This essay reviews current work in conversation analysis with an eye to what it might contribute to the study of evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry. After a brief review of some aspects of the interactional organization of conversation, I turn to consider the way in which participants negotiate relative epistemic positioning through the use of particular practices of speaking. The analytic focus here is on agreements and confirmations especially in assessment sequences. In conclusion, I consider a single case in which various (...) practices are employed to convey a delicate balance of knowledge and simultaneously to attend to a range of other, non-epistemic, interactional issues. (shrink)

What is the relation between words and action? How does a person decide, based on what someone is saying, what would be an appropriate response? We argue that every move combines independent semiotic features, to be interpreted under an assumption that social behavior is goal directed; responding to actions is not equivalent to describing them; and describing actions invokes rights and duties for which people are explicitly accountable. We conclude that interaction does not involve a ‘binning’ procedure in which the (...) stream of conduct is sorted into discrete action types. Our argument is grounded in data from recordings of talk-in-interaction. (shrink)

This article examines turns prefaced by `look'. Analysis indicates that `look'-prefaced turns in first position are used to launch a course of action. In second position, prefacing by `look' serves to mark a disjunction and redirection of the talk away from the conditionally relevant next action and towards some alternative. Examples from recorded conversations and news interviews reveal participants' own orientation to these functions of `look'-prefaced turns. Moreover, comparison with turns prefaced by `listen', which also launch courses of action, suggests (...) that `look'-prefaced turns have an intercessionary function. (shrink)

During his campaign for president in 2016, Donald Trump repeatedly instructed his supporters and event security to remove protesters from his rallies, most often, by issuing a directive to “get them out”. These occasions, far from being a distraction from the political process, emerged as potent rituals of participation and the activity of removing protestors became a tool of interactional messaging. Specifically, activities of ejecting protestors were semiotically and discursively elaborated so as to cast them as the virtual realizations of (...) a larger political project of “making America great again.” Various aspects of this include the way these events came to signify about Trump’s persona and the brand of leadership he promised, about immigration reform and border control, about the possibilities for political participation and about a more diffuse struggle against the supposed tyranny of political correctness. Moreover, supporters who responded to the the instruction by attempting to remove protestors were interpellated by it as agents in the local scene of action and were thereby written into the larger populist narrative that Trump articulated. (shrink)