Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Master's Thesis (2)
- Postprint (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4) (remove)
Keywords
- Conversation Analysis (4) (remove)
Institute
The thesis deals mainly with the following four points: - similarities and differences between repair in everyday talk-in-interaction and repair in the context of theater rehearsals - asymmetrical relationship between director, prompter, and actors - impact of the asymmetrical relationship between director and actors on their specific repair behavior - change of the relative amount of self-repair and other-repair over the time span of the rehearsal period. The analyses are undertaken according to the conversation analytic approach. Furthermore, there is an quantitative analysis of the repair development over time.
In dieser konversationsanalytisch-interaktionslinguistischen Arbeit werden verbale, para-verbale und nonverbale Ressourcen zur Darstellung des Affekts Mitleid im Rahmen der sozialen Aktivität Erzählung untersucht. Grundlage der Analyse sind Video- und Audiodaten deutscher Gespräche. Es wird einerseits aufgezeigt, welche Ressourcen von Erzählerinnen eingesetzt werden, um affektive Reaktionen relevant zu machen (z.B. Blickverhalten, Augenbrauenbewegungen, rhetorische Mittel), andererseits wird beschrieben, welche spezifischen Ressourcen zur Darstellung von Mitleid eingesetzt werden (z.B. Interjektionen mit spezifischen Tonhöhenverläufen, „arme/r/s + S“-Konstruktionen, Handbewegungen). Es wird zudem demonstriert, dass es sich bei der Darstellung von Mitleid um ein interaktiv hergestelltes, soziales Phänomen handelt. Anhand des metakommunikativen Wissens der Sprecher, das sprachlich relevant gemacht wird und somit für die Analyse zugänglich ist, kann eine grundlegende soziale Regel zur Darstellung von Mitleid herausgearbeitet werden: Voraussetzung für Mitleid bzw. seine Darstellung ist eine spezifische Qualität der sozialen Beziehung zu der ‚consequential figure‘ (Maynard 1997). Nur wenn diese vorhanden ist bzw. interaktiv hergestellt wird, kann eine Mitleidsdarstellung in einer Erzählung über problematische Themen relevant gemacht werden und der lokalen Herstellung von sozialer Nähe zwischen den Gesprächsteilnehmern dienen.
This article offers an in-depth analysis of one particular type of meta-talk. It looks at how speakers use the meta-pragmatic claim to have previously communicated ('said' or 'meant') the same as, or the equivalent of, what their interlocutor just said. Through detailed sequential analyses, it is shown that this claim is frequently used as a practice for disarming disaffiliative responses and thus to manage (and often resolve) incipient disagreement. Besides unpacking the precise mechanisms underlying this practice, the paper also takes stock of the various (and partly variable) lexico-morpho-syntactic, prosodic and bodily-visual elements of conduct that recurrently enter into its composition. Since the practice essentially rests on the speaker’s insinuation of having been misunderstood by their co-participant, its relationship to the organization of repair will also be discussed. It is argued that the practice operates precisely at the intersection of stance-management (agreement/disagreement) and repair, and that it exhibits features which reflect this intersectional character. Data are in English.
“Chunking” spoken language
(2021)
In this introductory paper to the special issue on “Weak cesuras in talk-in-interaction”, we aim to guide the reader into current work on the “chunking” of naturally occurring talk. It is conducted in the methodological frameworks of Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics – two approaches that consider the interactional aspect of humans talking with each other to be a crucial starting point for its analysis. In doing so, we will (1) lay out the background of this special issue (what is problematic about “chunking” talk-in-interaction, the characteristics of the methodological approach chosen by the contributors, the cesura model), (2) highlight what can be gained from such a revised understanding of “chunking” in talk-in-interaction by referring to previous work with this model as well as the findings of the contributions to this special issue, and (3) indicate further directions such work could take starting from papers in this special issue. We hope to induce a fruitful exchange on the phenomena discussed, across methodological divides.