On agency and affiliation in second assessments
German and Swedish opinion verbs in
talk-in-interaction
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Agency and affiliation
- 3.Dealing with weak agency: Assessing in group interviews
- 4.Agency, alignment and sequence structure in agreeing second
assessments
- 4.1Sequence closure: Low agency
- 4.2Sequence closure: High(er) agency and low affiliation
- 4.3Sequence expansion: High(er) agency and no evaluative
downgrading
- 5.Disagreeing second assessments
- 6.Conclusion
-
Notes
-
References
References (28)
References
Auer, Peter. 1993. “Zur
Verbspitzenstellung im Gesprochenen
Deutsch.” Deutsche
Sprache 3: 193–222.
Auer, Peter, and Jan Lindström. 2016. “Left/Right
Asymmetries and the Grammar of Pre- vs. Postpositioning in
German and Swedish
Talk-in-interaction.” Language
Sciences 56: 68–92.
Auer, Peter, and Susanne Uhmann. 1982. “Aspekte
der konversationellen Organisation von
Bewertungen.” Deutsche
Sprache 1: 1–32.
Clift, Rebecca. 2001. “Meaning
in Interaction: The Case of
Actually
.” Language 77
(2): 245–291.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional
Linguistics: Studying Language in Social
Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra A. Thompson. 2000. “Concessive
Patterns in
Conversation.” In Cause,
Condition, Concession, Contrast, ed.
by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 381–410. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Enfield, Nick J. 2011. “Sources
of Asymmetry in Human Interaction: Enchrony, Status,
Knowledge, and
Agency.” In The
Morality of Knowledge in
Conversation, ed.
by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 285–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fasulo, Alessandra, and Chiara Monzoni. 2009. “Assessing
Mutable Objects: A Multimodal
Analysis.” Research on
Language and Social
Interaction 42
(4): 36–376.
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. “The
Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and
Subordination in Assessment
Sequences.” Social Psychology
Quarterly 68: 15–38.
Ford, Cecilia C. 2018. “Celebrating
Joyful
Connection.” In Co-operative
Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of
Charles Goodwin, ed.
by Donald Favareau, 25–135. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
Lindström, Jan, and Susanna Karlsson. 2005. “Verb-First
Constructions as a Syntactic and Functional Resource in
(Spoken) Swedish.” Nordic
Journal of Linguistics 28
(1): 1–35.
Luckmann, Thomas. 1985. “Grundformen
der gesellschaftlichen Vermittlung des Wissens:
Kommunikative
Gattungen”. In Kultur
und Gesellschaft, ed.
by Friedhelm Neidhardt, M. Rainer Lepsius, and Johannes Weiss, 191–211. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Partial translation
as: “Communicative
Genres.” In The
Discourse Studies Reader, ed.
by Johannes Angermuller, Dominique Maingeuneau, and Ruth Wodak, 351–356. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mörnsjö, Maria. 2002. V1
Declaratives in Spoken
Swedish. Lund: Lund University.
Noonan, Michael. 1985. “Complementation.” In Language
Typology and Syntactic
Description, ed.
by Timothy Shopen, 42–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norrby, Catrin, and Karolina Wirdenäs. 1998. “The
Language and Music Worlds of High School
Students.” In Sprog,
køn – og kommunikation, ed.
by Inge Lise Pedersen, and Jann Scheuer, 155–163. Copenhagen: Reitzel.
Ogden, Richard. 2006. “Phonetics
and Social Action in Agreements and
Disagreements.” Journal of
Pragmatics 38: 1752–1775.
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing
and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of
Preferred/Dispreferred Turn
Shapes.” In Structures
of Social Action, ed.
by J. M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. “Turn
Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and
Interaction.” In Interaction
and Grammar, ed.
by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence
Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation
Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schuetz, Alfred. 1953. “Common
Sense and the Scientific Interpretation of Human
Action.” Philosophy and
Phenomenological
Research 14
(1): 1–38.
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).” Gesprächsforschung 10: 353–402. Available
at: [URL]
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar
in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive
Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trutkowski, Ewa. 2016. Topic
Drop and Null Subjects in
German. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Jin, Ying, Younhee Helen Kim & Mia Huimin Chen
2022.
Alignment, Affiliation, and Engagement: Mothers’Wowin Parent-Child Interactions.
Research on Language and Social Interaction 55:3
► pp. 279 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.