Abstract
Very often, the speech of the person being interviewed is taken as the outcome of an interview. In this thesis, interviews are approached dialogically with a special focus on the interviewer. Rather than a monologue, the interview is viewed as a dialogue. In the thesis, I address the following questions with quantitative, qualitative, and C A inspired analyses:
How do two interviewers behave in the sociolinguistic interviews which they themselves classify as good or bad interviews? And how does this relate to their own ideals for the sociolinguistic interview? How is it possible to approach an explanation for variations in interviewer behaviour? The point of departure of the study is two interviewers - a female and a male - who have conducted a
range of sociolinguistic interviews for the LANCHART Centre. The studies show clear differences in what the interviewers classify as their best and worst interviews. For instance, the interviewers tend to take more of the initiatives to change the topic and ask more questions in their bad interviews than in their good interviews. Further studies of the female interviewer's best and worst interview show that rapport is achieved in her best but spoiled in her worst. It also seems that face-work is carried out more carefully in her best interview than in her worst. Moreover, studying the female interviewer's best and worst interview show clear differences in the number of dispreferred responses to assessments and next turn repair initiators as responses to questions. The studies make it clear that success and failure is not just one thing. The studies reveal great complexity and confirm that there are differences between the interviewers' best and worst interviews as well as between the two interviewers.
Studying four interviews of each of the two interviewers reveal consistencies in the two interviewers' interview style. I conclude that the female interviewer has features which may be characterized as a risky and potentially face-threatening interview style, whereas the male interviewer has a less risky and rather flexible style. I find that their charact eristic interactional features are (vaguely) in line with the results in a NEO PI-R personality test; however, the connection is too vague to anticipate or account fully for their special characteristics
How do two interviewers behave in the sociolinguistic interviews which they themselves classify as good or bad interviews? And how does this relate to their own ideals for the sociolinguistic interview? How is it possible to approach an explanation for variations in interviewer behaviour? The point of departure of the study is two interviewers - a female and a male - who have conducted a
range of sociolinguistic interviews for the LANCHART Centre. The studies show clear differences in what the interviewers classify as their best and worst interviews. For instance, the interviewers tend to take more of the initiatives to change the topic and ask more questions in their bad interviews than in their good interviews. Further studies of the female interviewer's best and worst interview show that rapport is achieved in her best but spoiled in her worst. It also seems that face-work is carried out more carefully in her best interview than in her worst. Moreover, studying the female interviewer's best and worst interview show clear differences in the number of dispreferred responses to assessments and next turn repair initiators as responses to questions. The studies make it clear that success and failure is not just one thing. The studies reveal great complexity and confirm that there are differences between the interviewers' best and worst interviews as well as between the two interviewers.
Studying four interviews of each of the two interviewers reveal consistencies in the two interviewers' interview style. I conclude that the female interviewer has features which may be characterized as a risky and potentially face-threatening interview style, whereas the male interviewer has a less risky and rather flexible style. I find that their charact eristic interactional features are (vaguely) in line with the results in a NEO PI-R personality test; however, the connection is too vague to anticipate or account fully for their special characteristics
| Original language | English |
|---|
| Publisher | Det Humanistiske Fakultet, Københavns Universitet |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 294 |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2014 |