Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (57)
- Part of a Book (31)
- Book (4)
- Part of Periodical (2)
Language
- English (94) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (94) (remove)
Keywords
- Konversationsanalyse (54)
- Interaktion (51)
- Deutsch (33)
- conversation analysis (18)
- Multimodalität (10)
- Interaktionsanalyse (9)
- Kommunikation (9)
- Pragmatik (9)
- Körpersprache (8)
- German (7)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (32)
- Postprint (27)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (19)
- Ahead of Print (2)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (52)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (15)
- Verlags-Lektorat (2)
Publisher
- Benjamins (21)
- Taylor & Francis (16)
- Elsevier (10)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (7)
- Springer (6)
- Verl. für Gesprächsforschung (5)
- Cambridge University Press (4)
- Springer Nature (3)
- Buske (2)
- Frontiers Media SA (2)
This paper studies how the turn-design of a highly recurrent type of action changes over time. Based on a corpus of video-recordings of German driving lessons, we consider one type of instructions and analyze how the same instructional action is produced by the same speaker (the instructor) for the same addressee (the student) in consecutive trials of a learning task. We found that instructions become increasingly shorter, indexical and syntactically less complex; interactional sequences become more condensed and activities designed to secure mutual understanding become rarer. This study shows how larger temporal frameworks of interpersonal interactional histories which range beyond the interactional sequence impinge on the recipient-design of turns and the deployment of multimodal resources in situ.
In developing an interdisciplinary approach integrating Conversation Analysis (“CA”), audiology and User Centered Design, the applied goal of this international collaboration is to analyze real-world social interaction from the perspective of the participants in order to build an empirical basis for innovation in the field of communication with hearing impairment and hearing aid use. In reviewing theory, methodology and analysis of eight cases analyzed in this volume, the editors assess the potential of application for the various stakeholders in communication with hearing loss and hearing aids, including the estimated impact factor. The chapter closes with a consideration of desiderata for future research.
This paper deals with a case study of a first visit of a person with hearing loss to her family doctor. In the first part of the paper, basic properties of doctor-patient interaction, which are also relevant for treatment of hearing loss, are outlined: the relevance of institutional conditions for interaction, asymmetries between the participants, goal-orientation, specific conditions of trust, and the relevance of the specific genre of doctor-patient interaction. The second part of the paper presents a case study, which focuses on three interactional phenomena: a) the negotiation of the hearing loss as an existential threat to the patient and her identity; b) the discrepancy of illness theories between doctor and patient; c) the collaborative work of negotiating an intersubjectively viable description of the experience of hearing loss.
Introduction
(2012)
Hearing loss is a prevalent communication disability, yet to date there is almost no research on naturally occurring interaction which examines how participants handle hearing loss and the use of hearing aids in communication. In contrast, research focussing on the medical and technological dimensions has advanced tremendously. Still, the social reaction to hearing loss is frequently stress, withdrawal and isolation. Despite the enormous technological development, most people who could benefit from a hearing aid do not use it. The goal of this edited volume is to present a theoretically founded, interdisciplinary research approach geared at understanding and improving social interaction impacted by hearing loss and (non-)use of hearing technologies. Towards this end, we are integrating Conversation Analysis, audiology and User Centered Design.
In this brief presentation of Conversation Analysis (“CA”), we take up some of the communication problems associated with hearing loss and link them to conversation analytic concepts. We explain how attempts to control the conversation, embarrassment and miscommunication can be analyzed as interactional achievements in the areas of turn-taking, repair and nonverbal actions. The chapter also explains which kinds of data are used in CA, how the participants’ perspective is analyzed and some of the theoretical assumptions underlying the analysis. Examples of transcribed interactional sequences with hearing loss illustrate how turn-taking, eye gaze and trouble in hearing/understanding (“repair”) are sensitive to this communication disorder.
This paper shows how understanding in interaction is informed by temporality, and in particular, by the workings of retrospection. Understanding is a temporally extended, sequentially organized process. Temporality, namely, the sequential relationship of turn positions, equips participants with default mechanisms to display understandings and to expect such displays. These mechanisms require local management of turn-taking to be in order, i.e., the possibility and the expectation to respond locally and reciprocally to prior turns at talk. Sequential positions of turns in interaction provide an infrastructure for displaying understanding and accomplishing intersubjectivity. Linguistic practices specialized in displaying particular kinds of (not) understanding are adapted to the individual sequential positions with respect to an action-to-be-understood.
The authors establish a phenomenological perspective on the temporal constitution of experience and action. Retrospection and projection (i.e. backward as well as forward orientation of everyday action), sequentiality and the sequential organization of activities as well as simultaneity (i.e. participants’ simultaneous coordination) are introduced as key concepts of a temporalized approach to interaction. These concepts are used to capture that every action is produced as an inter-linked step in the succession of adjacent actions, being sensitive to the precise moment where it is produced. The adoption of a holistic, multimodal and praxeological perspective additionally shows that action in interaction is organized according to several temporal orders simultaneously in operation. Each multimodal resource used in interaction has its own temporal properties.
Action ascription can be understood from two broad perspectives. On one view, it refers to the ways in which actions constitute categories by which members make sense of their world, and forms a key foundation for holding others accountable for their conduct. On another view, it refers to the ways in which we accountably respond to the actions of others, thereby accomplishing sequential versions of meaningful social experience. In short, action ascription can be understood as matter of categorisation of prior actions or responding in ways that are sequentially fitted to prior actions, or both. In this chapter, we review different theoretical approaches to action ascription that have developed in the field, as well as the key constituents and resources of action ascription that have been identified in conversation analytic research, before going on to discuss how action ascription can itself be considered a form of social action.
While the role of intentions in the constitution of actions gives rise to complex and heavily controversial questions, it appears to be indisputable that action ascription in interaction mostly does without any overt ascription of intention. Yet, sometimes participants explicitly ascribe intentions to their interlocutors in order to make sense of their prior actions. The chapter examines intention ascriptions in response to a partner’s adjacent prior turn using the German modal verb construction willst du/wollen Sie (do you want). The analysis focuses on the aspect of the prior action the intention ascription addresses (action type, projected next action, motive etc.), the action the intention ascription performs itself, and the next action they make relevant from the prior speaker. It was found that intention ascriptions are used to clarify and intersubjectively ground the meaning of the prior turn, which seems otherwise underspecified, ambiguous or puzzling. Yet, they are also used to adumbrate criticism, e.g., that the prior turn projects a course of future actions which is considered to be inadequate, or to expose a concealed, problematic allegedly “real” meaning of the prior turn.