Cover not available
Part of
Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in language and social interaction
Edited by Jan K. Lindström, Ritva Laury, Anssi Peräkylä and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 326] 2021
► pp. 81–107

On agency and affiliation in second assessments

German and Swedish opinion verbs in talk-in-interaction

| University of Freiburg
| University of Helsinki
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.
Keywords: second assessments, agency, affiliation, disagreement, opinion verbs
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
Published online: 17 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.326.05aue
References (28)
References
Auer, Peter. 1993. “Zur Verbspitzenstellung im Gesprochenen Deutsch.” Deutsche Sprache 3: 193–222.Google Scholar
. 2015. “The Temporality of Language in Interaction: Projection and Latency.” In Temporality in Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Susanne Günthner, 27–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Susanne Uhmann. 1982. “Aspekte der konversationellen Organisation von Bewertungen.” Deutsche Sprache 1: 1–32.Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2001. “Meaning in Interaction: The Case of Actually.” Language 77 (2): 245–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fasulo, Alessandra, and Chiara Monzoni. 2009. “Assessing Mutable Objects: A Multimodal Analysis.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (4): 36–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mullan, Kerry. 2010. Expressing Opinions in French and Australian English Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mörnsjö, Maria. 2002. V1 Declaratives in Spoken Swedish. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1985. “Complementation.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 42–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard. 2006. “Phonetics and Social Action in Agreements and Disagreements.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1752–1775. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schuetz, Alfred. 1953. “Common Sense and the Scientific Interpretation of Human Action.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 14 (1): 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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]Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trutkowski, Ewa. 2016. Topic Drop and Null Subjects in German. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logo

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.