400 Sprache, Linguistik
Refine
Document Type
- Article (7)
- Book (4)
- Part of a Book (4)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (17)
Keywords
- Frage (17) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (11)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (3)
- Postprint (2)
Reviewstate
Publisher
Fragen, meist mit systemisch-lösungsorientiertem Hintergrund, gelten im Coaching als Königsweg für den Erfolg. Entsprechend ist eine große Anzahl an Publikationen entstanden, die diese zentrale Intervention in den Blick nehmen. In dieser Praxisliteratur werden Fragen dabei oftmals rezeptartig nach Typus, Funktion und möglichen Anwendungskontexten wie etwa Phasen geordnet sowie anhand dekontextualisierter Beispiele beschrieben. Fragen, die in Praxis- und Lehrbuchsammlungen aufgenommen wurden, sind aus der Theorie hergeleitet und in der Praxis erprobt. Allerdings finden sich in dieser Literatur auch empirisch nicht haltbare Aussagen wie etwa die negative Bewertung geschlossener Fragen. Außerdem stellt ihre dekontextualisierte Darstellungsform insbesondere für unerfahrene Coaches eine Herausforderung bei der Umsetzung ins konkrete Coaching-Handeln dar: Fragen sind immer eingebettet in einen Kontext und müssen auf die Anwesenden, die jeweilige kommunikative Interaktion mit ihnen sowie die lokale sequenzielle Struktur des Gesprächs übersetzt werden. Die wissenschaftliche Überprüfung, wie diese Fragensammlungen im Coaching (erfolgreich) ein- und umgesetzt werden, ist dabei insgesamt noch ganz am Anfang. Der vorliegende Beitrag berichtet von einem aktuellen interdisziplinären Forschungsprojekt, das Fragen in den empirischen Blick nimmt und dabei einen Übergang von Eminenz zur Evidenz ermöglicht. Der Beitrag liefert auch Ideen und Anregungen für Coaches, diese Übersetzungsarbeit zu leisten.
This manual serves to describe and evaluate a coaching-specific typology of questions and, building on this, of questioning sequences. Based on an interdisciplinary, psychological and linguistic/conversation analytical approach, a rating instrument has been developed in order to qualitatively and quantitatively capture questions and questioning sequences in the coaching process. The aim is to distinguish between more and less successful sequences. It is assumed that successful sequences contribute to the overall success of the coaching conversation.The success of the questioning sequences is evaluated by examining the responsiveness of coach and coachee. Responsiveness refers to the verbal actions of both participants in the conversation (Graf & Dionne 2021) and is understood in this manual both at the level of individual sequence positions as well as the entire questioning sequence. The responsiveness of the participants in the conversation and the success of the questioning sequences are considered in relation to the organizational structure of the coaching conversation. The manual is based on dyadic coaching conversations between coaches and coachees from the area of business/work-related coaching. Coaches' questions serve as a starting point (target action) (Peräkylä 2019) for a questioning sequence.
It is a ubiquitous phenomenon of everyday interaction that participants confront their co-participants for behaviour that they assess as undesirable or in some other way untoward. In a set of video data of informal interaction from the PECII corpus (Parallel European Corpus of Informal Interaction), cases of such sanctions have been collected in English, German, Italian and Polish data. This study presents work in progress and focuses on interrogatively formatted sanctions, in particular on non-polar interrogatives. It has already been shown that interrogatives can do much more than ask questions (Huddleston 1994). They can also function as directives (Lindström et al. 2017) or, more specifically, as requests (Curl/Drew 2008), as invitations (Margutti/Galatolo 2018) or reproaches (Klattenberg 2021), among others. What makes them interesting for cross-linguistic comparison is that the four languages that are considered provide different morphological and (morpho-)syntactical ressources for the realization of interrogative phrases. For example, German provides the option of building in the modal particle denn that reveals a previous lack of clarity and obliges the co-participant(s) to deliver the missing information (Deppermann 2009). Of course, the other three languages have modal particles, too (e.g. allora in Italian or though in English), but they do not seem to convey the same semantic and interactional qualities as denn. From an interactional point of view, one could think that interrogatives are a typical and effective way of solliciting accounts, since formally they open up a conditionally relevant space for an answer or a
reaction. But as the data shows, this does not guarantee that they are actually responded to. Another relevant aspect in the context of sanctions is that the interrogative format seems to carry a certain ‚openness‘ that might be seen as a mitigating effect and thus provides an interesting point of comparison with other mitigating devices. This study uses the methods of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics. It is based on a collection of 148 interrogative sanctions (out of which 84 are non-polar interrogatives) covering the four languages. I draw on coded data from roughly 1000 cases to get a first overall idea of how the interrogative format might differ from other formats, and how it might interrelate with specific features – for example, if subsequently an account is delivered. Going more into depth, the interrogative sanctions will then be analyzed with respect to their formal design (e.g. polar questions vs. content questions vs. tag questions, Rossano 2010; Hayano 2013) and to their pragmatic implications. I also analyze reactions to such sanctions – both formally (cf. Enfield et al. 2019, 279) and, again, from an interactional perspective (e.g. acceptance/compliance vs. challenging/defiance; Kent 2012; Cekaite 2020). A more detailed zooming in on the sequential unfolding of some particularly interesting
instances of sanctioning interrogatives will make the picture complete.
Manual für die Kodierung von Fragetypen und Fragesequenztypen im Coaching. Version 1.0 (Mai 2023)
(2023)
Das vorliegende Manual dient der Beschreibung und Bewertung einer coachingspezifischen Typologie von Fragen und, darauf aufbauend, der durch diese Fragen kontextualisierten Fragesequenzen. Mittels eines interdisziplinären psychologischen und linguistisch-gesprächsanalytischen Ansatzes wird ein Rating-Instrument zur qualitativen und quantitativen Erfassung von Fragen und Fragesequenzen im Coachingprozess entwickelt. Ziel ist es, weniger gelingende von besser gelingenden Sequenzen zu unterscheiden. Dabei wird davon ausgegangen, dass gelingende Sequenzen zum Gesamterfolg des Gesprächs beitragen.
Das Gelingen der Fragesequenzen wird mit Hilfe der Responsivität von Coach und Coachee bewertet. Responsivität bezieht sich auf die sprachlichen Handlungen beider Gesprächsteilnehmer*innen (Graf & Dionne 2021) und wird in diesem Manual sowohl auf der Ebene einzelner Sequenzpositionen als auch der Gesamtsequenz verstanden. Die Responsivität der Gesprächsteilnehmer*innen sowie das Gelingen der Fragesequenzen wird in Bezug auf die Organisationsstruktur des Coachinggesprächs betrachtet.
Gegenstand des Manuals sind dyadische Coachinggespräche zwischen Coaches und Coachees aus dem Bereich des berufsbezogenen Coachings. Fragen der Coaches dienen als Ausgangspunkt (target action) (Peräkylä 2019) für die Bildung einer Fragesequenz.
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.
The article addresses Solution-Oriented Questions (SOQs) as an interactional practice for relationship management in psychodiagnostic interviews. Therapeutic alliance results from the concordance of alignment, as willingness to cooperate regarding common goals, and of affiliation, as relationship based upon trust. SOQs particularly allow for both: They are situated at the end of a troublesome topic area, which is linked to low agency on the patient’s side, and they reveal understanding of and interest in the patient. Following the paradigm of Conversation Analysis and German Gesprächsanalyse this paper analyzes the design and functions of SOQs as a means for securing and enhancing the relationship in the process of therapy. Our data comprise 15 videotaped first interviews following the manual of the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnostics. The analyses refer to all SOQs found but will be illustrated by means of a single conversation.
In conversation, speakers need to plan and comprehend language in parallel in order to meet the tight timing constraints of turn taking. Given that language comprehension and speech production planning both require cognitive resources and engage overlapping neural circuits, these two tasks may interfere with one another in dialogue situations. Interference effects have been reported on a number of linguistic processing levels, including lexicosemantics. This paper reports a study on semantic processing efficiency during language comprehension in overlap with speech planning, where participants responded verbally to questions containing semantic illusions. Participants rejected a smaller proportion of the illusions when planning their response in overlap with the illusory word than when planning their response after the end of the question. The obtained results indicate that speech planning interferes with language comprehension in dialogue situations, leading to reduced semantic processing of the incoming turn. Potential explanatory processing accounts are discussed.
Schegloff (1996) has argued that grammars are “positionally-sensitive”, implying that the situated use and understanding of linguistic formats depends on their sequential position. Analyzing the German format Kannst du X? (corresponding to English Can you X?) based on 82 instances from a large corpus of talk-in-interaction (FOLK), this paper shows how different action-ascriptions to turns using the same format depend on various orders of context. We show that not only sequential position, but also epistemic status, interactional histories, multimodal conduct, and linguistic devices co-occurring in the same turn are decisive for the action implemented by the format. The range of actions performed with Kannst du X? and their close interpretive interrelationship suggest that they should not be viewed as a fixed inventory of context-dependent interpretations of the format. Rather, the format provides for a root-interpretation that can be adapted to local contextual contingencies, yielding situated action-ascriptions that depend on constraints created by contexts of use.
This article explores the relation between word order and response latency, focusing on responses to question-word questions. Qualitative (multimodal) and quantitative analyses of naturally occurring conversations in French—where question-words can occur in initial, medial, or final position within the question—show that variation in word order affects the timing of responses. It is argued that this is so because word order provides a differential basis for action ascription, creating different temporal opportunities for projecting the recipient’s next relevant action. The frequent occurrence of early responses to questions with an initial question-word, in particular, stresses the importance of the recognition point of an action under way for response timing and shows respondents’ pervasive orientation to sequential progressivity. Findings highlight how lexico-syntactic trajectories of emergent turns, prior talk and actions, material and bodily features of interaction, and participants’ shared expectations conspire in shaping the time-courses of action ascription and action projection.