1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Temporality in Interaction
  4. Chapter

Retrospection and Understanding in Interaction

image of Retrospection and Understanding in Interaction

This paper shows how understanding in interaction is informed by temporality, and in particular, by the workings of retrospection. Under­standing is a temporally extended, sequentially organized process. Tempo­rality, namely, the sequential relationship of turn positions, equips partici­pants with default mechanisms to display understandings and to expect such displays. These mechanisms require local management of turn-taking to be in order, i.e., the possibility and the expectation to respond locally and reciprocally to prior turns at talk. Sequential positions of turns in in­teraction provide an infrastructure for displaying understanding and accom­plishing intersubjectivity. Linguistic practices specialized in dis­playing particular kinds of (not) understanding are adapted to the individual sequential positions with respect to an action-to-be-understood.

e-Book ISBN 9789027268990

References

  1. Argelander, Hermann
    1991 Der Text und seine Verknüpfungen: Studien zur psychoanalytischen Methode. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑76078‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-76078-5 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1981 “Discourse in the Novel.” In hisThe Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Translated by Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson . 259–422. Austin, TX: U Texas P.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bergmann, Jörg R
    1985 “Flüchtigkeit und methodische Fixierung sozialer Wirklichkeit: Aufzeichnungen als Daten interpretativer Soziologie.” InEntzauberte Wissenschaft. Zur Relativität und Geltung soziologischer Forschung, ed. by Wolfgang Bonß and Heinz Hartmann , 299–320. Göttingen: Schwartz.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Betz, Emma , Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm , Veronika Drake , et al.
    2013 “Third-Position Repeats in German: The Case of Repair- and Request-for-Information Sequences.” Gesprächsforschung14: 133–166, www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2013/ga-betz.pdf.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, Herbert H
    1996 Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, Herbert H. and Susan A. Brennan
    1991 “Grounding in Communication.” InPerspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick , John M. Levine , and Stephanie D. Teasley , 127–149. Washington: APA. doi: 10.1037/10096‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006 [Google Scholar]
  7. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2011 “Notionalizations: The Transformation of Descriptions into Categorizations.” Human Studies34 (2): 155–181. doi: 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9186‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9186-9 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2012 “How Does ‘Cognition’ Matter to the Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction?” Language Sciences34 (6): 746–767. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.013 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2013 “Turn-Design at Turn-Beginnings: Multimodal Resources to Deal with Tasks of Turn-Construction in German.” Journal of Pragmatics46 (1): 91–121. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  10. (Ms.): “Repetition and Alignment in everyday Interaction.” Paper given atSFB “Aligment in Communication”, University of Bielefeld.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Deppermann, Arnulf and Henrike Helmer
    2013 “Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit also und dann.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft32 (1): 1–40. doi: 10.1515/zfs‑2013‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2013-0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Deppermann, Arnulf and Reinhold Schmitt
    2007 “Koordination. Zur Begründung eines neuen Forschungsgegenstandes.” InKoordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion, ed. by Reinhold Schmitt , 15–54. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Deppermann, Arnulf and Reinhold Schmitt 
    2009 “Verstehensdokumentation: Zur Phänomenologie von Verstehen in der Interaktion.” Deutsche Sprache36 (3): 220–245.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Drew, Paul
    2003 “Comparative Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction in Different Institutional Settings.” InStudies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Philipp J. Glenn , Curtis D. LeBaron , and Jenny Mandelbaum , 293–308. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Du Bois, John W
    2007 “The Stance Triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson , 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  16. Eco, Umberto
    1981 The Role of the Reader. Bloomington and London: Indiana UP and Hutchinson.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Edwards, Derek
    1997 Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Edwards, Derek and Jonathan Potter
    1992 Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2006 “Discursive Psychology, Mental States and Descriptions.” InConversation and Cognition, ed. by Hedwig te Molder and Jonathan Potter , 241–259. Cambridge, MA: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Ehlich, Konrad
    1983 “Text und sprachliches Handeln. Die Entstehung von Texten aus dem Bedürfnis nach Überlieferung.” InSchrift und Gedächtnis. Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation, ed. by Aleida Assmann , Jan Assmann , and Christof Hardmeier , 24–43. München: Fink.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Frank, Manfred
    1989 Das Sagbare und das Unsagbare. Studien zur neuesten französischen Hermeneutik und Texttheorie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Gadamer, Hans-Georg
    1960 Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: Mohr.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Goffman, Erving
    1963 Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 1970 Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia, PA: U Pennsylvania P.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Golato, Andrea and Emma Betz
    2008 “German ach and achso in Repair Uptake: Resources to Sustain or Remove Epistemic Asymmetry.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft27: 7–37. doi: 10.1515/ZFSW.2008.002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ZFSW.2008.002 [Google Scholar]
  27. Golato, Andrea
    2010 “Marking Understanding versus Receipting Information in Talk: achso and ach in German Interaction.” Discourse Studies12 (2): 147–176. doi: 10.1177/1461445609356497
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609356497 [Google Scholar]
  28. Goodwin, Charles
    2013 “The Co-operative, Transformative Organization of Human Action and Knowledge.” Journal of Pragmatics46 (1): 8–23. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  29. Grice, H. Paul
    1989 Studies in the Ways of Words.London: Harvard UP.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Habermas, Jürgen
    1985 Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Helmer, Henrike
    2011 Die Herstellung von Kohärenz in der Interaktion durch Turnanschlüsse mit dann.Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, URL: www.verlag-gespraechsforschung.de/2011/helmer.htm.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Heritage, John
    1984 “A Change-of-state Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. by John M. Atkinson and John Heritage , 299–345. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2006 “Cognition in Discourse.” InConversation and Cognition, ed. by Hedwig te Molder and Jonathan Potter , 184–202. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 2007 “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and Place) Reference.” InPerson Reference in Interaction, ed. by Nick Enfield and Tanya Stivers , 255–280. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Heritage, John and Watson, D.R
    1979 “Formulations as conversational objects.” InEveryday language, ed. by George Psathas , 123–162. New York: Irvington.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hinnenkamp, Volker
    1998 Missverständnisse in Gesprächen. Opladen: Westdeutscher. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑322‑83289‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-83289-4 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hobbs, Jerry R
    2004 “Abduction in Natural Language.” InHandbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Lawrence Horn and Gregory Ward , 724–741. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Husserl, Edmund
    1995[1929] Cartesianische Meditationen. Hamburg: Meiner.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Imo, Wolfgang
    2009 “Konstruktion oder Funktion? Erkenntnisprozessmarker (‘change-of state tokens‘) im Deutschen.” InGrammatik im Gespräch, ed. by Susanne Günthner and Jörg Bücker , 57–86. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110213638.57
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213638.57 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kindt, Walter
    2002 “Konzeptuelle Grundlagen einer Theorie der Verständigungsprobleme.“InVerständigungsprobleme und gestörte Kommunikation, ed. by Reinhard Fiehler , 17–43. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, URL: www.verlag-gespraechsforschung.de/2002/fiehler.html.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kintsch, Walter
    1998 Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Koch, Peter and Wulf Oesterreicher
    1986 “Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte.” Romanistisches Jahrbuch36: 15–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Koschman, Timothy
    (ed.) 2011 “Understanding Understanding in Action.” Journal of Pragmatics43 (2): 435–690. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.016 [Google Scholar]
  44. Koshik, Irene
    2002 “Designedly Incomplete Utterances: A Pedagogical Practice for Eliciting Knowledge Displays in Error Correction Sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction35 (3): 277–309. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lerner, Gene H
    1991 “On the Syntax of Sentences in Progress.” Language in Society20: 441–458. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500016572
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2004 “The Place of Linguistic Resources in the Organization of Talk-in-Interaction: Grammar as Action in Prompting a Speaker to Elaborate.” Research on Language and Social Interaction37 (2): 151–184. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_3 [Google Scholar]
  47. Linell, Per
    2009 Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Luhmann, Niklas
    1984 Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 1995 “Wie ist Bewusstsein an Kommunikation beteiligt?” In hisSoziologische Aufklärung, 37–54. Opladen: Westdeutscher.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice
    1962 Signes. Paris: Gallimard.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Meyrowitz, Joshua
    1990 “Using Contextual Analysis to Bridge the Study of Mediated and Unmediated Behavior.” InMediation, Information and Communication. Vol. 3: Information and Behavior, ed. by Brent D. Ruben and Leath A. Lievrouw , 67–94. New Brunswick: Transaction Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Mondada, Lorenza
    2009 “Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space.” Journal of Pragmatics41, 1977–1997. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2011 “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics43: 542–552. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pickering, Martin J. and Simon Garrod
    2004 “Toward a Mechanistic Psychology of Dialogue.”Behavioral and Brain Sciences27 (2): 169–190. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X04000056
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056 [Google Scholar]
  55. Potter, Jonathan and Hedwig te Molder
    2006 “Talking Cognition: Mapping and Making the Terrain.” InConversation and Cognition, ed. by Hedwig te Molder and Jonathan Potter , 1–54. Cambridge, MA: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Sacks, Harvey
    1992 Lectures on Conversation. Volumes I & II, ed. by Gail Jefferson . Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Sacks, Harvey and Emanuel A. Schegloff
    1979 “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and their Interaction.” InEveryday Language, ed. by George Psathas , 15–21. New York: Center for the Study of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50: 696–735. doi: 10.2307/412243
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  59. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    1991 “Conversation Analysis and Socially Shared Cognition.” InPerspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick , John M. Levine , and Stephanie D. Teasley , 150–171. Washington, DC: APA. doi: 10.1037/10096‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-007 [Google Scholar]
  60. 1992a “In another context.” InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. by Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin , 193–227. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 1992b “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology97 (5): 1295–1345. doi: 10.1086/229903
     https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  62. Schegloff, Emmanuel A
    1996 “Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction.” Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emmanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson , 53–133. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  63. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  64. Schegloff, Emmanuel A. , Gail Jefferson , and Harvey Sacks
    1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language53: 361–382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  65. Schiffer, Stephen
    1972 Meaning. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Schleiermacher, Friedrich D.E
    1977[1838] Hermeneutik und Kritik. Frankfurt am Main. Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Schneider, Wolfgang Ludwig
    2004 Grundlagen der soziologischen Theorie. Band 3. Wiesbaden: VS. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑322‑97105‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-97105-0 [Google Scholar]
  68. Scholz, Oliver R
    2001 Verstehen und Rationalität. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Schütz, Alfred
    1974[1932] Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Schütz, Alfred and Thomas Luckmann
    1979 Strukturen der Lebenswelt Band 1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Spranz-Fogasy, Thomas
    1986 widersprechen. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Stivers, Tanya
    2005 “Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38 (2): 131–158. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 [Google Scholar]
  73. Stivers, Tanya , Lorenza Mondada , and Jakob Steensig
    (eds.) 2011 The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation.Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511921674
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674 [Google Scholar]
  74. Svennevig, Jan
    2004 “Other-Repetition as Display of Hearing, Understanding and Emotional Stance.” Discourse Studies6 (4): 489–516. doi: 10.1177/1461445604046591
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604046591 [Google Scholar]
  75. te Molder, Hedwig and Jonathan Potter
    (eds.) 2006 Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Tomasello, Michael
    2008 Origins of Human Communication. London: MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. van Dijk, Teun A. and Walter Kintsch
    1983 Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Weber, Max
    2001[1922] Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft.Gesamtausgabe Band 22/1. Tübingen.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Argelander, Hermann
    1991 Der Text und seine Verknüpfungen: Studien zur psychoanalytischen Methode. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑76078‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-76078-5 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1981 “Discourse in the Novel.” In hisThe Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Translated by Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson . 259–422. Austin, TX: U Texas P.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bergmann, Jörg R
    1985 “Flüchtigkeit und methodische Fixierung sozialer Wirklichkeit: Aufzeichnungen als Daten interpretativer Soziologie.” InEntzauberte Wissenschaft. Zur Relativität und Geltung soziologischer Forschung, ed. by Wolfgang Bonß and Heinz Hartmann , 299–320. Göttingen: Schwartz.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Betz, Emma , Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm , Veronika Drake , et al.
    2013 “Third-Position Repeats in German: The Case of Repair- and Request-for-Information Sequences.” Gesprächsforschung14: 133–166, www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2013/ga-betz.pdf.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, Herbert H
    1996 Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, Herbert H. and Susan A. Brennan
    1991 “Grounding in Communication.” InPerspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick , John M. Levine , and Stephanie D. Teasley , 127–149. Washington: APA. doi: 10.1037/10096‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006 [Google Scholar]
  7. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2011 “Notionalizations: The Transformation of Descriptions into Categorizations.” Human Studies34 (2): 155–181. doi: 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9186‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9186-9 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2012 “How Does ‘Cognition’ Matter to the Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction?” Language Sciences34 (6): 746–767. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.013 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2013 “Turn-Design at Turn-Beginnings: Multimodal Resources to Deal with Tasks of Turn-Construction in German.” Journal of Pragmatics46 (1): 91–121. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  10. (Ms.): “Repetition and Alignment in everyday Interaction.” Paper given atSFB “Aligment in Communication”, University of Bielefeld.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Deppermann, Arnulf and Henrike Helmer
    2013 “Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit also und dann.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft32 (1): 1–40. doi: 10.1515/zfs‑2013‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2013-0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Deppermann, Arnulf and Reinhold Schmitt
    2007 “Koordination. Zur Begründung eines neuen Forschungsgegenstandes.” InKoordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion, ed. by Reinhold Schmitt , 15–54. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Deppermann, Arnulf and Reinhold Schmitt 
    2009 “Verstehensdokumentation: Zur Phänomenologie von Verstehen in der Interaktion.” Deutsche Sprache36 (3): 220–245.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Drew, Paul
    2003 “Comparative Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction in Different Institutional Settings.” InStudies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Philipp J. Glenn , Curtis D. LeBaron , and Jenny Mandelbaum , 293–308. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Du Bois, John W
    2007 “The Stance Triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson , 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  16. Eco, Umberto
    1981 The Role of the Reader. Bloomington and London: Indiana UP and Hutchinson.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Edwards, Derek
    1997 Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Edwards, Derek and Jonathan Potter
    1992 Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2006 “Discursive Psychology, Mental States and Descriptions.” InConversation and Cognition, ed. by Hedwig te Molder and Jonathan Potter , 241–259. Cambridge, MA: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Ehlich, Konrad
    1983 “Text und sprachliches Handeln. Die Entstehung von Texten aus dem Bedürfnis nach Überlieferung.” InSchrift und Gedächtnis. Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation, ed. by Aleida Assmann , Jan Assmann , and Christof Hardmeier , 24–43. München: Fink.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Frank, Manfred
    1989 Das Sagbare und das Unsagbare. Studien zur neuesten französischen Hermeneutik und Texttheorie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Gadamer, Hans-Georg
    1960 Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: Mohr.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Goffman, Erving
    1963 Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 1970 Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia, PA: U Pennsylvania P.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Golato, Andrea and Emma Betz
    2008 “German ach and achso in Repair Uptake: Resources to Sustain or Remove Epistemic Asymmetry.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft27: 7–37. doi: 10.1515/ZFSW.2008.002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ZFSW.2008.002 [Google Scholar]
  27. Golato, Andrea
    2010 “Marking Understanding versus Receipting Information in Talk: achso and ach in German Interaction.” Discourse Studies12 (2): 147–176. doi: 10.1177/1461445609356497
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609356497 [Google Scholar]
  28. Goodwin, Charles
    2013 “The Co-operative, Transformative Organization of Human Action and Knowledge.” Journal of Pragmatics46 (1): 8–23. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  29. Grice, H. Paul
    1989 Studies in the Ways of Words.London: Harvard UP.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Habermas, Jürgen
    1985 Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Helmer, Henrike
    2011 Die Herstellung von Kohärenz in der Interaktion durch Turnanschlüsse mit dann.Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, URL: www.verlag-gespraechsforschung.de/2011/helmer.htm.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Heritage, John
    1984 “A Change-of-state Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. by John M. Atkinson and John Heritage , 299–345. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2006 “Cognition in Discourse.” InConversation and Cognition, ed. by Hedwig te Molder and Jonathan Potter , 184–202. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 2007 “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and Place) Reference.” InPerson Reference in Interaction, ed. by Nick Enfield and Tanya Stivers , 255–280. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Heritage, John and Watson, D.R
    1979 “Formulations as conversational objects.” InEveryday language, ed. by George Psathas , 123–162. New York: Irvington.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hinnenkamp, Volker
    1998 Missverständnisse in Gesprächen. Opladen: Westdeutscher. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑322‑83289‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-83289-4 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hobbs, Jerry R
    2004 “Abduction in Natural Language.” InHandbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Lawrence Horn and Gregory Ward , 724–741. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Husserl, Edmund
    1995[1929] Cartesianische Meditationen. Hamburg: Meiner.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Imo, Wolfgang
    2009 “Konstruktion oder Funktion? Erkenntnisprozessmarker (‘change-of state tokens‘) im Deutschen.” InGrammatik im Gespräch, ed. by Susanne Günthner and Jörg Bücker , 57–86. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110213638.57
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213638.57 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kindt, Walter
    2002 “Konzeptuelle Grundlagen einer Theorie der Verständigungsprobleme.“InVerständigungsprobleme und gestörte Kommunikation, ed. by Reinhard Fiehler , 17–43. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, URL: www.verlag-gespraechsforschung.de/2002/fiehler.html.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kintsch, Walter
    1998 Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Koch, Peter and Wulf Oesterreicher
    1986 “Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte.” Romanistisches Jahrbuch36: 15–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Koschman, Timothy
    (ed.) 2011 “Understanding Understanding in Action.” Journal of Pragmatics43 (2): 435–690. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.016 [Google Scholar]
  44. Koshik, Irene
    2002 “Designedly Incomplete Utterances: A Pedagogical Practice for Eliciting Knowledge Displays in Error Correction Sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction35 (3): 277–309. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lerner, Gene H
    1991 “On the Syntax of Sentences in Progress.” Language in Society20: 441–458. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500016572
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2004 “The Place of Linguistic Resources in the Organization of Talk-in-Interaction: Grammar as Action in Prompting a Speaker to Elaborate.” Research on Language and Social Interaction37 (2): 151–184. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_3 [Google Scholar]
  47. Linell, Per
    2009 Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Luhmann, Niklas
    1984 Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 1995 “Wie ist Bewusstsein an Kommunikation beteiligt?” In hisSoziologische Aufklärung, 37–54. Opladen: Westdeutscher.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice
    1962 Signes. Paris: Gallimard.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Meyrowitz, Joshua
    1990 “Using Contextual Analysis to Bridge the Study of Mediated and Unmediated Behavior.” InMediation, Information and Communication. Vol. 3: Information and Behavior, ed. by Brent D. Ruben and Leath A. Lievrouw , 67–94. New Brunswick: Transaction Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Mondada, Lorenza
    2009 “Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space.” Journal of Pragmatics41, 1977–1997. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2011 “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics43: 542–552. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pickering, Martin J. and Simon Garrod
    2004 “Toward a Mechanistic Psychology of Dialogue.”Behavioral and Brain Sciences27 (2): 169–190. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X04000056
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056 [Google Scholar]
  55. Potter, Jonathan and Hedwig te Molder
    2006 “Talking Cognition: Mapping and Making the Terrain.” InConversation and Cognition, ed. by Hedwig te Molder and Jonathan Potter , 1–54. Cambridge, MA: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Sacks, Harvey
    1992 Lectures on Conversation. Volumes I & II, ed. by Gail Jefferson . Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Sacks, Harvey and Emanuel A. Schegloff
    1979 “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and their Interaction.” InEveryday Language, ed. by George Psathas , 15–21. New York: Center for the Study of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50: 696–735. doi: 10.2307/412243
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  59. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    1991 “Conversation Analysis and Socially Shared Cognition.” InPerspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick , John M. Levine , and Stephanie D. Teasley , 150–171. Washington, DC: APA. doi: 10.1037/10096‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-007 [Google Scholar]
  60. 1992a “In another context.” InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. by Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin , 193–227. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 1992b “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology97 (5): 1295–1345. doi: 10.1086/229903
     https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  62. Schegloff, Emmanuel A
    1996 “Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction.” Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs , Emmanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson , 53–133. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  63. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  64. Schegloff, Emmanuel A. , Gail Jefferson , and Harvey Sacks
    1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language53: 361–382. doi: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  65. Schiffer, Stephen
    1972 Meaning. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Schleiermacher, Friedrich D.E
    1977[1838] Hermeneutik und Kritik. Frankfurt am Main. Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Schneider, Wolfgang Ludwig
    2004 Grundlagen der soziologischen Theorie. Band 3. Wiesbaden: VS. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑322‑97105‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-97105-0 [Google Scholar]
  68. Scholz, Oliver R
    2001 Verstehen und Rationalität. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Schütz, Alfred
    1974[1932] Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Schütz, Alfred and Thomas Luckmann
    1979 Strukturen der Lebenswelt Band 1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Spranz-Fogasy, Thomas
    1986 widersprechen. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Stivers, Tanya
    2005 “Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38 (2): 131–158. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 [Google Scholar]
  73. Stivers, Tanya , Lorenza Mondada , and Jakob Steensig
    (eds.) 2011 The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation.Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511921674
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674 [Google Scholar]
  74. Svennevig, Jan
    2004 “Other-Repetition as Display of Hearing, Understanding and Emotional Stance.” Discourse Studies6 (4): 489–516. doi: 10.1177/1461445604046591
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445604046591 [Google Scholar]
  75. te Molder, Hedwig and Jonathan Potter
    (eds.) 2006 Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Tomasello, Michael
    2008 Origins of Human Communication. London: MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. van Dijk, Teun A. and Walter Kintsch
    1983 Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Weber, Max
    2001[1922] Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft.Gesamtausgabe Band 22/1. Tübingen.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027268990-slsi.27.02dep
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Figure -contentType:Table -contentType:SupplementaryData
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027268990-slsi.27.02dep
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Figure -contentType:Table -contentType:SupplementaryData
10
5
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