich der Ausgestaltung von Instruktionen und Aufforderungen zum rückwärts Einparken im theoretischen und praktischen Fahrschulunterricht in Abhängigkeit von den Eigenschaften der jeweiligen Unterrichtssituation. Verglichen werden dazu Instruktionssequenzen aus drei Vermittlungstypen: 1. die Instruktion anhand einer software-gestützten Einparksimulation im Theorie-Unterricht, 2. die Instruktion anhand einer Modellautodemonstration im Fahrschulauto, und 3. der direkt angeschlossene erste praktische Übungsvorgang. Eine Untersuchung der grammatischen Ausgestaltung der Instruktionen und der verkörperten Handlungen zeigt eine besondere Funktion der Modellautodemonstration: Dieser Vermittlungstyp vereint Aspekte sowohl der Unterrichtssituation im Fahrschulraum als auch im fahrenden Auto. Die Orientierungspunkte am Modell werden mit denen des 'realen' Autos und seiner Umgebung verbunden. Dabei offenbart sich in den Instruktionen und Aufforderungen ein Kontinuum von Theorie und Praxis, dessen Ausprägungen maßgeblich von der (Ent-)Kopplung bezüglich der Anwendungssituation und der (Nicht-)Mobilität des Autos abhängen. Die Untersuchung zeigt, wie grammatische und multimodale Formen an ihren lokalen und situativen Kontext angepasst und interpretiert werden.
Our paper examines how bodily behavior contributes to the local meaning of OKAY. We explore the interplay between OKAY as response to informings and narratives and accompanying multimodal resources in German multi-party interaction. Based on informal and institutional conversations, we describe three different uses of OKAY with falling intonation and the recurrent multimodal patterns that are associated with them and that can be characterized as ‘multimodal gestalts’. We show that: 1. OKAY as a claim to sufficient understanding is typically accompanied by upward nodding; 2. OKAY after change-of-state tokens exhibits a recurrent pattern of up- and downward nodding with distinctive timing; and 3. OKAY closing larger activities is associated with gaze-aversion from the prior speaker.
Jesus in der Alltagssprache
(2020)
How Do Speakers Define the Meaning of Expressions? The Case of German x heißt y (“x means y”)
(2020)
To secure mutual understanding in interaction, speakers sometimes explain or negotiate expressions. Adopting a conversation analytic and interaction linguistic approach, I examine how participants explain which kinds of expressions in different sequential environments, using the format x heißt y (“x means y”). When speakers use it to clarify technical terms or foreign words that are unfamiliar to co-participants, they often provide a situationally anchored definition that however is rather context-free and therefore transferable to future situations. When they explain common (but indexical, ambiguous, polysemous, or problematic) expressions instead, speakers always design their explanation strongly connected to the local context, building on situational circumstances. I argue that x heißt y definitions in interaction do not meet the requirements of scientific or philosophical definitions but that this is irrelevant for the situational exigencies speakers face.