Der Beitrag beschreibt einen Ansatz systematischer, regelgeleiteter qualitativer Analyse von Text, der methodische Starken der quantitativen Inhaltsanalyse teilweise ubernimmt und zu einem qualitativ orientierten Instrumentarium ausweitet. Dazu werden historische Entwicklungslinien der Inhaltsanalyse aufgezeigt und die Grundlagen der Technik (Analyseeinheiten, Schrittmodelle, Arbeiten mit Kategoriensystemen, Gutekriterien) expliziert. Schlieslich werden an Techniken Qualitativer Inhaltsanalyse die induktive Kategorienentwicklung und die deduktive Kategorienanwendung naher dargestellt. Es wird gezeigt, wo Computerprogramme diese qualitativen Analyseschritte unterstutzen konnen, es werden Ansatzpunkte quantitativer Auswertungsschritte festgemacht und abschliesend die Moglichkeiten und Grenzen des Ansatzes diskutiert.
URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002204

/pdf/qualitative-content-analysis-4s8rnb2swa.pdf

Qualitative Content Analysis

GROUNDING It takes two people working together to play a duet, shake hands, play chess, waltz, teach, or make love. To succeed, the two of them have to coordinate both the content and process of what they are doing. Alan and Barbara, on the piano, must come to play the same Mozart duet. This is coordination of content. They must also synchronize their entrances and exits, coordinate how loudly to play forte and pianissimo, and otherwise adjust to each other's tempo and dynamics. This is coordination of process. They cannot even begin to coordinate on content without assuming a vast amount of shared information or common ground-that is, mutual knowledge, mutual beliefs, and mutual assumptions And to coordinate on process, they need to update their common ground moment by moment. All collective actions are built on common ground and its accumulation. We thank many colleagues for discussion of the issues we take up here.

/pdf/grounding-in-communication-2do08wtssx.pdf

Grounding in communication

A set of hypotheses is formulated for a connectionist approach to cognitive modeling. These hypotheses are shown to be incompatible with the hypotheses underlying traditional cognitive models. The connectionist models considered are massively parallel numerical computational systems that are a kind of continuous dynamical system. The numerical variables in the system correspond semantically to fine-grained features below the level of the concepts consciously used to describe the task domain. The level of analysis is intermediate between those of symbolic cognitive models and neural models. The explanations of behavior provided are like those traditional in the physical sciences, unlike the explanations provided by symbolic models.

On the proper treatment of connectionism

Extant literature has increased our understanding of specific aspects of digital transformation, however we lack a comprehensive portrait of its nature and implications. Through a review of 282 works, we inductively build a framework of digital transformation articulated across eight building blocks. Our framework foregrounds digital transformation as a process where digital technologies create disruptions triggering strategic responses from organizations that seek to alter their value creation paths while managing the structural changes and organizational barriers that affect the positive and negative outcomes of this process. Building on this framework, we elaborate a research agenda that proposes [1] examining the role of dynamic capabilities, and [2] accounting for ethical issues as important avenues for future strategic IS research on digital transformation.

Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda

/ have given the term pragmatic failure' to the inability to understand 'what is meant by what is said'. In this paper I argue that pragmatic failure is an area of cross-cultural communication breakdown which has received very little attention from language teachers. I suggest that there is one area of pragmatic failure ('pragmalinguistic failure') which is fairly easy to overcome. It is simply a question of highly conventionalized usage which can be taught quite straightforwardly as 'part of the grammar'. The second area ('sociopragmatic failure') is much more difficult to deal with, since it involves the student's system of beliefs as much as his/her knowledge of the language. I argue that it is essential to avoid prescriptivism in this very sensitive area of language in use. To do so we must draw on insights from theoretical pragmatics and develop ways of heightening and refining students' metapragmatic awareness, so that they are able to express themselves as they choose.

https://rodas5.us.es/file/a26cd06f-d80f-47b8-a5f0-fb23430aa5fc/1/thomas_failure_wimba_SCORM.zip/files/thomas_pragmatic_failure.pdf

Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure

Two consequences of transparent subject position

Recanati (2004), Literal Meaning argues against what he calls ?literalism? and for what he calls ?contextualism?. He considers a wide spectrum of positions and arguments from relevance theory to hidden variables theory. In the end, however, he seems to hold that semantic and pragmatic theorizing must answer to broadly introspective or folk psychological constraints ? they don?t exist in ?heaven?. After surveying Recanati?s wide-ranging and provocative discussion of these issues, we wonder why parity of reasoning does not condemn syntax and phonology, as customarily practiced.

Folk psychology and literal meaning

Since early experimental explorations of pragmatic phenomena it has been documented that novel and established utterances are processed differently. This is especially relevant to processing of a class of utterances called “implicitures” (Bach, 1994) in which some aspects of content are not explicitly expressed by the words used—they are implicit. It has been suggested that at least some implicitures have become “standardized” for their content (Bach, 1998; Garrett and Harnish, 2007). That is, the standard use of these expressions conveys the relevant content even though the words uttered do not present that content as conventional, linguistic meaning. While some studies suggest that the implicitures are mandatorily inferred regardless of context (Bach, 1998), others claim that impliciture processing is context-dependent (Sperber and Wilson, 1986). We investigated this issue using spatial, temporal and possession implicitures in two reaction time experiments. Implicitures were presented context-free or embedded in contexts that either supported their preferred interpretation or cancelled it. The results indicated that implicitures are readily available when no context is provided and are produced even when context forces an alternative interpretation. These findings support a standardization view for at least some impliciture processing. Possible differences in processing mechanisms across theories of impliciture processing and across impliciture types are discussed.

/pdf/mandatory-processing-of-implied-content-lessons-from-context-lel579mvay.pdf

Mandatory Processing of Implied Content: Lessons from Context Effects on Implicitures

We do not always talk in complete sentences; we sometimes speak in “fragments”, such as ‘Fire!’, ‘Off with his head’, ‘From Cuba’, ‘Next!’, and ‘Shall we?’. Research has tended to focus on the ellipsis wars — the issue of whether all or most fragments are really sentential or not. Less effort has been put into the question of exactly how fragments are to be interpreted, especially their force. We separate off the issue of fragment interpretation from the issue of systematically accounting for their linguistic properties — the issue of how to generate fragments. We review two projects directed at the issue of fragment interpretation: Stainton (2006), who approaches the issue obliquely (concentrating more on legitimizing the use of fragments and its consequences), and Barton (1990), who approaches the issue of interpretation directly and systematically. We find areas of agreement and disagreement with both studies. In the end we conclude that what may be needed is a more speech act oriented approach, one that fits fragment interpretation into a framework for performing, and communicating through, speech acts in general.

The problem of fragments: Two interpretative strategies

Modules, as Marr (1982) and Fodor (1983) conceive of them, lie between sensory and central processes. Modules have the functional property of representing that portion of the world which turns them on, and nine non-functional or structural properties that facilitate carrying out that function. Fodor has proposed that the processing of linguistic information is carried out by a language module (LM), which therefore has the functional and structural features of modules. We argue that the proposed LM does not have the functional property of modules in general (section 2). And we argue that Fodor's candidate for the output of the LM, interpreted syntactic form, does not satisfy important structural properties of modules (section 3). We propose another candidate, speech act potential, and argue that it fits almost all of Fodor's conditions (section 4). We next report on some pilot sentence completion studies suggesting that speech act information can influence the course of a parse and hence are a part of the LM (section 5). Finally, we outline possible experiments to test the modularity of speech act information by online methods of priming (section 6).

Robert M. Harnish

Papers

Two consequences of transparent subject position

Folk psychology and literal meaning

Mandatory Processing of Implied Content: Lessons from Context Effects on Implicitures

The problem of fragments: Two interpretative strategies

Modularity and Speech Acts