Das Heißt (“That Means”) for Formulations and Du Meinst (“You Mean”) for Repair? Interpretations of Prior Speakers’ Turns in German

References

• Antaki, C. (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehviläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 26–42). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Antaki, C. (2012). Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 531–547. doi:10.1177/1461445612454074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beach, W. (1990). Avoiding ownership for alleged wrongdoings. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24(1–4), 1–36. doi:10.1080/08351819009389331
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, T. (2012). When problems pass us by: Using “you mean” to help locate the source of trouble. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 82–109. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.646742
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. B. (2010). ‘Articulating the unsaid’ via and-prefaced formulations of others’ talk. Discourse Studies, 12(1), 5–32. doi:10.1177/1461445609346770
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breindl, E., Volodina, A., & Waßner, U. H. (2014). Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren 2. Semantik der deutschen Satzverknüpfer. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Bührig, K. (1996). Reformulierende Handlungen. Zur Analyse sprachlicher Adaptierungsprozesse in institutioneller Kommunikation. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
   Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E. (1992). Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news-interview discourse. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 163–198). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647. doi:10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deppermann, A. (2011). Notionalization: The transformation of descriptions into categorizations. Human Studies, 34(2), 155–181. doi:10.1007/s10746-011-9186-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deppermann, A. (2012). Über Sätze in Gesprächsbeiträgen - wann sie beginnen und wann man sie braucht. In C. Cortès (Ed.), Satzeröffnung. Formen, Funktionen, Strategien (pp. 1–14). Tübingen, Germany: Stauffenburg.
   Google Scholar
• Deppermann, A., & Helmer, H. (2013). Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit also und dann. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 32(1), 1–39. doi:10.1515/zfs-2013-0001
   Google Scholar
• Deppermann, A., & Schmidt, T. (2014). Gesprächsdatenbanken als methodisches Instrument der Interaktionalen Linguistik – Eine exemplarische Untersuchung auf Basis des Korpus FOLK in der Datenbank für Gesprochenes Deutsch (DGD2). Mitteilungen des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes, 61(1), 4–17. doi:10.14220/mdge.2014.61.1.4
   Google Scholar
• Egbert, M. (2009). Der Reparatur-Mechanismus in deutschen Gesprächen. Mannheim, Germany: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
   Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. (2017). Distribution of agency. In N. J. Enfield & P. Kockelman (Eds.), Distributed agency (pp. 9–14). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2010). Responses to wh-questions in English conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 133–156. doi:10.1080/08351811003751680
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. D. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology (pp. 337–366). New York, NY.: Allpeton-Century-Crofts.
   Google Scholar
• Golato, A., & Betz, E. (2008). German ach and achso in repair uptake: A resource to sustain or remove epistemic asymmetry. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 27(1), 7–37. doi:10.1515/ZFSW.2008.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gülich, E., & Kotschi, T. (1987). Reformulierungshandlungen als Mittel der Textkonstitution [Untersuchungen zu französischen Texten aus mündlicher Kommunikation]. In W. Motsch (Ed.), Satz, Text, sprachliche Handlung (pp. 199–261). Berlin, Germany: Akademie Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis: Volume 3: Discourse and dialogue (pp. 95–117). London, England: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Watson, R. D. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language. Studies in ethnometodology (pp. 123–162). New York, NY: Irvington.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis. Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser, J. (2017). Reformulierungsindikatoren im gesprochenen Deutsch: Die Benutzung der Ressourcen DGD und FOLK für gesprächsanalytische Zwecke. Gesprächsforschung - Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 17, 196–230.
   Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2003). From interaction to grammar: Estonian finite verb forms in conversation. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala Universitet.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2015). The facilitator‘s task of formulating citizens‘ proposals in political meetings. Orchestrating multiple embodied orientations to recipients. Gesprächsforschung - Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 16, 1–62.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967. doi:10.2307/1519752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2010). Grammar and social relations: Alternative forms of Yes/No-type initiating actions in health visitor interactions. In A. F. Freed & S. L. Ehrlich (Eds.), “Why do you ask?”. The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 87–107). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2016). Accountability in social interaction. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in Interaction (pp. 1–44). Oxford, England: Oxford University press.
   Google Scholar
• Rossi, G. (2012). Bilateral and unilateral requests: The use of imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes, 49(5), 426–458. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2012.684136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rost-Roth, M. (2003). Fragen - Nachfragen - Echofragen. Formen und Funktionen von Interrogationen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Linguistik Online, 13(1), 325–378.
   Google Scholar
• Rost-Roth, M. (2006). Nachfragen. Formen und Funktionen äußerungsbezogener Interrogationen. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Rost-Roth, M. (2011). Formen und Funktionen von Interrogationen. Fragen in grammatischen Beschreibungen, empirischen Befunden und Lehrwerken für Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Linguistik Online, 49(5), 91–117.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, volume 1. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. doi:10.1353/lan.1977.0041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selting, M. (1987). Verständigungsprobleme. Eine empirische Analyse am Beispiel der Bürger-Verwaltungs-Kommunikation. Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
   Google Scholar
• Seuren, L., & Huiskes, M. (2017). Confirmation or elaboration: What do yes/no declaratives want? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 188–205. doi:10.1080/08351813.2017.1301307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorjonen, M., & Raevaara, L. (2014). On the grammatical form of requests at the convenience store: Requesting as embodied action. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction. Studies in language and social interaction (pp. 243–268). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Steensig, J., & Heinemann, T. (2013). When `yes’ is not enough – As an answer to a yes/no question. In B. S. Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units of talk – Units of action (pp. 213–248). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2010). An overview of the question-response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2772–2781. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2011). Morality and question design: ‘Of course’ as contesting a presupposition of askability. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowing in conversation (pp. 82–106). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question‘s constraints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1–25. doi:10.1017/S0047404509990637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vargas, E. (2002). Die paraphrastische Reformulierung mit explizierender Funktion: Versuch einer semantischen Typologie. In S. Bastian & F. Hammer (Eds.), “Aber, wie sagt man doch so schön..”. Beiträge zu Metakommunikation und Reformulierung in argumentativen Texten (pp. 97–106). Frankfurt a. M: Peter Language.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, T., Drew, P., & Local, J. (2011). Responding indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(9), 2434–2451. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiste, E., & Peräkylä, A. (2013). A comparative conversation analytic study of formulations in psychoanalysis and cognitive psychotherapy. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(4), 299–321. doi:10.1080/08351813.2013.839093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar