Research on Language and Social Interaction· 2012Q1
The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge
- 924citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2012year
Short summary
Conversation analysis reveals how information imbalances (epistemic stances) organize conversational sequences, with speakers adjusting their talk based on recipients' knowledge to manage social interaction.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Conversational sequences are organized by information imbalances (epistemic stances) between participants.
- Speakers adjust their talk based on whether recipients are knowledgeable (K+) or unknowledgeable (K−) about the information being conveyed.
- Relative epistemic stance and status act as warrants for speaking and influence the development and conclusion of conversational turns.
- An example illustrates a speaker modifying an utterance to better suit a recipient's specific level of knowledge about quitting smoking.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
This article reviews a range of conversation analytic findings concerning the role of information imbalances in the organization of conversational sequences. Considering sequences launched from knowing and unknowing epistemic stances, it considers the role of relative epistemic stance and status as warrants for the production of talk and as forces in the process of sequence production and decay. It is now more than 30 years since Charles Goodwin, in a classic article, analyzed the following utterance: “I gave, I gave up smoking cigarettes::. (0.4) I-uh: one-one week ago t’da:y acshilly.” The article observed that the utterance was initially designed for, and addressed to, an unknowing (K−) recipient (Don, a dinner guest at the table). Finding little supportive uptake from the latter, the speaker shifts his gaze to his wife (Beth) and adds a small increment (“one-one week ago t’da:y acshilly,”) suggesting that today is a minilandmark or anniversary in his passage to ex-smoker status. This increment, Goodwin argues, is appropriately constructed for Beth because, while she is aware that he has quit smoking, she may not be cognizant of the day or date on which he quit. As Goodwin notes, “with the addition of this section to the sentence, the news that John has stopped smoking cigarettes is transformed into a different piece of news: that today is
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 2012 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Language and Linguistics
Language and LinguisticsArts and Humanities