P1: Interaktion
Refine
Document Type
- Article (59)
- Part of a Book (40)
- Book (14)
- Other (5)
- Part of Periodical (5)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Master's Thesis (1)
- Report (1)
- Review (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (77)
- German (50)
- French (1)
- Multiple languages (1)
Keywords
- Interaktion (68)
- Konversationsanalyse (63)
- Deutsch (37)
- Multimodalität (19)
- conversation analysis (16)
- Kommunikation (12)
- Pragmatik (12)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (11)
- Gesprochene Sprache (10)
- Interaktionsanalyse (10)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (70)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (46)
- Postprint (18)
- Ahead of Print (1)
Reviewstate
Publisher
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (17)
- de Gruyter (14)
- Benjamins (10)
- Taylor & Francis (8)
- Springer (6)
- Cambridge University Press (5)
- Elsevier (4)
- Frontiers Media SA (4)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (4)
- Springer Nature (4)
In informal interaction, speakers rarely thank a person who has complied with a request. Examining data from British English, German, Italian, Polish, and Telugu, we ask when speakers do thank after compliance. The results show that thanking treats the other’s assistance as going beyond what could be taken for granted in the circumstances. Coupled with the rareness of thanking after requests, this suggests that cooperation is to a great extent governed by expectations of helpfulness, which can be long-standing, or built over the course of a particular interaction. The higher frequency of thanking in some languages (such as English or Italian) suggests that cultures differ in the importance they place on recognizing the other’s agency in doing as requested.
Sometimes in interaction, a speaker articulates an overt interpretation of prior talk. Such moments have been studied as involving the repair of a problem with the other’s talk or as formulating an understanding of the matter at hand. Stepping back from the established notions of formulations and repair, we examine the variety of actions speakers do with the practice of offering an interpretation, and the order within this domain. Results show half a dozen usage types of interpretations in mundane interaction. These form a largely continuous territory of action, with recognizably distinct usage types as well as cases falling between these (proto)typical uses. We locate order in the domain of interpretations using the method of semantic maps and show that, contrary to earlier assumptions in the literature, interpretations that formulate an understanding of the matter at hand are actually quite pervasive in ordinary talk. These findings contribute to research on action formation and advance our understanding of understanding in interaction. Data are video- and audio-recordings of mundane social interaction in the German language from a variety of settings.
The present paper explores how rules are enforced and talked about in everyday life. Drawing on a corpus of board game recordings across European languages, we identify a sequential and praxeological context for rule talk. After a game rule is breached, a participant enforces proper play and then formulates a rule with an impersonal deontic statement (e.g. “It’s not allowed to do this”). Impersonal deontic statements express what may or may not be done without tying the obligation to a particular individual. Our analysis shows that such statements are used as part of multi-unit and multi-modal turns where rule talk is accomplished through both grammatical and embodied means. Impersonal deontic statements serve multiple interactional goals: they account for having changed another’s behavior in the moment and at the same time impart knowledge for the future. We refer to this complex action as an “instruction.” The results of this study advance our understanding of rules and rule-following in everyday life, and of how resources of language and the body are combined to enforce and formulate rules.
We examine moments in social interaction in which a person formulates what another thinks or believes. Such formulations of belief constitute a practice with specifiable contexts and consequences. Belief formulations treat aspects of the other person's prior conduct as accountable on the basis that it provided a new angle on a topic, or otherwise made a surprising contribution within an ongoing course of actions. The practice of belief formulations subjectivizes the content that the other articulated and thereby topicalizes it, mobilizing commitment to that position, an account, or further elaboration. We describe how the practice can be put to work in different activity contexts: sometimes it is designed to undermine the other's position as a subjective 'mere belief', at other times it serves to mobilize further topic talk. Throughout, belief formulations show themselves to be a method by which we get to know ourselves and each other as mental agents.
This article makes an empirical and a methodological contribution to the comparative study of action. The empirical contribution is a comparative study of three distinct types of action regularly accomplished with the turn format du meinst x (“you mean/think x”) in German: candidate understandings, formulations of the other’s mind, and requests for a judgment. These empirical materials are the basis for a methodological exploration of different levels of researcher abstraction in the comparative study of action. Two levels are examined: the (coarser) level of conditionally relevant responses (what a response speaker must do to align with the action of the prior turn) and the (finer) level of “full alignment” (what a response speaker can do to align with the action of a prior turn). Both levels of abstraction provide empirically viable and analytically interesting descriptive concepts for the comparative study of action. Data are in German.
This article makes an empirical and a methodological contribution to the comparative study of action. The empirical contribution is a comparative study of three distinct types of action regularly accomplished with the turn format du meinst x (“you mean/think x”) in German: candidate understandings, formulations of the other’s mind, and requests for a judgment. These empirical materials are the basis for a methodological exploration of different levels of researcher abstraction in the comparative study of action. Two levels are examined: the (coarser) level of conditionally relevant responses (what a response speaker must do to align with the action of the prior turn) and the (finer) level of “full alignment” (what a response speaker can do to align with the action of a prior turn). Both levels of abstraction provide empirically viable and analytically interesting descriptive concepts for the comparative study of action. Data are in German.
This chapter describes the resources that speakers of Polish use when recruiting assistance and collaboration from others in everyday social interaction. The chapter draws on data from video recordings of informal conversation in Polish, and reports language-specific findings generated within a large-scale comparative project involving eight languages from five continents (see other chapters of this volume). The resources for recruitment described in this chapter include linguistic structures from across the levels of grammatical organization, as well as gestural and other visible and contextual resources of relevance to the interpretation of action in interaction. The presentation of categories of recruitment, and elements of recruitment sequences, follows the coding scheme used in the comparative project (see Chapter 2 of the volume). This chapter extends our knowledge of the structure and usage of Polish with detailed attention to the properties of sequential structure in conversational interaction. The chapter is a contribution to an emerging field of pragmatic typology.
In psychotherapy, therapists often formulate interpretations of clients' prior talk which are ‘unilateral’ in the sense that therapists index that they are themselves the author of an interpretive inference which may not be acceptable to the client. Based on 100 German-language recordings of brief psychodynamic psychotherapy (4 clients with 25 sessions each), we describe a multimodal practice of constructing extended multi-unit turns of delivering therapeutic interpretations. The practice includes gaze aversion until the main point of the interpretation is reached, perceptive and cognitive formulae, epistemic hedges, inserted accounts, parenthesis, self-repair, and self-reformulations. These design-features work together to index that the therapist produces an interpretation that can be heard as being tentative. The design of the therapists' turns reflexively indexes the expectation that the client might resist the interpretation; at the same time they are constructed to avoid resistance and to invite the client's self-exploration into new directions, often with a focus on emotions.
Die Rationale der psychodynamischen Psychotherapie (und anderer Therapieformate) besteht darin, belastende und teils der bewussten Reflexion unzugängliche Erfahrungen der PatientInnen aufzuklären, ihre Ursachen zu identifizieren und alternative Wahrnehmungs- und Handlungsweisen zu ermöglichen. Dazu bedient sie sich eines bestimmten Settings: der Therapie über mehrere Sitzungen hinweg, in denen PatientInnen ihre Beschwerden und Erfahrungen berichten und TherapeutInnen mithilfe kommunikativer Praktiken gemeinsam mit den PatientInnen die Beschwerden aufzuklären, die Erfahrungen zu vertiefen und die Probleme zu lösen suchen. In der konversationsanalytischen Psychotherapieforschung (Peräkylä et al. 2008) werden dazu vier Grundtypen verständigungsbegünstigender kommunikativer Praktiken der Psychotherapie identifiziert: äußerungsfortführende Extensionen, Musterhaftigkeit herstellende Interpretationen, reformulierende formulations und Fragen (Weiste & Peräkylä 2015). Der vorliegende Beitrag widmet sich der Untersuchung von drei Fragetypen: Beispielnachfrage, Kollaborative Erklärungsfindungsfrage und Lösungsorientierte Frage und deren sequenzieller Organisation in psychodiagnostischen Gesprächen. Ziel ist es, deren unterschiedliche produktive Potenziale hinsichtlich der Handlungsrationale diagnostischer und therapeutischer Aufgabenstellungen herauszuarbeiten.
As part of a larger research paradigm on understanding client change in the helping professions from an interprofessional perspective, this paper applies a conversation analytic approach to investigate therapists’ requesting examples (REs) and their interactional and sequential contribution to clients’ change during the diagnostic evaluation process. The analyzed data comprises 15 videotaped intake interviews that followed the system of Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis. Therapists’ requesting examples in psychodiagnostic interviews explicitly or implicitly criticize the patient’s prior turn as insufficient. They also open a retro-sequence and in the following turns provide for a description that helps clarify meaning and evince psychic or relational aspects of the topic at hand. While the therapist’s prior request initiates the patient’s insufficient presentation, the patient’s example presentation is regularly followed by the therapist’s summarizing comments or by further requests. Requesting examples thus are a particular case of requests that follow expandable responses regarding the sequential organization; yet, given that they make examples conditionally relevant, they are more specific. With the help of this sequential organization, participants co-construct common knowledge which allows the therapist to pursue the overall aim of therapy, which is to increase the patients’ awareness of their distorted perceptions, and thus to pave the way for change.