Presentation – Knowledge in talk-in-interaction

The goal of the conference is to explore further the way knowledge is expressed and negotiated in talk-in-interaction. The semantic domain of “epistemicity” (Boye 2012) includes two categories. On the one hand, epistemic modality encodes the degree of certainty in the information given (e.g. Egan and Weatherson 2011; Nuyts 2001). On the other hand, evidentiality expresses the source of that information, whether through direct perception, mediated hearsay or calculated inference (e.g. Aikhenvald 2004; Dendale and Tasmowski 2001; Squartini 2007). Both dimensions have been studied extensively from a syntactic and semantic point of view and largely by using mostly invented or strongly decontextualized examples.

More recently, and building on the seminal works by Heritage (1984) and Pomerantz (1984), conversation analysts and interactional linguists have started examining epistemic stance-taking in interaction from a more pragmatic perspective. Using collections of naturally occurring interactional data, they examine the role of epistemic/evidential particles in the formation, ascription and sequential organization of actions and in the construction and negotiation of situated identities and social relationships (e.g. Grzech, Bergqvist, and Schultze-Berndt 2020; Heritage 2012a, 2012b; Heritage and Raymond 2005; Jacquin and Miecznikowski 2022; Lindström, Maschler, and Pekarek Doehler 2016; Nuckolls and Michael 2014; Raymond and Heritage 2006; Stivers, Mondada, and Steensig 2011). Indexicality is fundamental here and this body of research demonstrates the degree to which the meaning of the epistemic/evidential markers depends on many pragmatic factors related to various levels of granularity (Schegloff 2000), ranging from more local, sequential organization to more macro, generic expectations (e.g. the type of setting considered). Various languages have been explored, notably English (e.g. Fox 2001; Kärkkäinen 2003; Sidnell 2014; Thompson and Mulac 1991), German (e.g. Betz 2015; Helmer, Reineke, and Deppermann 2016), French (e.g. Jacquin 2022; Mondada 2011; Pekarek Doehler 2016), Spanish/Catalan (e.g. Cornillie and Gras 2015; García Ramón 2018; Uclés Ramada 2020), Italian (e.g. Miecznikowski, Battaglia, and Geddo 2021; Pietrandrea 2018; Riccioni, Bongelli, and Zuczkowski 2014), Estonian (e.g. Keevallik 2006, 2010; Laanesoo 2016), Finnish (e.g. Lindström, Lindholm, and Laury 2016), and Hebrew (e.g. Polak-Yitzhaki and Maschler 2016).

Topics

Scholars are invited to submit papers exploring further how knowledge is expressed and negotiated in talk-in-interaction. Contributions must be related to at least one of the following three research topics:

Topic 1: Epistemicity and quantification

Over the last decade, several studies have focused on the quantitative aspect of epistemic/evidential markers in interaction (Albelda Marco and Jansegers 2019; Berglind Söderqvist 2020; Carretero, Marín-Arrese, and Lavid-López 2017; Grzech 2020; Hassler 2014; Jacquin et al. 2022; Miecznikowski 2022; Miecznikowski et al. 2021; Nissim and Pietrandrea 2017; Pekarek Doehler 2016, 2019; Willems and Blanche-Benveniste 2008), analyzing their frequency and distribution with respect to a given variable (e.g. institutional genre, morphosyntactic type, position of the marker in the turn and its sequential role), or by looking at the relationship between at least two different variables (e.g. morphosyntactic type and position of the marker in the turn construction unit). These quantitative observations provide general overviews and favor the emergence of statistically robust studies on epistemic/evidential markers in interaction.

Here are some examples of relevant questions regarding quantification:

Under what conditions is the quantification of epistemic positions in talk-in-interaction possible?
What are the most common epistemic/evidential markers, in which linguistic, discursive, or sequential contexts, and for which interactional functions?
What is the best way of combining quantitative explorations on massive data at a macro level with fine-grained more micro qualitative analysis?

Topic 2: Epistemicity and multimodality

Over the past 15 years, interest in the multimodal and embodied dimension of epistemicity in talk-in-interaction has grown. Various studies have shown that some (classes of) epistemic/evidential markers are associated with specific gestures or gaze behavior (e.g. Borràs-Comes et al. 2011; Debras 2021; Pekarek Doehler 2022). Others have examined the way epistemic authority is multimodally expressed and negotiated (e.g. Clifton et al. 2018; Glenn and LeBaron 2011; Heller 2018; Heritage and Raymond 2005; Iwasaki 2015; Mondada 2013), and, more generally, how multimodality contributes to the management of knowledge in talk-in-interaction (e.g. Haddington 2006; Heller 2017; Kääntä 2014).

Here are some examples of relevant questions regarding multimodality:

How do verbal and paraverbal resources combine to build epistemic stances in talk-in-interaction?
Are there specific gestures or gaze behavior associated with the expression and negotiation of knowledge in interaction?
What can we learn from a cross-linguistic and cross-cultural examination of the multimodal dimension of epistemic/evidential markers?

Topic 3: Epistemicity and variation

Over the past number of years, various studies have highlighted the fact that the use and function of epistemic/evidential markers vary at different levels. Variation can be subject to sociolinguistic variables such as the age or sex/gender of the speakers (Berglind Söderqvist 2017, 2020; Brezina 2013; Coates 2012; Precht 2008), their education background (Greco 2018), or the institutional setting involved (Jacquin 2022; Jacquin et al. 2022). More generally, many studies have shown – following seminal works by Heritage & Raymond (e.g. Heritage and Raymond 2005; Raymond and Heritage 2006) – that the epistemic stances and positions adopted by the participants in a specific context are closely tied to the management of the epistemic status, authority, and territory mutually-(pre)attributed to the speakers and roles involved. Temporality seems to be another key factor in variation, both at the diachronic level of language evolution (i.e. issues related to the grammaticalization of some lexical expressions into epistemic/evidential markers; e.g. Enghels 2018; Mélac 2022; Persohn 2022) and at the longitudinal level of personal and interactional stories (e.g. Beach 2009; Deppermann and Pekarek Doehler 2021). In the same way as diachronic variation, diatopic variation in the use of epistemic/evidential markers in talk-in-interaction is still, however, relatively unexplored (e.g. Barrio 2019; Estellés and Albelda 2020).

Here are some examples of relevant questions regarding variation:

Are there some universals in the use and meaning of some epistemic/evidential markers within a specific language or variety?
What are the key factors in variation and how do they interact with each other in the use of epistemic/evidential markers (e.g. gender with education background)?
How should one combine different methodologies for a more holistic variational analysis of epistemicity?

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Albelda Marco, Marta, and Marlies Jansegers. 2019. “From Visual Perception to Evidentiality: A Functional Empirical Approach to Se ve Que in Spanish.” Lingua 220:76–97.

Barrio, Alejandra. 2019. “Variation et changement linguistique : le cas des modalisateurs de doute en espagnol.” Archipélies [En ligne] 8.

Beach, Wayne A. 2009. A Natural History of Family Cancer: Interactional Resources for Managing Illness. New York: Hampton Press.

Berglind Söderqvist, Erika. 2017. “Evidentiality across Age and Gender: A Corpus-Based Study of Variation in Spoken British English.” Research in Corpus Linguistics 17–33. doi: 10.32714/ricl.05.02.

Berglind Söderqvist, Erika. 2020. “Evidential Marking in Spoken English. Linguistic Functions and Gender Variation.” Thèse, Uppsala University, Uppsala : Department of English.

Betz, Emma. 2015. “Indexing Epistemic Access through Different Confirmation Formats: Uses of Responsive (Das) Stimmt in German Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 87:251–66. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.018.

Borràs-Comes, Joan, Paolo Roseano, Maria del Mar Vanrell, and Pilar Prieto. 2011. “Perceiving Uncertainty: Facial Gestures, Intonation, and Lexical Choice.” Bielefeld University.

Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic Meaning, A Crosslinguistic and Functional-Cognitive Study. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Brezina, Vaclav. 2013. “Certainty and Uncertainty in Spoken Language:In Search of Epistemic Sociolect and Idiolect.” Pp. 97–130 in, edited by M. Reif-Hülser, J. A. Robinson, and M. Pütz. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Carretero, Marta, Juana I. Marín-Arrese, and Julia Lavid-López. 2017. “Adverbs as Evidentials: An English-Spanish Contrastive Analysis of Twelve Adverbs in Spoken and Newspaper Discourse.” Kalbotyra 70:32–59.

Clifton, Jonathan, Dorien Mieroop, Prachee Sehgal, and Aneet Bedi. 2018. “The Multimodal Enactment of Deontic and Epistemic Authority in Indian Meetings.” Pragmatics 28:333–60. doi: 10.1075/prag.28.3.

Coates, Jennifer. 2012. “The Role of Epistemic Modality in Women’s Talk.” Pp. 331–48 in The role of epistemic modality in women’s talk. De Gruyter Mouton.

Cornillie, Bert, and Pedro Gras. 2015. “On the Interactional Dimension of Evidentials: The Case of the Spanish Evidential Discourse Markers.” Discourse Studies 17(2):141–61. doi: 10.1177/1461445614564518.

Debras, Camille. 2021. “Multimodal Profiles of Je (Ne) Sais Pas in Spoken French.” Journal of Pragmatics 182:42–62. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.018.

Dendale, Patrick, and Liliane Tasmowski. 2001. Evidentiality / Journal of Pragmatics 33(3). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Deppermann, Arnulf, and Simona Pekarek Doehler, eds. 2021. Longitudinal CA: How Interactional Practices Change Over Time / Research on Language and Social Interaction, Volume 54, Issue 2. London: Taylor & Francis.

Egan, Andy, and Brian Weatherson, eds. 2011. Epistemic Modality. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Enghels, Renata. 2018. “On the Grammaticalization of the Deverbal Epistemic Pragmatic Marker Sabes : A Study in Recent Language Change.” Revue Roumaine de Linguistique LXIII(4):341–60.

Estellés, Maria, and Marta Albelda. 2020. “The Boundaries between Perception and Evidentiality. Dialectal and Diachronic Variation in ‘Se ve Que.’” Anuari de Filologia. Estudis de Lingüística 10:163–93.

Fox, Barbara A. 2001. “Evidentiality: Authority, Responsibility, and Entitlement in English Conversation.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(2):167–92.

García Ramón, Amparo. 2018. “Epistemicidad En Interacción: (A)Simetrías Epistémicas En Secuencias de Acuerdo y Su Relación Con La Construcción de Roles Funcionales En Conversaciones y Entrevistas.” Universitat de València, València.

Glenn, Phillip, and Curtis LeBaron. 2011. “Epistemic Authority in Employment Interviews: Glancing, Pointing, Touching.” Discourse & Communication 5(1):3–22. doi: 10.1177/1750481310390161.

Greco, Paolo. 2018. “Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Witness Testimony in the Context of Italian Criminal Trials.” Journal of Pragmatics 128:128–36. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.005.

Grzech, Karolina. 2020. “Fieldwork on Epistemic Authority Markers: What We Can Learn from Different Types of Data.” Folia Linguistica 54(2):405–45. doi: 10.1515/flin-2020-2046.

Grzech, Karolina, Henrik Bergqvist, and Eva Schultze-Berndt, eds. 2020. Knowing in Interaction: Empirical Approaches to Epistemicity and Intersubjectivity in Language / Folia Linguistica 54-2. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

Haddington, Pentti. 2006. “The Organization of Gaze and Assessments as Resources for Stance Taking.” Text & Talk 26(3):281–328. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.012.

Hassler, Gerda. 2014. “Adverbes épistémiques dans le français parlé et écrit: apparemment, évidemment, visiblement, éventuellement, probablement.” Pp. 161–74 in Diskursmarker, Konnektoren, Modalwörter. Marqueurs de discours, connecteurs, adverbes modaux et particules modales, edited by W. Weidenbusch. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.

Heller, Vivien. 2017. “Managing Knowledge Claims in Classroom Discourse: The Public Construction of a Homogeneous Epistemic Status.” Classroom Discourse 8(2):156–74. doi: 10.1080/19463014.2017.1328699.

Heller, Vivien. 2018. “Embodying Epistemic Responsibility: The Interplay of Gaze and Stance-Taking in Children’s Collaborative Reasoning.” Research on Children and Social Interaction 2(2):262–85. doi: 10.1558/rcsi.37391.

Helmer, Henrike, Silke Reineke, and Arnulf Deppermann. 2016. “A Range of Uses of Negative Epistemic Constructions in German: ICH WEIß NICHT as a Resource for Dispreferred Actions.” Journal of Pragmatics 106:97–114. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.002.

Heritage, John. 1984. “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement.” Pp. 299–345 in Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage. Cambridge/Paris: Cambridge University Press/Maisons des Sciences de l’Homme.

Heritage, John. 2012a. “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1):1–29.

Heritage, John. 2012b. “The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1):30–52.

Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1):15–38. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800103.

Iwasaki, Shimako. 2015. “Collaboratively Organized Stancetaking in Japanese: Sharing and Negotiating Stance within the Turn Constructional Unit.” Journal of Pragmatics 83:104–19. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.007.

Jacquin, Jérôme. 2022. “A Contrastive Corpus Study of a Semantically Neutral French Evidential Marker: Tu Dis/Vous Dites [P] [You Say [P]] and Its Relationship with Agreement and Disagreement.” Journal of Pragmatics 199:75–90. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.07.005.

Jacquin, Jérôme, Ana Claudia Keck, Clotilde Robin, and Sabrina Roh. 2022. “Les Verbes d’apparence Dans Le Français-En-Interaction. Formes, Fonctions et Distributions de Sembler, Paraître, Avoir l’air, Avoir l’impression et Donner l’impression Dans Un Corpus de Débats Politiques et de Réunions d’entreprise.” in SHS Web Conf. Volume 138, 8e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, edited by F. Neveu, S. Prévost, A. Steuckardt, G. Bergounioux, and B. Hamma. EDP Sciences.

Jacquin, Jérôme, and Johanna Miecznikowski, eds. 2022. Epistemic and Evidential Markers in Contexts of Disagreement / Virtual Special Issue of Journal of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Kääntä, Leila. 2014. “From Noticing to Initiating Correction: Students’ Epistemic Displays in Instructional Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 66:86–105. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.010.

Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Keevallik, Leelo. 2006. “From Discourse Pattern to Epistemic Marker: Estonian (Ei) Tea ‘Don’t Know.’” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29(2):173–200. doi: 10.1017/S0332586506001570.

Keevallik, Leelo. 2010. “Clauses Emerging as Epistemic Adverbs in Estonian Conversation.” Linguistica Uralica 46(2):81–101.

Laanesoo, Kirsi. 2016. “Targeting Question’s Inappositeness: The Estonian Kus ‘Where’-Interrogative in the Second Position.” Discourse Studies 18(4):393–408. doi: 10.1177/1461445616647878.

Lindström, Jan, Camilla Lindholm, and Ritva Laury. 2016. “The Interactional Emergence of Conditional Clauses as Directives: Constructions, Trajectories and Sequences of Actions.” Language Sciences 58:8–21. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.02.008.

Lindström, Jan, Yael Maschler, and Simona Pekarek Doehler, eds. 2016. Grammar and Negative Epistemics in Talk-in-Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Studies / Journal of Pragmatics 106. Philadelphia: Elsevier.

Mélac, Eric. 2022. “The Grammaticalization of Evidentiality in English.” English Language & Linguistics 26(2):331–59. doi: 10.1017/S1360674321000101.

Miecznikowski, Johanna. 2022. “Italian Non Vedo/Non Si Vede + Indirect Wh-Interrogative Clause (‘I Don’t See Why/What/How…’) as a Marker of Disagreement.” Journal of Pragmatics 197:11–26. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.006.

Miecznikowski, Johanna, Elena Battaglia, and Christian Geddo. 2021. “Addressee-Centered Evidential Markers in Talk-in-Interaction. The Case of Italian ‘vedere’+’che’ Constructions.” OSF.

Mondada, Lorenza. 2011. “The Management of Knowledge Discrepancies and of Epistemic Changes in Institutional Interactions.” Pp. 27–57 in The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, edited by T. Stivers, L. Mondada, and J. Steensig. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mondada, Lorenza. 2013. “Displaying, Contesting and Negotiating Epistemic Authority in Social Interaction: Descriptions and Questions in Guided Visits.” Discourse Studies 15(5):597–626. doi: 10.1177/1461445613501577.

Nissim, Malvina, and Paola Pietrandrea. 2017. “MODAL: A Multilingual Corpus Annotated for Modality.” Pp. 234–39 in Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017: 11-12 December 2017, Rome, edited by R. Basili, M. Nissim, and G. Satta. Torino: Accademia University Press.

Nuckolls, Janis, and Lev Michael, eds. 2014. Evidentiality in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2016. “More than an Epistemic Hedge: French Je Sais Pas ‘I Don’t Know’ as a Resource for the Sequential Organization of Turns and Actions.” Journal of Pragmatics 106:148–62. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.014.

Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2019. “At the Interface of Grammar and the Body: Chais Pas (‘Dunno’) as a Resource for Dealing with Lack of Recipient Response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 52(4):365–87. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2019.1657276.

Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2022. “Multimodal Action Formats for Managing Preference: Chais Pas ‘Dunno’ plus Gaze Conduct in Dispreferred Responses to Questions.” Journal of Pragmatics 197:81–99. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.05.010.

Persohn, Bastian. 2022. “An Emergent Apprehensional Epistemic Adverbial in Spanish.” Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 15(2):405–51. doi: 10.1515/shll-2022-2066.

Pietrandrea, Paola. 2018. “Epistemic Constructions at Work. A Corpus Study on Spoken Italian Dialogues.” Journal of Pragmatics 128:171–91. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.006.

Polak-Yitzhaki, Hilla, and Yael Maschler. 2016. “Disclaiming Understanding? Hebrew ˈani Lo Mevin/a (‘I Don’t Understand’) in Everyday Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 106:163–83. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.013.

Pomerantz, Anita M. 1984. “Giving a Source or Basis: The Practice in Conversation of Telling ‘How i Know.’” Journal of Pragmatics 8(5):607–25. doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(84)90002-X.

Precht, Kristen. 2008. “Sex Similarities and Differences in Stance in Informal American Conversation1.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(1):89–111. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00354.x.

Raymond, Geoffrey, and John Heritage. 2006. “The Epistemics of Social Relations: Owning Grandchildren.” Language in Society 35(05):677–705. doi: 10.1017/S0047404506060325.

Riccioni, Ilaria, Ramona Bongelli, and Andrzej Zuczkowski. 2014. “Mitigation and Epistemic Positions in Troubles Talk: The Giving Advice Activity in Close Interpersonal Relationships. Some Examples from Italian.” Language & Communication 39:51–72. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2014.08.001.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000. “On Granularity.” Annual Review of Sociology (26):715–20.

Sidnell, Jack. 2014. “‘Who Knows Best?’ Evidentiality and Epistemic Asymmetry in Conversation.” Pp. 294–320 in Evidentiality in Interaction, edited by J. Nuckolls and L. Michael. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Squartini, Mario, ed. 2007. Evidentiality between Lexicon and Grammar / Italian Journal of Linguistics 19 (1). Pisa: Pacini Editore.

Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, eds. 2011. The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, Sandra A., and Anthony J. Mulac. 1991. “A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammaticization of Epistemic Parentheticals in English.” Pp. 313–29 in Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. 2, edited by E. C. Traugott and B. Heine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Uclés Ramada, Gloria. 2020. “Epistemic (a)Symmetries and Mitigation in the Description of Conversational Markers: The Case of Spanish ¿No?” Corpus Pragmatics 4(1):107–31. doi: 10.1007/s41701-019-00068-7.

Willems, Dominique, and Claire Blanche-Benveniste. 2008. “« Verbes ‘Faibles’ et Verbes à Valeur Épistémique En Français Parlé : Il Me Semble, Il Paraît, j’ai l’impression, on Dirait, Je Dirais ».” Pp. 565–79 in Actes du XXVe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes. Vol. 4, edited by M. Iliescu, P. Danler, and H. Siller-Runggaldier. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.