400 Sprache, Linguistik
Refine
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Book (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
Keywords
- Debatte (3) (remove)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (2)
- Peer-Review (1)
Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (1)
- Elsevier (1)
- Hempen (1)
Wer trägt die Schuld am Ersten Weltkrieg? Wer trägt die Schuld am für Deutschland und andere Staaten folgenschweren Ausgang des Kriegs? … Fragen wie diese sind und bleiben aktuell. Die vorliegende Arbeit gibt keine Antworten auf diese Fragen. Sie versucht hingegen aufzudecken, welche sprachlichen, d. h. lexikalischen Strategien Akteure in den frühen wissenschaftlichen und öffentlichen Debatten dieser Zeit wählen, um ihren Mentalitäten, ihrem Denken, Fühlen, Wollen/Sollen im Akt des Schuldzuschreibens oder Schuld-von-sich-Weisens Ausdruck zu verleihen. Die Analyse und Darstellung der heterogenen Mentalitäten der verschiedenen Akteure zeigt, wie komplex das Konzept »Schuld« (nicht nur) im zeitlich-thematischen Rahmen des Ersten Weltkriegs ist und warum die zuvor exemplarisch aufgeführten Fragen nicht an Aktualität verlieren.
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.
This study deals with interpretation practices that speakers employ in order to (re)formulate what another person has said or implied. Analyzing interpretations in a public televised mediation that resembles a public debate, I show which kinds of interpretation practices that speakers adopt and how they differ depending the participants' roles. Systematically comparing all interpretations of the mediator vs. the opposing participants’, I argue that interpretations can be described as general practices with specific interactional effects, but that they are designed and exploited in different ways (i.e., for clarification and discourse-organization vs. self- and other-positioning and constructing arguments). I point out that speakers use meta-pragmatic accounts that support the interactional effects of their interpretations.