Cover not available

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. 81–107

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

On agency and affiliation in second assessments

German and Swedish opinion verbs in talk-in-interaction

 | University of Freiburg
 | University of Helsinki
Published online: 17 November 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.326.05aue
Abstract
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 (28)
References
Auer, Peter. 1993. “Zur Verbspitzenstellung im Gesprochenen Deutsch.” Deutsche Sprache 3: 193–222.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Susanne Uhmann. 1982. “Aspekte der konversationellen Organisation von Bewertungen.” Deutsche Sprache 1: 1–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2001. “Meaning in Interaction: The Case of Actually.” Language 77 (2): 245–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fasulo, Alessandra, and Chiara Monzoni. 2009. “Assessing Mutable Objects: A Multimodal Analysis.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (4): 36–376. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mörnsjö, Maria. 2002. V1 Declaratives in Spoken Swedish. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1985. “Complementation.” In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 42–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard. 2006. “Phonetics and Social Action in Agreements and Disagreements.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1752–1775. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schuetz, Alfred. 1953. “Common Sense and the Scientific Interpretation of Human Action.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 14 (1): 1–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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: [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trutkowski, Ewa. 2016. Topic Drop and Null Subjects in German. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Lindström, Jan
2025. Constructions in Spoken Interaction. In The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, ► pp. 309 ff. DOI logo
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 29 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue