Introduction Given the model of gender described in the last chapter, and given the model of linguistic politeness as described in chapters 2 and 3, it is difficult, if not impossible, simply to approach the relation between gender and politeness as a question of an investigation of the production, by individual men or women of a number of linguistic features which are assumed to be unequivocally polite or impolite. What I should like to do instead is to consider the complexity of the relationship between gender and politeness, so that the common-sense nature of gender and politeness and their relation to each other is troubled. Here, I aim to analyse the way that certain practices which are considered to be polite or impolite are, within particular communities of practice, stereotypically gendered. As I discussed in chapter 4, these stereotypes do not actually exist as such, but are hypothesised by particular speakers and hearers within communities of practices, on the basis of their representation by others, and are then negotiated with. It is this connection between gendering of practices and assessments of politeness and impoliteness which is of interest. These stereotypes of behaviour which are considered to be appropriate within particular contexts feed back into individual participants' assessments of what is appropriate in terms of their own behaviour. First, in this chapter, I analyse stereotypes of gender and politeness, and then move on to a discussion of the theoretical work on gender and politeness which I argue seems to replicate stereotypical views of women's politeness, rather than describing women's or men's actual linguistic performance or interpretative frameworks.

/pdf/gender-and-politeness-1hkbd3xeo9.pdf

Gender and Politeness

Guest Editorial: Gesture and speech in interaction: An overview

The notion of Turn-Constructional Unit (TCU) in Conversation Analysis has become unclear for many researchers. The underlying problems inherent in the definition of this notion are here identified, and a possible solution is suggested. This amounts to separating more clearly the notions of TCU and Transition Relevance Place (TRP). In this view, the TCU is defined as the smallest interactionally relevant complete linguistic unit, in a given context, that is constructed with syntactic and prosodic resources within their semantic, pragmatic, activity-type-specific, and sequential conversational context. It ends in a TRP unless particular linguistic and interactional resources are used to project and postpone the TRP to the end of a larger multi-unit turn. This suggestion tries to spell out some of the assumptions that the seminal work in CA made in principle, but never formulated explicitly.

/pdf/the-construction-of-units-in-conversational-talk-5099ka4hkc.pdf

The construction of units in conversational talk

The first textbook dedicated to interactional linguistics, focusing on linguistic analyses of conversational phenomena, this introduction provides an overview of the theory and methodology of interactional linguistics. Reviewing recent findings on linguistic practices used in turn construction and turn taking, repair, action formation, ascription, and sequence and topic organization, the book examines the way that linguistic units of varying size - sentences, clauses, phrases, clause combinations, and particles - are mobilized for the implementation of specific actions in talk-in-interaction. A final chapter discusses the implications of an interactional perspective for our understanding of language as well as its variation, diversity, and universality. Supplementary online chapters explore additional topics such as the linguistic organization of preference, stance, footing, and storytelling, as well as the use of prosody and phonetics, and further practices with language. Featuring summary boxes and transcripts from recordings of everyday conversation, this is an essential resource for advanced undergraduate and postgraduate courses on language in social interaction.

Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction

After giving an overview of the treatment of lists in the literature, I describe lists in German talk-in-interaction. I show that, apart from the preference for three-part lists described by Jefferson (1990) , lists are embedded in a larger three-component structure that the list is the middle part of. For lists proper, I suggest to differentiate between closed and open lists that are produced with different kinds of practices. It is the prosody that is used to suggest the list as made up of a closed or an open number of list items, irrespective of its syntactic embedding. I then concentrate on open lists, in particular their intonation. Open lists may be produced with different kinds of, albeit similar, intonation contours. But it is not so much the particular intonation contour that is constitutive of lists, but a variety of similar contours plus the repetition of the chosen contour for at least some or even all of the list items. Furthermore, intonation is deployed to suggest the interpretation of a potential final list item as either a designed list completer or as another designed item of the list. The design of this final list item as a completer or as another list item is used as a practice to signal the non-completion or completion of the list proper. But even after completing the list proper, the larger three-component structure also has to be closed in order to embed and accommodate the list into the surrounding sequential interaction. For the analysis of the practices of list construction I am concentrating on the role of prosody, especially intonation, giving evidence to show that intonation is indeed one of the methodically used constitutive cues that makes the production and structuring of lists recognizable for recipients.

/pdf/lists-as-embedded-structures-and-the-prosody-of-list-4xjhxhszrl.pdf

Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource

This article presents a revised version of GAT, a transcription system first developed
by a group of German conversation analysts and interactional linguists in
1998. GAT tries to follow as many principles and conventions of CA's Jeffersonstyle
transcription as possible, yet proposes some conventions which are more
compatible with linguistic and phonetic analyses of spoken language, especially
for the representation of prosody in talk-in-interaction. After ten years of use by
many reseachers in conversation and discourse analysis, it was time to revise the
first version, against the background of past experience and in light of new necessities
for the transcription of corpora arising from technological advances and
methodological developments over recent years. This text presents the new GAT
2 transcription system with all its conventions. It gives detailed instructions on
how to transcribe spoken talk on three levels of delicacy: minimal, basic and refined
transcript versions. In addition, it briefly introduces a few tools that may be
helpful for the user: the online tutorial GAT-TO and the transcription editing
software FOLKER.

http://www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2009/px-gat2.pdf

Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2)

Dieser Beitrag stellt die englische Ubersetzung und Adaption der uberarbeiteten Version des Transkriptionssystems GAT vor. GAT wurde 1998 von einer Gruppe deutscher Konversations- und Diskursanalytiker und interaktionaler Linguisten entwickelt. GAT versucht, so viele Prinzipien und Konventionen der in der CA genutzten Jefferson'schen Transkriptionsweise wie moglich zu ubernehmen, schlagt jedoch einige Symbole vor, die auf die linguistische und phonetische, insbesondere die prosodische, Analyse gesprochener Sprache ausgerichtet sind. 10 Jahre spater wurde GAT auf der Grundlage der bisherigen Erfahrungen mit seinem Gebrauch und vor dem Hintergrund neuer Anforderungen, die sich aus jungeren technischen Entwicklungen sowie methodologischen Uberlegungen heraus ergaben, uberarbeitet. Dieser Beitrag macht GAT fur die internationale Forschergemeinschaft zuganglich. Er beschreibt GAT 2 mit all seinen Konventionen und gibt detaillierte Anweisungen fur die Transkription gesprochener Interaktion in drei Genauigkeitsstufen: Minimal-, Basis- und Feintranskript. Auserdem stellt er kurz fur die Transkription hilfreiche Werkzeuge vor: das deutsche Online-Tutorial GAT-TO und den Transkriptionseditor FOLKER.

/pdf/a-system-for-transcribing-talk-in-interaction-gat-2-3f544dz22f.pdf

Karin Birkner

Papers

Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2)

A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction : GAT 2

Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT 2)

Bewerbungsgespräche mit Ost- und Westdeutschen : Eine kommunikative Gattung in Zeiten gesellschaftlichen Wandels

Impression Management in East and West German Job Interviews

Karin Birkner

Papers

Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2)

A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction : GAT 2

Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT 2)

Bewerbungsgespräche mit Ost- und Westdeutschen : Eine kommunikative Gattung in Zeiten gesellschaftlichen Wandels

Impression Management in East and West German Job Inter­views

Impression Management in East and West German Job Interviews