heritage ipra

8/2/2019 Heritage Ipra

1/39

Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and

Territories of Knowledge

John Heritage, UCLA


2/39

A Basic Problem in Action Ascription: Giving vs. requestinginformation


3/39


4/39


Polar questions can be produced in declarative form (Quirk et al

1975 )

'Declarative questions' comprise a majority of questions in Englishconversation (Stivers 2010)


5/39



1975 )


16% of the world's languages lack interrogative morphosyntax to

index polar requests for information (Dryer 2008)


6/39



1975 )


16% of the world's languages lack interrogative morphosyntax to

index polar requests for information (Dryer 2008)

Solution to the problem of which declaratives assert informationand which declaratives request information is unlikely to be found

in linguistic form.


7/39

WHAT ABOUT INTONATION?

Final Rising intonation is said to index questioning in declarative

utterances

But!!!.

The issue is far from conclusive1

And!!!

1. Geluykens, Ronald (1988). "On the myth of rising intonation in polar questions." Journal of Pragmatics 12: 467-485.Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. In press. Some truths and untruths about prosody in English question and answer sequencesIn Questions, ed. J. P. de Ruiter. CUP.)


8/39



utterances

But!!!.

The issue is far from conclusive.1

And!!!

Final rising intonation is also said to index continuation.

1. Geluykens, Ronald (1988). "On the myth of rising intonation in polar questions." Journal of Pragmatics 12: 467-485.Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. In press. Some truths and untruths about prosody in English question and answer sequences

In Questions, ed. J. P. de Ruiter. CUP.)


9/39



utterances

But!!!.

The issue is far from conclusive.1

And!!!

Final rising intonation is also said to index continuation.

And!!!

to mobilize response (Stivers and Rossano 2010)

1. Geluykens, Ronald (1988). "On the myth of rising intonation in polar questions." Journal of Pragmatics 12: 467-485.Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. In press. Some truths and untruths about prosody in English question and answer sequences

In Questions, ed. J. P. de Ruiter. CUP.)


10/39

Epistemics: Background

Bolinger (1957) blinds up/blinds down negative interrogatives

A-events and B-events (Labov and Fanshel 1977)

Type 1 and Type 2 Knowables (Pomerantz 1980)

'Territories of Information' (Kamio 1997)


11/39

Epistemic Status:

Epistemic status involves relative epistemic access to a domain of

information, stratified between interactants such that they occupy

more knowledgeable [K+] or less knowledgeable [K-] positions vis a

vis the information domain.

1) Inherently relative to a co-participant

2) Varies by domain of knowledge

3) Can be based in experience or social rights (or both)

4) Is a more or less settled matter


12/39

Speaker Domain !"#$%$"&' Domain


13/39

Epistemic Stance:

The moment by moment expression of epistemic status, as

indexed through the design of turns at talk.


14/39

Epistemic Stance:

The moment by moment expression of epistemic status, as

indexed through the design of turns at talk.

Persons design turns at talk to take up epistemic stances which are

congruent or incongruent with their epistemic status


15/39

Declarative Speaker Domain = Assertion

Ex. 1


16/39

Declarative

Recipient Domain = "Question"

Ex. 2


17/39

Declarative


Speaker 1 ------|--------------------------- 0

Hearer 1 --------------------|------------- 0(Kamio, 1997))

Ex. 3: Type 2 knowable (Pomerantz 1980)


18/39

Declarative


Speaker 1 ------|--------------------------- 0

Hearer 1 --------------------|------------- 0(Kamio, 1997))

Ex. 4: My side telling (Pomerantz 1980)


19/39

NegativeInterrogative


Ex. 5, line 11


20/39

Common Domain = Assertion


Ex. 6


21/39



Ex. 7, lines 7 and 8


22/39



Ex. 8


23/39

Interrogative Recipient Domain = "Question"

Ex. 9


24/39

Speaker Domain= Rhetorical

Question

Interrogative

Ex. 10


25/39

Speaker Domain = Exam Question

Interrogative

Ex. 11


26/39

Speaker Domain= Unanswerable

Question

Interrogative

Ex. 12


27/39

DeclarativeSpeaker/Common

Domain= Question or

Assertion

Ex. 13 IE begins by treating the declarative content as knownin common before, the frame leads him to doubt it.

AMBIGUITIES


28/39

DeclarativeSpeaker/Recipient

Domain= Question or

Assertion

Ex. 14 B begins by treating the information as within his domainand corrects it. A then treats the information as within her domain

and corrects B.

AMBIGUITIES


29/39

Speaker/RecipientDomain

= Question orAssertion

Interrogative

Ex. 15 Russ treats Mom interrogative as a pre-sequence that clearsthe way for her to convey information within her domain. His go-

ahead founders when Moms response reveals that her initial

interrogative was a real question.

AMBIGUITIES


30/39

Consequences:

1) Epistemic status dominates morphosyntax and intonation inshaping a fundamental dimension of social action: whether it

asserts or requests information.


31/39

Consequences:



2) Morphosyntax provides general guidance that is reliable in

interrogatives, less so in declaratives, but is not definitive in either

case.


32/39

Consequences:





case.

3) Role of intonation is limited, and intonation is largely 'released'

as a resource for response mobilization (Stivers and Rossano

2010).


33/39

Consequences:





case.



2010).

4) Persons cannot 'code' many (a majority of?) utterances into

actions without keeping track of the relative epistemic status of

speaker and addressee at all times.


34/39

Consequences:





case.



2010).

4) Persons cannot 'code' many (a majority of?) utterances into

actions without keeping track of the relative epistemic status of

speaker and addressee at all times.

5) Epistemic status is an unavoidable and fundamental input for

models of the production and recognition of action.


35/39

Consequences: How costly is all this?

1) Deploys a strategy found in other aspects of language use notably the lexicon: save resources at the encoding end and letthe environment take care of ambiguities and specifications.

(

(


36/39



2) Cost at the decoding end is an epistemic ticker possiblyexapted from forms of epistemic vigilance that originally had, and

may still have, more direct value for biological fitness (Sperber etal 2010). May be part of a broader trend associated with group

expansion (Dunbar 2003).

(

(


37/39





expansion (Dunbar 2003).

3) Environmental knowledge is a given and therefore free from thepoint of view of language function.

(

(


38/39





expansion (Dunbar).

3) Environmental knowledge is a given and therefore free from thepoint of view of language function.

4) Other costs are small compared with the well documentedcognitive gymnastics of languages deploying cardinal points of the

compass for orientation (e.g. Guugu Yimithirr) or that obligatorily

mark the relative closeness (whether physical or social) of

referents between speaker and recipient (e.g., Korean).

(


39/39

Thank you!

[email protected]

(

(

heritage ipra

Documents