1887
image of Practices of indexing discrepant assumptions with German ich dachte (‘I thought’) in talk-in-interaction
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper studies practices of indexing discrepant assumptions accomplished by turn-constructional units with (‘I thought’) in German talk-in-interaction. Building on the analysis of 141 instances from the corpus FOLK, we identify three sequential environments in which is used to index that an assumption which a speaker (has) held contrasts with some other, contextually salient assumption. We show that practices which have been studied for English are also routinely used in German: is a means to manage epistemic incongruencies and to contrast an incorrect with a correct assumption in narratives. In addition, is also used to account for the speaker’s own prior actions which may have looked problematic because they built on misunderstandings which the speaker only discovered later. Moreover, practices may also be used to create comic effects by reporting an earlier, absurd assumption. The practices are discussed with regard to their role in regaining common ground, in managing relationships, in maintaining the identity of a rational actor, and in terms of their exploitation for other conversational interests. Special attention is paid to how co-occurring linguistic features, and sequential and pragmatic factors, account for local interpretations of .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.00031.dep
2020-06-16
2020-07-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    1997I think: An English modal particle. InToril Swan & Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds.), Modality in Germanic languages, 1–47. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110889932.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889932.1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Berend, Nina
    2005 Regionale Gebrauchsstandards – Gibt es sie und wie kann man sie beschreiben?InLudwig M. Eichinger & Werner Kallmeyer (eds.), Standardvariation. Wie viel Variation verträgt die deutsche Sprache?, 143–170. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Betz, Emma & Andrea Golato
    2008 Remembering relevant information and withholding relevant next actions: The German token ‘ach ja’. Research on Language and Social Interaction41(1). 55–98. 10.1080/08351810701691164
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691164 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan
    1989 Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text9. 93–124. 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bogaert, Julie van
    2010 A constructional taxonomy of “I think” and related expressions: Accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental predicates. English Language and Linguistics14(3). 399–427. 10.1017/S1360674310000134
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000134 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2011I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics49. 295–332.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brinton, Laurel J.
    2008The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic developments. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511551789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clift, Rebecca
    2016Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781139022767
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139022767 [Google Scholar]
  9. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2007 Assessing and accounting. InElizabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction, 81–119. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
    2011 A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT2. Translated and adapted for English by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Dagmar Barth-Weingarten. Gesprächsforschung12. 1–51. www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2011/px-gat2-englisch.pdf. (21Dec. 2016.)
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Declerck, Renaat & Susan Reed
    2005 What is modal about I thought that…?English Language and Linguistics9(2). 311–332. 10.1017/S1360674305001668
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674305001668 [Google Scholar]
  12. Deppermann, Arnulf, Nadine Proske & Arne Zeschel
    (eds.) 2017Verben im interaktiven Kontext. Bewegungsverben und mentale Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Deppermann, Arnulf & Silke Reineke
    2017 Epistemische Praktiken und ihre feinen Unterschiede: Verwendungen von ich dachte in gesprochener Sprache. InArnulf Deppermann, Nadine Proske & Arne Zeschel (eds.), 337–375.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Deppermann, Arnulf, Feilke Helmuth & Angelika Linke
    2016 Sprachliche und kommunikative Praktiken: Eine Annäherung aus linguistischer Sicht. InArnulf Deppermann, Helmuth Feilke & Angelika Linke (eds.), Sprachliche und kommunikative Praktiken, 1–23. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110451542‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110451542-002 [Google Scholar]
  15. Deppermann, Arnulf & Thomas Schmidt
    2014 Gesprächsdatenbanken als methodisches Instrument der Interaktionalen Linguistik – Eine exemplarische Untersuchung auf Basis des Korpus FOLK in der Datenbank für Gesprochenes Deutsch (DGD2). InMitteilungen des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes1/2014 4–17. 10.14220/mdge.2014.61.1.4
    https://doi.org/10.14220/mdge.2014.61.1.4 [Google Scholar]
  16. Drew, Paul
    1987 Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics25. 219–253. 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219 [Google Scholar]
  17. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 The stance triangle. InRobert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse, 139–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  18. Enfield, Nicholas J.
    2006 Social consequences of common ground. InNicholas Enfield & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction, 399–430. Oxford: Berg.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2008 Common ground as a resource for social affiliation. InIstván Kecskés & Jacob Mey (eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, 223–254. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Englebretson, Robert
    (ed.) 2007Stancetaking in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164 [Google Scholar]
  21. Erman, Britt
    1987Pragmatic expressions in English: A study of you know, you see and I mean in face-to-face conversation. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2001 Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics33(10). 1337–1359. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00066‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00066-7 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fetzer, Anita
    2008 ‘And I think that is a very straight forward way of dealing with it’: The communicative function of cognitive verbs in political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology27(4). 384–396. 10.1177/0261927X08322481
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X08322481 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2014I think, I mean and I believe in political discourse: Collocates, functions and distribution. Functions of Language21(1). 67–91. 10.1075/fol.21.1.05fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.1.05fet [Google Scholar]
  25. Fetzer, Anita & Marjut Johansson
    2010 Cognitive verbs in context: A contrastive analysis of English and French argumentative discourse. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics15(2). 240–266. 10.1075/ijcl.15.2.05fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.2.05fet [Google Scholar]
  26. Fox Tree, Jean E. & Josef C. Schrock
    2002 Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics34(6). 727–747. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00027‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00027-9 [Google Scholar]
  27. Goffman, Erving
    1974Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Golato, Andrea
    2010 Marking understanding versus receipting information in talk: Achso. and ach in German interaction. Discourse Studies12(2). 147–176. 10.1177/1461445609356497
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609356497 [Google Scholar]
  29. Golato, Andrea & Emma Betz
    2008 German ach and achso in repair uptake: Resources to sustain or remove epistemic asymmetry. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft27. 7–37. 10.1515/ZFSW.2008.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ZFSW.2008.002 [Google Scholar]
  30. Goodwin, Charles
    1981Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Günthner, Susanne
    1996 The prosodic contextualization of moral work: An analysis of reproaches in ‘why’-formats. InMargret Selting & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies, 271–302. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.009 [Google Scholar]
  32. Günthner, Susanne & Paul Hopper
    2010 Zeitlichkeit & sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen. Gesprächsforschung11. 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Helmer, Henrike, Silke Reineke & Arnulf Deppermann
    2016 A range of uses of negative epistemic constructions in German: ich weiß nicht as a resource for dispreferred actions. Journal of Pragmatics106. 97–114. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  34. Heritage, John
    1984 A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. InJohn Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 299–345. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2006 Cognition in Discourse. InHedwig te Molder & Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 184–202. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2010 Conversation Analysis: Practices and methods. InDavid Silverman (ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice, 3rd edn., 208–230. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2012a Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1). 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2012b The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1). 30–52. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2013a Epistemics in conversation. InJack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 370–394. Malden, MA: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2013b Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies15(5). 551–578. 10.1177/1461445613501449
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501449 [Google Scholar]
  41. Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly68(1). 15–38. 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  42. Imo, Wolfgang
    2005 A Construction Grammar approach to the phrase “I mean” in spoken English. InLiSt (Interaction and Linguistic Structure)42. 1–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2007Construction Grammar und Gesprochene-Sprache-Forschung. Konstruktionen mit zehn matrixsatzfähigen Verben im Gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110975895
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110975895 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2009 Konstruktion oder Funktion? Erkenntnisprozessmarker (change-of-state-token) im Deutschen. InSusanne Günthner & Jörg Bücker (eds.), Grammatik im Gespräch, 57–86. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110213638.57
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213638.57 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2010 Das Adverb jetzt zwischen Zeit- und Gesprächsdeixis. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik38(1). 25–38. 10.1515/zgl.2010.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl.2010.003 [Google Scholar]
  46. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 ‘At first I thought’: A normalizing device for extraordinary events. InGene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 131–167. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.09jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.09jef [Google Scholar]
  47. Kärkkäinen, Elise
    2003Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions with a focus on I think. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.115
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.115 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2006 Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk26(6). 699–731. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.029 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2009I thought it was pretty neat: Social action formats for taking a stance. InStef Slembrouck, Miriam Taverniers & Mieke Van Herreweghe (eds.), From ‘Will’ to ‘Well’: Studies in Linguistics, 293–304. Gent: Academia.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2012I thought it was very interesting: Conversational formats for taking a stance. Journal of Pragmatics44(15). 2194–2210. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  51. Keevallik, Leelo
    2011 The terms of not knowing. InTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 184–206. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.009 [Google Scholar]
  52. Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky
    1967 Narrative analysis. InJune Helm (ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual Arts, 12–44. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Laury, Ritva & Marja-Liisa Helasvuo
    2016 Disclaiming epistemic access with ‘know’ and ‘remember’ in Finnish. Journal of Pragmatics106. 80–96. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lindström, Jan & Susanna Karlsson
    2016 Tensions in the epistemic domain and claims of no-knowledge: A study of Swedish medical interaction. Journal of Pragmatics106. 129–147. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  55. Östman, Jan-Ola
    1981You know: A discourse functional approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.ii.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.ii.7 [Google Scholar]
  56. Pekarek Doehler, Simona
    2011 Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction. InRitva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki (eds.), Subordination in conversation, 103–148. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.24.06doe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24.06doe [Google Scholar]
  57. 2016 More than an epistemic hedge: French je sais pas ‘I don’t know’ as a resource for the sequential organization of turns and actions. Journal of Pragmatics106. 148–162. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.014 [Google Scholar]
  58. Pomerantz, Anita
    1980 Telling my side: “Limited access” as a “fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry50. 186–198. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00020.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x [Google Scholar]
  59. 1986 Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies9(2–3). 219–229. 10.1007/BF00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  60. Potter, Jonathan
    1997 Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. InDavid Silverman (ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice, 144–160. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Quasthoff, Uta
    1980Erzählen in Gesprächen. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Sacks, Harvey
    1992Lectures on conversation. 2Vols. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1996a Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. InElinor Ochs, Emmanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  64. Scheibmann, Joanne
    2000I dunno: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don’t in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics32(1). 105–124. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00032‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00032-6 [Google Scholar]
  65. Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg Bergmann,
    2009 Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT2). Gesprächsforschung10. 353–402. www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2009/px-gat2.pdf. (21Dec. 2016.)
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Smith, Michael Sean
    2013 “I thought” initiated turns: Addressing discrepancies in first-hand and second-hand knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics57. 318–330. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.006 [Google Scholar]
  67. Thompson, Sandra A.
    2002 “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language26(1). 125–164. 10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho [Google Scholar]
  68. Thompson, Sandra A. & Anthony Mulac
    1991 The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics15(3). 237–251. 10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90012‑M
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90012-M [Google Scholar]
  69. Weatherall, Ann
    2011I don’t know as a prepositioned epistemic hedge. Research on Language and Social Interaction44(4). 317–337. 10.1080/08351813.2011.619310
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.619310 [Google Scholar]
  70. Weinrich, Harald
    1993Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Wooffitt, Robin
    1991 ‘I was just doing X ... when Y’: Some inferential properties of a device in accounts for paranormal experiences. Text11(2). 267–288. 10.1515/text.1.1991.11.2.267
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1991.11.2.267 [Google Scholar]
  72. Zeschel, Arne
    2017Denken und wissen im gesprochenen Deutsch. InArnulf Deppermann, Nadine Proske & Arne Zeschel (eds.), 249–335.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.00031.dep
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.00031.dep
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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