Narratives about epistemic trespassing

Rachel Bristol; Samar Alhaqab; Federico Rossano

doi:10.1515/text-2023-0174

Article

Narratives about epistemic trespassing

Rachel Bristol
Rachel Bristol received her Ph.D. in Cognitive Science from University of California San Diego and is now a member of the teaching faculty in the Department of Psychology at Arizona State University. She researches pragmatic aspects of knowledge expression and negotiation in conversational interaction and more applied aspects of expressing authority in educational settings.
, Samar Alhaqab
Samar Alhaqab received her B.S. in Cognitive Science with a specialization in Neuroscience from University of California San Diego. After her undergraduate studies, she joined the Center for Pain and Headache Research where she researched the effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in treating chronic pain and debilitating headaches for veterans.
and Federico Rossano
Federico Rossano is an Associate Professor in the department of Cognitive Science at the University of California San Diego. He received his Ph.D. in Linguistics from the Max Planck institute for Psycholinguistics and Radboud University, Nijmegen. His research focuses on the development of communicative abilities and social norms in human and non-human primates.

Published/Copyright: October 11, 2024

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Text & Talk Volume 45 Issue 4

Abstract

This paper identifies a previously undescribed genre of narrative about instances where an absent third party trespasses into the epistemic territory of the speaker by disregarding the speaker’s expertise in a knowledge domain tied to the speaker’s identity. These narratives occurred in unstructured interaction between close friends. We extracted a collection of exchanges from a corpus of sixty audio/video recording of conversations elicited in a university setting and analyzed them using methods from Conversation Analysis. In such narratives, speakers vilify the absent third party, make extensive use of direct reported speech, and explain why they are the true authority on the subject in question. They often speak directly to the absent party, sanctioning their behavior. Listeners respond to these narratives by displaying shock at reports of the third party’s statements and amusement at re-enactments of the speaker’s retorts. Listeners also assist in the narratives, often participating in scolding and denigrating the trespasser. We argue that these narratives act to recruit listener assistance in an after-the-fact sanctioning of the trespassing third party and validation of the speaker’s knowledge and related identity.

Keywords: narrative; epistemic; identity; knowledge; authority; conversation

Corresponding author: Rachel Bristol, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, 950 S. McAllister Ave, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1104, USA, E-mail: rachel.bristol@asu.edu

About the authors

Rachel Bristol

Rachel Bristol received her Ph.D. in Cognitive Science from University of California San Diego and is now a member of the teaching faculty in the Department of Psychology at Arizona State University. She researches pragmatic aspects of knowledge expression and negotiation in conversational interaction and more applied aspects of expressing authority in educational settings.

Samar Alhaqab

Samar Alhaqab received her B.S. in Cognitive Science with a specialization in Neuroscience from University of California San Diego. After her undergraduate studies, she joined the Center for Pain and Headache Research where she researched the effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in treating chronic pain and debilitating headaches for veterans.

Federico Rossano

Federico Rossano is an Associate Professor in the department of Cognitive Science at the University of California San Diego. He received his Ph.D. in Linguistics from the Max Planck institute for Psycholinguistics and Radboud University, Nijmegen. His research focuses on the development of communicative abilities and social norms in human and non-human primates.

Appendix

Transcripts follow basic Jeffersonian notation, detailed below:

Symbol	Use
[ ]	Start and end point of overlapping speech
=	Break and continuation of a single interrupted utterance
-	An abrupt halt or interruption in the utterance
(# of sec)	Time in seconds of a pause in speech
(.)	Brief pause in speech (less than 0.2 seconds)
↑	Higher than speaker’s typical pitch
↓	Low than speaker’s typical pitch
.	Falling pitch (as at end of sentence)
text	Emphasized or stressed speech
°	Whisper or reduced volume speech
ALL CAPS	Shouted or increased volume speech
>text<	Enclosed speech was delivered more rapidly than usual
<text>	Enclosed speech was delivered more slowly than usual
((text))	Annotation of non-verbal activity

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Antaki, Charles & Sue Widdicombe. 1998. Identity as an achievement and as a tool. In Charles Antaki & Sue Widdicombe (eds.), Identities in talk, 1–14. London: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781446216958.n1Search in Google Scholar

Antaki, Charles, Susan Condor & Mark Levine. 1996. Social identities in talk: Speakers’ own orientations. British Journal of Social Psychology 35. 473–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01109.x.Search in Google Scholar

Bamberg, Michael & Alexandra Georgakopoulou. 2008. Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Talk and Text 28(3). 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2008.018.Search in Google Scholar

Bavelas, Janet Beavin, Linda Coates & Trudy Johnson. 2000. Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(6). 941–952. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.941.Search in Google Scholar

Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13(2). 145–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/s004740450001037x.Search in Google Scholar

Benwall, Bethan & Elizabeth Stokoe. 2006. Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bolden, Galina B. 2003. Multiple modalities in collaborative turn sequences. Gesture 3(2). 187–212. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.3.2.04bol.Search in Google Scholar

Bolden, Galina B. 2013. Unpacking “self”: Repair and epistemics in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 74(4). 314–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272513498398.Search in Google Scholar

Bristol, Rachel & Federico Rossano. 2020. Epistemic trespassing and disagreement. Journal of Memory and Language 110. 104067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104067.Search in Google Scholar

Bristol, Rachel & Federico Rossano. 2022. Remediation of infelicitous epistemic stance. Journal of Pragmatics 199. 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.06.011.Search in Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality, 262–272. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 2016. Depicting as a method of communication. Psychological Review 123(3). 324–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000026.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. & Susan E. Brennan. 1991. Grounding in communication. In Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine & Stephanie D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 127–149. American Psychological Association.10.1037/10096-006Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. & Thomas B. Carlson. 1982. Hearers and speech acts. Language 58(2). 332–373. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1982.0042.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. & Catherine R. Marshall. 1981. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Weber & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Elements of discourse understanding, 10–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Day, Dennis. 1998. Being ascribed, and resisting, membership of an ethnic group. In Charles Antaki & Sue Widdicombe (eds.), Identities in talk, 151–170. London: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781446216958.n10Search in Google Scholar

De Fina, Anna. 2006. Group identity, narrative and self-representations. In Anna De Fina, Deboaah Schiffrin & Michael Bamberg (eds.), Discourse and identity, 351–375. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511584459.018Search in Google Scholar

Deppermann, Arnulf. 2013. How to get a grip on identities-in-interaction: (What) does ‘positioning’ offer more than ‘membership categorization’? Evidence from a mock story. In Michael Bamberg (ed.), Narrative inquiry, 62–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ni.23.1.04depSearch in Google Scholar

Drew, Paul. 1998. Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31(3-4). 295–325. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3103&4_2.10.1207/s15327973rlsi3103&4_2Search in Google Scholar

Drew, Paul. 2018. Epistemics in social interaction. Discourse Studies 20(1). 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734347.Search in Google Scholar

Drew, Paul & Elizabeth Holt. 1988. Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems 33(4). 398–417. https://doi.org/10.2307/800594.Search in Google Scholar

Drew, Paul & Traci Walker. 2009. Going too far: Complaining, escalating and disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics 41. 2400–2414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.046.Search in Google Scholar

Dubois, Betty Lou. 1989. Pseudoquotation in current English communication: “Hey, she didn’t really say it”. Language in Society 18(3). 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500013646.Search in Google Scholar

ELAN (Version 6.0) Computer software. 2020. Nijmegen: Max Planck institute for psycholinguistics, the language archive. Available at: https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan.Search in Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara A. 2001. Evidentiality: Authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(2). 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2001.11.2.167.Search in Google Scholar

Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper & Row.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Doubleday.Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles. 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 91–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles. 1984. Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 225–246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511665868.016Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1982. “Instigating”: Storytelling as a social process. American Ethnologist 9(4). 799–816. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1982.9.4.02a00110.Search in Google Scholar

Haakana, Markku. 2007a. Reported thought in complaint stories. In Elizabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction, 150–178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Haakana, Markku. 2007b. Reported thought in complaint stories. In Elizabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (eds.), Reporting talk, 150–178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486654.007Search in Google Scholar

Hall, Edward T., Ray L. Birdwhistell, Bernhard Bock, Paul Bohannan, A. Richard DieboldJr., Marshall Durbin, Munro S. Edmonson, J. L. Fischer, Dell Hymes, Solon T. Kimball, Weston La Barre, J. E. McClellan, Donald S. Marshall, G. B. Milner, Harvey B. Sarles, George L Trager & Andrew P. Vayda. 1968. Proxemics. Current Anthropology 9(2). 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1086/200975.Search in Google Scholar

Hample, Dale & Amanda L Irions. 2015. Arguing to display identity. Argumentation 29. 389–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9351-9.Search in Google Scholar

Hanks, William F. 2014. Evidentiality in social interaction. In Janis B. Nuckolls & Lev Michael (eds.), Evidentiality in interaction, 127–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.63.02forSearch in Google Scholar

Henrich, Joseph, Steven J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan. 2010. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466(29). https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2013. Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies 15(5). 551–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501449.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2008. Conversation analysis as social theory. In Bryan S. Turner (ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory, 300–320. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9781444304992.ch15Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2012a. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1). 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2011. Territories of knowledge, territories, of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 159–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2012b. The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 450(1). 30–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2018. The ubiquity of epistemics: A rebuttal to the ’epistemics of epistemics’ group. Discourse Studies 20(1). 14–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734342.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1). 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103.Search in Google Scholar

Holt, Elizabeth. 2007. ‘I’m eyeing your chop up mind’: Reporting and enacting. In Elizabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction, 47–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486654.004Search in Google Scholar

Holt, Elizabeth. 2017. Indirect reported speech in storytelling: Its position, design, and uses. Research on Language and Social Interaction 50(2). 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1301302.Search in Google Scholar

Holt, Elizabeth. 2000. Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(4). 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3304_04.Search in Google Scholar

Ifantidou, Elly. 2001. Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.86Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1988. On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems 35(4). 418–441. https://doi.org/10.2307/800595.Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 1984. Transcription notation. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social interaction, ix-xvi. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territory of information. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.48Search in Google Scholar

Kendon, Adam. 1990. Conducting interaction - Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kerby, Anthony Paul. 1991. Narrative and the self. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Klewitz, Gabriele & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 1999. Quote-unquote? The role of prosody in the contextualization of reported speech sequences. Pragmatics 9(4). 459–485. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.4.03kle.Search in Google Scholar

Kraus, Wolfgang. 2007. The narrative negotiation of identity. In Michael Bamberg (ed.), Narrative – state of the art, 123–132. John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.6.13kraSearch in Google Scholar

Langellier, Kristin M. 1989. Personal narratives: Perspectives on theory and research. Text and Performance Quarterly 9(4). 243–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10462938909365938.Search in Google Scholar

Lerner, Gene H. 2004. Collaborative turn sequences. In Gene Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 225–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.12lerSearch in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. On the human “interaction engine. In Nicholas J. Enfield & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture cognition and interaction, 39–69. Oxford: Berg Publishers.10.4324/9781003135517-3Search in Google Scholar

Maynard, Douglas W. 2013. Defensive mechanisms: ‘I mean’ prefaced utterances in complaint and other conversational sequences. In Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond & Jack Sidnell (eds.), Conversational Repair and human understanding, 198–233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511757464.007Search in Google Scholar

Miecznikowski, Johanna & Jérôme Jacquin. 2023. Epistemic and evidential markers in contexts of disagreement. JournJacquinal of Pragmatics 213. 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.05.015.Search in Google Scholar

Monzoni, Chiara Maria. 2008. Introducing direct complaints through questions: The interactional achievement of ‘pre-sequences. Discourse Studies 10(1). 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085591.Search in Google Scholar

Muntigl, Peter & William Turnbull. 1998. Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics 29. 225–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(97)00048-9.Search in Google Scholar

Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.87Search in Google Scholar

Ochs, Elinor & Lisa Capps. 2001. Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674041592Search in Google Scholar

Ochs, Elinor & Lisa Capps. 1996. Narrating the self. Annual Review of Anthropology 25. 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.19.Search in Google Scholar

Raymond, Chase Wesley. 2016. Linguistic reference in the negotiation of identity and action: Revisiting the T/V distinction. Language 92(3). 636–670. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0053.Search in Google Scholar

Raymond, Geoffrey & John Heritage. 2006. The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society 35. 677–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404506060325.Search in Google Scholar

Rossano, Federico, Hannes Rakoczy & Michael Tomasello. 2011. Young children’s understanding of violations of property rights. Cognition 121(2). 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.007.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1979. Hotrodder: A revolutionary category. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 15–25. New York: Irvington Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1995. Lectures on conversation, vol. 1–2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.10.1002/9781444328301Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. Narrative analysis” thirty years later. Journal of Narrative and Life History 7(1-4). 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.1-4.11nar.Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2005. On complainability. Social Problems 52(4). 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.449.Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208Search in Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1990. Management of a co-operative self during an argument. In Allen D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations, 241–259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Selting, Margret. 2010. Affectivity in conversational storytelling: An analysis of displays of anger or indignation in complaint stories. Pragmatics 20(2). 229–277. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20.2.06sel.Search in Google Scholar

Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis: An introduction. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.10.21832/9781847692849-020Search in Google Scholar

Sidnell, Jack. 2006. Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39(4). 377–409. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2.Search in Google Scholar

Sidnell, Jack. 2014. Who knows best?”: Evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry in conversation. In Janis B. Nuckolls & Lev Michael (eds.), Evidentiality in interaction, 127–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.63.08sidSearch in Google Scholar

Sierra, Sylvia. 2022. The epistemics of authentication and denaturalization in the construction of identities in social interaction. Language in Society 52. 571–594. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404522000161.Search in Google Scholar

Snare, Frank.. 1972. The concept of property. American Philosophical Quarterly 9(2). 200–206.Search in Google Scholar

Solnit, Rebecca. 2014. Men explain things to me. Chicago: Haymarket Books.Search in Google Scholar

Sommer, Robert. 1959. Studies in personal space. Sociometry 22(3). 247–260. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785668.Search in Google Scholar

Stivers, Tanya. 2005. Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(2). 131–158. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1.Search in Google Scholar

Stivers, Tanya. 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1). 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123.Search in Google Scholar

Stivers, Tanya & Federico Rossano. 2010. Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1). 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258.Search in Google Scholar

Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig. 2011. Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 3–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. & Ryoko Suzuki. 2014. Reenactments in conversation: Gaze and recipiency. Discourse Studies 16(6). 816–846. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614546259.Search in Google Scholar

Wooffitt, Robin & Colin Clark. 1998. Mobilizing discourse and social identities in knowledge talk. In Charles Antaki & Sue Widdicombe (eds.), Identities in talk, 107–120. London: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781446216958.n7Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-09-03

Accepted: 2024-09-23

Published Online: 2024-10-11

Published in Print: 2025-07-28

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2023-0174

Keywords for this article

narrative; epistemic; identity; knowledge; authority; conversation