Interjektionen zwischen Lexikon und Vokalität: Lexem oder Lautobjekt?

Reber, Elisabeth; Couper‐Kuhlen, Elizabeth

doi:10.1515/9783110223613.69

Cited by 76 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…26 A number of these, for instance .t, .p and .tch, which represent clicks, have been shown to be recurrent and systematic in specific sequential environments (Wright 2005(Wright , 2007Reber 2008). The term sound object is used here to refer to this larger set of sounds and vocalizations (Reber & Couper-Kuhlen 2010).…”

Section: Verbally Ambivalent Responses and Prosodymentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Affiliation in the Reception of Conversational Complaint Stories

Couper‐Kuhlen¹

2012

Emotion in Interaction

Self Cite

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter investigates the linguistic resources deployed by recipients of conversational complaint stories to show affiliation (or not) with the teller, affiliation being understood as the display of support and endorsement for a conveyed affective stance, here typically anger and/or indignation. Among the verbal means for affiliative reception are claims of understanding, congruent negative assessments and by-proxy justifications, while factual follow-up questions, minimal responses and withholdings are shown to be non-affiliative. As a rule, affiliative verbal devices are accompanied by prosodic matching or upgrading, while non-affiliative ones have prosodic downgrading. The affiliative import of response cries is shown to depend even more heavily on prosodic matching or upgrading, although the transitoriness of prosody makes verbal reinforcement a desideratum. All in all, the discussion paints a complex picture of what it takes to come across as affiliative in response to a conversational complaint story, but one not lacking in systematicity. 1. On story reception in conversation 1.1 Affiliation vs. alignment In a recent contribution to the literature on conversational storytelling, Stivers (2008) distinguishes two types of story reception: alignment and affiliation. Alignment involves supporting the asymmetric distribution of roles which characterizes the storytelling activity: e.g., positioning oneself as story recipient and refraining from 2 coming in while the telling is in progress. Mis-aligning involves, e.g., competing for the floor during the telling or failing to treat a story as in progress or, on its completion, as over. Alignment is thus a structural dimension of the activity of story reception. It can be achieved among other things through the use of vocal continuers (mm hm, uh huh and yeah) during story production. Affiliation, on the other hand, is a social dimension in story reception. Stivers describes it as "the hearer displays support of and endorses the teller"s conveyed stance" (2008: 35), stance being understood as "the teller"s affective treatment of the events he or she is describing" (2008: 37). How do storytellers convey stance? For one, story prefaces (e.g., something very very cute happened last night or I'm broiling about something) inform recipients about the sort of response which the teller is seeking on story completion (Sacks 1974). But stance can also be conveyed through prosody, e.g., in reported speech (Couper-Kuhlen 1999, Günthner 1999), and through various forms of embodiment (Niemelä 2010, Goodwin et al this volume). Furthermore, the (sequential) context of the telling can offer clues; for instance, in a medical visit a telling is likely to be conveying a trouble or problem (Stivers 2008). It is through resources such as these that story recipients are provided with access to the teller"s stance. Affiliation is generally agreed to be the preferred response in storytelling. Stivers argues that it is achieved by "the provision of a stance toward the telling that mirrors...

show abstract

Section: Verbally Ambivalent Responses and Prosodymentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Affiliation in the Reception of Conversational Complaint Stories

Couper‐Kuhlen¹

2012

Emotion in Interaction

Self Cite

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Constructions scrutinized so far include turn-taking (Selting 2005), lexical categories with discourse function, such as discourse particles (Fischer 2006, Alm 2007, modal particles (Alm 2007;Imo 2008), discourse markers (Imo 2012), and adverbs (Imo 2010a) as well as clause-level constructions, such as garden-path sentences (Imo 2011a, b), verb-first constructions (Auer/ Lindström 2011), relative-clause constructions (Birkner 2008a) and pseudo-cleft constructions (Günthner 2006a). In addition, a number of studies focus on particular verbs (Imo 2007a;Deppermann/ Elstermann 2008;Goschler/Stefanowitsch 2010;Deppermann 2011c) and phenomena specific to spoken discourse, including increments (Auer 2006b, Imo 2011b, interjections (Imo 2009;Reber/Couper-Kuhlen 2010), von-x-her constructions (Bücker 2014), so constructions (Auer 2006b, Imo 2011b, quotative constructions , idiomatic constructions (Birkner 2008b), and verbal humor (Brône 2008(Brône , 2010. (e) Syntactic structures in language acquisition.…”

Section: Major Strands Of Constructional Approaches To Syntactic Strumentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaching German syntax from a constructionist perspective

Boas¹,

Ziem²

2018

Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; see, e.g., Jefferson, 1984Jefferson, , 1985Glen, 2003;Hepburn, 2004) are also often responsive. Indeed, the dividing line between (non-linguistic) vocal and verbal displays is somewhat arbitrary, because there are many " sound objects'' (Gardner, 2001;Reber and Couper-Kuhlen, 2010) which have regular interactional uses, but which are not codified by grammars and dictionaries. This is also because phonetic and prosodic variation defines their function and meaning to an extent and in detailed ways which do not apply for the rest of the language.…”

Section: Thatfs How It Startedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Turn-design at turn-beginnings: Multimodal resources to deal with tasks of turn-construction in German

Deppermann

2013

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A b s tra c tBased on German speaking data from various activity types, the range of multimodal resources used to construct turn-beginnings is reviewed. It is claimed that participants in talk-in-interaction need to deal with four tasks in order to construct a turn which precisely fits the interactional mom ent of its production:1. Achieve joint orientation: The accomplishm ent of the socio-spatial prerequisites necessary for producing a turn which is to become part of the participants' common ground. 2. Display uptake: Next speaker needs to display his/her understanding of the interaction so far as the backdrop on which the production o f the upcoming turn is based. 3. Deal with projections from prior talk: The speaker has to deal with projections which have been established by (the) previous tum (s) with respect to the upcoming turn. 4. Project properties of tum-in-progress: The speaker needs to orient the recipient to properties o f the turn s/he is about to produce.Turn-design thus can be seen to be informed by tasks related to the multimodal, embodied, and interactive contingencies of online-construction o f turns. The four tasks are ordered in terms of prior tasks providing the prerequisite for accomplishing a later task.Keywords: Turn construction; Turn-beginnings; Multimodal interaction; Understanding in interaction; Projection Research question and claimsThis paper deals with the question: How do turns begin and which factors account for the way turn-beginnings are designed?1 I will claim that there are two major determinants: • There are four tasks which participants have to deal with when designing a turn as a contribution to an ongoing interactional encounter: to achieve joint attention to the upcoming turn, to display uptake of prior turn(s), to deal with projections emanating from them, and to project properties of the upcoming turn. Published in: Journal of Pragmatics vol. 46 (2013) no. 1, pp. 91-121. POSTPRINT 2 • The interactional structure achieved at the moment a turn is to be launched, in particular the immediately prior turn, provides for options and restrictions of how a next turn can be designed as a locally sensitive continuation.Taken together, these factors are seen as structural, interactional and functional motivations of what Schegloff (1996:63) has called " positionally sensitive grammars" . The paper will sketch some general properties of such grammars with respect to German data.2 It will be shown that an adequate treatment of turn-construction has to adopt a multimodal perspective, because dealing with tasks of turn-construction necessarily involves the simultaneous and sequential combination of various modal resources.In what follows, I will first review the literature and develop a multimodal perspective on turn-construction (1.). After a short discussion of the notions " turn" and "turn-beginning" (2.) and observations about the distribution of grammatical forms at turn-beginnings (3.), I will try to show that there are four generic tasks speakers have to deal with when b...

show abstract

Interjektionen zwischen Lexikon und Vokalität: Lexem oder Lautobjekt?

Cited by 76 publications

References 15 publications

Exploring Affiliation in the Reception of Conversational Complaint Stories

Exploring Affiliation in the Reception of Conversational Complaint Stories

Approaching German syntax from a constructionist perspective

Turn-design at turn-beginnings: Multimodal resources to deal with tasks of turn-construction in German

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About