Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit <i>also</i> und <i>dann</i>

Deppermann, Arnulf; Helmer, Henrike

doi:10.1515/zfs-2013-0001

Cited by 53 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Her displays of dispreference and indetermination are explicitly reformulated by the host, saying: also SIE hatten keine beson d ere Präferenz ('so you did not have a specific pref erence' , S12), which the guest confirms (S14-15). Reformulation (like continu ation) is built to show explicit recognition of a prior speaker's implicit intention (Deppermann & Helmer 2013). Still, it simultaneously transforms prior speaker's turn by reinterpreting or recategorizing it, thus suggesting a more or less altered formulation as the relevant gist or upshot (Heritage & Watson 1979), which is retained for future interaction to build on (Drew 2003).…”

Section: -I Displaying Understanding In Second Position: Understandingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospection and Understanding in Interaction

Deppermann¹

2015

Studies in Language and Social Interaction

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper shows how understanding in interaction is inform ed by temporality, and in particular, by the workings o f retrospection. Understanding is a tem po rally extended, sequentially organized process. Temporality, namely, the sequen tial relationship o f turn positions, equips participants w ith default m echanism s to display understandings and to expect such displays. These m echanism s require local m anagem ent o f tu rn-taking to be in order, i.e., the possibility and the expectation to respond locally and reciprocally to prior turns at talk.Sequential positions o f turns in interaction provide an infrastructure for dis playing understanding and accom plishing intersubjectivity. Linguistic practices specialized in displaying particular kinds o f (not) understanding are adapted to the individual sequential positions w ith respect to an action-to-be-understood. l. Retrospection in interactionIt is a commonplace that linguistic action is context-dependent. Context-dependency intimately implies temporality: To act in a context-sensitive manner requires retrospection, i.e., to take into account what has happened before in the interactional encounter (and maybe also beyond it). One major facet of the retro spective, context-sensitive design of linguistic action is understanding: The situ ated production of actions and linguistic structures in interaction fundamentally rests on understandings of partners' prior talk. Moreover, understandings have to be publicly displayed if intersubjectivity of meanings is to be achieved. Acting in interaction thus both exploits and is expected to build on retrospection.The goal of this paper is to flesh out this temporal perspective on understanding in interaction by dealing with three aspects o f it:

show abstract

Section: -I Displaying Understanding In Second Position: Understandingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospection and Understanding in Interaction

Deppermann¹

2015

Studies in Language and Social Interaction

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The relationship between clausal turn formats and agency has also been observed in the domain of formulations (Deppermann & Helmer, 2013). Formulations framed with German also ("so") are mostly completed in a phrasal format.…”

Section: Phrasal Vs Clausal Turn Designmentioning

confidence: 87%

Das Heißt (“That Means”) for Formulations and Du Meinst (“You Mean”) for Repair? Interpretations of Prior Speakers’ Turns in German

Helmer

Zinken

2019

Research on Language and Social Interaction

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recognizability of a stretch of conduct as social action depends on details of turn construction as well as the turn's context. We examine details of turn construction as they enter into actions offering interpretations of prior talk. Such actions either initiate repair or formulate a conclusion from prior talk. We focus on how interpretation markers (das heißt ["that means"] vs. du meinst ["you mean"]) and interpretation formats (phrasal vs. clausal turn completions) each make their invariant contribution to specific interpreting practices. Interpretation marker and turn format go hand in hand, which leads to distinct patterns of interpreting practices: Das heißt+clause is especially apt for formulations, du meinst+phrase for repair. The results suggest that details of turn construction can systematically enter into the constitution of social action. Data are in German with English translation.Interlocutors design their actions to make them recognizable to others (see Robinson, 2016). Turn position and turn composition are crucial for this (Schegloff, 2007). In this article, we contribute to a more systematic understanding of how lexical and grammatical practices, as elements of turn construction, contribute to the constitution of action. Recent research has made progress in showing how linguistic formats enter into action formation (from a large literature see Couper-Kuhlen, 2014, p. 635;Thompson, Fox, & Couper-Kuhlen, 2015, who explicitly discuss the relationship between linguistic form and action). This work illustrates clearly that choices in turn construction not only serve to adapt the move to a particular interactional environment; linguistic formats can also shape the action of a turn (Fox & Thompson, 2010;Sorjonen & Raevaara, 2014;Thompson et al., 2015). In this article, we examine practices in turns that interpret another person's prior talk. Formulating interpretations of prior talkSometimes, speakers articulate an interpretation of the other person's talk (or action) by reformulating it, offering additional information or the like. Candidate understandings (e.g.,

show abstract

“…Formulated inferences can stand in quite different kinds of relationships to the turn(s) they are drawn from: They can formulate a gist or an upshot Watson 1979, 1980), summarize a lengthy description by a handy notion (Deppermann 2011), explicate something which was only implicitly adumbrated (Bolden 2010), or even challenge (Antaki 2008). In German, turn-initial also ('so') and dann ('then') can be used to index different kinds of inferences (Deppermann and Helmer 2013): While dann displays that an upcoming formulation expresses a unilateral inference from a co-participant's prior turn which is not claimed to be intersubjectively shared (Section 3.1), also indexes that the formulation purports to explicate what the prior speaker has implied (Section 3.2). Explications of inferences with wollen ('want') specifically address the implicit intentions of the prior speaker as key to an understanding of the meaning of their action (Section 3.3).…”

Section: Making Inferences Explicitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data from the corpus FOLK (see transcription headers) are available online via <dgd.ids.mannheim.de>. More detailed information on the corpora used can be found in Deppermann and Helmer (2013) for the use of also and dann in formulations, in Betz and Deppermann (2018) for eben as a response particle, and in Helmer (2016) In 07-08 and 11, MA formulates inferences from DO's preceding turns. Both formulations amount to a challenge of the position which DO had taken earlier, namely, that social relationships have gotten worse since the German "Wende", i.e., the reunification of West and East Germany.…”

Section: Unilateral Inferences With Dann ('Then')mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inferential Practices in Social Interaction: A Conversation-Analytic Account

Deppermann

2018

Open Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that conversation analysis has largely neglected the fact that meaning in interaction relies on inferences to a high degree. Participants treat each other as cognitive agents, who imply and infer meanings, which are often consequential for interactional progression. Based on the study of audio-and video-recordings from German talk-in-interaction, the paper argues that inferences matter to social interaction in at least three ways. They can be explicitly formulated; they can be (conventionally) indexed, but not formulated; or they may be neither indexed nor formulated yet would be needed for the correct understanding of a turn. The last variety of inferences usually remain tacit, but are needed for smooth interactional progression. Inferences in this case become an observable discursive phenomenon if misunderstandings are treated by the explication of correct (accepted) and wrong (unaccepted) inferences. The understanding of referential terms, analepsis, and ellipsis regularly rely on inferences. Formulations, third-position repairs, and fourth-position explications of erroneous inferences are practices of explicating inferences. There are conventional linguistic means like discourse markers, connectives, and response particles that index specific kinds of inferences. These practices belong to a larger class of inferential practices, which play an important role for indexing and accomplishing intersubjectivity in talk in interaction.

show abstract

Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit also und dann

Cited by 53 publications

References 9 publications

Retrospection and Understanding in Interaction

Retrospection and Understanding in Interaction

Das Heißt (“That Means”) for Formulations and Du Meinst (“You Mean”) for Repair? Interpretations of Prior Speakers’ Turns in German

Inferential Practices in Social Interaction: A Conversation-Analytic Account

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About