1887
Volume 14, Issue 6
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

At present, Epistemics is a popular theory in Western conversation analysis, but few scholars investigate the responses to the advice resistance on phone-ins from the perspective of Epistemics. This paper explores the responses to the advice resistance on Chinese phone-ins of family problem counseling from the perspective of Epistemics. It is found that when responding to the caller’s advice resistance, the host often implements two conversation practices, such as maintaining his/her original higher epistemic status or constructing higher epistemic status in another epistemic domain. These practices are consistent with the possibility of the host’s knowledge orientation to strong self-confidence in his/her own professional knowledge but the lack of confidence in the caller’s relevant knowledge. This study can provide enlightenment for the smooth development of advice interaction on phone-ins of family problem counseling and expand the application scope of Epistemics.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.22032.pen
2023-04-18
2024-06-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock
    2001A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Abridged Edition). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Marja Etelämäki
    2015 “Nominated Actions and Their Targeted Agents in Finnish Conversational Directives.” Journal of Pragmatics78(3): 7–24. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  3. Emmison, Michael, and Alan Firth
    2012 “Requesting and Receiving Advice on the Telephone: An Analysis of Telephone Helplines in Australia.” InAdvice in Discourse, ed. byHolger Limberg, and Miriam A. Locher, 213–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.221.13emm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.221.13emm [Google Scholar]
  4. Haugh, Michael
    2013 “Im/politeness, Social Practice and the Participation Order.” Journal of Pragmatics58(11): 52–72. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2015Im/Politeness Implicatures. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110240078
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240078 [Google Scholar]
  6. Hayano, Kaoru
    2013 “Question Design in Conversation.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. byJack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 395–414. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hepburn, Alexa, Chloe Shaw, and Jonathan Potter
    2018 “Advice Giving and Advice Resistance on Telephone Helplines.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Advice, ed. byErina L. MacGeorge, and Lyn M. Van Swol. 191–215. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190630188.013.23
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190630188.013.23 [Google Scholar]
  8. Hepburn, Alexa, and Jonathan Potter
    2011 “Designing the Recipient: Managing Advice Resistance in Institutional Settings.” Social Psychology Quarterly74(2): 216–241. 10.1177/0190272511408055
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272511408055 [Google Scholar]
  9. Hepburn, Alexa, Sue Wilkinson, and Carly W. Butler
    2014 “Intervening with Conversation Analysis in Telephone Helpline Services: Strategies to Improve Effectiveness.” Research on Language and Social Interaction47(3): 239–254. 10.1080/08351813.2014.925661
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.925661 [Google Scholar]
  10. Heritage, John
    2012a “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1): 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2012b “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]
  12. 2013a “Action Formation and Its Epistemic (and Other) Backgrounds.” Discourse Studies15(5): 551–578. 10.1177/1461445613501449
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501449 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2013b “Epistemics in Conversation.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. byJack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 370–394. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2018 “The Ubiquity of Epistemics: A Rebuttal to the ‘Epistemics of Epistemics’ Group.” Discourse Studies20(1): 14–56. 10.1177/1461445617734342
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734342 [Google Scholar]
  15. Heritage, John, and Anna Lindström
    2012 “Advice Giving – Terminable and Interminable: The Case of British Health Visitors.” InAdvice in Discourse, ed. byHolger Limberg, and Miriam A. Locher, 169–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.221.11her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.221.11her [Google Scholar]
  16. Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly68(1): 15–38. 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  17. Heritage, John, and Sue Sefi
    1992 “Dilemmas of Advice: Aspects of the Delivery and Reception of Advice in Interactions between Health Visitors and First-time Mothers.” InTalk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. byPaul Drew, and John Heritage, 359–417. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hutchby, Ian
    1995 “Aspects of Recipient Design in Expert Advice-giving on Call-in Radio.” Discourse Processes19(2): 219–238. 10.1080/01638539509544915
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544915 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. byGene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  20. Mikesell, Lisa, Galina B. Bolden, Jenny Mandelbaum, Jeffrey D. Robinson, Tanya Romaniuk, Alexa Bolaños-Carpio, Darcey Searles, Wan Wei, Stephen M. DiDomenico, and Beth Angell
    2017 “At the Intersection of Epistemics and Action: Responding with I Know.” Research on Language and Social Interaction50(3): 268–285. 10.1080/08351813.2017.1340711
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1340711 [Google Scholar]
  21. Peng, Zhuo
    2020 “An Epistemic Study on the Defense of Stance in Disagreements in Marital Problem Phone-ins.” Foreign Languages and Their Teaching (3): 92–106. CitetononCRdoi:10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.004686
    https://doi.org/Cite to nonCR doi: 10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.004686 [Google Scholar]
  22. Pomerantz, Anita
    1986 “Extreme Case Formulations: A way of Legitimizing Claims.” Human Studies (2–3): 219–229. 10.1007/BF00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  23. Pudlinski, Christopher
    2002 “Accepting and Rejecting Advice as Competent Peers: Caller Dilemmas on a Warm Line.” Discourse Studies4(4): 481–500. 10.1177/14614456020040040501
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040040501 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2012 “The Pursuit of Advice on US Peer Telephone Helplines: Sequential and Functional Aspects.” InAdvice in Discourse, ed. byHolger Limberg, and Miriam A. Locher, 233–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.221.14pud
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.221.14pud [Google Scholar]
  25. 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]
  26. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  27. Shaw, Chloe, and Alexa Hepburn
    2013 “Managing the Moral Implications of Advice in Informal Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction46(4): 344–362. 10.1080/08351813.2013.839095
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.839095 [Google Scholar]
  28. Stevanovic, Melisa, and Jan Svennevig
    2015 “Introduction: Epistemics and Deontics in Conversational Directives.” Journal of Pragmatics78(3): 1–6. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  29. Stommel, Wyke, and Hedwig te Molder
    2018 “Empathically Designed Responses as a Gateway to Advice in Dutch Counseling Calls.” Discourse Studies20(4): 523–543. 10.1177/1461445618754436
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445618754436 [Google Scholar]
  30. Waring, Hansun Zhang
    2005 “Peer Tutoring in a Graduate Writing Centre: Identity, Expertise, and Advice Resisting.” Applied Linguistics26(2): 141–168. 10.1093/applin/amh041
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amh041 [Google Scholar]
  31. Yu, Guodong, and Yaxin Wu [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.22032.pen
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): advice resistance; Epistemics; family problems; phone-ins; responses
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