Discourse Studies http://dis.sagepub.

com/

Displaying, contesting and negotiating epistemic authority in social interaction: Descriptions and questions in guided visits
Lorenza Mondada Discourse Studies 2013 15: 597 DOI: 10.1177/1461445613501577 The online version of this article can be found at: http://dis.sagepub.com/content/15/5/597

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Discourse Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://dis.sagepub.com/content/15/5/597.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Oct 18, 2013 What is This?

Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com at UNISINOS UNIV VALE RIO SINOS on October 21, 2013

501577
2013

DIS0010.1177/1461445613501577Discourse StudiesMondada

Article
Discourse Studies 15(5) 597626 The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1461445613501577 dis.sagepub.com

Displaying, contesting and negotiating epistemic authority in social interaction: Descriptions and questions in guided visits
Lorenza Mondada

University of Basel, Switzerland

Abstract
This 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. More particularly, 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 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, 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.

Keywords
Epistemic authority, guided visits, stance, status
Corresponding author: Lorenza Mondada, General Linguistics and French Linguistics, University of Basel, Maiengasse 51, CH 4056 Basel, Switzerland. Email: lorenza.mondada@unibas.ch

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 organization, membership categorization and epistemic authority. It shows that there are specific 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 epistemic 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 embodied dimension but also focuses on its dynamic character, showing that epistemic authority can be challenged, competed with and negotiated in a flexible way within situated activities and evolving sequential contexts. Thus, the article shows that epistemic authority 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, classical analysis of topic and focus in functional linguistics deals with various grammatical possibilities of marking information as new or old, as in the back- versus in the foreground, 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 announcements (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, orienting 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,

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 epistemic 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 or downgraded 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 coparticipants (Goodwin, 1979, 1981). More generally, recently there has been a booming interest in epistemics in conversation analysis: participants orientation towards the relevance of who knows what in conversation has been treated in terms of epistemic authority, primacy, access, status, stance, etc. (Heritage, 2012a, 2012b; Heritage and Raymond, 2005). These issues constitute the epistemic 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 epistemic authority, access to first-hand knowledge and sequential organization of turns and actions, this article focuses on the dynamic and sometimes conflicting relations between 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 epistemic status and epistemic stance. Epistemic status concerns the relative positioning of participants, with reference 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),

600

Discourse Studies 15(5)

distinguishing between relative positions of knowing (K+) or not knowing (K) participants. Epistemic stance concerns the moment-by-moment expression of these relationships, 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 and informings 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 noncongruent 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 recognizability of these actions is not guaranteed by their formal linguistic formatting: syntax is not 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 epistemic status over turn design seems straightforward in cases in which the former is convergently 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 reflexive achievement 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 analysis also pinpoints the crucial importance of the local relevance of 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 relevant by 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

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 turn and action formats within the sequentiality of the interaction, expressing congruent and convergent stance, or challenged, contested and re-negotiated within alternative sequential 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 considered as a perspicuous setting (Garfinkel and Wieder, 1992) for the study of knowledge 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. On the 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 building 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 occasions on 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

602

Discourse Studies 15(5)

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 attention towards a new referent ( 3). Focusing on first actions ( 4), I show that sequences initiated by the guide have the form et l + description, displaying a K+ status and stance ( 4.1), whereas sequences initiated by the guided take the form et l + question, 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 confirmation ( 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 actively indexed, 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 epistemic 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 knowledge 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 listening and looking around. This organization makes relevant a standardized pair of categories, 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.

Mondada (1) (Tourly1_10_46_saint-charles)

1 HIL 2 cam im 3

603

et *on a* la rue de lannon*ciade par exemple,* (0.4) hein, a* cest des and we have the street of the annunciation for example (0.4) okay these >>points*,,,*.............*points------------*palm open-----*2H as bowl-> mots, *(0.3) (d) anciens *cou#vents, les annon+ciades, >*les carmlites, are words, (0.3) (from) old convents, the annunciation, the carmelites, ->*holds--------------*2H baton gesture--> *1 step frwd-> +positions aside--> #im. 1 etcaetera etcaetera *etcaetera.< -->*walks 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 consequently most 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 gestures. 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 is achieved: 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 HIL im etcaetera etcaetera *etcaetera.<# -->*walks forwards--> #im.2

604

Discourse Studies 15(5)

et maintenant cest les *surs+ de saint-+charles, # and now its the sisters of Saint-Charles hil -->*turns back---> cam +turns back-+ im.3# im 5 (0.4) 6 HIL voi:*l.* thats it. ->*big nod* 7 LOI *dont lfondat*eur est n | bourg, of which the founder was born in Bourg, hil *walks forward*turns back ((then not visible anymore)) group |begins to walk-->> 8 (0.2) 9 HIL bourg, (.) ouais. in Bourg (.) yeah. 10 (0.7) 11 LOI alors. et il a il a donn le nom de: (0.4) so. and he has he gave the name of (0.4) des surs de saint-charles parce quil avait 12 Saint-Charles sisters because he had 13 une grande admiration:, (0.4) pour saint a great admiration (0.4) for Saint 14 charles de borro[me Charles of Borromeo 15 HIL [*de borrome, [of Borromeo *turns back-->> 4 LOI

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 on the right side of image 2). At this moment, line 4, Loc self-selects (et maintenant cest les soeurs de saintcharles, 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 epistemic 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

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 followed 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 epistemic 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 HIL SAINte-marie des chanes, cest son nom. a vient tout Sainte-Marie of the chains, its its name. it comes just 2 simplement quy avait des chanes, (0.6) qui barraient la sane. simply from the fact that there were chains (0.6) blocking the Sane. 3 (0.9) 4 HIL hein, eh juste [en face. right, eh just [in front. 5 VIS [ah::: oui:: oui:, [oh::: yes:: yes:, pour laccs la ville de lyon. 6 HIL for the access to the town of Lyon. 7 VIS oui [cest vrai ( ) yes [its true ( ) 8 HIL [donc cest cest pour a [so its why 9 LOI ctait pas des^z- des visitantines? werent they ((det)) ((det)) ((name of the nouns))? des vi*sitandi:*nes. 10 HIL ((det)) ((name of the nouns)). *big nod--* 11 (0.7) 12 HIL hein, tout di- tous les couvents, (0.4) vous tes *un spcialiste right, all d- all the convents, (0.4) you are a specialist *turns to L--> 13 des couvents hein, of convents arent you, 14 ((general laughter))

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, where he offers the name of the nuns religious order. Here, his turn is formatted as a question 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

606

Discourse Studies 15(5)

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 knowledge of the order. The format of Hilaires further comment is oriented to two possible sequential trajectories: 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 Locs contributions 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 negotiation 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 expectations, 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 specifically 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 design their 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, in which 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 competition 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 renegotiation of the epistemic statuses of the participants and possible epistemic competitions. 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

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). These turns 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 convergent 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 reflexively elaborating different epistemic statuses ( 5). The aim of the analysis is to describe the distribution of these formats and the orientations 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 repristinating 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:

608 (4) (Cep3 18.08 jardiniers)

Discourse Studies 15(5)

1 (3#) im #im.1 2 JEA *et l on %a,* la#::mm (.) l+ c#est une exprience* des and there we have, the::mmm (.) there its an experience of the *............*points--------------------------------* eli %looks--> sop looks --> yan + looks --> im #im.2 #im.3 3 jardiniers sans doute encore sur la gestion diffrencie. gardeners for sure in the area of differentiated management.

As the group is walking on the path (image 1), Jean, the guide, first uses the deictic construction 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#) im #im. 1 2 JEA et *l%, l,** (.) +donc# voi%%l. ++voyez, ce sys*tme de patios,**%%# and there, there (.) so thats it. you see, this system of patios, *points----------------------------------------*triangular gest---> **changes trajectory and walks towards the window------** %looks------->> eli eli %%walks to window-----------------------%% yan +looks--------->> yan ++walks to window------> sop looks-- walks tow w->> im #im.2 im.3#

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 of pointing 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 and the 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 interrogative 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 declarative syntax, 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 syntactic, 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 2 LUC 3 et +l cest qui +alo[rs? and there its who the[n? +points to a tree+ [al*ors l* cest a cest un nichoir [then there its that its a nest box *......*points and goes closer->> pour les larves de chrysope. for lacewing larvae.

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 deictic expression and the pointing gesture. Most often, questions are formatted with declarative syntax ending with some raising intonation and interrogative elements, as here:

610 (7) (Cep2 39.10 YANjardin)

1 jea sop im YAN

Discourse Studies 15(5)

#et +l on va +vers l*jardin,# en fait. [hein? cest a?* and there we go towards the garden, actually. right? is it that? >>looks behind him---> +.........+points---> >>walks forward----*pivots tow YAN---------------*looks-> >>walks forward-------*pivots tow YAN---------------*looks-> #im. 1 #im.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 soliciting 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 (2) sop looks at her left--> SOP et l, au bout, cest les: appartements officiels, cest a. hein? and there, at the end, these are the official flats, its that. right? ->looks at Jea--> points-->

Like Yan above, Sophie uses a declarative form, and even an affirmative prosody, which projects 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 2 JEA et *l, cest les** fameux+ rosiers hyper rsistants,=# and there, its the famous rosebushes super resistant, *points-> **looks at Luc--> luc +turns towards Jea--> LUC =voil. thats it.

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

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 he works in the building beside the garden and is in charge of the guided visits of the former, 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 Sophies question 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 initiated 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 campus, in silence the last topic having been closed. This is a sequential position at which a possible new sequence can be initiated. Indeed, Sophie does it in line 2: (10) (Cep2 41.05 compJEA-SOP)
1 (2) # im #im. 1 all >>walk--> 2 SOP >ouais donc< l cest *toute >yeah so< there its all the 3 JEA 4 YAN sop jea >>looks around--------*looks jea im

la *par[tie cam*#]pu:s [en fait cam[pus a]rea [actually [et l** oui*] [and there yes] [cest [its .....points in a circular way up--*points up---*looks at SOP-> -->**stops-> #im.2

612

Discourse Studies 15(5)

%gnial quand meme, hein? really fantastic nevertheless, right? eli %stops-> stops-> sop 6 (0.4) 7 JEA je laisse ( [ ) (continuer) I let ( ] ) (go on) 8 SOP [non, non,+ alle[z-y, [no, no, go [on, 9 JEA [non *aprs ++jpoin%terais ju***ste: [no after I would just like to point --->*looks up--> ***points-> yan ->+stops--> yan ++ looks up --> eli % looks forward--> 0 SOP ouais >>jvous en prie<< 1 yeah >>please<< looks up--> 1 1 JEA ben l, l, vous voyez *bien# encore* que les dcrochements well there, there, you see well again that the indentations -->*looks at ELI*looks up--> im #im.3 5

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

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 the progressivity 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 he might continue. 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 turninitial 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, introduces 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 category: 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 follows 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 formats 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 categorical and epistemic position similar to Loics in the first excerpts. This case shows that membership categories, category-bound activities, stances embedded 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 participants, 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.

614

Discourse Studies 15(5)

In the following analyses, I deal first with questions answered by the K+ participant, 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 2 LUC 3 et +l cest qui +alo[rs? and there its who the[n? +points on a tree+ [al*ors l* cest a cest un nichoir [then there its that its a nest box *......*points and goes closer->> pour les larves de chrysope. for lacewing larvae.

The guides answer is immediate. It recycles some formal resources of the question as a tying 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 interrogative 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 epistemic 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 looks towards her left--> 2 SOP et l, au bout, cest les: appartements officiels, cest a hein? and there, at the end, these are the official flats, its that right? ->looks at Jea--> points--> 3 (0.3) 4 ELI o a? where? 5 (0.4) sop ->looks at the pointed at object--> 6 SOP euh::, l, le le balcon, [quon voit l,] oua[is. ehm::, there, the the terrace [that we see there,] ye[ah. 7 JEA [ah oui:,] [ben [oh yes:,] [well ->extends pointing-->

Mondada
8 cest pas le lon- cest: le thats not the hou- its the sop -->looks at Jea--> sop ->,,,,,,, 9 SOP c[est [lappartemen:t [euh i[ts [the flat [ehm 1 0 JEA [CEST l[ouais cest le: logement de [ITS t[yeah its the: house of 11 direction, [cest le: lappartement du directeur oui the director, [its the: flat of the director yes 1 2 SOP [oui [yes ->looks at the apartment->>

615

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, but initiates a repair of her formulation, rejecting it (8) (see ben, 7, which prefaces a dispreferred 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 competitive. 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 continuation of excerpt 9: (13) (=continuation of 9) (Jardivis 04 / 0.43)
1 et *l, cest les** fameux+ rosiers hyper rsistants,=# and there, its the famous rosebushes super resistant,= *points-> **looks at Luc--> luc +turns towards Jea--> 2 LUC =voil. =thats it. 3 (0.2) 4 LUC [et [and5 JEA [qui ont* des gr*os fruits# pour lhi*ver, pour les [oisea*ux ( ) [which have big fruits for the winter, for the [birds ( ) ->*,,,....*iconic gesture------*,,,,,,,,,,,,,....*points-> 6 LUC [pour [for im #im.3 7 >pour lhi+ver pour les ois#eaux<, *voil.* on on on laisse# >for the winter for the birds<, thats it. we we we leave +points--> jea -->*,,,,,,* im #im.4 im.5# JEA

616

Discourse Studies 15(5)

8 9 10

les the les the

fruits, donc voyez les les roses sont finies. .h on laisse fruits, so see the the roses are finished, .h we leave fruits et ces fruits vont servir nourrir l*es: les verdiers, fruits and these fruits will serve as food for the: the greenfinches -->*,,,, cet hiver. this winter.

After Lucs confirmation of Jeans noticing (2), there is a short pause and both participants 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 two last 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, as implementing 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 formulation 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 always align 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 demonstrated by the way in which participants display, in the second turn, an orientation towards

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 (K participant)

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 information, 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*jardin, en fait. [hein? cest a?* and there we go towards the garden, actually. right? is it that? >>looks behind him---> +.........+points---> jea >>walks forward----*pivots tow YAN---------------*looks-> sop >>walks forward-------*pivots tow YAN---------------*looks-> 2 SOP [alors, en] fait [so, ac]tually 3 *c[est: i[ts: 4 JEA [le jar#din+* il #est* [the garden it ist yan -->+ jea *..............*points--* #im.1 #im.2 im

5 [oui ( ) [yes ( ) 6 SOP [l cest les btiments# dla residence, [there its the building of the residence, ->points forwards--> im #im.3 7 *donc l o vivent les tudiants euh#: *qui so there where the students live ehm who -->,,,,,, jea *2 steps back---------------------------* im #im.4

618

Discourse Studies 15(5)

habi[+tent l, li[ve there, 9 YAN [+::a# cest lbatiment des invi+ts, [this is the guest house, +points-------------------------+ im #im.5 1 0 SOP eh euh: [lh]*tel des [in#vits,] eh ehm: [the gue]st [house] points forward 1 JEA [non.]* [*>il est# l-b++as.<] 1 [no.] [>its over there.<] *...........*points--> im #im. 6 yan ++looks at JEA->

12 (0.2) 13 SOP il est [+l,* +il est# derrire it is [there, it is behind 14 YAN [+ah* +il est# encore plus loin [oh it is farther away ->* jea sop .......points------- yan +.......+points--> im #im.7 15 SOP [hum 16 JEA [voil+. [that it. yan ->+,,,-> 17 YAN ok.+ alright. ->+ 18 JEA l, *si vous voulez,# l on++ est sous un autre angle,* (.) there, if you want, there we are in another perspective, (.)

Mondada
*walks forward------------------------------------* yan --->++ im #im.8 19 jme permets sophie [( ). ouais. I take the liberty Sophie [( ). yeah. 20 SOP [bien sr, [of course, 21 %(0.4) eli %comes closer to the group-->> 22 JEA euh::: donc. (0.5) *derrire ce# btiment, ehm::: so. (0.5) behind this building, *points-->> im #im.9 23 (0.1) 24 YAN [hum 25 JEA [qui est le plus haut, se trouve le forum. ((continues)) [which is the taller one, we find the forum.

619

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 differently: 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 substantial part 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 positions himself 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).

620

Discourse Studies 15(5)

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 an alternative 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 repeating 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 after Jeans answer and during Yans 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 questions, 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 speakers repeatedly 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 interactional 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 implementation 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

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 2 MAR GIN ann im do they taste this different? *mm# n*ot +really.* i mean i wou*ld-= *l up*shakes head*circular gaze, looks at Ann* >>looks Mar+looks at Gin-> #im.1

3 4

ANN GIN

ann ann im

=E:::H [I would++ say a++ little bit more++ [s+u#btle + [t*he white* is more [subtle voil.# thats it. *raises Lh*gesticulates palm open upw--> ++......++raises Lhand----++precision grip-> +looks Mar+ #im.2 im.3#

5 6

ANN GIN

7 8

ann ann im MAR GIN

+yeah ++ex[a+#ctly++ [voil**.#* the white is ++much more su++btle [thats it. -->*gesticulates further with Lhand->> **looks at Mar->> +looks at Gin+at Mar-------> -->++lowers Lh++ ++nods tow Mar++ #im.4 mhm voil. thats it.

622

Discourse Studies 15(5)

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. As she 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 disagreement 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 the work 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 distribution 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 informings 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 epistemic rights.

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 epistemic status and stance are mutually (re)elaborated by the participants, who actively and finely orient towards turn format as reflexively evoking and thereby contributing to achieving the epistemic status of the speaker. This orientation can generate competitive responses, negotiating a rearrangement of the distribution of knowledge among the participants 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 and recognition/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 Research 23: 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 instruction. 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 Pragmatics 47: 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 Studies 8: 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.

624

Discourse Studies 15(5)

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 technologies 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 Sprachwissenschaft 27: 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 (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 14891522. Goodwin C (2013) The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 46: 823. Goodwin C and Goodwin MH (1987) Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. Pragmatics 1: 154. Hayano K (2011) Claiming epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In: Stivers T, Mondada L and Steensig J (eds) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5881. Heritage J (1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In: Atkinson JM and Heritage J (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299345. Heritage J (2002) Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In: Ford C, Fox B and Thompson S (eds) The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 196224. Heritage J (2012a) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 125. Heritage J (2012b) The epistemic engine: Action formation, sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 2550. Heritage J and Lindstrm A (1998) Motherhood, medicine and morality: Scenes from a medical encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31: 397438. Heritage J and Raymond G (2005) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1): 1538. Heritage JC and Sorjonen M-L (1994) Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society 23: 129. Jefferson G (1978) Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In: Schenkein J (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 219248. Jefferson G (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Lerner GH (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1331. Kamio A (1997) Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Krkkinen E (2003) Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Keevallik L (2011) The terms of not knowing. In: Stivers T, Mondada L and Steensig J (eds) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lambrecht K (1994) Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mondada

625

Lindstrm A and Mondada L (eds) (2009) Special issue on assessments in social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(4): 299394. Mondada L (2005) La constitution de lorigo dictique comme travail interactionnel des participants: une approche praxologique de la spatialit. Intellectica 41/42: 75100. Mondada L (2007) Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies 9(2): 195226. Mondada L (2009a) The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(4): 329361. Mondada L (2009b) Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 19771997. Mondada L (2011a) Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 542552. Mondada L (2011b) The management of knowledge discrepancies and of epistemic changes in institutional interactions. In: Stivers T, Mondada L and Steensig J (eds) Knowledge and Morality in Conversation: Rights, Responsibilities and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 2757. Mondada L (2012a) Garden lessons: Embodied action and joint attention in extended sequences. In: Nasu H and Waksler FC (eds) Interaction and Everyday Life: Phenomenological and Ethnomethodological Essays in Honor of George Psathas. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, pp. 293311. Mondada L (2012b) The dynamics of embodied participation and language choice in multilingual meetings. Language in Society 41(2): 213235. Mondada L (2012c) Deixis: An integrated interactional multimodal analysis. In: Bergmann P and Brenning J (eds) Interaction and Usage-based Grammar Theories. What about Prosody and Visual Signals? Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 173206. Mondada L (2012d) Organisation multimodale de la parole-en-interaction: Pratiques incarnes dintroduction des rfrents. Langue Franaise 175: 129147. Pitsch K (2012) Museumsexponat, Alltagsobjekt oder Turngert? Zur Konstitution von Objekten im Interaktion [Museum exhibits, everyday objects or gym equipment? About the constitution of objects in interaction]. In: Hausendorf H, Mondada L and Schmitt R (eds) Raum als interaktive Resource. Tbingen: Narr, pp. 233274. Pomerantz AM (1980) Telling my side: Limited access as a fishing device. Sociological Inquiry 50: 186198. Pomerantz AM (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson JM and Heritage J (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57101. Sacks H (1972) An initial investigation of the usability of conversational materials for doing sociology. In: Sudnow D (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction . New York: Free Press, pp. 3174. Sacks H (1974) An analysis of the course of a jokes telling in conversation. In: Bauman R and Sherzer J (eds) Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 337353. Sacks H (1992/19641972) Lectures on Conversation (2 vols). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Schegloff EA (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stivers T (2005) Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(2): 131158.

626

Discourse Studies 15(5)

Stivers T, Mondada L and Steensig S (2011a) Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In: Stivers T, Mondada L and Steensig J (eds) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stivers T, Mondada L and Steensig S (eds) (2011b) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Streeck J, Goodwin C and LeBaron C (eds) (2011) Embodied Interaction, Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Terasaki AK (2004/1976) Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In: Lerner G (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 171223. Watson R (1997) Some general reflections on categorization and sequence in the analysis of conversation. In: Hester S and Eglin P (eds) Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. Washington, DC: University Press of America.

Transcription conventions
Talk has been transcribed according to conventions developed by Gail Jefferson (see Jefferson, 2004). An indicative translation is provided line per line, in italics. Multimodal details have been transcribed according to the following conventions (see Mondada, 2007): ** *---> *--->> ---->* >>-- . ,,,,, luc im # each participants actions are delimited by the use of the same symbol action described continues across subsequent lines. action described continues until and after excerpts end. action described continues until the same symbol is reached. action described begins before the excerpts beginning. actions preparation. actions retraction. participant doing the action is identified in small characters when he is not the current speaker or when the gesture is done during a pause. image; screen shot indicates the exact moment at which the screen shot has been recorded

Author biography
Lorenza Mondada is currently Professor of Linguistics at the University of Basel, Switzerland, after having worked for the University of Lyon/ICAR CNRS Lab, France for about 10 years. Her research deals with social interaction in ordinary, professional and institutional settings, within an ethnomethodological and conversation analytic perspective. She is interested in how linguistic resources are not only used, but also configured and transformed in interaction, as well as in how the situated and endogenous organization of social interaction draws on multimodal resources such as beside language, gesture, gaze, body posture, body movements and object manipulations. Her work has explored a diversity of settings (surgical theatres, architectural practices, meetings, family meals, encounters in public spaces, call centres, etc.) on the basis of video recordings of naturally occurring activities. She has extensively published in Journal of Pragmatics, Discourse Studies, Language in Society, ROLSI) and co-edited various collective books (among others Knowledge in Interaction, with T. Stivers and J. Steensig, Cambridge University Press, 2011; Mobility in Interaction, with P. Haddington and M. Nevile, De Gruyter, 2012; Video at Work, with M. Broth and E. Laurier, Routledge, 2013) and special issues (among others Assessments in social interaction, ROLSI, 2009, with A. Lindstrm).