Multimodal Analysis of Low-Stakes Conflicts: A Proposal for a Dynamic Model - Conflict and Multimodal Communication: Social Research and Machine Intelligence - page 271

00:00:19.317-00:00:19.851 A-Andreas: << ff > ha:lt "
00:00:19.851-00:00:20.450 A-Andreas: sto:pp #> (keep quiet or ::: )
00:00:20.450-00:00:21.647 A-Andreas: [ << ff > jetzt re:icht es > ] (I've had
enough!)
00:00:20.450-00:00:21.647 B-Andrea: [ << h > ha:llo > ] (hey!)
00:00:21.647-00:00:22.106 B-Andrea: << h > ha:llo > (hey!)
00:00:22.106-00:00:22.945 B-Andrea: [bleib] (calm ::: )
00:00:22.106-00:00:22.996 A-Andreas: [ << ff > ne:in " > ] (no!)
00:00:22.996-00:00:23.386 A-Andreas: << ff > ne:in "> (no!)
00:00:23.386-00:00:24.426 A-Andreas: << f > jetzt red ICH #> (I'm talking
now!)
The woman's further attempts to calm the man down and to claim her turn by
repeating with elevated pitch a phatic “[ << h > ha:llo > ]” ( hey !) twice fail, because
the man denies her the right to speak with a repeated “[ << ff > ne:in " > ]” ( no !).
In doing so, the woman uses a high tone of voice to make her words audible.
The man's double movement with his head from right to left accompany the word
“[ << ff > ne:in " > ]” ( no !); he is turning his face away from the woman as a
proxemic signal of refusal. In his fit of anger, speaker A becomes very aggressive
and claims for himself the exclusive right to speak: “ << f > jetzt red ICH # > ”( I'm
talking now !), which is immediately followed by an assertive: “das KINDERzimmer
IST sauber” ( the child's room is clean !), with a prominence on “IST” (is). The man's
denial of the woman's right to speak corresponds to claiming his own right to do
so. His eyebrows are raised which corresponds to his raised voice, and he keeps his
eyes closed. The man's thumb is pointed in the direction of the child's room as a
deictic movement which gives spatial concreteness to the utterance of speaker A.