1887

On agency and affiliation in second assessments

German and Swedish opinion verbs in talk-in-interaction

image of On agency and affiliation in second assessments

In this chapter, we discuss design features of second assessments in German and Swedish conversation. We focus on opinion-verb constructions (finden, tycka) in full and reduced clausal formats. The study shows that reduced formats are followed by sequence closure while full formats are followed by more talk on the topic. We explain this finding by arguing that by using reduced formats, second speakers claim less agency and display low affiliation with the first assessment, whereas full formats work in the opposite way. The full and reduced opinion-verb constructions represent standardized action patterns with recognizable implications, leading to predictable interactional trajectories and coordinated intersubjective behavior.

  • Affiliations: 1: University of Freiburg; 2: University of Helsinki

References

  1. Auer, Peter
    1993 “Zur Verbspitzenstellung im Gesprochenen Deutsch.” Deutsche Sprache3: 193–222.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2014 “Sentences and Their Symbiotic Guests: Notes on Analepsis from the Perspective of Online Syntax.” Pragmatics24 (3): 533–560. 10.1075/prag.24.3.05aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.05aue [Google Scholar]
  3. 2015 “The Temporality of Language in Interaction: Projection and Latency.” InTemporality in Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann , and Susanne Günthner , 27–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.27.01aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.01aue [Google Scholar]
  4. Auer, Peter , and Jan Lindström
    2016 “Left/Right Asymmetries and the Grammar of Pre- vs. Postpositioning in German and Swedish Talk-in-interaction.” Language Sciences56: 68–92. 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Auer, Peter , and Susanne Uhmann
    1982 “Aspekte der konversationellen Organisation von Bewertungen.” Deutsche Sprache1: 1–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Clift, Rebecca
    2001 “Meaning in Interaction: The Case of Actually .” Language77 (2): 245–291. 10.1353/lan.2001.0074
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0074 [Google Scholar]
  7. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Margret Selting
    2018Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Sandra A. Thompson
    2000 “Concessive Patterns in Conversation.” InCause, Condition, Concession, Contrast, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , and Bernd Kortmann , 381–410. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043.4.381
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.4.381 [Google Scholar]
  9. Enfield, Nick J.
    2011 “Sources of Asymmetry in Human Interaction: Enchrony, Status, Knowledge, and Agency.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers , Lorenza Mondada , and Jakob Steensig , 285–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fasulo, Alessandra , and Chiara Monzoni
    2009 “Assessing Mutable Objects: A Multimodal Analysis.” Research on Language and Social Interaction42 (4): 36–376. 10.1080/08351810903296481
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296481 [Google Scholar]
  11. Heritage, John , and Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly68: 15–38. 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ford, Cecilia C.
    2018 “Celebrating Joyful Connection.” InCo-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin, ed. by Donald Favareau , 25–135. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner , 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  14. Lindström, Jan , and Susanna Karlsson
    2005 “Verb-First Constructions as a Syntactic and Functional Resource in (Spoken) Swedish.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics28 (1): 1–35. 10.1017/S0332586505001332
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586505001332 [Google Scholar]
  15. Luckmann, Thomas
    1985 “Grundformen der gesellschaftlichen Vermittlung des Wissens: Kommunikative Gattungen”. InKultur und Gesellschaft, ed. by Friedhelm Neidhardt , M. Rainer Lepsius , and Johannes Weiss , 191–211. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Partial translation as: “Communicative Genres.” InThe Discourse Studies Reader, ed. by Johannes Angermuller , Dominique Maingeuneau , and Ruth Wodak , 351–356. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.184.69luc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.184.69luc [Google Scholar]
  16. Mayes, Patricia
    2003Language, Social Structure, and Culture: A Genre Analysis of Cooking Classes in Japan and America. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.109
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.109 [Google Scholar]
  17. Mullan, Kerry
    2010Expressing Opinions in French and Australian English Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.200
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.200 [Google Scholar]
  18. Mörnsjö, Maria
    2002V1 Declaratives in Spoken Swedish. Lund: Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Noonan, Michael
    1985 “Complementation.” InLanguage Typology and Syntactic Description, ed. by Timothy Shopen , 42–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Norrby, Catrin , and Karolina Wirdenäs
    1998 “The Language and Music Worlds of High School Students.” InSprog, køn – og kommunikation, ed. by Inge Lise Pedersen , and Jann Scheuer , 155–163. Copenhagen: Reitzel.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ogden, Richard
    2006 “Phonetics and Social Action in Agreements and Disagreements.” Journal of Pragmatics38: 1752–1775. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  22. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. by J. M. Atkinson , and J. Heritage , 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Sandra A. Thompson , 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  25. Schuetz, Alfred
    1953 “Common Sense and the Scientific Interpretation of Human Action.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research14 (1): 1–38. 10.2307/2104013
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2104013 [Google Scholar]
  26. Selting, Margret , Peter Auer , Dagmar Barth-Weingarten , Jörg R. Bergmann , Pia Bergmann , Karin Birkner , Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , Arnulf Deppermann , Peter Gilles , Susanne Günthner , Martin Hartung , Friederike Kern , Christine Mertzlufft , Christian Meyer , Miriam Morek , Frank Oberzaucher , Jörg Peters , Uta Quasthoff , Wilfried Schütte , Anja Stukenbrock , and Susanne Uhmann
    2009 “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung10: 353–402. Available at: www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2009/heft2009.html
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Thompson, Sandra A. , Barbara A. Fox , & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2015Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  28. Trutkowski, Ewa
    2016Topic Drop and Null Subjects in German. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110446173
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110446173 [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Auer, Peter
    1993 “Zur Verbspitzenstellung im Gesprochenen Deutsch.” Deutsche Sprache3: 193–222.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2014 “Sentences and Their Symbiotic Guests: Notes on Analepsis from the Perspective of Online Syntax.” Pragmatics24 (3): 533–560. 10.1075/prag.24.3.05aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.05aue [Google Scholar]
  3. 2015 “The Temporality of Language in Interaction: Projection and Latency.” InTemporality in Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann , and Susanne Günthner , 27–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.27.01aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.01aue [Google Scholar]
  4. Auer, Peter , and Jan Lindström
    2016 “Left/Right Asymmetries and the Grammar of Pre- vs. Postpositioning in German and Swedish Talk-in-interaction.” Language Sciences56: 68–92. 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Auer, Peter , and Susanne Uhmann
    1982 “Aspekte der konversationellen Organisation von Bewertungen.” Deutsche Sprache1: 1–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Clift, Rebecca
    2001 “Meaning in Interaction: The Case of Actually .” Language77 (2): 245–291. 10.1353/lan.2001.0074
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0074 [Google Scholar]
  7. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Margret Selting
    2018Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Sandra A. Thompson
    2000 “Concessive Patterns in Conversation.” InCause, Condition, Concession, Contrast, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , and Bernd Kortmann , 381–410. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043.4.381
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.4.381 [Google Scholar]
  9. Enfield, Nick J.
    2011 “Sources of Asymmetry in Human Interaction: Enchrony, Status, Knowledge, and Agency.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers , Lorenza Mondada , and Jakob Steensig , 285–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fasulo, Alessandra , and Chiara Monzoni
    2009 “Assessing Mutable Objects: A Multimodal Analysis.” Research on Language and Social Interaction42 (4): 36–376. 10.1080/08351810903296481
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296481 [Google Scholar]
  11. Heritage, John , and Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly68: 15–38. 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ford, Cecilia C.
    2018 “Celebrating Joyful Connection.” InCo-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin, ed. by Donald Favareau , 25–135. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner , 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  14. Lindström, Jan , and Susanna Karlsson
    2005 “Verb-First Constructions as a Syntactic and Functional Resource in (Spoken) Swedish.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics28 (1): 1–35. 10.1017/S0332586505001332
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586505001332 [Google Scholar]
  15. Luckmann, Thomas
    1985 “Grundformen der gesellschaftlichen Vermittlung des Wissens: Kommunikative Gattungen”. InKultur und Gesellschaft, ed. by Friedhelm Neidhardt , M. Rainer Lepsius , and Johannes Weiss , 191–211. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Partial translation as: “Communicative Genres.” InThe Discourse Studies Reader, ed. by Johannes Angermuller , Dominique Maingeuneau , and Ruth Wodak , 351–356. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.184.69luc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.184.69luc [Google Scholar]
  16. Mayes, Patricia
    2003Language, Social Structure, and Culture: A Genre Analysis of Cooking Classes in Japan and America. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.109
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.109 [Google Scholar]
  17. Mullan, Kerry
    2010Expressing Opinions in French and Australian English Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.200
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.200 [Google Scholar]
  18. Mörnsjö, Maria
    2002V1 Declaratives in Spoken Swedish. Lund: Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Noonan, Michael
    1985 “Complementation.” InLanguage Typology and Syntactic Description, ed. by Timothy Shopen , 42–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Norrby, Catrin , and Karolina Wirdenäs
    1998 “The Language and Music Worlds of High School Students.” InSprog, køn – og kommunikation, ed. by Inge Lise Pedersen , and Jann Scheuer , 155–163. Copenhagen: Reitzel.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ogden, Richard
    2006 “Phonetics and Social Action in Agreements and Disagreements.” Journal of Pragmatics38: 1752–1775. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  22. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. by J. M. Atkinson , and J. Heritage , 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Sandra A. Thompson , 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  25. Schuetz, Alfred
    1953 “Common Sense and the Scientific Interpretation of Human Action.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research14 (1): 1–38. 10.2307/2104013
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2104013 [Google Scholar]
  26. Selting, Margret , Peter Auer , Dagmar Barth-Weingarten , Jörg R. Bergmann , Pia Bergmann , Karin Birkner , Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , Arnulf Deppermann , Peter Gilles , Susanne Günthner , Martin Hartung , Friederike Kern , Christine Mertzlufft , Christian Meyer , Miriam Morek , Frank Oberzaucher , Jörg Peters , Uta Quasthoff , Wilfried Schütte , Anja Stukenbrock , and Susanne Uhmann
    2009 “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung10: 353–402. Available at: www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2009/heft2009.html
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Thompson, Sandra A. , Barbara A. Fox , & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2015Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  28. Trutkowski, Ewa
    2016Topic Drop and Null Subjects in German. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110446173
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110446173 [Google Scholar]
/content/books/9789027259035-pbns.326.05aue
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027259035
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error