OCR
YASMIN ÁKSU ability to cope with the job demands and how things used to be much better in the past. [1] 0 [30:10.0] 1[30:12.8] 2 [30:13.5] SR [v] also ist doch die FRAge wie kénnen sie da wieder HINkommen. ((ea)) ne, SR [vE] so the question is how can you go back there. ((inhales)) right, SE [v] hm [2] 3 [30:13.9] 4 [30:15.1] 5 [30:15.8] 6 [30:16.8] SR [v] sie haben ja, also sie haben ja, em m m das is schon e n lánger SR [vE] you have PTCL, well you have PTLC, um m m it’s been « na while;= SE [v] das is RICHtig; (das gefühl) (xx) SE [vE] that is correct; (the feeling) SR uses an assertion, presenting the “question” she formulates as deduced from SE’s information (cf. Deppermann/Helmer 2013 on the German also as a signal for intersubjective inferences). The question itself comes without an addressee, so that the steps necessary to obtain an answer seem to be not yet defined. SE agrees with the formulation of the concern (line #1, “hm”); her non-lexicalized agreement seems to be too weak, though, because SR adds a late tag element (line #1, “right”). As a reaction, SE offers a complete sentence to underline her unreserved agreement (line #2, “that is correct”), which is on the one hand a form of acknowledging and repairing her seemingly insufficient first reaction. This is a hint at a student-teacher-relationship which seems to be not uncommon in one-on-one supervision. On the other hand, through this decidedly positive judgement SE demonstrates how she is adopting this other-formulated concern. All in all, formulating the supervisee’s concern while presenting it as a deduction from the supervisee’s own statements can lead the conversation into the desired direction, but there is one caveat: It carries the danger of misinterpreting and / or “steamrolling” the supervisee who might not be courageous enough to openly contradict because of her understanding of her role as a supervisee. This danger is particularly grave if a student-teacherrelationship — however implicit or adumbrated — has formed. * 218 +