Mitigation and epistemic positions in troubles talk: The giving advice activity in close interpersonal relationships. Some examples from Italian

Riccioni, Ilaria; Bongelli, Ramona; Zuczkowski, Andrzej

doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2014.08.001

Cited by 24 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, our analysis is consistent with other work suggesting that face threat in advice interactions is less a function of the language of advice itself and more a consequence of epistemic stances adopted by advisor and recipient over sequences of discourse (Riccioni et al, 2014; Shaw & Hepburn, 2013). Across the trajectories, we observed that relatively dissatisfying advice interactions were marked by a pervasive, but largely implicit, conflict over who had the right to direct the recipient’s actions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The potential for advice recipients to become dissatisfied during advice interactions is also suggested by advisors’ strategies to preempt and manage resistance. Preemption strategies include mitigated or epistemically downgraded ways of delivering advice (Riccioni, Bongelli, & Zuckzkowski, 2014) and preaccounts for the advised action (Waring, 2007b). Advisor efforts to manage resistance include expressing concern about the problem, asking questions, defending the advised action, giving alternative advice or information, and repeating or reformulating the advice (Hepburn & Potter, 2011; Heritage & Lindstrom, 2012; Pudlinski, 2012; Waring, 2007b).…”

Section: Explaining Dissatisfaction With Advicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Paths of Resistance

MacGeorge

Guntzviller

Branch

et al. 2016

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social scientists and conversation analysts have both focused on advice as a key form of support and influence, but neither have adequately connected patterns of verbal behavior in advice interactions to recipients' reduced satisfaction with advice. We address this concern with an interpretive discourse analysis of naturalistic "troubles talk" between college student friends. Transcripts (N = 48) were selected for analysis from a larger study of supportive interactions because the recipients in these interactions reported the advice as less satisfying on one or more dimensions, relative to the other advice recipients in the study. Our analysis explicates four trajectories of advice and resistance that characterize these interactions: sustained resistance, advisor persistence, irrational resistance, and contesting the problem. We discuss theoretical and pragmatic implications of these trajectories, including probable influences of the "friend" role on advising interactions, and the responsibility of both advisors and recipients for producing and preventing dissatisfaction with advice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Explaining Dissatisfaction With Advicementioning

confidence: 99%

Paths of Resistance

MacGeorge

Guntzviller

Branch

et al. 2016

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These actions generally focus on the recipients' willingness and ability to perform the target action, with the knowledge asymmetry entailed in giving advice either mitigated or emphasized via practices for indexing contingency and entitlement. Riccioni et al (2014) find a similar pattern in talks about troubles in Italian: Recipients may align with or accept explicitly requested advice, while resisting unsolicited advice by engaging in negotiations about the relative epistemic positions of the participants. Shaw and Hepburn (2013) show that the adult daughter tends to accept the advice that the mother formulates as a 'reminder', which casts the daughter as 'already knowing', while she resists the advice offered as 'news' with explicit claims of prior knowledge (and thus competence) such as 'I know' (see Mikesell et al, 2017).…”

Section: Conversation Analytic Studies Of Advice-givingmentioning

confidence: 66%

The epistemics of advice-giving sequences: Epistemic primacy and subordination in advice rejection

Shu-ling

2021

Discourse Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although advice is routinely offered in ordinary conversation, commentators and analysts have treated it as a special or delicate type of action, noticing a number of challenges associated with both providing and receiving it. In this article, I first describe the most basic social-sequential context for giving advice and explicate how the formulations speakers use to offer advice are adapted to the distinct epistemic configurations (and other characteristics) that characterize that context. Drawing on Jefferson and Lee’s (1992) observations regarding ‘troubles tellings’, I argue that speakers typically offer advice when a co-participant reports an insoluble trouble or problem to one who (may or claims to) possess special knowledge about the domain of trouble. I show how this epistemic configuration constitutes a ‘home environment’ for advice-giving (i.e. a place where advice may be relevantly offered) and discuss how speakers vary the design of their advice (e.g. using different grammatical forms) to adapt to the sequential environments that entail different epistemic configurations. Finally, I consider how alternative, contrasting responses to advice manage (e.g. by ratifying or challenging) the epistemic framework set in motion by advice-giving.

show abstract

“…According to our model (Bongelli, Zuczkowski 2008;Zuczkowski et al 2011;Bongelli et al 2013;Riccioni et al 2013Riccioni et al , 2014Zuczkowski et al 2014;Zuczkowski et al 2017), the issue of the epistemic positions cannot be limited either to knowing or not knowing something or to knowing more, less or equally than the interlocutor.…”

Section: Our Model Of Epistemic Stancementioning

confidence: 96%

Epistemic Stance Negotiation: Some Examples From Italian Conversations

Bongelli¹,

Riccioni²,

Zuczkowski³

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the results of our previous studies on written texts and spoken dialogues (Zuczkowski et al. 2014; Zuczkowski et al. 2017) it is possible to identify three main epi stemic positions, each having two sides, one evidential (source of information), the other epistemic (commitment towards the truth of the propositional content): Knowing/ certain, Not Knowing WhetherBelieving/uncertain, Unknowing/neither certain nor uncertain. During a dialogue, speakers can assume one of three different epistemic positions, shifting from one to another in their turns or even within the same turn, and give their interlocutors a complementary one; interlocutors, on their part, can react by showing alignment or misalignment towards the others' positioning. In this study, in order to illustrate our theoretical perspective, we present four conversational excerpts taken from different types of Italian corpora showing the relations between the epistemic positioning and the sequential structure of interactions. Our analysis suggests that, when interlocutors assume epistemic roles consistent with speakers' expectations, the conversational outcomes are agreement and alignment; when this is not the case, disagreement and misalignment are frequent. These dynamics affect the sequential structure of the interaction as well.

show abstract

Mitigation and epistemic positions in troubles talk: The giving advice activity in close interpersonal relationships. Some examples from Italian

Cited by 24 publications

References 32 publications

Paths of Resistance

Paths of Resistance

The epistemics of advice-giving sequences: Epistemic primacy and subordination in advice rejection

Epistemic Stance Negotiation: Some Examples From Italian Conversations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About