Volume 32, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



Sometimes a division has been made between expressions of knowledge and expressions of emotion, but in the actual instances of interaction, they are deeply intertwined. In this paper we investigate the relationship between these expressions through the notions of affiliation and epistemics. More specifically, we analyze the phenomenon of ‘epistemic calibration’ in response to tellings of personal experience, where recipients fine-tune the strength of their access claims and the degree of their generalizations to be in line with their epistemic statuses in relation to those of the tellers. Drawing on a dataset of Finnish quasi-natural conversations with neurotypical participants and participants diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, we explore how such calibration is done in practice. Our analysis points to different challenges in epistemic calibration, which, we argue, play an important role in influencing the hearing of these responses as less than fully affiliative.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. American Psychiatric Association
    American Psychiatric Association 2013Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
    https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baron-Cohen, Simon
    1995Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4635.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4635.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baron-Cohen, Simon, Sally Wheelwright, Richard Skinner, Joanne Martin, and Emma Clubley
    2001 “The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger Syndrome/High-Functioning Autism, Males and Females, Scientists and Mathematicians.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders31: 5–17. 10.1023/A:1005653411471
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005653411471 [Google Scholar]
  4. Belmonte, Matthew K.
    2008 “Does the Experimental Scientist Have a “Theory of Mind”?” Review of General Psychology12 (2): 192–204. 10.1037/1089‑2680.12.2.192
    https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.12.2.192 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bühler, Karl
    1934Sprachtheorie. Oxford, UK: Fischer.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2012 “Exploring Affiliation in the Reception of Conversational Complaint Stories.” InEmotion in Interaction, edited byAnssi Peräkylä, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 113–146. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  7. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Margret Selting
    2018 “A “Big Package”: Storytelling.” In Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Online chapter retrieved 20.5.2021 fromhttps://www.cambridge.org/files/2615/1497/6102/Online-Chapter_D.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Holt
    1998 “Figures of Speech: Idiomatic Expressions and the Management of Topic Transition in Conversation.” Language in Society27 (4): 495–522. 10.1017/S0047404500020200
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500020200 [Google Scholar]
  9. Drew, Paul, Traci Walker, and Richard Ogden
    2013 “Self-Repair and Action Construction.” InConversational Repair and Human Understanding (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics), edited byMakoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond, and Jack Sidnell, 71–94. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Edwards, Derek, and Alessandra Fasulo
    2006 “‘To Be Honest:’ Sequential Uses of Honesty Phrases in Talk-in-Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction39 (4): 343–376. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Flint, Natalie, Michael Haugh, and Andrew Merrison
    2019 “Modulating Troubles Affiliating in Initial Interactions: The Role of Remedial Accounts.” Pragmatics29 (3): 384–409. 10.1075/prag.17010.fli
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17010.fli [Google Scholar]
  12. Goffman, Erving
    1974Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodwin, Charles, and Goodwin, Marjorie H.
    1992 “Assessments and the Construction of Context.” InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, edited byAlessandro Duranti, and Charles Goodwin, 147–190. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hakulinen, Auli
    2001a [1976] “Liitepartikkelin -han/-hän syntaksia ja pragmatiikkaa. [Syntax and pragmatics of the clitic –han/hän].” InLukemisto – kirjoituksia kolmelta vuosikymmeneltä, edited byLea Laitinen, Pirkko Nuolijärvi, Marja-Leena Sorjonen, and Maria Vilkuna, 44–90. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society (SKS).
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2001b “On Some Uses of the Discourse Particle ‘kyl(lä)’ in Finnish Conversations.” InStudies in Interactional Linguistics, edited byMargret Selting, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 171–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10.09hak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10.09hak [Google Scholar]
  16. Hakulinen, Auli, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2012 “Being Equivocal: Affective Responses Left Unspecified.” InEmotion in Interaction, edited byAnssi Peräkylä, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 147–173. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  17. Happé, Francesca
    1991 “The Autobiographical Writings of Three Asperger Syndrome Adults: Problems of Interpretation and Implication Theory.” InAutism and Asperger Syndrome, edited byUta Frith, 207–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511526770.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511526770.007 [Google Scholar]
  18. 1994 “An Advanced Test of Theory of Mind: Understanding of Story Characters’ Thoughts and Feelings by Able Autistic, Mentally Handicapped and Normal Children and Adults.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders24: 129–154. 10.1007/BF02172093
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02172093 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina B. Bolden
    2017Transcribing for Social Research. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781473920460
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473920460 [Google Scholar]
  20. Heritage, John
    2002 “Oh-Prefaced Responses to Assessments: A Method of Modifying Agreement/Disagreement.” InThe Language of Turn and Sequence, edited byCecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 196–224. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2011 “Territories of Knowledge, Territories of Experience: Empathic Moments in Interaction.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, edited byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jacob Steensig, 159–183. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2012 “The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 30–52. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  23. Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly68 (1): 15–38. 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  24. Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    1994 “Constituting and Maintaining Activities across Sequences: And-Prefacing as a Feature of Question Design.” Language in Society23 (1): 1–29. 10.1017/S0047404500017656
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017656 [Google Scholar]
  25. Holt, Elizabeth
    1993 “The Structure of Death Announcements: Looking on the Bright Side of Death.“ Text13 (2): 189–212.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Holt, Elizabeth, and Paul Drew
    1995 “Idiomatic Expressions and Their Role in the Organization of Topic Transition in Conversation.” In: Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives, 1st ed., edited byMartin Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden, André Schenk, and Rob Schreuder, 117–131. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jakobson, Roman
    1960 “Concluding Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.” InStyle in Language, edited byThomas A. Sebeok, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jefferson, Gail
    1978 “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation.” InStudies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, edited byJim Schenkein, 219–248. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50016‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50016-1 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2002 “Is “No” an Acknowledgment Token? Comparing American and British Uses of (+)/(−) Tokens.“ Journal of Pragmatics34 (10–11): 1345–1383. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00067‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00067-X [Google Scholar]
  30. 1984 “On Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriately Next-Positioned Matters.” InStructures of Social Action, edited byJohn Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 191–222. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Koskinen, Emmi, Melisa Stevanovic, and Anssi Peräkylä
    2021 “Affiliation, Topicality, and Asperger’s: The Case of Story-Responsive Questions.” Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders11 (1): 52–77. 10.1558/jircd.20903
    https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.20903 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kupetz, Maxi
    2014 “Empathy Displays as Interactional Achievements – Multimodal and Sequential Aspects.” Journal of Pragmatics61: 4–34. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  33. Labov, William
    1972Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lindström, Anna, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2013 “Affiliation in Conversation.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited byJack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 250–369. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Malinowski, Bronislaw
    1923 “The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages.” InThe Meaning of Meaning, edited byCharles K. Ogden, and Ivor A. Richard, 296–336. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Maynard, Douglas W.
    1980 “Placement of Topic Changes in Conversation.” Semiotica30 (3–4): 263–290. 10.1515/semi.1980.30.3‑4.263
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1980.30.3-4.263 [Google Scholar]
  37. 1989 “Perspective-Display Sequences in Conversation.” Western Journal of Communication53 (2): 91–113 (includes Communication Reports). 10.1080/10570318909374294
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318909374294 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2005 “Social Actions, Gestalt Coherence, and Designations of Disability: Lessons from and about Autism.” Social Problems52 (4): 499–524. 10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.499
    https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.499 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2019 “Why Social Psychology Needs Autism and Why Autism Needs Social Psychology: Forensic and Clinical Considerations.” Social Psychology Quarterly82 (1): 5–30. 10.1177/0190272519828304
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272519828304 [Google Scholar]
  40. Maynard, Douglas W., and Jason J. Turowetz
    2017 “Doing Testing: How Concrete Competence Can Facilitate or Inhibit Performances of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.” Qualitative Sociology40: 467–491. 10.1007/s11133‑017‑9368‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-017-9368-5 [Google Scholar]
  41. Maynard, Douglas W., and Don H. Zimmerman
    1984 “Topical Talk, Ritual and the Social Organization of Relationships.” Social Psychology Quarterly47 (4): 301–316. 10.2307/3033633
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3033633 [Google Scholar]
  42. Nevile, Maurice
    2004 “Integrity in the Airline Cockpit: Embodying Claims about Progress for the Conduct of an Approach Briefing.” Research on Language and Social Interaction37 (4): 447–480. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3704_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3704_3 [Google Scholar]
  43. Ochs, Elinor, and Olga Solomon
    2005 “Practical Logic and Autism.” InA Companion to Psychological Anthropology: Modernity and Psycho-Cultural Change, edited byRobert B. Edgerton, and Conerly Casey, 140–167. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470996409.ch9
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996409.ch9 [Google Scholar]
  44. Peräkylä, Anssi, Pentti Henttonen, Liisa Voutilainen, Mikko Kahri, Melisa Stevanovic, Mikko Sams, and Niklas Ravaja
    2015 “Sharing the Emotional Load: Recipient Affiliation Calms Down the Storyteller.” Social Psychology Quarterly78: 301–323. 10.1177/0190272515611054
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272515611054 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984a “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action, edited byJ. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 1984b “Pursuing a Response.” InStructures of Social Action, edited byJ. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 152–163. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Pomerantz, Anita, and John Heritage
    2012 “Preference.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited byJack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 210–228. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch11
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  48. Potter, Jonathan
    2004 “Discourse Analysis as a Way of Analysing Naturally Occurring Talk.” InQualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, 2nd ed., edited byDavid Silverman, 200–221. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Raymond, Geoffrey, and John Heritage
    2006 “The Epistemics of Social Relations: Owning Grandchildren.” Language in Society35 (5): 677–705. 10.1017/S0047404506060325
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060325 [Google Scholar]
  50. Sacks, Harvey
    1992Lectures on Conversation, volumesI & II (edited byG. Jefferson). Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  52. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  53. Selting, Margret
    2012 “Complaint Stories and Subsequent Complaint Stories with Affect Displays.” Journal of Pragmatics44 (4): 387–415. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  54. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Auli Hakulinen
    2009 “Alternative Responses to Assessments.” InConversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, edited byJack Sidnell, 280–300. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society (SKS). 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.010 [Google Scholar]
  55. Stevanovic, Melisa, Pentti Henttonen, Emmi Koskinen, Anssi Peräkylä, Taina Nieminen von-Wendt, Elina Sihvola, Pekka Tani, Niklas Ravaja, and Mikko Sams
    2019 ”Physiological Responses to Affiliation During Conversation: Comparing Neurotypical Males and Males with Asperger Syndrome.” PLoS ONE14 (9): e0222084. 10.1371/journal.pone.0222084
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222084 [Google Scholar]
  56. Stivers, Tanya
    2005 “Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction38 (2): 131–158. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2008 “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction41 (1): 31–57. 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2011 “Morality and Question Design: ‘Of Course’ as Contesting a Presupposition of Askability.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, edited byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jacob Steensig, 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.005 [Google Scholar]
  59. Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jacob Steensig
    2011 “Knowledge, Morality, and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, edited byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jacob Steensig, 3–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 [Google Scholar]
  60. Tannen, Deborah
    1984Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Tomasello, Michael
    2008Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  62. Vatanen, Anna
    2018 “Responding in Early Overlap: Recognitional Onsets in Assertion Sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction51 (2): 107–126. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413894
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413894 [Google Scholar]
  63. Voutilainen, Liisa, Pentti Henttonen, Mikko Kahri, Maari Kivioja, Niklas Ravaja, Mikko Sams, and Anssi Peräkylä
    2014 “Affective Stance, Ambivalence, and Psychophysiological Responses during Conversational Storytelling.” Journal of Pragmatics68: 1–24. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  64. World Health Organization (WHO)
    World Health Organization (WHO) 1993ICD-10, The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Diagnostic Criteria for Research. Geneva: Author.
    [Google Scholar]

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