Refine
Document Type
- Article (7)
- Part of a Book (4)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (12)
Keywords
- Konversationsanalyse (12) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (6)
- Postprint (1)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (1)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (5)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (3)
Publisher
Theateraufführungen sind ohne Zuschauer nicht denkbar. Zugleich erweisen sich Proben aber als öffentlichkeitsabgeschirmte und intime Vorgänge, da eine (zu frühe) Orientierung an möglichen Publikums-Effekten den kreativen Prozess stört. Auf der Grundlage von über 30 Stunden Videoaufnahmen von Theaterproben zeige ich an ausgewählten Ausschnitten, wie Theatermachende sich sprachlich und körperlich im Probenprozess auf das Publikum beziehen, wie dies interaktiv realisiert wird und welche Rückschlüsse das auf die Weisen der Publikumskonstruktion im Kontext von Proben zulässt.
This paper attempts a critique of the notion of 'dialogue' in dialogue theory as espoused by Linell, Markova, and others building on Bakhtin’s writings. According to them, human communication, culture, language, and even cognition are dialogical in nature. This implies that these domains work by principles of other-orientation and interaction. In our paper, we reject accepting other-orientation as an a priori condition of every semiotic action. Instead, we claim that in order to be an empirically useful concept for the social sciences, it must be shown if and how observable action is other-oriented. This leads us to the following questions: how can we methodically account for other-orientation of semiotic action? Does other-orientation always imply interaction? Is every human expression oriented towards others? How does the other, as s/he is represented in semiotic action, relate to the properties which the other can be seen to exhibit as indexed by their observable behavior? We study these questions by asking how the orientation towards others becomes evident in different forms of communication. For this concern, we introduce ‘recipient design’, ‘positioning’ and ‘intersubjectivity’ as concepts which allow us to inquire how semiotic action both takes the other into account and, reflexively, shapes him/her as an addressee having certain properties. We then specifically focus on actions and situations in which other-orientation is particularly problematic, such as interactions with children, animals, machines, or communication with unknown recipients via mass media. These borderline cases are scrutinized in order to delineate both limits and constitutive properties of other-orientation. We show that there are varieties of meaningful actions which do not exhibit an orientation towards the other, which do not rest on (the possibility of) interaction with the other or which even disregard what their producer can be taken to know about the other. Available knowledge about the other may be ignored in order to reach interactional goals, e. g. in strategical interactions or for concerns of socialization. If semiotic action is otherorientated, its design depends on how the other is available to and matters for their producer. Other-orientation may build on shared biographical experiences with the other, knowledge about the other as an individual and close attention to their situated conduct. However, other-orientation may also rest on (stereo-)typification with respect to institutional roles or group membership. In any case, others as they are represented in semiotic action can never be just others-as-such, but only othersas-perceived-by-the-actor. We conclude that the strong emphasis which dialogue theories put on otherorientation obscures that other-orientation is neither universal in semiotic action, that it must be distinguished from an interactive relationship, and that the ways in which the other figures in semiotic actions is not homogeneous in any of its most general properties. Instead, there is a huge variation in the ways in which the other can be taken into account. Therefore close scrutiny of how the other precisely figures in a certain kind of semiotic action is needed in order to lend the concept of ‘other-orientation’ empirical substance and a definite sense.
Wie ein Event zum Event wird
(2000)
Anhand einer konversationsanalytischen Untersuchung wird eine unter männlichen Jugendlichen weit verbreitete Praktik aggressiven Sprechens, das sog. gissen“, dargestellt. Die Untersuchung der sequenziellen Organisation, der Teilnehmerkonstellation und der spezifischen semantischen und gestalterischen Eigenschaften von ,Diss-Scquenzen‘ zeigt, dass,Dissen1 zur spielerischen Herabsetzung des Opponenten vor einem w-groi/p-Publikum abzielt. Dabei zeigt sich eine charakteristische Doppelstruktur von Spaß und Ernst: Entgegen der offiziellen Modali- sierung der Aktivität als unernst, stellt ,Dissen* ein prominentes Verfahren zur Verhandlung von Charakter, Status und moralischen Ansprüchen in jugendlichen peer-groups dar.
Disrespecting
(2001)
♀ ☺ = ♂ ☺? Oder: Das Gelächter der Geschlechter 2.0: Emojigebrauch in der WhatsApp-Kommunikation
(2020)
Praktiken des 'doing', 'undoing' und 'indexing' von Gender finden sich auch in der computervermittelten Kommunikation, und es ist zu erwarten, dass sie sich dort ganz besonders im Gebrauch von Emojis niederschlagen. Zu erwarten ist dies, weil Emojis ein wichtiges Mittel zur Hervorbringung von Nähe, Emotionalität und Gruppenzugehörigkeit sind, und Gender ist ein Parameter, der bei diesen Aspekten eine Rolle spielt. In dem vorliegenden Beitrag soll auf der Basis der Mobile Communication Database 2 (MoCoDa2), einer Datenbank mit WhatsApp-Interaktionen, aus quantitativer und qualitativer Perspektive gefragt werden, welche Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede sich im Emojigebrauch von Männern und Frauen finden lassen.
Our study deals with early bodily responses to directives (requests and instructions, i.e., second pair parts [SPPs]) produced before the first pair part (FPP) is complete. We show how early bodily SPPs build on the properties of an emerging FPP. Our focus is on the successive incremental coordination of components of the FPP with components of the SPP. We show different kinds of micro-sequential relationships between FPP and SPP: successive specification of the SPP building on the resources that the FPP makes available, the readjustment or repair of the SPP in response to the emerging FPP, and reflexive micro sequential adaptions of the FPP to an early SPP. This article contributes to our understanding of the origins of projection in interaction and of the relationship between sequentially and simultaneity in interaction. Data are video-recordings from interaction in German.