displaying, contesting and negotiating epistemic authority in social interaction mondada

8/13/2019 Displaying, Contesting and Negotiating Epistemic Authority in Social Interaction MONDADA

1/31

http://dis.sagepub.com/Discourse Studies

http://dis.sagepub.com/content/15/5/597Theonline version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1461445613501577

2013 15: 597Discourse StudiesLorenza Mondada

interaction: Descriptions and questions in guided visitsDisplaying, contesting and negotiating epistemic authority in social

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Discourse StudiesAdditional services and information for

http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://dis.sagepub.com/content/15/5/597.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Oct 18, 2013Version of Record>>

at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013dis.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/content/15/5/597http://dis.sagepub.com/content/15/5/597http://www.sagepublications.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://dis.sagepub.com/content/15/5/597.refs.htmlhttp://dis.sagepub.com/content/15/5/597.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://dis.sagepub.com/content/15/5/597.full.pdfhttp://dis.sagepub.com/content/15/5/597.full.pdfhttp://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://dis.sagepub.com/content/15/5/597.full.pdfhttp://dis.sagepub.com/content/15/5/597.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://dis.sagepub.com/content/15/5/597http://dis.sagepub.com/


2/31

Discourse Studies15(5) 597626

The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1461445613501577

dis.sagepub.com

Displaying, contestingand negotiating epistemicauthority in social interaction:Descriptions and questions inguided visits

Lorenza MondadaUniversity of Basel, Switzerland

AbstractThis article contributes to ongoing studies in conversation analysis dealing with the way in which

epistemic authority is displayed, claimed, contested and negotiated in social interaction. Moreparticularly, it focuses on the articulation between action format, sequential organization, membership

categorization and epistemic authority. The article offers an empirical analysis of the way in which

knowledge is distributed and recognized in social gatherings, with a special focus on guided visits.

Guided visits are a perspicuous setting for this analysis, since it is an activity in which the guide

displays knowledge in comments and explanations and the guided seeks for knowledge in questions.

However, this distribution of knowledge is regularly challenged. The article offers a systematic study

of a collection of sequences initiated by turns beginning with et l and locating a new referent in

the environment, either in informings or in questions. While the former are frequently produced

by the guide, assuming a knowing (K+) status, and the latter by the guided, assuming a not knowing

(K), it is possible to observe informings initiated by the guided, who, by so doing, claims a revisionof his or her epistemic authority. Likewise, in second position, questions are generally answered

by the guide, but can also be answered by another person, claiming alternative epistemic rights. By

examining the details of turn and action design in these environments, the article shows how they

either reproduce and confirm the current epistemic status of the participants or challenge, negotiate

and transform them. The latter case is particularly revealing of the fact that epistemic status and

stance are constantly reflexively (re)elaborated by the participants in social interaction.

KeywordsEpistemic authority, guided visits, stance, status

Corresponding author:

Lorenza Mondada, General Linguistics and French Linguistics, University of Basel, Maiengasse 51, CH 4056

Basel, Switzerland.

Email: [email protected]

DIS0010.1177/1461445613501577DiscourseStudiesMondada2013

Article


3/31

598 Discourse Studies 15(5)

1. Introduction: Displaying and negotiating knowledge in

social interaction

This article contributes to ongoing studies in conversation analysis dealing with the way

in which epistemic positions are conveyed, claimed and negotiated in social interaction.More particularly, it focuses on the articulation between action format, sequential organi-

zation, membership categorization and epistemic authority. It shows that there are spe-

cific normative expectations related to the epistemic rights and obligations of some

social categories such as the guide in a guided tour who is expected to display epis-

temic authority over the items commented upon in the visit. The article not only describes

how this epistemic authority is displayed and recognized taking into account its embod-

ied dimension but also focuses on its dynamic character, showing that epistemic

authority can be challenged, competed with and negotiated in a flexible way within situ-

ated activities and evolving sequential contexts. Thus, the article shows that epistemicauthority is not a fixed status attributed to a participant, but an incessant situated

accomplishment, particularly vulnerable in challenging sequential environments.

1.1. Background

Studies from very different traditions have shown that interlocutors orient, in order to

build their contribution to the conversation, to the fact that their addressee knows or

doesnt know something as being relevant for the ongoing activity. So, for example, clas-

sical analysis of topic and focus in functional linguistics deals with various grammaticalpossibilities of marking information as new or old, as in the back- versus in the fore-

ground, with considerable consequences on the choice of syntactic constructions, on

word order and more generally on the organization of information flow while producing

an utterance (Chafe, 1994; Givn, 1995; Lambrecht, 1994).

Other linguistic analyses have studied the variety of resources different languages have

for coding the commitment to the truth of the proposition, the speakers attitude towards

knowledge, the reliability, certainty/uncertainty of information, as well as the source of

knowledge, thanks to epistemic modalities and evidentials (Aikhenvald, 2004; Chafe,

1986; Chafe and Nichols, 1986), allowing for coding of territories of information

(Kamio, 1997).

Conversation analysis has demonstrated that these features are actually oriented to by

the participants with considerable effect not only on the structure of their utterances, but

more generally on the way in which they build turns, actions and sequences (see Heritage,

2012a, 2012b; Stivers et al., 2011a).

For instance, participants can check if something is new (or old) in pre-sequences

(Terasaki, 2004/1976), in story prefaces (Jefferson, 1978; Sacks, 1974), in topic announce-

ments (Button and Casey, 1984, 1985), as well as in other types of telling sequences

(Schegloff, 2007: 4144). They can display that they have limited access to knowledge and

try to know more (in fishing; Pomerantz, 1980). They can also display that they monitor the

attribution and distribution of knowledge among participants as the utterance emerges, ori-

enting to an recipient as unknowing or as knowing, and transforming the utterance that was

configured for an unknowing recipient into a piece of news for a knowing recipient (Goodwin,


4/31

Mondada 599

1979). The way in which they formulate reference shows whether they have first-hand (type

1) or second-hand (type 2, derivative) knowledge or experience (Pomerantz, 1980).

Some actions crucially involve the display of epistemic access, such as questions

(Heritage, 2012a) or assessments (Heritage, 2002; Heritage and Raymond, 2005;

Lindstrm and Mondada, 2009; Pomerantz, 1984).The way in which participants respond to a previous turn also indexes the kind of epis-

temic claims they express or embody: oh indexes a change-of-state showing that the

information conveyed was news (Heritage, 1984; see Mondada, 2009a, 2011a, for an

analysis of the embodied conditions of these changes-of-state). A variety of epistemic

expressions have been described in this respect, within interactional linguistics, such as

achso in German (Golato and Betz, 2008), I think in Finnish (Krkkinen, 2003) or in

English (Stivers, 2005), I dont know in a variety of languages (Beach and Metzger,

1997; Keevallik, 2011; Mondada, 2011b, etc.). These analyses show that epistemic claims

are dynamically configured within sequentiality, and can evolve, being upgraded ordowngraded through a variety of formats (such as tag questions Heritage and Raymond,

2005, or as oh-prefaced assessments in second position, conveying independent access

to the referent Heritage, 2002; see also Hayano, 2011), being sensitive to the way they

are responded to, aligned or disaligned in congruent or non-congruent ways by the co-

participants (Goodwin, 1979, 1981).

More generally, recently there has been a booming interest in epistemics in conversa-

tion analysis: participants orientation towards the relevance of who knows what in con-

versation has been treated in terms of epistemic authority, primacy, access, status, stance,

etc. (Heritage, 2012a, 2012b; Heritage and Raymond, 2005). These issues constitute theepistemic engine of talk (Heritage, 2012b). Display and recognition of epistemic

authority also have a normative and moral dimension (Stivers et al., 2011b), involving

rights and obligations to know.

1.2. The article

Whereas the existing literature has been influential in showing the relation between epis-

temic authority, access to first-hand knowledge and sequential organization of turns and

actions, this article focuses on the dynamic and sometimes conflicting relationsbetween normative expectations, social categories as they are made locally relevant, and

sequential organization in particular situated and embodied activity contexts involving

knowledge displays.

In this sense, it draws from analyses of sequential organization (Schegloff, 2007),

epistemic analysis (Heritage, 2012a, 2012b), membership categorization analysis (Sacks,

1972, 1992/19641972), and analyses of the embodied organization of turns and other

conducts in interaction (Goodwin, 1979, 2000; Mondada, 2009a, 2009b; Streeck et al.,

2011).

More precisely, the article deals with the relation between epistemicstatus

and epis-

temic stance. Epistemic status concerns the relative positioning of participants, with ref-

erence to their knowledge distribution and knowledge access towards a given epistemic

domain: status is defined by the persons rights, responsibilities and obligations to know

(Drew, 1991; Heritage and Lindstrm, 1998; Pomerantz, 1980; Stivers et al., 2011a),


5/31


distinguishing between relative positions of knowing (K+) or not knowing (K) partici-

pants. Epistemic stance concerns the moment-by-moment expression of these relation-

ships, as managed through the design of turns at talk as well as the format of specific

actions: expressing an unknowing stance invites the K+ participant to elaborate and

elicits information from him, while a knowing format tends to initiate tellings andinformings and invite the other participant (K) to confirm (Heritage, 2012a, 2012b).

Participants tend to achieve consistency between epistemic status and epistemic

stance: however, non-congruent actions are possible. This article offers a systematic

description of how participants might reproduce consistency but also exploit non-

congruent actions in order to resist, subvert and renegotiate their epistemic status.

Heritage (2012a) shows that the initiation of a sequence can be done either by a K+ or

a K participant: in that position they engage in different actions (e.g. initiate tellings

versus ask questions). Moreover, Heritage states that the distinctiveness and recogniza-

bility of these actions is not guaranteed by their formal linguistic formatting: syntax isnot what guarantees the difference between an assertion and a question, given that a

question is not always expressed by interrogative syntax and that interrogative syntax

can be used to format other types of action. Heritage concludes that epistemic status

takes precedence over the significance of declarative syntax in determining whether a

turn of talk is delivering, or searching for, information. More radically, neither syntax nor

intonation take precedence over epistemic status as a key to action formation. This means

that the epistemic status of the speaker is what allows participants to interpret raising

information as either doing continuing or doing questioning. This primacy of epis-

temic status over turn design seems straightforward in cases in which the former is con-vergently defined and recognized by the participants. When this is not the case, when

participants do not align and there is a divergence between status and stance, these relations

are reflexively re-elaborated. As shown in the collection of cases studied in this article,

participants can engage in an action or format a turn-at-talk in a way that expresses, or

transpires, divergent epistemic claims; moreover, co-participants can show that they are

extremely sensitive to possible attempts to claim epistemic authority attempts that are

identified by them on the basis of linguistic choices made by them to format their action.

This article deals both with practices reproducing and maintaining convergent statuses

and stances and with practices negotiating them in both cases these are a reflexiveachievement of the participants.

Past studies have shown that epistemic primacy and authority can be related to the

relevance of social categories (such as grandmother versus acquaintance in talking about

grandchildren; Heritage and Raymond, 2005). This echoes the contribution of Sacks

(1972, 1992/19641972) on categories as an inference-rich device and as a repository of

normative and cultural expectations. However, Sacks membership categorization analy-

sis also pinpoints the crucial importance of the local relevanceof categories, which is the

fruit of constant situated accomplishments (see the difference made by Sacks, 1972,

1992/19641972, between categories that are referentially correct versus categories

made relevantby the participants within a given stretch of action). Likewise, epistemic

authority is related to categories defined by the specific actions speakers are engaging in:

there is a reflexive elaboration of categorial and sequential aspects of conversation a


6/31

Mondada 601

teller, a caller, a producer of a question, an answer or a first position assessment exhibit

particular turn-generated category (Sacks, 1992: II, 163; Watson, 1997), that might

change in other praxeological and sequential environments.

In this article, I am particularly interested in the way in which epistemic authority gets

either recognized and reproduced by participants through the adoption of specific turnand action formats within the sequentiality of the interaction, expressing congruent and

convergent stance, or challenged, contested and re-negotiated within alternative sequen-

tial positions and formats expressing competitive stances and claiming a redefinition of

epistemic statuses.

Thus, on the basis of video-recorded materials, I offer an analysis of the way in which

categories and sequentiality, action formation and embodied participation dynamically

and indexically shape epistemic authority as a situated accomplishment.

1.3. The data

This article is based on a corpus of guided tours. This type of activity (see Birkner and

Stukenbrock, 2010; Broth and Lndstrm, 2013; Broth and Mondada, 2013; De Stefani,

2010; Mondada, 2005, 2011a, 2012a; Pitsch, 2012, for previous analyses) can be con-

sidered as a perspicuous setting (Garfinkel and Wieder, 1992) for the study of knowl-

edge production and negotiation in social interaction. On the one hand, the activity is

organized by a participant in charge of it, the guide, who is recognized as belonging to

this category, as possessing a knowledge about the site visited (K+), and as engaging in

category-bound activities like showing, explaining, commenting, describing, etc. Onthe other hand, the guide recipient designs his talk for a more or less important group of

guided persons who can display various identities, expertise and knowledge (often

expected to be K but not always aligning with it). For example, the historical visit to a

town with a group of local residents can reveal their interests and knowledge, engaging

in discussions with the guide and even challenging him. An architectural visit to a build-

ing offered to a group of architects can produce interesting contributions from the

guided, even if they have never entered the building before. Therefore, guided visits

show the link between the activity, the standardized pair guide/guided, their rights

and obligations and the distribution of knowledge among them. It also offers occasionson which this distribution of knowledge, as well as attributions of expertise, are either

reproduced or challenged having a reflexive effect on the relevant categories, on the

expectations they raise, and on their rights and obligations to know. New, sometimes ad

hoc, categories might emerge in the course of the activity, as participants build their

common conversational history.

In this article, I draw on four video-recorded guided visits. The first (corpus Tourly)

is a visit to the town of Lyon, with a guide (HILaire) specialized in local history and

archaeology guiding a group of about 20 people, some of which live in the region. The

second (corpus Archivis) is a visit to a campus built by a famous architect, with a guide

(JEAn) in charge of the cultural events on the campus, having worked with the architect

for the opening of the campus about 10 years before; he guides a small group of three

persons through the buildings. The third (corpus Jardivis) is a visit to a garden built by a


7/31


famous landscape designer, with the chief gardener (LUC) leading a group that is mostly

composed of the same persons visiting the campus, and comprising Jean too. The fourth

(corpus Cooking) is a visit to a street market in Paris led by a French cook (GINette)

offering a gastronomic course to a small group of American and Australian trainees,

shopping together for the items they will then cook.The article offers detailed analyses of the ways in which knowledge is displayed,

contested and negotiated in these social gatherings. First, I show why the guided visit is

a perspicuous setting for observing the phenomenon focused on here, on the basis of a

few episodes of display of knowledge by the guided, ending up in his re-categorization

( 2). Then, on the basis of a collection of cases, I contrast several sequence initiations

opened with turns beginning with et l (and there), directing participants joint atten-

tion towards a new referent ( 3). Focusing on first actions ( 4), I show that sequences

initiated by the guidehave the form et l + description, displaying a K+ status and

stance ( 4.1), whereas sequences initiated by the guidedtake the form et l + ques-tion, displaying a K status and stance ( 4.2). I also show cases of non-congruence

between category and epistemic authority, between status and stance, in fragments in

which the guided initiates a sequence of expert comments and informings ( 4.3). Then,

focusing on actions in second position ( 5), I show that responses to the previous

actions display an orientation towards the epistemic issues at stake: I contrast different

ways in which the guide responds to plain questions versus questions asking for confir-

mation ( 5.1) and show another case of incongruence and conflict in which a question

gets answered by somebody who is not the guide ( 5.2). So, the treatment of various

action formats in second position display different epistemic claims, which are activelyindexed, topicalized and contested by the participants. They can openly compete, either

when the guided answers before the guide ( 5.2) or when she contests the guides

answer ( 5.3).

These systematic analyses of epistemically bounded actions, of action and turn

formats and of their responses aim at contributing at the conceptualization of epis-

temic status and stance, as well as recognition/attribution of expertise as a situated

phenomenon, crucially depending on situated action and the sequential organization

of talk.

2. Knowledge displays in guided visits: A perspicuous

setting

Guided visits are a type of activity centrally focused on informings, in which new knowl-

edge is explicitly offered. They are an activity that is often organized in the form of the

guide showing, commenting, describing and explaining something for an audience lis-

tening and looking around. This organization makes relevant a standardized pair of cat-

egories, guide and guided. The former is expected to know (K+), whereas the latter is

expected not to know (K).This distribution of knowledge authority as well as epistemic rights and obligations is

achieved through the situated and embodied way in which the participants format their

turns and actions, as well as through the way they align, both sequentially and bodily, to

the expectations related to their categories and epistemic statuses.


8/31

Mondada 603

(1)(Tourly1_10_46_saint-charles)

1 HI L et *on a* l a rue de l annon*ci ade par exempl e,* (0. 4) hei n, a* c est des

and we have t he st r eet of t he annunci at i on f or exampl e (0. 4) okay t hese

>>poi nts*,, , *. . . . . . . . . . . . . *poi nts-- - -- - - - -- - - *pal mopen- - - -- *2H as bowl - >

2 mots, *( 0. 3) (d ) anci ens *cou#vents, l es annon+ci ades, >*l es carml i tes,

ar e wor ds, ( 0. 3) ( f r om) ol d convent s, t he annunci at i on, t he car mel i t es,

- >*hol ds- - - - - - - - - - - - - - *2H baton gesture-- >

*1 step f rwd- > cam +posi t ions asi de- ->

i m #i m. 1

3 etcaetera etcaetera *etcaetera . *wal ks forwards- - >

Doing being the guide and a K+ participant as a practical and situated achievement is

visible in the following excerpt, in which HILaire is explaining that the neighbourhood

in which the group is staying is characterized by many cloisters and that consequentlymost street names have a religious connotation.

Hilaire explains the names of the streets by pointing at different places within the

environment; then he gives a list of examples, accompanied with co-speech baton ges-

tures. Hilaire is here involved in a typical multimodal practice constitutive of the

guided visit: he addresses the group with verbal and gestural resources, and the group

listens to him. The body postures of the participants are aligned with these actions:

Hilaire is turned to and gesticulates towards the group, and the group is looking at him,

both being positioned in a face-to-face frontal way (image 1) (see Mondada, 2005).

Another typical feature of this activity is the way in which sequence completion isachieved: as he names the second listed item Hilaire takes a step forward, projecting

the closing of his explanation; the third item is a generic etcaetera, repeated with

decreasing voice, and Hilaire begins to walk forward as his voice lowers (see Broth

and Mondada, 2013). The camera immediately adjusts to this movement, projecting

his imminent walking away, as well as that of the audience, beginning to follow the

guide.

Interestingly, this a sequential position at which an insertion postponing the ongoing

closings is possible. This opportunity is often taken to insert questionanswer sequences.

But here, it is taken by a participant, LOIc, for another type of action (4):

(2)(cont. of 1)

3 HI L etcaetera etcaetera *etcaetera . *wal ks forwards- - >

i m #i m. 2


9/31


4 LOI et mai ntenant c est l es *surs+ de sai nt- +charl es, #

and now i t s t he si st er s of Sai nt - Char l es

hi l - - >*turns back- - ->cam +t ur ns back- +

i m i m. 3#

5 (0. 4)6 HI L voi : *l . *

t hat s i t .

->*bi g nod*

7 LOI *dont l f ondat*eur est n | bourg,of whi ch the f ounder was bor n i n Bour g,

hi l *wal ks forward*t urns back ( ( then not vi si bl e anymore))

group | begi ns to wal k-- >>8 (0. 2)

9 HI L bourg, ( . ) ouai s.

i n Bour g ( . ) yeah.

10 (0. 7)11 LOI al ors. et i l a i l a donn l e nomde: ( 0. 4)

so. and he has he gave t he name of ( 0. 4)12 des surs de sai nt- charl es parce qu i l avai t

Sai nt - Charl es si st ers because he had

13 une grande admi rati on: , (0.4) pour sai nt

a gr eat admi r at i on ( 0. 4) f or Sai nt

14 charl es de borro[me

Char l es of Bor r omeo

15 HI L [*de borrome,

[ of Bor r omeo

*t urns back-- >>

As we can see in image 2, as Hilaire is projecting completion, he is beginning to walk,

turning away from the group; some of the participants also orient forward (as visible onthe right side of image 2).

At this moment, line 4, Loc self-selects (et maintenant cest les soeurs de saint-

charles, 4): this and prefaced-turn (Heritage and Sorjonen, 1994) retrospectively ties

the turn to the previous one and to the ongoing activity, and occasions a reorientation of

the participants the guide turns back, the camera also turns back, and other participants

look at Loc (image 3). What Loc does is extend the guides turn and action, providing

new information, while pointing as the guide was doing before. He displays his epis-

temic authority and he performs a typical guide- (and not guided-) category-bound

activity in a descriptive turn.Hilaires subsequent action (6) is a responsive action, in second position, aligning

with Locs contribution. In this position, Hilaire does not display any superior epistemic

authority (see Heritage and Raymond, 2005, about the difficulty of claiming epistemic


10/31

Mondada 605

primacy in second position). What he does is close the sequence and walk forward

(beginning of line 7).

At that point, Loc produces a new extension, a delayed completion of his previous

turn (7), occasioning again Hilaires turning back and responsive action (a repeat fol-

lowed by a ouais, 9). After a pause, as the group continues to walk, Loc goes on (11),adding some more information about the motivation of the nuns name. Again Hilaire

does a repeat, in partial overlap with the pre-completion of this turn (15), turning back

while he continues to walk forward.

Locs extension of the guides explanation shows how a guided can display his

knowledge and produce actions competing with those of the guide. This, in turn, puts

the guide in a position where he can only align with him, without displaying any epis-

temic superiority. The fact that the guide continues to walk away, and with him the

group, is a way of defending his category within another category-bound activity, which

is the management of the group and the direction of the bodies in the guided visit.Interestingly, 20 minutes later Loc produces another comment, which is responded to

with an explicit categorization by Hilaire:

(3) (Tourly1_33.28_visitandines)

1 HI L SAI Nte-mari e des cha nes, c est son nom. a vi ent tout

Sai nt e- Mar i e of t he chai ns, i t s i t s name. i t comes j ust

2 si mpl ement qu y avai t des cha nes, (0.6) qui barrai ent l a sane.

si mpl y f r om t he f act t hat t her e wer e chai ns ( 0. 6) bl ocki ng the Sane.

3 (0. 9)

4 HI L hei n, eh j uste [en face.

r i ght , eh j us t [ i n f ront .

5 VI S [ah: : : oui : : oui : ,

[ oh: : : yes: : yes: ,

6 HI L pour l accs l a vi l l e de l yon.

f or t he access t o the t own of Lyon.

7 VI S oui [c est vrai ( )

yes [ i t s t r ue ( )

8 HI L [donc c est c est pour a

[ so i t s why

9 LOI c tai t pas des z- des vi si tanti nes?

wer en t t hey (( det ) ) ( ( det ) ) ( ( name of t he nouns) ) ?

10 HI L des vi *si tandi : *nes.

( ( det ) ) ( ( name of t he nouns) ) .

*big nod- - *

11 (0. 7)

12 HI L hei n, tout di - tous l es couvents, (0. 4) vous tes *un spci al i ste

r i ght , al l d- al l t he convent s, ( 0. 4) you ar e a speci al i st

*turns to L- - >

13 des couvents hei n,

of convent s ar en t you,

14 ( (general l aughter) )

Hilaire is explaining something about the convent of Saint-Marie des Chanes. As

the sequence has reached completion, after several extensions (4, 6, 8) done by

Hilaire himself, Loc produces a question (9), in a negative interrogative form, wherehe offers the name of the nuns religious order. Here, his turn is formatted as a ques-

tion for confirmation; indeed it exhibits knowledge about the name, offering Hilaire

the possibility to confirm it. Hilaire does it in a particular way: he does a big nod and


11/31


he repeats the name, but achieving an other-correction of the form used by Loc

(visitandi:nes, 10, versus visitantines, 9). This correction is done in a subtle way

it is not exposed but nevertheless it shows Hilaire to have a more precise knowl-

edge of the order.

The format of Hilaires further comment is oriented to two possible sequential trajec-tories: on the one hand, he goes on developing the convents story, projecting more to

come (beginning of line 12); on the other hand, he suspends this explanation and turns to

Loc, offering a categorization of him as a spcialiste des couvents (1213). This

explicit categorization recognizes his previous multiple displays of knowledge. This is

responded to by general laughter of the audience.

In these excerpts, we see how Locs contributions to the guided visit both exhibit a

certain stance and are interpreted as a claim for epistemic authority in a given domain by

the recipient; consequently, Loc is progressively recognized and explicitly formulated

(and circumscribed) as belonging to an expert category (specialist). Reactions to Locscontributions also show that his claims are not neutral relative to the work of another

category, the guide, entering in possible epistemic competition with him. This negotia-

tion of the epistemic status and re-categorization of the participant show that if, on the

one hand, epistemic statuses are attributed to given categories and are part of the expec-

tations, rights and obligations related to them, on the other hand, they can be renegotiated

by the participants within the way in which they express their epistemic stance by spe-

cifically formatting their turn and action. This occasions possible competition, resistance

and rejection, but also possible recognition and redefinition of the epistemic statuses and

categories. In this sense, epistemic fights are part of the way in which participants designtheir conversational history as an emerging process (see Mondada, 2012b, for another

example).

3. Knowledge displays, knowledge claims and formats

of turns and action: Convergent and divergent relations

between status and stance

The excerpts above show that displays of knowledge and epistemic authority by the

guide are achieved within a specific action format and sequence organization, inwhich the guide initiates and develops topical sequences in the form of explanations,

comments and informings. The pre-closings or even the post-closings slot constitutes

a sequential opportunity for the audience to insert questions as well as other types of

action: whereas questions are an action conforming to the epistemic status of the

guided, elaborated comments constitute an action that possibly enters into competi-

tion with typical actions done by the guide. So, a given participant can engage in

actions that are either recognized as typically convergent with his epistemic status or

that are not corresponding with it. In the latter case, this might generate a renegotia-

tion of the epistemic statuses of the participants and possible epistemiccompetitions.

In the remaining part of this article, I focus on a collection of cases in order to study

the various ways in which the guide versus the guided initiate a new sequence and


12/31

Mondada 607

respond to it, in status-related conforming or non-conforming actions, implemented in

turns exhibiting convergent or non-convergent stances.

The collection is constituted by first turns initiating a new sequence introducing a new

object of joint attention with the turn-initial deicitic expression et l (and there) (see

Mondada, 2012d, for more systematic analyses of these referential practices). Theseturns can be implemented in different turn formats, as statements or as questions.

Typically, the guide introduces a new referent with a statement; the guided introduces a

new referent with a question. The collection presents such cases, which reproduce a con-

vergent relation between status and stance. But the collection also contains occurrences

in which the guided uses typical guides formats, initiating comments or informings. The

study focuses on diverse formats for first actions ( 4). Then it analyses the format of

second actions, displaying how the first has been interpreted. Second turns show not only

how the guide responds to a comment initiated by a guided, but also how he responds to

a variety of question formats, letting transpire different epistemic stances and reflexivelyelaborating different epistemic statuses ( 5).

The aim of the analysis is to describe the distribution of these formats and the orien-

tations of participants towards them, displaying whether they conform to the epistemic

status of the speaker or not and, in the latter case, engaging in some action for repristi-

nating an adequate epistemic status. This shows the moment by moment orientation of

participants towards action and turn design, epistemic claims and categorization

processes.

4. Displays of knowledge in first position: Initiating a

new sequence

The guided visit is an institutional activity organized by a series of stops and moves from

one object to another. Typically, the guide stops the group around a new referent and

initiates its description or explanation (see De Stefani, 2010; Mondada, 2012a, 2012d).

At the end of this comment, either the audience asks questions or the group moves

towards the next target. So, after completion of the previous sequence, either the guide

initiates a new descriptive sequence or a member of the audience initiates a question

answer sequence.In the collection studied here, composed by sequences initiated by turns beginning

with et l, in first position typically either the guide initiates a new description ( 4.1)

or the guided asks a question ( 4.2). Those are epistemic-status conforming types of

actions. But participants can also engage in non-conforming actions ( 4.3). In the next

section ( 5), I show how these actions are treated in the responses offered by the

participants.

4.1. Sequences initiated by the guide: et l+ description

Frequently, the guide initiates new sequences attracting participants attention to a new

object. I give some excerpts here. In the first one, a group is visiting a campus and the

guide, Jean, shows them a detail of the garden:


13/31


(4)(Cep3 18.08 jardiniers)

1 (3#) i m #i m.1

2 J EA *et l on %a,* l a#: : mm(. ) l + c #est une expri ence* des

and t here we have, t he: : mmm ( . ) t her e i t s an experi ence of t he

*. . . . . . . . . . . . *points- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *

el i %l ooks- - >

sop l ooks - ->

yan + l ooks - - > i m #i m. 2 #i m. 3

3 j ardi ni ers sans doute encore sur l a gesti on di f frenci e.

gardeners f or sur e i n the ar ea of di f f er ent i ated management .

As the group is walking on the path (image 1), Jean, the guide, first uses the deictic con-

struction et l, then presents an innovative project of the gardeners, pointing to a detail

in the garden on their left (image 2). The other participants respond by looking to their

left (image 3).In the next excerpt, the same group is walking along the corridor of a building:

(5)(Cep1 - 53.14 patios)

1 (3#)

i m #i m. 12 J EA et *l %, l , ** ( . ) +donc# voi %%l . ++voyez, ce sys*tme de pati os, **%%#

and t her e, t her e ( . ) so t hat s i t . you see, t hi s systemof pat i os,

*poi nts-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *triangul ar gest-- -> **changes traj ectory and wal ks towards the wi ndow- - - - - - **

el i %l ooks-- - - - - ->>

el i %%wal ks to wi ndow- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - %% yan +l ooks- - - - - - - - - >> yan ++wal ks to wi ndow- - - - - ->

sop l ooks-- wal ks tow w- >>

i m #i m. 2 i m. 3#


14/31

Mondada 609

As the group is walking forwards (image 1), Jean initiates a sequence-initial turn with et

l, l and a pointing gesture (image 2), attracting the gaze of all participants towards the

window, where they move as he explains the form of the courtyard (image 3).

Sequences are initiated in similar ways in excerpts 4 and 5: the guide monitors the

actual position and bodily orientation of the participants, progressing into the action ofpointing when they are gazing and turning to the relevant place or have reoriented their

bodies (see Mondada, 2005, 2012a, 2012c). Once the participants have turned to the new

focus of attention, the guide goes on with a description of this new referent (see Mondada,

2012d, for a systematic analysis).

4.2. Sequences initiated the guided: et l+ question

The turn-initial deictic construction et l can be used as a resource for initiating new

sequences by the guided too. In this case, it also attracts the attention of the guide andthe other co-participants, directing their gaze and eventually modifying their walking

trajectories. But in most of these cases, et l initiates a question about an object spotted

by the participants and not a comment about it.

In French, questions can be formatted in different ways: the fully explicit inter-

rogative format (et l quest-ce que cest?) is not often used in informal spoken

French; neither is the inverted verb-pronoun interrogative format (et l quy a-t-il?,

et l est-ce un fraisier?). Most often, questions are formatted within a declarative

syntax, ending with an interrogative intonation (et l cest quoi?, et l cest un

fraisier?). Various interrogative resources can be used along with this declarativesyntax, such as wh- elements, tag elements (nest-ce pas?) and interrogative final

particles (hein?).

In the excerpts analysed in this section, I first observe some diversity in the formats used

by the participants; in the next section, I show how they are treated by the participants

themselves ( 5.1), showing that they are indeed sensitive to slight differences in the syn-

tactic, prosodic and lexical resources chosen by the speaker for formatting the question.

The next fragment is a typical case of a question asked by a guided:

(6)(Jardivis cam4_5.19)

1 YAN et +l c est qui +al o[rs?

and t here i t s who the[n?

+poi nts to a tree+

2 LUC [al *ors l * c est a c est un ni choi r

[ t hen t here i t s t hat i t s a nest box

*. . . . . . *poi nts and goes cl oser- >>

3 pour l es l arves de chrysope.

f or l acewi ng l ar vae.

As the group is walking along the path, Yan, one of the visitors, looks at a tree and, while

pointing at it, asks a question. His turn is structured around the wh- interrogative pronoun

qui (who), referring to a non-named object, which is only localized by the deicticexpression and the pointing gesture.

Most often, questions are formatted with declarative syntax ending with some raising

intonation and interrogative elements, as here:


15/31


(7)(Cep2 39.10 YANjardin)

1 YAN #et +l on va +vers l *j ardi n, # en fai t. [hei n? c est a?*

and t her e we go towar ds t he gar den, act ual l y. r i ght ? i s i t t hat ?

>>l ooks behi nd hi m- - - >

+. . . . . . . . . +poi nts-- -> j ea >>wal ks forward- - - - *pi vots tow YAN- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * l ooks->

sop >>wal ks forward- - - - - - - *pi vots tow YAN- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *l ooks->

i m #i m. 1 #i m. 2

Yan, a bit behind the group which is walking forwards (image 1), looks in the opposite

direction and introduces a new focus of attention with a turn-initial et l (1). His turn is

formatted with declarative syntax and interrogative intonation, closed by a particle solic-

iting a response from the co-participants (hein, 1) and a tag question (cest a?)

asking for confirmation. Participants respond by turning back (image 2).

In the next excerpt, another format is used:

(8)(Archivis Cep3_11_35)

1 (2)

sop l ooks at her l ef t- - >

2 SOP et l , au bout, c est l es: appartements of f i ci el s, c est a. hei n?

and t her e, at t he end, t hese ar e t he of f i c i al f l at s, i t s that . r i ght ?

- >l ooks at J ea- - >

poi nts- ->

Like Yan above, Sophie uses a declarative form, and even an affirmative prosody, which pro-

jects a positive response from the recipient. Nevertheless, she adds the interrogative particle

hein, and turns to Jean, selecting him as the person expected to confirm the information.In a further excerpt, taken from the visit to the garden led by Luc, Jean initiates a

turn with declarative syntax and affirmative prosody too, but in this case without any

interrogative element nor interrogative particle:

(9)(Jardivis 04 / 0.43)

1 J EA et *l , c est l es** fameux+ rosi ers hyper rsi stants, =#

and t here, i t s t he f amous r osebushes super r esi st ant ,

*poi nts- > **l ooks at Luc- - >

l uc +turns towards J ea- - >

2 LUC =voi l . that s i t .

Jean points towards the rose bushes, looking at Luc, the gardener who is leading the

visit, who turns to him and confirms immediately. Not only does Jean use declarative


16/31

Mondada 611

syntax and prosody, but also the adjective famous, displaying that the rosebush is a

largely known feature of the garden. As we can see, this turn can be heard as asking for

confirmation, but also contains strong affirmative elements, both formally and

epistemically.

Through this ambivalent turn format, Jean presents a particular category, since heworks in the building beside the garden and is in charge of the guided visits of the for-

mer, while Luc takes care of the latter. So, although Jean walks here in the group guided

by Luc, this is not his first discovery of the garden contrary to Yan. His turn design

elaborates his particular positions as neither guide nor guided.

Thus, the sequence-initial turns of the previous excerpts might be formatted by using

more or less explicit interrogative resources. They also display various elements of

knowledge about the object of the question. This is visible, for example, in the noun

phrase (NP) used to refer to the new objects, which display telling my side (Pomerantz,

1980), guesses (as Yans question about the access to the garden, extract 7 or as Sophiesquestion about the official flats, extract 8) and a type 2 knowledge (e.g. in excerpt 9,

based on hearsay), addressing the guide, who is expected to have a type 1 knowledge.

These formats express a variety of epistemic stances, going from a clear not-knowing

stance to a more ambiguous claim of partial knowledge.

I will turn to the answers given by the guide in section 5.1, showing that he clearly

identifies different epistemic stances and epistemic issues in these formal differences. But

before turning to second turns following these first actions, I describe a third possible

action that might be produced in this sequential position.

4.3. Sequences initiated by the non-guide: et l+ competing description

Although they are not so frequent, it is possible to find in the data sequences that are initi-

ated by a person other than the guide, with et l followed by a description, in which the

speaker takes over a category-bound activity typical of the guide, such as giving an

explanation or an extended description. In these cases, the speaker expresses a stance and

an epistemic claim that is not congruent with its status and category.

In the following except, the group of visitors is walking along a plaza within the cam-

pus, in silence the last topic having been closed. This is a sequential position at whicha possible new sequence can be initiated. Indeed, Sophie does it in line 2:

(10)(Cep2 41.05 compJEA-SOP)

1 (2) # i m #i m. 1

al l >>wal k- ->2 SOP >ouai s donc< l c est *toute l a *par[t i e cam*#]pu: s [en fai t

>yeah so< t here i t s al l t he cam[ pus a]r ea [ actual l y

3 J EA [et l ** oui *][ and ther e yes]

4 YAN [c est[ i t s

sop . . . . . poi nts i n a ci rcul ar way j ea >>l ooks around- - - - - - - - *l ooks up- - *poi nts up- - - *l ooks at SOP- >

j ea - - >**stops->

i m #i m.2


17/31


5 %gni al quand meme, hei n? r eal l y f ant asti c never t hel ess, r i ght ?

el i %stops-> sop stops- >

6 (0. 4)

7 J EA j e l ai sse ( [ ) (conti nuer) I l et ( ] ) (go on)

8 SOP [non, non, + al l e[z- y,

[ no, no, go [on,

9 J EA [non *aprs ++j poi n%terai s j u***st e:

[ no af t er I woul d j ust l i ke t o poi nt

- - ->*l ooks up- - >

***poi nts- >

yan - >+stops- - > yan ++ l ooks up - ->

el i % l ooks forward- - >

10SOP ouai s >>j vous en pri e>pl ease11J EA ben l , l , vous voyez *bi en# encore* que l es dcrochements

wel l t her e, t her e, you see wel l agai n t hat t he i ndent at i ons

- ->*l ooks at ELI *l ooks up- - >

i m #i m. 3

As the group is walking in silence (image 1), Sophie initiates a new sequence, introduced

by >ouais donc< l cest (2) and a circular pointing gesture covering the part of the

campus in front of them. Slightly later, in overlap, Jean who was looking around him

and had just raised his head produces another sequence initiation, with et l (3). He

quickly abandons his turn, looking at Sophie while saying oui (3). The competition

between them is shown not merely by the overlap, but by the fact that they initiate the


18/31

Mondada 613

same type of action, in a similar turn format, and they point to a different new object at

the same moment (image 2). This competitive move is also visible in the gaze Jean

addresses to Sophie orienting to her action as deviant.

The assessment inserted at that point by Yan, who stays a bit away from the group and

does not seem to pay attention to the double initiation by Sophie and Jean, suspends theprogressivity of the new sequence, creating a new slot for one participant to continue

with the next action. Jean explicitly orients towards this slot and offers the floor to Sophie

(7). In this way, he makes publicly available the other alternative that hemight con-

tinue. Sophie addresses that alternative by refusing to go on (8) and leaves the floor to

Jean.

So, in line 9, Jean achieves his explanation, although minimizing it, with the turn-

initial non, the use of the conditionals, and the modifyer juste. This is again ratified

by Sophie (10), occasioning a re-start of the sequence by Jean in line 11, with ben l, l,

when all the participants are aligned and look at the pointed at referent.This excerpt shows a case in which two participants initiate a new sequence at the

same time, introducing a possible next object of the visit in a competitive way. The fact

that Sophie initiates a new sequence of informings although not being the guide, intro-

duces a discrepancy between her category (she is not the guide) and the corresponding

epistemic status, the action and the epistemic claims implemented in the way the action

is formatted. More radically, this is a case of re-negotiation of Sophies relevant cate-

gory: by initiating a new sequence in this way, she displays a knowledge of the campus

and a different position than being a guided. Indeed Sophie has been a student on that

campus and a former inhabitant of the student houses she points at; although she fol-lows the visit, she also often displays that she already knows what the guide is saying.

Moreover, by initiating a sequence about the campus, she introduces a topic that is

bounded to her experience as former student. In addition, and interestingly, she for-

mats her turn not by an initial et l as Jean does, but with a slight different format

(>ouais donc< l) in which the non-initial l is not prefaced by and and thus does

not tie her turn to the previous ones thus not shaping it as part of the ongoing (guides)

activity. Through the details of her turn and action format, she adopts a specific cate-

gorical and epistemic position similar to Loics in the first excerpts.

This case shows that membership categories, category-bound activities, stancesembedded in turn formats and epistemic statuses are situatedly negotiated, reproduced

or contested during the course of the interaction and actively reflexively defined and

redefined by the participants themselves in variable ways.

5. Displays of knowledge in second position

In question/answer adjacency pairs, two possible distributions of knowledge can be

observed: on the one side, information questions are generally asked by K partici-

pants, orienting to a K+ participant for an answer (Heritage, 2012a). On the other side,

questions in learning environments can be asked by K+ speakers, who already know

the answer, and be answered by K members, displaying how much they know. In

guided visits, visitors often ask questions, turning to the guide as the category having

the epistemic authority to give a knowledgeable answer.


19/31


In the following analyses, I deal first with questions answered by the K+ partici-

pant, the guide ( 5.1). Second, I show that there are cases in which a question is

answered by somebody else instead of the guide ( 5.2). In some other cases, the

guide and the guided can engage in an epistemic competition to give the right answer

( 5.3).

5.1. Answers by the guide (K+ participant)

The guide responds to questions in a way that makes clear his epistemic primacy

although the very way of (re)establishing it might point to some possible competition

transpiring from the sequence initiation by the guided.

A clear distribution of knowledge is visible in the question asked by Yan, exhibiting a

non-knowing stance, in extract 6, reproduced here:

(11)(= extract 6)

1 YAN et +l c est qui +al o[rs?

and ther e i t s who the[ n?

+poi nts on a tree+2 LUC [al *ors l * c est a c est un ni choi r

[ t hen t her e i t s t hat i t s a nest box

*. . . . . . *poi nts and goes cl oser- >>3 pour l es l arves de chrysope.

f or l acewi ng l ar vae.

The guides answer is immediate. It recycles some formal resources of the question as atying technique (alors l, 2), and gives in partial terminal overlap an answer naming in

a technical way the object not named and only pointed at by Yan (referred to by the inter-

rogative pronoun qui, 1). In this case, the question exhibits a clear not knowing stance,

and the answer a straightforward knowing stance.

But other answer formats show that some questions might contain different epis-

temic claims. For instance, the way in which Jean responds to Sophie (see continuation

of excerpt 8 below) is not so straightforward and actively displays his epistemic

primacy:

(12)(= continuation of 8) (Archivis Cep3_11_35)

1 (2) sop l ooks towards her l ef t- ->

2 SOP et l , au bout, c est l es: appartements of f i ci el s, c est a hei n?

and t here, at t he end, t hese are the of f i c i al f l at s, i t s that r i ght ?

- >l ooks at J ea- ->

poi nts- - >

3 (0. 3)

4 ELI o a?

wher e?

5 (0. 4)

sop - >l ooks at the poi nted at obj ect- ->6 SOP euh: : , l , l e l e bal con, [qu on voi t l , ] oua[ i s.

ehm: : , ther e, the t he t er r ace [ t hat we see t her e, ] ye[ ah.

7 J EA [ah oui : , ] [ben

[ oh yes: , ] [ wel l

- > extends poi nti ng- - >


20/31

Mondada 615

8 c est pas l e l on- c est: l e t hat s not t he hou- i t s t he

sop - - >l ooks at J ea- - >

sop ->, , , , , , , 9 SOP c [est [ l appartemen: t [euh

i [ t s [ t he f l at [ ehm

10J EA [ C EST l - [ouai s c est l e: l ogement de

[ I T S t - [ yeah i t s t he: house of

11 di recti on, [c est l e: l appartement du di recteur oui

t he di rect or, [ i t s the: f l at of t he di rector yes

12SOP [oui [yes

- >l ooks at the apartment->>

Sophies turn is not responded to immediately; after a gap, Elise initiates a repair (4),

generating a new locative description by Sophie (6). The repair is acknowledged by Jean,

with a change-of-state token (Heritage, 1984) displaying his understanding (7). At this

point, it might be interesting to notice that Jean does not just confirm Sophies guess, butinitiates a repair of her formulation, rejecting it (8) (see ben, 7, which prefaces a dispre-

ferred response, and the negation, 8). Then he gives a new formulation, delayed by some

self-repairs (8), which are overlapped by Sophie offering a candidate alternative (cest

lappartement, 9). Jeans louder voice (10) displays that he treats this overlap as competi-

tive. Finally, he produces an agreement token (ouais, 10) followed by two alternative

formulations (cest le: logement de direction, cest le: lappartement du directeur, 11).

This intense work on the right lexical choice lets transpire an interpretation of Sophies

initial turn as possibly competitive and a struggle to reaffirm Jeans superior epistemic

authority.Lexical choice and exact formulation are even more clearly an issue in the continua-

tion of excerpt 9:

(13)(=continuation of 9) (Jardivis 04 / 0.43)

1 J EA et *l , c est l es** fameux+ rosi ers hyper rsi stants, =#

and t here, i t s t he f amous rosebushes super r esi st ant , =

*poi nts->

**l ooks at Luc- - >

l uc +turns towards J ea-- >2 LUC =voi l .

=that s i t .

3 (0. 2)4 LUC [et-

[ and-

5 J EA [qui ont* des gr*os f rui ts# pour l hi *ver, pour l es [oi sea*ux ( )

[ whi ch have bi g f r ui t s f or t he wi nt er , f or t he [ bi r ds ( )

->*,, , . . . . * iconi c gesture-- -- - - *,, , , , , , , , , , , , . . . . *poi nts->

6 LUC [pour

[ fo r

i m #i m. 3

7 >pour l hi +ver pour l es oi s#eauxf or t he wi nt er f or t he bi r ds j ea -- >*,, , , , , *

i m #i m. 4 i m. 5#


21/31


8 l es f rui ts, donc voyez l es l es roses sont f i ni es. . h on l ai sse

t he f r ui t s, so see t he t he r oses ar e f i ni shed, . h we l eave

9 l es f rui ts et ces f rui ts vont servi r nourr i r l *es: l es verdi ers,

t he f r ui t s and t hese f r ui t s wi l l ser ve as f ood f or t he: t he gr eenf i nches

- - >*,, , ,

10 cet hi ver.

t hi s wi nt er .

After Lucs confirmation of Jeans noticing (2), there is a short pause and both partici-

pants self-select next (45) both orienting to this sequential position as a slot that

could be filled in with further elaborations about the newly introduced referent. Jean

goes on (5) with a relative clause, which produces a delayed completion of his previous

presentational clause (transforming it retrospectively in a cleft construction; see

Mondada, 2012d). In this continuation, Jean offers more details about the rosebush,

uttered with an iconic gesture ending as a pointing. In overlap, Luc repeats Jeans twolast prepositional phrases and then formulates again what has been just said, in a more

developed and articulated complex syntactic construction. Moreover, Luc speaks of

verdiers (greenfinches), whereas Jean was only speaking of oiseaux (birds); the

latter just uses a basic level category, whereas the former uses a subordinate level. This

lexical specification or granularity is contextually bound to the situated activities in the

garden; it displays Luc as more knowledgeable about birds than Jean.

This apparently redundant, but in fact more complex, development let transpire an

epistemic competition between Jean and Luc, introduced by a turn (1) which can be

ambiguously interpreted either as a question for confirmation or a noticing, that is, asimplementing two opposite epistemic stances.

In sum, the excerpts analysed up until now document several sequence initiations

opened with et l, directing the joint attention of the participants to a new referent. I

have shown that sequences initiated by the guide have the form et l + description,

displaying K+ ( 4.1), whereas sequences initiated by the guided take the form et l +

question, displaying K ( 4.2). Nevertheless, in the latter case, the declarative form

(versus interrogative morpho-syntax) of the question, as well as the knowledgeable for-

mulation of the new referent let transpire a potential epistemic competition between the

guided and the guide. This opens up the possibility that participants do not alwaysalign with a distribution of knowledge related to the category (guide: K+ versus

guided: K) and that in some cases there is an open claim of epistemic primacy, or at

least of specific expertise, on the side of the guided. This possibility is further demon-

strated by the way in which participants display, in the second turn, an orientation towards


22/31

Mondada 617

divergences between category and epistemic authority, between status and stance this

is the case when the guided initiates a new sequence in an affirmative way ( 4.3) as

well as when (s)he answers to a question instead of the guide ( 5.2).

5.2. Answers given by the non-guide (Kparticipant)

Some actions initiated in first position display a knowledgeable stance; others typically

display a not knowing stance. This is the case, for example, of questions seeking infor-

mation, addressing a more knowledgeable person and displaying the expectation that

(s)he will provide some information (see Heritage, 2012a). Typically in guided visits,

questions are asked by the guided and answered by the guide (see earlier). Therefore,

cases in which a question asked by a member of the audience is not responded to by the

guide but by another person of the group are interesting to look at as non-congruent cases

treated as such by the participants.This is the case in the continuation of extract 7, in which Yan asks a question (1) and

the answer is produced in overlap both by the guide, Jean, and by Sophie:

(14)(continuation of 7) (Cep2 39.10 YANjardin)

1 YAN et +l on va +vers l *j ardi n, en f ai t. [hei n? c est a?*

and t her e we go towar ds t he gar den, act ual l y. r i ght ? i s i t t hat ?

>>l ooks behi nd hi m- - - >

+. . . . . . . . . +poi nts-- -> j ea >>wal ks forward- - - - *pi vots tow YAN- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *l ooks->

sop >>wal ks forward- - - - - - - *pi vots tow YAN- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * l ooks->2 SOP [al ors, en] fai t

[ so, ac] t ual l y

3 *c [est:

i [ t s :

4 J EA [ l e j ar#di n+* i l #est*

[ t he gar den i t i st

yan - - >+

j ea * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *poi nts- - * i m #i m. 1 #i m. 2

5 [oui ( )

[ yes ( )

6 SOP [l c est l es bti ments# d l a resi dence,

[ t her e i t s the bui l di ng of t he r esi dence,

- >poi nts forwards-->

i m #i m.3

7 *donc l o vi vent l es tudi ants euh#: *qui so t her e where t he st udent s l i ve ehm who

- -> , , , , , ,

j ea *2 steps back-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -* i m #i m. 4


23/31


8 habi [+tent l , l i [ve there,

9 YAN [+: : a# c est l bati ment des i nvi +ts,

[ t hi s i s t he guest house,

+poi nts- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+ i m #i m.5

10SOP eh euh: [ l h]*t el des [i n#vi ts, ]

eh ehm: [ t he gue]st [ house]

poi nts forward

11J EA [non. ]* [*>i l est# l -b++as. i t s over t her e.

i m #i m. 6

yan ++l ooks at J EA- >

12 (0. 2)

13 SOP i l est [ +l , * +i l est# derri re

i t i s [ t here, i t i s behi nd

14 YAN [+ah* +i l est# encore pl us l oi n

[ oh i t i s f ar t her away

j ea ->* sop . . . . . . . poi nts-- -- -- -

yan +. . . . . . . +poi nts- - >

i m #i m. 715 SOP [hum

16 J EA [voi l +.

[ t hat i t . yan - >+, , , - >

17 YAN ok. +

al r i ght .

- >+18 J EA l , *si vous voul ez, # l on++ est sous un autre angl e,* ( . )

t her e, i f you want , t her e we ar e i n anot her per spect i ve, ( . )


24/31

Mondada 619

*wal ks forward-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * yan - - ->++

i m #i m. 8

19 j me permets sophi e [ ( ). ouai s.

I t ake t he l i ber t y Sophi e [ ( ) . yeah.

20 SOP [bi en sr,

[ of cour se,

21 %(0. 4) el i %comes cl oser to the group- - >>

22 J EA euh: : : donc. (0. 5) *derri re ce# bti ment,

ehm: : : so. ( 0. 5) behi nd t hi s bui l di ng,

*poi nts- - >>

i m #i m. 9

23 (0. 1)

24 YAN [hum25 J EA [qui est l e pl us haut, se trouve l e forum. ((conti nues))

[ whi ch i s t he t al l er one, we f i nd t he f or um.

Yans question receives two answers, in overlap: in overlap with the two tags of his

question, Sophie produces the beginning of a second pair part (23); slightly later, Jean

also begins a second pair part (4). These two second pair parts are formatted differ-

ently: Sophie uses pre-beginnings delaying the full formulation of her response (alors

en fait cest:, 23), as she circularly inspects the environment around her (images 1,

2). Jean produces an answer beginning with the object referred to in the question,

which is left dislocated (le jardin il est, 4); he also begins to point very early, even

before his turn begins (images 1, 2). So, Sophie starts first but delays the substantialpart of her answer, whereas Jean starts later but addresses immediately the terms of the

question. Both turns are momentarily suspended, before Jean abandons (5) and Sophie

continues (6).

She produces a deictic (l, 6), followed by a presentational construction about the

students housing, pointing to its direction (image 3). This spatial description does not

address the object that was pointed at by Yan, who was referring to the garden, directing

the attention to another part of the surroundings. Moreover, this description is rather

vague and circular (l o vivent les tudiants euh: qui habitent l, 78).

During Sophies response, Jean does two steps back (image 4): he clearly positionshimself at the margins of the interactional space (Mondada, 2009b), bodily displaying

that he renounces the floor. Bodily positioning of the participants within the interactional

space contributes to their epistemic displays this aspect is deserving of a full analysis

in itself (see also the idea of ecology of knowledge; Goodwin, 2013).


25/31


The localization of the students houses is followed by a new first pair part by Yan,

inquiring about the location of the guest house (9) and pointing towards a possible direction

(image 5). Again, Sophie produces a second pair part, with a slight hesitation, repeating the

object to be localized and pointing in the opposite direction (image 6). Jean produces a

second pair part too, which repairs Yans pointing (non, 11) and decidedly proposes analternative location (>il est l-bas, 11), in a short, quickly uttered turn, overlapping

Sophies ongoing turn. Jeans instruction about the location is followed by Sophie repeat-

ing it (13), pointing in the same direction (image 7), and Yan producing a change-of-state

token, while pointing in the same direction too. Thus, Sophie produces her answer in a

sequential position that comes afterJeans answer and duringYans response to Jean.

Sophie and Jean also produce in overlap a confirmation of Yans understanding (15,

16). So, in this excerpt, on two successive occasions, Sophie answers first to Yans ques-

tions, thereby demonstrating not only that she knows the campus, but also that she is

entitled to speak about it. Jean comes in slightly after, in overlap. These two speakersrepeatedly produce together a second pair part in overlap, competing to answer and to

display their epistemic authority. Their turns are formatted differently: Sophie is faster,

but more hesitating and vague; Jean is slower but offers more compact, informative and

decided turns. Thus, sequential position (here, concurring answers in overlap) displays

competing epistemic claims, and detailed turn formatting displays different epistemic

stances and indexes asymmetric authorities.

This competition is resolved after the closing of the second sequence, as Jean not only

initiates a new sequence (18), but also turns to Sophie, producing an explicit account of

his initiative (19). While doing so, Jean comes back again at the centre of the interac-tional space (image 8). In this way, he displays discursively, sequentially and bodily that

he is the guide and he fully re-engages in an activity bound to this category.

This excerpt shows both the normativity of the category and the epistemic status; it

also shows the way in which these normative expectations are exhibited within the

sequential organization of the interaction. By responding to Yans questions, Sophie

claims an epistemic position competing with the guide, Jean. This competing claim is

treated as such by Jean. Ultimately, concurrent and divergent knowledge formulations

display different epistemic accesses. This introduces a difference between epistemic

claims manifested by the sequential position of actions and epistemic displays manifested by turn formats. This shows that epistemic positions are actively negotiated

within specific moments of the interaction, and that claims are tested in the implemen-

tation of coherent turn formats and displays of expertise.

5.3. Competitive answers: When the guided corrects the guides answer

In the previous section, I analysed a question that was responded to first by the non-guide

and only then, in a competitive way, by the guide reaffirming his epistemic authority. In this

section, I show another instance of negotiation, in which the guided question is answered

first by the guide, in a straightforward way. But immediately, one of the guided self-selects

and gives a different answer, disaligning with the beginning of the previous one.

This excerpt is taken from a video recording of a group guided by Ginette, a French

cook leading four other people through a street market in Paris. Among them, Ann is an


26/31

Mondada 621

American who lived for a while in France and has already been Ginettes trainee in the

past. As she points to green asparagus in a vegetable shop, Ginette has just explained that

she grew up with white asparagus, whereas green asparagus came on the market later.

She also says that they are not as big in France as in the US. At that point, Mary asks a

question about the green asparagus:

(15)(Cooking_mob4-1.43 asparagus)

1 MAR do they taste thi s di f ferent?2 GI N *mm# n*ot +real l y. * i mean i wou*l d- =

*l up*shakes head*ci rcul ar gaze, l ooks at Ann*

ann >>l ooks Mar+l ooks at Gi n->

i m #i m. 1

3 ANN =E: : : H [ I woul d++ say a++ l i tt l e bi t more++ [s+u#btl e +

4 GI N [t*he whi te* i s more [subtl e voi l .# t hat s i t .

*r ai ses Lh*gesti cul ates pal mopen upw- - > ann ++. . . . . . ++rai ses Lhand- - - - ++preci si on gri p->

ann +l ooks Mar+

i m #i m. 2 i m. 3#

5 ANN +yeah ++ex[a+#ctl y++

6 GI N [voi l **. #* the whi te i s ++much more su++btl e [ t hat s i t .

- - >*gesti cul ates further wi th Lhand->>

**l ooks at Mar- >> ann +l ooks at Gi n+at Mar- - - - - - - >

ann - - >++l owers Lh++ ++nods tow Mar++

i m #i m. 4

7 MAR mhm8 GI N voi l .

that s i t .


27/31


Mary asks Ginette if white and green asparagus taste different (1): Ginettes first answer

(2), beginning with an unmarked tone of voice and with a gaze upwards (image 1), is

negative and relativizes the difference. But as Ginette begins to elaborate, negatively

shaking her head and looking circularly around her, she meets Anns gaze. At that

moment, Ann begins a turn with a loud stretched sound (3), projecting a disalignment. Asshe begins to formulate her disagreeing position, Ginette in overlap revises her own

answer. Both turns emerge in overlap, with both speakers beginning to gesticulate in an

emphatic way, looking at each other (images 23). Their turns adjust to each other in

such a way as to end with an assessment concurrently produced by both speakers, both

producing at the same time the lexical item subtle. Their gestures also culminate at this

point, with Ann doing a precision grip gesture. In this way, Ginette strongly realigns with

Ann, culminating in the expression of a shared understanding and taste (Goodwin and

Goodwin, 1987) and radically changing her initial assessment. Furthermore, Ann looks

briefly at Mary on this assessment, and Ginette a bit later (6), on her second voil.Interestingly, both continue their turn with agreeing particles: Ann with yes exactly (5)

looking at Ginette and lowering her hand; Ginette with voil uttered twice (4, 6), the

second time just after Anns turn completion, while continuing to gesticulate with her

hand. In this way, the two compete for the closing of the sequence thanks to the finely

timed positioning of her agreement tokens, Ginette is the last speaker to close the

sequence; moreover, she manages to produce a final version of the answer, fully in the

clear, with an upgrade of the assessment (6). In this way, she finally claims her epistemic

superiority and her control over the sequence.

In this case, the guide realigns with one member of the group who expressed disagree-ment and expertise about the topic competing in claiming different taste but finally

manages to produce the definitive answer, re-asserting her epistemic authority.

6. Conclusion

This article has focused on the way in which knowledge is displayed, contested and

negotiated in social gatherings, with a special focus on guided visits. Guided visits are a

perspicuous setting for the analysis of knowledge in interaction, since the work of the

guide consists precisely in displaying knowledge in comments and explanations and thework of the guided consists in seeking for knowledge by asking questions. Nevertheless,

in guided visits as in other contexts of social life it is not uncommon for this distribu-

tion of knowledge to be challenged. This article studies the sequential environments in

which these challenges emerge and in the sequential trajectories characterizing epistemic

re-negotiations.

The article offers a systematic analysis of a collection of sequences initiated by turns

beginning with et l and locating a new referent in the environment, either in inform-

ings or in questions. While the former are frequently produced by the guide, assuming

a K+ status, and the latter by the guided, assuming a K status, it is possible to observe

informings initiated by the guided, who, by so doing, claims a revision of his or her

epistemic authority. Likewise, in second position, questions are generally answered by

the guide, but can also be answered by another person, again claiming alternative epis-

temic rights.


28/31

Mondada 623

By examining the details of turn and action design in these environments, the article

shows how they can either reproduce and confirm the current epistemic status of the

participants or challenge, negotiate and transform them. The latter case reveals how epis-

temic status and stance are mutually (re)elaborated by the participants, who actively and

finely orient towards turn format as reflexively evoking and thereby contributing toachieving the epistemic status of the speaker. This orientation can generate competitive

responses, negotiating a rearrangement of the distribution of knowledge among the par-

ticipants and a reaffirmation or a transformation of their membership categorization, as

well as the rights and obligations related to it.

Thus, the article shows the intricate reflexive intertwinement of turn and action

format, sequential organization, membership categorization and epistemic status and

authority. It also shows the way in which epistemic positions are embodied both in

body postures and arrangements and in the disposition of the interactional space. These

analyses aim at contributing to a conceptualization of epistemic status, expertise andrecognition/attribution of knowledge as a situated phenomenon, crucially depending

on situated and embodied action and the sequential organization of talk.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or

not-for-profit sectors.

References

Aikhenvald A (2004)Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beach WA and Metzger TR (1997) Claiming insufficient knowledge. Human Communication

Research23: 562588.

Birkner K and Stukenbrock A (2010) Multimodale Ressourcen fr Stadtfhrungen. In: Costa

M and Mller-Jacquier B (eds) Deutschland als fremde Kultur: Vermittlungsverfahren in

Touristenfhrungen[Multimodal resources in city guided visits]. Mnchen: Judicium, pp. 214243.

Broth M and Lndstrm F (2013) A walk on the pier establishing relevant places in mobile instruc-

tion. In: Haddington P, Mondada L and Nevile M (eds)Mobility and Interaction. Berlin: De

Gruyter, pp. 91122.

Broth M and Mondada L (2013) Walking away: The embodied achievement of activity closings in

mobile interactions.Journal of Pragmatics47: 4158.Button G and Casey N (1984) Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In: Atkinson JM

and Heritage J (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, pp. 167190.

Button G and Casey N (1985) Topic nomination and topic pursuit.Human Studies8: 355.

Chafe W (1986) Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In: Chafe W and

Nichols J (eds)Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Chafe W (1994)Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious

Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 261285.

Chafe W and Nichols J (1986)Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood,

NJ: Ablex.De Stefani E (2010) Reference as an interactively and multimodally accomplished practice:

Organizing spatial reorientation in guided tours. In: Pettorino M, Giannini A, Chiari I and

Dovetto F (eds) Spoken Communication. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars

Publishing, pp. 137170.


29/31


Drew P (1991) Asymmetries of knowledge in conversational interactions. In: Markova I and Foppa

K (eds)Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 2948.

Garfinkel H and Wieder DL (1992) Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technolo-

gies of social analysis. In: Watson G and Seiler RM (eds) Text in Context: Contributions to

Ethnomethodology. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, pp. 175206.Givn T (1995) Functionalism and Grammar. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Golato A and Betz E (2008) German ach and achso in repair uptake: Resources to sustain or

remove epistemic asymmetry.Zeitschrift fr Sprachwissenschaft27: 737.

Goodwin C (1979) The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In: Psathas

G (ed.)Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers,

pp. 97121.

Goodwin C (1981) Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers.

New York: Academic Press.

Goodwin C (200

displaying, contesting and negotiating epistemic authority in social interaction mondada

Documents