Rejoinder Choice Under Noise: Sympathy, Rallying, or Minimizing
During a timed listening drill, a candidate hears a 12-second exchange between two coworkers in a noisy staff kitchen. A loud espresso-machine burst masks one word. The utterance is “Ich habe die Prüfung schon wieder nicht bestanden,” delivered with a flat fall and a short sigh. The candidate must choose among three printed rejoinders within 10 seconds: (A) “Das tut mir leid.” (B) “Na, dann viel Erfolg!” (C) “Ach, das ist doch nicht so schlimm.” The candidate notices that option B contains a positive word (“Erfolg”) and hesitates, because the speaker’s tone is not obviously sad. There is no replay, and two of the next five items also test sympathy versus encouragement. The candidate has 90 seconds left for the section and has been scoring about 70% on rejoinders. The core judgment is pragmatic: what does the first speaker expect the second to do-acknowledge a loss, minimize it, or rally the speaker toward a future attempt? The masked word is “wieder,” which may or may not change the speech act.
1. Which rejoinder is most defensible here, and which textual and prosodic cues decide it?
Read the worked answer
Option A is the most defensible. The first speaker reports a past failure (“nicht bestanden”) with a flat fall and a sigh. That combination typically performs a complaint or expression of disappointment, and the expected second turn is an acknowledgment of the loss. “Das tut mir leid” fits that function without overinterpreting. Option B, “Na, dann viel Erfolg,” is a formula for an upcoming challenge, not a past failure; used here it would sound ironic or tonally deaf unless delivered with a bright, teasing rise. Option C, “Ach, das ist doch nicht so schlimm,” minimizes the speaker’s stated loss and can sound dismissive. The word “wieder” intensifies frustration rather than turning the utterance into a joke. The judgment is not vocabulary recall: it is identifying the speech act and matching the second turn to the first speaker’s face needs.
2. How should the candidate handle the masked word without a replay?
Read the worked answer
The candidate should not invent the missing word. The surrounding syntax already supports a repetition reading: “schon … nicht bestanden” commonly frames a repeated failure, and “wieder” is the most likely filler. Even if the word were something else, the main clause remains a report of failure, so the rejoinder choice does not depend on recovering it. A useful rule is to ask whether the missing item changes the speech act or only intensifies it. Here it intensifies. The candidate should mark the best option, note the uncertainty mentally, and move on, because later items are independent and the section is timed. Spending extra seconds on one masked lexical item would trade a small gain for a larger risk of unanswered items.
3. What would make option B plausible in a different version of this exchange?
Read the worked answer
Option B would become plausible if the first speaker framed the failure as a setup for a new attempt, for example “Diesmal hat es nicht geklappt-aber im Herbst versuche ich es noch einmal,” especially with a rising, self-mocking intonation. It would also fit a context in which the two speakers have a playful bet or a running joke about repeated exams. In those cases, “Na, dann viel Erfolg” would be a rallying move rather than a response to a loss. The key is that the first turn must project a future action and invite encouragement. In the actual audio, the flat fall and sigh project disappointment, not a request for a pep talk, so option B remains a distractor.