Chapter published in:
Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in language and social interaction
Edited by Jan Lindström, Ritva Laury, Anssi Peräkylä and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 326] 2021
► pp. 81–

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
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.326.05aue
References
Auer, Peter
1993 “Zur Verbspitzenstellung im Gesprochenen Deutsch.” Deutsche Sprache 3: 193–222.Google Scholar
2014 “Sentences and Their Symbiotic Guests: Notes on Analepsis from the Perspective of Online Syntax.” Pragmatics 24 (3): 533–560. DOI logoGoogle 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
Mayes, Patricia
2003 Language, Social Structure, and Culture: A Genre Analysis of Cooking Classes in Japan and America. 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: http://​www​.gespraechsforschung​-ozs​.de​/heft2009​/heft2009​.htmlGoogle 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

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. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 january 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.