Cover not available
Article published In:
(Co-)Constructing Interpersonally Sensitive Activities Across Institutional Settings
Edited by Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen and Rosina Márquez Reiter
[Pragmatics and Society 7:4] 2016
► pp. 618–637

When questioners count on recipients’ lack of knowledge

A recurring ‘question-answer’ format in guided tours

| ICAR-University of Lyon 2
| ICAR-University of Lyon 2
This paper studies a type of question-answer sequences which accomplish what can be considered as a delicate activity due to its projected sequential development. In contrast with other formats of question-answer sequences with different functions (i.e. eliciting information, checking the questionee’s knowledge, etc.), here the studied format seems to count on the questionee’s lack of knowledge, consequently projecting the questioner’s own answer. This hypothesis is examined through a detailed analysis of video-recorded guided tours in French and Italian. The paper describes the different sequence trajectories occurring after the guide’s question, and the difficulties both participants may find in dealing with the procedure.
Keywords: question-answer sequences, knowledge, epistemics, conversational analysis, multimodality, guided tours
Published online: 20 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.7.4.05tic
References (26)
Auer, Peter. 2002. “Projection in Conversation and Projection in Grammar.” InLiSt 331, [URL].Google Scholar
Bruner, Jerome. 1983. Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 1993. “Reformulating the Question: A Device for Answering/Not Answering Questions in News Interviews and Press Conferences.” Text 131: 159–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys. 2010. “Reference as an Interactively and Multimodally Accomplished Practice: Organizing Spatial Reorientation in Guided Tours.” In Spoken Communication, ed. by Massimo Pettorino, Antonella Giannini, Isabella Chiari, and Francesca Dovetto, 137–170. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys, and Lorenza Mondada. 2007. “L’organizzazione multimodale e interazionale dell’orientamento spaziale in movimento.” Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée 851: 131–159.Google Scholar
Gardner, Rod. 2004. “On Delaying the Answer: Question Sequences Extended after the Question.” In Second Language Conversations, ed. by Rod Gardner and Johannes Wagner, 246–267. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Glenn, Phillip, and Elizabeth Holt. 2014. “Introduction.” In Studies of Laughter in Interaction, ed. by Phillip Glenn and Elizabeth Holt, 1–22. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Haakana, Markku. 2001. “Laughter as a Patient’s Resource: Dealing with Delicate Aspects of Medical Interaction.” Text 211: 187–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 2002. “The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content.” Journal of Pragmatics 341: 1427–1446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and David Greatbatch. 1991. “On the Institutional Character of Institutional Talk: The Case of News Interview Interaction.” In Talk and Social Structure, ed. by Deirdre Boden and Don H. Zimmerman, 93–137. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke. 1995. “Meeting Both Ends: Between Standardization and Recipient Design in Telephone Survey Interviews.” In Situated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities, ed. by Paul ten Have and George Psathas, 91–106. Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, and University Press of America.Google Scholar
Koshik, Irene. 2005. Beyond Rhetorical Questions: Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehan, Hugh. 1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2005. “La constitution de l’origo déictique comme travail interactionnel des participants: une approche praxéologique de la spatialité.” Intellectica 41–421 : 75–100.Google Scholar
Peräkylä, Anssi. 2007. “Conversation Analysis. ” In Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, ed. by George Ritzer, 791–794. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 501: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel. 2007. Sequence Organization. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seedhouse, Paul. 2004. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds). 2012. Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen. 1995. “On Projection.” In Interaction and Social Intelligence, ed. by Esther Goody, 84–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traverso, Véronique. 2008. “Cadres, espaces, objets et multimodalité dans l’interaction en site commercial.” In Les interactions en site commercial: Invariants et variations, ed. by Cathérine Kerbrat-Orecchioni and Véronique Traverso, 45–77. Lyon: ENS Editions.Google Scholar
. 2012. “’Le salon bibliothèque’: délimitation et partage des espaces. Usage des annonces dénominatives désignatives dans la visite guidée.” In Les visites guidées. Discours, interaction, multimodalité, ed. by Jean-Paul Dufiet, 56–84. Trento: Collezione Labirinti.Google Scholar
. 2014a. “Compétences montrées, compétences partagées, compétences situées: nomination et définition des objets dans les visites guidées.” In De compétences en performances, ed. by Sandra Bornand and Cécile Leguy, 137–163. Paris: Karthala.Google Scholar
. 2014b. “La construction de (l’attention visuelle sur) l’objet au cours de la visite guidée: étude d’un cas limite.” In L’objet d’art et de culture à la lumière de ses médiations, ed. by Jean-Paul Dufiet, 43–85. Trento: Collezione Labirinti.Google Scholar
vom Lehn, Dirk, Christian Heath, and Jon Hindmarsh. 2001. “Exhibiting Interaction: Conduct and Collaboration in Museums and Galleries.” Symbolic Interaction 24 (2): 189–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ticca, Anna Claudia & Biagio Ursi
2019. Chapitre 9. Le toucher dans une visite guidée avec des enfants malvoyants : orientation, transition, expérience. In Multimodalité du langage dans les interactions et l’acquisition, ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.