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
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.


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
Cited by 1 other publications
Jin, Ying, Younhee Helen Kim & Mia Huimin Chen
2022.
Alignment, Affiliation, and Engagement: Mothers’ Wow in Parent-Child Interactions.
Research on Language and Social Interaction 55:3
► pp. 279 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 2023. 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.