32 research outputs found
Analepsen mit Topik-Drop. Zur Notwendigkeit einer diskurssemantischen Perspektive
Analepses with topic-drop are frequent structures in German interaction. While hitherto the focus on analepses was a rather syntactic one, this paper deals with analeptic structures from a semantic perspective. It particularly concentrates on the semantic relations between the referents of the analepses and the prior interactional context. This analysis shows that even for rather simple analepses which just omit a constituent from the prior utterance, conceptual processes are more decisive for its interpretation than syntactic features of the antecedent constituents. This is even more the case for complex analepses that are only indirectly linked to the prior context, and for the interpretation of which hearers need to draw inferences. The paper argues that theoretical approaches like Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics can profit from adopting a semantic and conceptual perspective for the interpretation of interactional structures
Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im GesprÀch : Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit "also" und "dann"
The paper studies how the German connectives "also" and "dann" are used as displays of understanding in talk-in-interaction. It is shown that the use of also at turn-beginnings in pre-front-field position is a routine practice to explicate implicit meanings of the prior turn of the partner, which is presented for confirmation. Also thus indexes that explicated meanings are taken to be intersubjective, i.e. part of the interlocutorsâ common ground. Turn-initial dann(in front-field position), in contrast, is routinely used to (a) index the formulation of a unilateral inference from the partnerâs prior turn which is not claimed to have already been communicated by the partner, and is (b) used to preface different kinds of next actions which are framed as being a consequence from the preceding action of the partner. Drawing on data from four genres of talkin- interaction (conversation, psychotherapy, doctor-patient interaction, broadcasted talk shows), the paper discusses how functions of also and dann are related to their positions concerning turn-construction and topological fields, prosodic design, collocations, sequential structures and participation frameworks of the interaction
ZURECHT: NEUE RECHERCHEMĂGLICHKEITEN IN KORPORA GESPROCHENER SPRACHE FĂR GESPRĂCHSANALYSE UND DEUTSCH ALS FREMD- UND ZWEITSPRACHE
ZuRecht steht fĂŒr Zugang zur Recherche in Transkripten. Es handelt sich um eine prototypische Implementierung einer webbasierten grafischen BenutzeroberflĂ€che, welche Zugriff auf Transkripte gesprochener Sprache aus dem Archiv fĂŒr Gesprochenes Deutsch (AGD) des Leibniz-Instituts fĂŒr Deutsche Sprache (IDS) bietet. Der Zugriff erfolgt ĂŒber die neue, im Projekt âZuMultâ entwickelte Schnittstelle zur Suche in mĂŒndlichen Korpora. ZuRecht dient einerseits der Demonstration der Möglichkeiten der neuen Schnittstelle, indem es komplexe Suchanfragen mit der speziell fĂŒr die Korpusrecherche entwickelten Anfragesprache CQP auf Transkriptionen gesprochener Sprache erlaubt. Andererseits kommt ZuRecht als Erweiterung der Datenbank fĂŒr Gesprochenes Deutsch (DGD) zum Einsatz und eröffnet den DGD-Nutzer:innen viele neue Forschungsmöglichkeiten, insbesondere auf den Gebieten der GesprĂ€chsanalyse und der DaF/DaZ-bezogenen Forschung. Im Beitrag werden die FunktionalitĂ€ten von ZuRecht ausfĂŒhrlich vorgestellt und ihre Einsatzmöglichkeiten in den genannten Disziplinen exemplarisch vorgefĂŒhrt
Analepsen in der Interaktion. Semantische und seuqenzielle Eigenschaften von Topik-Drop im gesprochenen Deutsch
Analepsen mit Topik-Drop sind hochfrequente sprachliche Strukturen in Interaktionen. In dieser Arbeit stehen neben der interaktionslinguistischen Untersuchung der Diskursfunktionen, Bedingungen und Restriktionen von Analepsen diskurssemantische Perspektiven und Fragestellungen im Mittelpunkt, insbesondere die detaillierte Beschreibung der semantischen Relationen zwischen Analepsen und ihrem PrĂ€kontext. Die Analepsenresolution muss dabei situiert erklĂ€rt werden, da das Verstehen von Analepsen von der kontextuellen Einbettung sowie von grammatischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Merkmalen der ĂuĂerung abhĂ€ngt.
Es wird gezeigt, dass kognitive Zuschreibungen hinsichtlich der Interaktionsbeteiligten auch mit interaktionslinguistischen Methoden möglich sind. Die Studie demonstriert auĂerdem, dass die Kombination von qualitativen und quantitativen Methoden erkenntnistrĂ€chtig ist, um spezifische VerwendungsprĂ€ferenzen von analeptischen im Vergleich zu anaphorischen ĂuĂerungen herauszuarbeiten
How Do Speakers Define the Meaning of Expressions? The Case of German x heiĂt y (âx means yâ)
To secure mutual understanding in interaction, speakers sometimes explain or negotiate expressions. Adopting a conversation analytic and interaction linguistic approach, I examine how participants explain which kinds of expressions in different sequential environments, using the format x heiĂt y (âx means yâ). When speakers use it to clarify technical terms or foreign words that are unfamiliar to co-participants, they often provide a situationally anchored definition that however is rather context-free and therefore transferable to future situations. When they explain common (but indexical, ambiguous, polysemous, or problematic) expressions instead, speakers always design their explanation strongly connected to the local context, building on situational circumstances. I argue that x heiĂt y definitions in interaction do not meet the requirements of scientific or philosophical definitions but that this is irrelevant for the situational exigencies speakers face
âCan I infer from thisâŠâ: Interpretation practices in a publicly televised mediation
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 participantsâ, 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
Okkasionalismen im gesprochenen Deutsch. BedeutungserklÀrungen zwischen Notwendigkeit und interaktiver Ressource
Spontan kreierte Okkasionalismen sind rekurrenter Bestandteil verbaler Interaktionen. Vor dem Hintergrund, dass die Bedeutung von Okkasionalismen nicht konventionalisiert und damit potenziell unbekannt ist, untersucht der vorliegende Beitrag aus gesprĂ€chsanalytischer Perspektive die Frage, unter welchen Bedingungen die Bedeutung okkasioneller AusdrĂŒcke in FolgeĂ€uĂerungen selbstinitiiert oder fremdinitiiert erklĂ€rt wird und wann dies nicht der Fall ist. Es zeigt sich, dass die ĂŒberwĂ€ltigende Mehrheit der 1.068 analysierten Okkasionalismen aus verschiedenen GrĂŒnden kein Verstehensproblem darstellt. Wird die Bedeutung eines Okkasionalismus dennoch selbstinitiiert erklĂ€rt, dient dies oft anderen Zwecken als der Verstehenssicherung. Wird dagegen die Bedeutung eines nicht problemlos erschlieĂbaren Okkasionalismus nicht unmittelbar selbstinitiiert erlĂ€utert, dient der ârĂ€tselhafteâ Ausdruck als interaktive Ressource dazu, Rezipient/-innen neugierig zu machen, Nachfragen zu elizitieren und damit FolgeĂ€uĂerungen zu lizenzieren.Occasionalisms, i. e. situational ad-hoc-expression which are coined for a specific occasion, are a recurrent phenomenon in verbal interactions. The meaning of occasionalisms is not conventionalized and is thus potentially unknown. Against this background and from a conversation analytic perspective, this article investigates the conditions under which the meaning of occasional expressions is subsequently explained in self- or other-initiated repairs and when this is not the case. It turns out that the overwhelming majority of the 1.068 occasionalisms analyzed do not, for various reasons, cause problems with understanding. If a self-initiated explanation of the meaning of an occasionalism is given, this often serves other purposes than securing understanding. If, on the other hand, the meaning of a possibly problematic occasionalism is not immediately explained, the âobscureâ expression serves as an interactive resource, making recipients curious, eliciting follow-up questions and thus licensing subsequent utterances
Strategy ascriptions in public mediation talks
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 speakersâ 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 opponentâs use of rhetorical devices, exposing the opponentâs 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 opponentsâ intentions and âtruthsâ that the opponents allegedly conceal and that are detrimental to their position