1897-1059 EPISTEMIC STANCE NEGOTIATION: SOME EXAMPLES FROM ITALIAN CONVERSATIONS Bongelli Ramona author Riccioni Ilaria author Zuczkowski Andrzej author Università degli Studi di Macerata 0001fmy77 Correspondence to: Ramona Bongelli ramona.bongelli@unimc.it Correspondence to: Ilaria Riccioni ilaria.riccioni@unimc.it Correspondence to: Andrzej Zuczkowski zuko@unimc.it 22 03 2018 Volume 135, Issue 1 2018 1 14 Copyright © 2018 2018 <p><span style="text-align: justify;">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 epistemic 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 Whether-Believing/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.</span></p> 1 Atkinson J.M., Heritage J. (eds.). 1984. Structures of social action. Cambridge. 2 Biber D. 2004. Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. – Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5: 107–135. 3 Biber D., Finegan E. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. – Text 9.1: 93–124. 4 Bongelli R., Riccioni I., Zuczkowski A. 2013. Certain-uncertain, true-false, good-evil in Ital­ian political speeches. – Poggi I., D’Errico F., Vincze L., Vinciarelli A. (eds.). Multimodal communication in political speech. Shaping minds and social action. Berlin: 164–180. 5 Bongelli R., Zuczkowski A. 2008. Indicatori linguistici percettivi e cognitivi. Roma. 6 Englebretson R. 2007. Stancetaking in discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. 7 Heritage J. 2010. Questioning in Medicine. – Freed A., Ehrlich S. (eds.). “Why Do You Ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse. New York: 42–68. 8 Heritage J. 2012a. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. – Research on Language and Social Interaction 45.1: 1–29. 9 Heritage J. 2012b. The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowl­edge. – Research on Language and Social Interaction 45.1: 30–52. 10 Heritage J. 2013. Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. – Discourse Studies 15.5: 551–578. 11 Hintikka J. 1962. Knowledge and belief. An introduction to the logic of the two notions. Ithaca. 12 Jaffe A. 2009. Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Oxford. 13 Jefferson, Lee 1981/1992 = Jefferson G., Lee J.R.E. 1981. The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic convergence of a ‘troubles-telling’ and a ‘service encounter’. – Journal of Pragmatics 5.5: 399–422. [also in Drew P., Heritage J. (eds.). 1992. Talk at work: Interac­tion in institutional settings. Cambridge: 521–548]. 14 Kamio A. 1994. The theory of territory of information. The case of Japanese. – Journal of Pragmatics 21.1: 67–100. 15 Kamio A. 1997. Territory of information. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. 16 Ochs E. 1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. – Gumperz J., Levinson S. (eds.). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: 407–437. 17 Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London. 18 Riccioni I., Bongelli R., Zuczkowski A. 2013. The communication of certainty and uncer­tainty in Italian political media discourses. – Fetzer A. (ed.). The pragmatics of political discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 125–165. 19 Riccioni I., Bongelli R., Zuczkowski A. 2014. Mitigation and epistemic positions in troubles talk: The giving advice activity in close interpersonal relationships. Some examples from Italian. – Language &amp; Communication 39: 51–72. 20 Zuczkowski A., Bongelli R., Riccioni I. 2011. Proposizione costitutiva di mondo e indicatori linguistici percettivi e cognitivi. – Hölker K., Marello C. (eds.). Dimensionen der Analyse von Texten und Diskursen. Festschrift für János Sándor Petőfi zum achtzigsten Geburstag. Dimensioni dell’analisi di testi e discorsi. Festschrift für János Sándor Petőfi in occasione del suo ottantesimo compleanno. Berlin: 41–61. 21 Zuczkowski A., Bongelli R., Riccioni I. 2017. Epistemic stance in dialogue. Knowing, Unknow­ing, Believing. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. 22 Zuczkowski A., Bongelli R., Vincze L., Riccioni I. 2014. Epistemic stance: Knowing, Unknow­ing, Believing (KUB) positions. – Zuczkowski A., Bongelli R., Riccioni I., Canestrari C. (eds.). Communicating certainty and uncertainty in medical, supportive and scientific contexts. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 115–138.