1887
Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Although paranormal experiences have been broadly investigated, medium-sitter interactions have been studied much less. In this article, five excerpts from an Italian “public mediumship demonstration” are presented with the main aim to answer the following research questions: (1) what are the linguistic strategies used by the medium to manage her epistemic authority and by the sitters to acknowledge, strengthen, resist or contest it? (2) how do these strategies affect the sequential structure of interaction? The analyses reveal that: the medium mainly uses ; sitters generally confirm what the medium discloses, acknowledging her epistemic authority; when sitters do not confirm, the medium resorts to three main linguistic strategies attempting to (re)establish her authority; when the medium has to manage confirmation failures, the sequential structure becomes more complex.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00067.bon
2020-09-04
2020-09-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aphek, Edna and Yishai Tobin
    1990The Semiotics of Fortune-Telling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/fos.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fos.22 [Google Scholar]
  2. Avtgis, Theodore
    1998 “Locus of control and persuasion, social influence, and conformity: A meta-analytic review.” Psychological Reports83 (3): 899–903. doi:  10.2466/pr0.1998.83.3.899
    https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1998.83.3.899 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beach, Wayne A.
    1993 “Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages.” Journal of Pragmatics19: 325–352. doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90092‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bongelli, Ramona, Ilaria Riccioni, and Andrzej Zuczkowski
    2018a “Epistemic stance negotiation: Some examples from Italian conversations.” Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis135: 1–14. doi:  10.4467/20834624SL.18.001.8161
    https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL.18.001.8161 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2018b “Questions and epistemic stance in Italian conversations.” Ampersand5: 29–40. doi:  10.1016/j.amper.2018.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2018.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chauvin, Bruno and Etienne Mullet
    2018 “Individual differences in paranormal beliefs: The differential role of personality aspetcs.” Current psychology: 1–10. doi:  10.1007/s12144‑018‑0047‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0047-9 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cialdini, Robert B.
    1983Influence. The Psychology of persuasion. New York: HarperCollins.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2004 “The science of persuasion.” Scientific American Mind14 (1): 70–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Delorme, Arnaud, Julie Beishel, Leena Michel, Mark Boccuzzi, Dean Radin and Paul J. Mills
    2013 “Electrocortical activity associated with subjective communication with deceased.” Frontiers in Psychology4: 1–10. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00834
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00834 [Google Scholar]
  10. Drinkwater, Kenneth, Andrew Denovan, Neil Dagnall and Andrew Parker
    2018 “The Australian Sheep-Goat Scale: An Evaluation of Factor Structure and Convergent Validity.” Frontiers in Psychology9: 1–14. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01594
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01594 [Google Scholar]
  11. Enoksen, Anette Einan and Paul Dickerson
    2018 “That proves my point: How mediums reconstrue disconfirmation in medium-sitter interactions.” British Journal of Social Psychology57: 386–403. doi:  10.1111/bjso.12241
    https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12241 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hayano, Kaoru
    2011 “Claiming epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada and Jakob Steensig, 58–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2014 “Question design in conversation.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, eds. byJack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 395–414. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wyley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Heritage, John
    2012a “Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1): 1–29. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2012b “The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1): 30–52. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  16. Heritage, John and Geoffrey, Raymond G.
    2005 “The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly68 (1): 15–38. doi:  10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  17. Heritage, John
    2010 “Questioning in medicine”. In“Why Do You Ask?”: the Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. byAlice Freed and Susan Ehrlich, 42–68. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Heritage, John and Geoffrey Raymond
    2012 “Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions.” InQuestions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. byJan P. de Ruiter, 179–192. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jorgensen, Danny L.
    1984 “Divinatory Discourse.” Symbolic Interaction7 (2): 135–153. doi:  10.1525/si.1984.7.2.135
    https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1984.7.2.135 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kamio, Akio
    1997Territory of Information. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.48
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.48 [Google Scholar]
  21. Labov, William and David Fanshel
    1977Therapeutic Discourse, Psychoterapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lamont, Peter, Claudia Coelho and Andrew Mckinlay
    2009 “Explaining the unexplained: Warranting disbelief in the paranormal.” Discourse Studies11 (5): 543–559. doi:  10.1177/1461445609340978
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609340978 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lee, Seung-Hee
    2014 “Response design in conversation.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. byJohn Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 415–432. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2014 “Action formation and ascription.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. byJohn Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 103–130. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Linell, Per and Thomas Luckman
    1991 “Asymmetries in dialogue: some conceptual preliminaries”. InAsymmetries in Dialogue, ed. byIvana Marková and Klaus Foppa, 1–20. Hemel Hempsted: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Locke, Terry
    2004Critical Discourse Analysis. New York/London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Milgram, Stanley
    1963 “Behavioural study of obedience.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology67: 371–378. doi:  10.1037/h0040525
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mondada, Lorenza
    2013 “Displaying, contesting and negotiating epistemic authority in social interaction: Descriptions and questions in guided visits.” Discourse Studies15 (5): 597–626. doi:  10.1177/1461445613501577
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501577 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ohashi, Yasushi, Robin Wooffitt, Clare Jackson and Yumi Nixon
    2013 “Discourse, culture, and extraordinary experiences: Observations from a comparative, qualitative analysis of Japanese and UK English accounts of paranormal phenomena.” Western Journal of Communication77(4): 466–488. doi:  10.1080/10570314.2012.714047
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2012.714047 [Google Scholar]
  30. Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo
    1984 “The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1): 69–81. doi:  10.1037/0022‑3514.46.1.69
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69 [Google Scholar]
  31. 1986Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag. 10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑4964‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1 [Google Scholar]
  32. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2003 “Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structure of responding.” American Sociological Review68 (6): 939–967. 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  33. Riccioni, Ilaria, Ramona Bongelli, Gill Philip and Andrzej Zuczkowski
    2018 “Dubitative questions and epistemic stance.” Lingua, 207: 71–95. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2018.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1980 “Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?”.” Sociological Inquiry50: 104–52. doi:  10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00018.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00018.x [Google Scholar]
  35. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction. London: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  36. Simmonds-Moore, Christine A.
    2016 “An interpretative phenomenological analysis exploring synesthesia as an exceptional experience: Insights for consciousness and cognition.” Qualitative Research in Psychology13(4): 303–327. doi:  10.1080/14780887.2016.1205693
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2016.1205693 [Google Scholar]
  37. Stivers, Tanya
    2005 “Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction38(2): 131–158. doi:  10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2014 “Sequence organization.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. byJohn Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 191–209. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig
    2011The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674 [Google Scholar]
  40. Stone, Anna
    2016 “Rational Thinkink and Belief in Psychic Abilities: It Depends on Level of Involvement.” Psychological Reports118 (1): 74–89. doi:  10.1177/0033294115625261
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294115625261 [Google Scholar]
  41. Storm, Lance, Ken Drinkwater and Anthony L. Jinks
    2017 “A Question on Belief: An Analysis of Item Content in Paranormal Belief Questionnnaires.” Journal of Scientific Exploration31 (2): 187–230.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Szczyrbak, Magdalena
    2018 “Knowing, Unknowing or Believing? Epistemic Stance in Donald Tusk’s Testimony in the Trial on the Polish Air Force Tu-154 Air Crash.” Studies in Polish Linguistics13 (34): 209–236. doi:  10.4467/23005920SPL.18.010.9259
    https://doi.org/10.4467/23005920SPL.18.010.9259 [Google Scholar]
  43. van Dijk, Teun A.
    2004 “Critical Discourse Analysis”. InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. byDeborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heide Hamilton, 352–371. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Wales, Katie
    2009 “Unnatural conversation in unnatural conversations: speech reporting in the discourse of spiritual mediumship.” Language and Literature18 (4): 347–356. doi:  10.1177/0963947009343844
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947009343844 [Google Scholar]
  45. Willett, Thomas
    1988 “A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality.” Studies in Language12 (1): 51–97. doi:  10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  46. Wood, Wendy
    2000 “Attitude change. Persuasion and social influence.” Annual Review of Psychology51: 539–570. doi:  10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.539
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.539 [Google Scholar]
  47. Wooffitt, Robin
    2000 “Some properties of interactional organisation of displays of paranormal cognition in psychic-sitter interaction.” Sociology34 (3): 457–479.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2001a “Researching psychic practioners: Conversation analysis.” InDiscourse as Data. A Guide for Analysis, ed. byMargaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor and Simeon J. Yates, 49–92. London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 2001b “A socially organized basis for displays of cognition: Procedural orientation to evidential turns in psychic-sitter interaction.” British Journal of Social Psychology40: 545–563. doi:  10.1348/014466601164975
    https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164975 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2006The language of mediums and psychics. Burlington, USA: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2007 “Epistemic authority and neutrality in the discourse of psychic practitioners: Toward a naturalistic parapsychology.” Journal of Parapsychology71 (1/2): 69–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Wooffitt, Robin, Nicola Holt and Simone Allistone
    2010 “Introspection as institutional practice: Reflections on the attempt to capture conscious experience in a parapsychology experiment.” Qualitative Research in Psychology7(1): 5–20. doi:  10.1080/14780880903304568
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14780880903304568 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wooffitt, Robin, Clare Jackson, Darren Reed, Yasushi Ohashi and Isaac Hughes
    2013 “Self-identity, authenticity and the other: The spirits and audience management in stage mediumship.” Language and Communication33: 93–105. doi:  10.1016/j.langcom.2013.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  54. Zuczkowski, Andrzej, Ramona Bongelli, and Ilaria Riccioni
    2017Epistemic Stance in Dialogue. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.29
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.29 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00067.bon
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00067.bon
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error