2015: Show that you know – Explanations, interactional identities and epistemic stance-taking in...

Linguistics and Education 31 (2015) 238–259

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Linguistics and Education

j ourna l ho me pa g e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / l inged

Show that you know – Explanations, interactional identitiesand epistemic stance-taking in family talk and peer talk

Miriam Morek ∗

Dortmund University of Technology, Department of German Language and Literature, Emil-Figge-Str. 50, 44227 Dortmund, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 27 December 2014

Keywords:Academic discourseFamily talkPeer-talkEpistemic stancePositioningExplanations

a b s t r a c t

Previous research has pointed to students’ diverging access to academic discourse practicesoutside school while lacking empirical insights into how such differences in communities’communicative repertoires are interactionally brought about. Focusing explanatorydiscourse, the present study addresses this issue by analyzing the local sequential negoti-ation of interactional identities and epistemic stance-taking in preadolescents’ family talkand peer talk. Drawing on microanalysis informed by conversation analysis and discourseanalysis, it examines how interactants establish local relevance for explanations to occuror not occur and demonstrates that the interactional identity of an explainer as well asknowledgeable stances may be readily adopted as well as rejected. Findings demonstratethat for some children, explanatory discourse in talk with intimates is linked to theinteractive disclosure of not-knowing, irrelevance and inability to explicate knowledgefor others. The findings indicate that being able to provide explanations in classroomtalk might also be a question of identificatory compatibility with regard to students’out-of-school interactional experiences and identities.

© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

As outlined in the introduction to this special issue, school confronts students with the challenge of actively participatingin academic discourse practices, i.e. in communicative practices which serve institutional purposes of showing, transferring,negotiating, and constructing knowledge. In classroom interaction, students have to display that they know something –mostly in response to teachers’ questions. They have to verbally explicate what they know about the meaning of specificwords, about facts, circumstances and causal relations in different domains. The capability to participate in such interactionalexchanges also involves the task of “representing the self” (Snow & Uccelli, 2009, p. 122) as a member of a knowledge-
constructing community. As Schleppegrell (2001) points out, students are expected to adopt an authoritative stance thatcasts them as assertive authors who presents themselves as “knowledgeable expert[s] providing objective information”(Schleppegrell, 2001, pp. 444–445). This aspect is referred to as the “socio-symbolic function” of academic language inthe introduction of this special issue (Heller & Morek, in this issue). Thus, issues of identity construction come into play
∗ Tel.: +49 0231 755 8007; fax: +49 0231 755 4498.E-mail address: [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.10.0040898-5898/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.10.004

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/08985898

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/linged

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.linged.2014.10.004&domain=pdf

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.10.004

aOtcepp–YdaLaog“eopvleppapmpd2

mrrtac

dpaadeid

2

pmcMaso

tN

M. Morek / Linguistics and Education 31 (2015) 238–259 239

nd may lead to resistance when ‘talking academically’ is concerned (Benwell & Stokoe, 2002; Kirkham, 2011; Michaels,’Connor, Williams Hall, & Resnick, 2013; Preece, 2009, 2015; Rampton, 2006; Wortham, 2006). These issues are assumed

o hold particularly for students whose discourse practices outside school – with peers and family members – are in markedontrast to those of schooling (Michaels et al., 2013, p. 37; Preece, 2009, p. 50; Snow & Uccelli, 2009, p. 113). We know – fromxtensive research into students’ language socialization in their communities – that children’s access to academic discourseractices outside school differs sharply (Heath, 1983; Michaels, 1981; Morek, 2014; Quasthoff & Heller, 2014). According toractice based approaches, communities of practice (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1992) – such as families or groups of friends

are constituted by the repertoires of communicative genres they draw on (Günthner, 2009; Heller, 2014; Orlikowski &ates, 1994) to solve the communicative tasks they habitually set up for themselves. Previous work has demonstrated thatiscourse activities pertinent to schooling, such as explaining, problematizing and debating topics that transgress the here-nd-now, are an essential part of some families’ repertoires of communicative practices but not of others’ (Heller, 2012;areau, 2003; Morek, 2012). Little is known, however, as to the actual interactive procedures that help to practically bringbout such differences in the genre repertoires (Günthner, 2009) of different groups. Previous research on the challengesf academic discourse has suggested that different communities might associate different values with discourse practiceseared to the display and transfer of knowledge. Snow and Uccelli (2009, p. 128) assume that some communities wouldvalue the accumulation and display of knowledge for its own sake” even in informal interactions among intimates. Michaelst al. (2013, p. 10) point out that some communities would consider ‘accountable talk’ as “overly didactic or even impoliter arrogant” (Michaels et al., 2013, p. 10). Yet it has not been answered in previous research how exactly communicativeractices of knowledge transfer come to be interactively accomplished as corresponding (or not corresponding) to thealues and identities of particular discourse communities. The present study thus aims at examining how participantsocally construe providing knowledge and adopting knowledgeable stances as (ir)relevant and (in)appropriate tasks of theirveryday talk. This question is addressed by means of fine-grained sequential analyses of family talk and peer talk of Germanreadolescents. In doing so, the study focuses on explanatory discourse – as explaining represents a prime genre of discourseractices at school (Morek, 2012). Drawing on sequential analyses informed by conversation analysis and discourse analysis,nd directing attention to details of epistemic stance-taking in conversation, the study thus allows for what Bolden (2009,. 141) called “a front-seat view of how interactional agendas are made visible, discerned, and negotiated on a moment-by-oment basis”. By including not only family talk but also talk among children, the study acknowledges recent insights into

eer talk’s important role in children’s socialization (Goodwin, 2006; Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2012) and their development ofiscourse skills (Blum-Kulka & Snow, 2004; Cekaite, Blum-Kulka, Grøver, & Teubal, 2014; Zadunaisky Ehrlich & Blum-Kulka,010).—-

The aim of the study is twofold: First, it aims at micro-analytically reconstructing interactive procedures by whichembers of individual discourse communities locally point out to each other that explicating knowledge for one another

epresents a communicatively relevant discourse practice at a certain point within a particular situated activity – or a lesselevant one. How exactly do families and cliques of children make ‘explaining something to someone’ their local conversa-ional problem? How do they abstain from doing so and instead, navigate out of explanatory talk? Secondly, the study aimst examining how the potential of explanations to position oneself as a knowledgeable person within a local conversationalontext is used or left unexploited.

The following section (Section 2) first gives a brief overview of what interactive structures are characteristic of explanatoryiscourse and outlines how the interactional identities of explainers and explanation-addressees are negotiated amongarticipants (2.1). Secondly, it introduces the concept of epistemic stance-taking (Heritage, 2012a, 2012b; Mondada, 2013)nd points out its analytic relevance for describing the discourse practice of explaining (2.2). Section 3 presents the datand sketches the analytic account chosen to analyze explanatory sequences. Section 4 first focuses on family talk andemonstrates how interactional identities of explainers are readily adopted or rejected and how local relevance for anxplanation to occur is (re)established or downgraded. It then turns to peer talk and shows how explanations are locallynitiated and collaboratively ratified or playfully navigated out of. The study’s consequences for students’ learning of academiciscourse practices are discussed in the final section (Section 5).

. Providing explanations in informal talk

From a pragmatic perspective, explanations in mundane conversation can be regarded as interactive sequences in whicharticipants provide “a response to a problematic state of affairs” (Blum-Kulka, Hamo, & Habib, 2010, p. 441) that has beenade relevant by the participants in the ongoing talk. Explanations provide answers to the why, how, or what of concepts,

onditions, actions or events (e.g., Aukrust, 2004; Barbieri, Colavita, & Scheuer, 1990; Beals, 1993; Blum-Kulka et al., 2010;orek, 2012), i.e. they provide verbal explications of meanings, features, logical or functional relations. Therefore, they

re usually linguistically complex in the sense that they involve the construction of coherently structured units above theentence level (Hohenstein, 2006; Morek, 2012). If successful, explanations result in comprehension and knowledge gains
n the part of the addressee.
Interactionist studies have empirically reconstructed the specific communicative tasks participants have to sequen-ially and jointly deal with when co-constructing explanatory “discourse units” (Wald, 1978) within talk-in-interaction.otwithstanding the actual type and topic of an explanation, the following five interactional jobs have been identified

240 M. Morek / Linguistics and Education 31 (2015) 238–259

to constitute the orderliness of explanatory sequences in conversation: (1) establishing a joint topic, (2) establishing anexplanandum (i.e. something one party does not know or understand or is assumed not to know or understand), (3) theactual explanation (e.g. elaborating on the meaning, function, logical structure of something), (4) closing the explanation(e.g. by the recipient’s display of understanding), (5) managing the transition to the subsequent activity (or, for explanatoryside-sequences: resumption of the former activity) (Morek, 2012). Participants have been shown to attend to these taskswhen they resolve asymmetries of knowledge in conversation by means of explanations.

2.1. Interactional identities in explanatory discourse

From an interactional perspective, explaining entails the adoption of specific interactional identities. Interactional identi-ties, also referred to as “discourse identities” (Zimmerman, 1998; cf. Benwell & Stokoe, 2006, p. 70; Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, p.591) are interactional positions that people assume temporarily in the course of certain discourse activities and that usuallyproject reciprocal identities for co-participants (Zimmerman, 1998, p. 90). Explaining involves the interactive constitutionof an epistemic asymmetry (Blum-Kulka et al., 2010; Keppler & Luckmann, 1991; Morek, 2012). This epistemic asymmetrymay become interactively relevant for the participants either because one party has indicated that he or she does not knowor understand something or because one party assumes that to be the case. Explaining thus requires the participants tonegotiate the interactional identities of ‘explainer’ and ‘explanation-addressee’ (Blum-Kulka, 2002; Morek, 2012), whichare usually linked to the epistemic statuses of participants as ‘knowing’ (or ‘expert’) and ‘unknowing’ (Heritage, 2012a,2012b).

For that reason, it may be a sensitive issue for participants in mundane conversation to construct local relevancefor an asymmetry of knowledge or understanding in between each other and to negotiate the interactive positions ofexplainers/knowers and addressees/ignorants. Schegloff (1979, p. 50) has pointed to the principled preference in mun-dane conversations “to oversuppose and undertell”, i.e. to rather assume too much than too little knowledge on part ofthe interlocutors. Analyzing “teaching sequences” in mundane conversations, Keppler and Luckmann (1991) impressivelydemonstrated how interactants orient to that principle by conversational methods – such as pre-sequences or try-marking– when introducing potential ‘teachables’. These methods cautiously test for the existence of a lack of knowledge on part ofthe interlocutor. The authors conclude that at least in Western cultures, there is a structural preference for other-initiatedsequences of knowledge transfer in informal, rather symmetric conversations. On the other hand, it has been shown howsocial identities (such as ‘mother’, ‘teacher’, ‘doctor’) may be (re)produced by means of taking on the interactional identitiesof explainers. For instance, it has been demonstrated that children are not allowed in the position of explainers in somefamilies’ everyday interaction; instead parents reserve and reclaim delivering explanations for themselves as authorities ofknowing and deciding (Morek, 2012).

Generally, the interactive negotiation of the interactive identities of explainers and addressees – and of the epistemicpositions of ‘knowing’ and ‘unknowing’ – may lead to interactive struggles over epistemic primacy and epistemic authority(Stivers, Mondada, & Steensig, 2011). For in social interactions, conversationalists always attend to socio-epistemic rightsand obligations, i.e. they “attend not only to who knows what, but also to who has the right to know what, who knows moreabout what, and who is responsible for knowing what.” (Stivers et al., 2011, p. 18). Explications of knowledge – e.g. by meansof explanations – thus may represent a vehicle for the “management of face and identity issues” (Heritage & Raymond, 2005,p. 30), for the display of expertise and epistemic superiority (e.g. Stukenbrock, 2009), and for the (re)production of socialidentities and social relations (Morek, 2012).

On a related note, recent conversation analytic studies on techniques of delaying or avoiding answering inquestion-answer-sequences (Bolden, 2009; Keevallik, 2011) are of particular relevance for the study at hand. Thesestudies show, how participants employ procedures – such as no-knowledge-responses, no-knowledge-prefaces (Keevallik,2011) or question-repeats (Bolden, 2009) – to problematize epistemic responsibility in a conversational sequenceand/or to “resist, sidestep, or curtail the constraints imposed by questioners’ interactional agendas” (Bolden, 2009,p. 140).

2.2. Epistemic stance-taking

Recent work in epistemics has pointed to the need to distinguish between epistemic status and epistemic stance. Theformer refers to the “real and enduring” (Heritage, 2012a, p. 33) state of participants as to “knowledge distribution andknowledge access towards a given epistemic domain” (Mondada, 2013, p. 599; cf. Heritage, 2012a, 2012b). Epistemic stance,in contrast, concerns how speakers position themselves in terms of epistemic status on a moment-by-moment-basis – asbrought about through the actual design of their turns at talk (Heritage, 2012a, 2012b; Mondada, 2013). Epistemic stances
taken by participants thus include degrees of certainty of knowledge and degrees of commitment to the truth of propositions(Ochs, 1996). Certain sequential, linguistic, prosodic and non-verbal features of a turn can be used to modulate the epistemicstance on the axis from ‘knowing’ to ‘not knowing’. Certain means can express an unknowing stance, reduce the epistemiccommitment, and locally downgrade the participants’ epistemic status (e.g. epistemic markers as I don’t know or I think,

Kd

&in(e1oKRma

iiae

3

3

aasppdBwe((sfabo2

(ttit2

3

altait


ärkkäinen, 2003; Keevallik, 2011; Kirkham, 2011); others can be deployed to enhance the epistemic stance in order toisplay epistemic commitment and expertise.

While epistemic stance is often analyzed with regard to local sequential structures (such as assessments, Heritage Raymond, 2005; Sidnell, 2012; question-answer-sequences, Heritage, 2012a, 2012b), Kiesling (2009) points to the

nterrelation of epistemic stance-taking with certain discourse practices. He invokes the example of explanations: “Expla-ations are made with stances that give cues that an explanation is taking place, that the speaker is taking an ‘explainer’ roleperhaps even being identifiable as a ‘teacher’ or ‘trainer’). To be effective, such explainers must take rather authoritativepistemic stances.” (Kiesling, 2009, p. 179). Devices to produce such an authoritative stance (cf. Snow & Uccelli, 2009, p.24) in oral discourse are, for instance, the use of declarative mood, linguistic means that convey generalized assertionsr abstractions, as well as the use of standard language and a certain prosody (e.g. a schoolmasterly tone, Keppler, 1989).iesling (2009) emphasizes, however, that epistemic stances are not determined by the discourse activities underway.ather, epistemic stances are linked to how individuals position themselves in social interactions with others: Interactantsay present their self as knowledgeable and teacher-like vis-à-vis the others, but they may also play down their expertise

nd act as if they were incompetent (Kiesling, 2009, p. 185).Taking into account the socio-symbolic function of academic discourse practices (see Section 1), epistemic stance-taking

n discourse activities that serve the transfer of knowledge, such as explanations, deserves much more detailed attention thant has received so far. Therefore, the present study examines how the interactional tasks entailed by explanatory discoursere (differently) dealt with in different families and peer groups, and analyzes the epistemic stance-taking of the respectivexplainers-to-be.

. Data and method

.1. Data collection and participants

The present study is part of a larger research project on German preadolescents’ participation in discursive practices innd outside school. A total of twelve cliques of preadolescents (attending the 5th class of the German school-system, i.e.ged 10–12) were recruited from five different schools in an urban area of Western Germany. These cliques were naturalame-sex groups and comprised three to seven members each, which resulted in a total number of 53 children partici-ating in the study. Selecting cliques from different school types – “Gymnasium”, “Hauptschule”, and “Gesamtschule” –rovided for the inclusion of children from low and high socio-economic backgrounds: Empirical educational research hasocumented a close link between students’ social background and attendance of school-type in Germany (Autorengruppeildungsberichterstattung, 2012, 2014; Ehmke & Jude, 2010; Maaz, Baumert, Gresch, & McElvany, 2010). In grade 5 studentsith high socio-economic status attend a “Hauptschule” (lower secondary school) less seldom than students with low socio-

conomic status (7% vs. 34%), while the reverse holds for attendance of a “Gymnasium” (academic high school) (62% vs. 15%)Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung, 2014, p. 75). The social background of students attending a “Gesamtschule”comprehensive school) has been documented to be highly comparable to that of children attending a lower secondarychool (Bonsen, Bos, Gröhlich, & Wendt, 2008, p. 138). Thus, with the tripartite school system in Germany being indicativeor students’ social background, we chose six cliques from academic high schools, and six cliques from lower secondarynd comprehensive schools in order to include high and low SES groups. The individual students’ allocations to socialackgrounds were later substantiated by means of questionnaires containing items on parents’ professions and numberf books in the households which have been demonstrated to present solid indicators of social background (Buchmann,002).

The twelve cliques were invited to local youth centres close to their schools. Free peer interaction was video-recorded8 h in total) with two video-cameras and two audio-devices during each group waiting for a pizza and having dinnerogether. 15 children were selected for audio-recordings in their homes, which the families did themselves during meal-imes (34 h in total). Drawing on these video- and audio-recordings, descriptive protocols were compiled, which includednformation on conversational topics, discourse activities, and participation structures. On the basis of these protocols andhe recordings, sequences were selected for linguistic transcription according to the transcription system GAT2 (Selting et al.,011).

.2. Data analysis

From an ethnomethodological point of view, social and interactional contexts are not just there, but have to be broughtbout as mutual, interactive accomplishments on a moment-to-moment-basis (Garfinkel, 1967). Participants have to draw onocal sense-making practices in order to “display to one another what they are doing and how they expect others to coordinate
heir talk with them” (Goodwin, 2006, p. 6). Thus, understanding explaining as a situated activity interactionally broughtbout by participants I did not start out with a predetermined concept of what an ‘explanation’ is but identified instancesn the data where participants hearably and audibly oriented to an asymmetry of knowledge or understanding in betweenhem (cf. Antaki, 1994; Blum-Kulka, 2002). Insights from previous work on explanatory talk – especially on interactional


jobs in explanatory discourse (see Section 2) – served as an analytic lens in identifying and sequentially describing theinteractive formatting of explanations in the data. In my analysis, I thus combined analytical insights from conversationanalysis with discourse analytic descriptions of extended discourse practices (Hausendorf & Quasthoff, 1996). Additionally,the concepts of contextualization cues (Gumperz, 1982) and epistemic stance-taking (see Section 2.2) serve as a basisto describe how interactants “frame” (Goffman, 1974) the ongoing talk and position each other in terms of knowledgestatus.

The leading questions for my analysis were: (1) How do the interactants establish local relevance for an explanation tobe produced before, during, and after the explanation? (2) What epistemic stances do participants take, i.e. how do theyposition each other with respect to the knowledge in question and to the other interlocutors?

In the following, I present six examples, two for each of the following participant constellations: parents explaining tochildren (4.1), children explaining to parents (4.2), and peers explaining in peer interaction (4.3). For each of the constella-tions, I have matched two excerpts that exhibit common structural features (e.g. as to the local occasioning or the type ofexplanation), while at the same time they represent profoundly different interactive ways of dealing with explanatory slotsand providing explanations in conversation. I will show how interactional identities of explainers are readily adopted (4.1.1)or rejected (4.1.2), how local relevance for an explanation is constantly (re)established (4.2.1) or reduced (4.2.2), and howexplanatory discourse is locally initiated and collaboratively ratified (4.3.1) or playfully navigated out of (4.3.2). The analysesshow that explaining may be dealt with as a locally relevant discourse activity that does not only open up the possibility toeffectively rule out epistemic asymmetries but also the possibility for the explainer to take knowledgeable stances. On theother hand, the analyses demonstrate cases in which interactants open up explanatory slots but do not or only hesitantlyprovide explanations with an authoritative stance; instead explaining is brought about as a practice not locally necessaryand a practice linked to possible incompetence on part of the explainer-to-be.

4. Analysis

4.1. Parents as explainers

4.1.1. Adopting the interactional identity of an explainer after children’s requestThe first excerpt (excerpt 1) is taken from a dinner table conversation between 11-year-old Yannik and his mother.

The transcript starts after Yannik has told a story about the “chaos day” at his school, the day the high-school graduatestraditionally celebrate their “Abitur” (high-school diploma) after twelve years of schooling and play tricks on teachersand pupils. He closes his story by making up a fictional scene in which a friend asks him about the extraordinaryevent:

Excerpt 1 : Q − Note (Ya : Yannik, Mo : mother)

091 Ya: WETten JAN fragt mich heut geNAU das, (--)I bet later today Jan will ask me about that

092 WAS_is denn heut bei !EUCH! los;what on eart h has happened at your s chool today

093 Mo: <<lachend> hm_hm><<laughing> hm_hm>

094 Ya: <<lachend> hm:: vielLEICHT (.) CHAostag;><<laughing> hm m ight have bee n chaos day today>

095 Mo: hatten die doch auch AUCH letzte woche;_ne?they had that last wee k, too, hadn’t they

096 =die reALschüler haben doch auch-the secon dary -scho ol st udents also have

097 (2.5) 098 Mo: [n BISSchen (--) gefeiert. ]

celebrate d a little099 Ya: [(und) wofür brauchen !DIE!=n chaostag;=die MA]chen doch gar nix;

why would they need a chaos day – they don’t do anything100 (---)101 Mo: WIE die !MA!chen nichts?=

what do you mean they don’t do anything102 =die ham AUCH abschluss.

they have a degree, too
103 freuste dich AUCH drüber.
you ’d be happy about that, too

→

→

→

T“mtw1

kt(1abttatea

hso

t(nabitp

4

a


104 Ya: ja::: aber die haben doch gar nicht RICHtig die haben doch gar nix (-) schwieriges geLEIStet;

well yes, but they did not really they did not work really hard105 Mo: na JA:::.

oh well106 (5.9) 107 Mo: VIEle machen ja ihren (.) reALschulabschluss mit (-) mit !Q! v ermerk.

many of them graduate with a Q-note 108

qualifikaTIONS (-)[vermerk];qualification note

109 Ya: [was IS ] da:s;what does that mean

110 Mo: °h du musst einen bestimmten NOtendurchschnitt haben, ( -) you must have a particular grade point average

111 dann kannst du auf ein <<deutlich> WEIterführendes gymNAsium> g ehen,=then you can attend a secondary high school

112 =und da dein Abi noch weitermachen.and go on taking your high school degree ther e

113 (1.5)114 Ya: die MEIsten gehen natürlich auf_s staggy._ne,

most of them would of course go to „city school“ wouldn’t they115 Mo: BITte,

pardon116 Ya: die meisten gehen natürlich auf_s DOso;

most of them would of course go the „city school“ 117 Mo: hm- (-) bei MIR sind damals fast alle auf_s (.) fritz BRUCK g egangen;

oh well, in my times almost everyone chose to go to Fritz Bruck school

he school attended by Yannik’s friend (line 91) is a ‘Realschule’, i.e. students leave after class ten already and ‘only’ receive aRealschulabschluss” (secondary-school degree). The mother asserts, however, that also the graduates at the friend’s schoolust have “celebrated a little” (line 95–96). This leads to an argumentative sequence between the mother and the son about

he justification of celebrating even a lower school-degree. While Yannik claims that secondary-school students “have notorked really hard” (line 104), the mother points out that a majority of these students graduate with a so-called Q-note (line

07). The use of this specialist educational term builds the ground for an explanation to follow.The mother’s instant explication of the abbreviated term (line 108) suggests an early orientation to a potential lack of

nowledge on part of her son – at least as to the familiarity with the abbreviation. It also suggests a prophylactic orientationo prevent an epistemic asymmetry from obstructing mutual understanding. Yannik, in turn, sets up an explanatory slotAntaki, 1994; Blum-Kulka, 2002; Morek, 2012) for his mother to explicate the meaning of the term qualification note (line09). The two of them, thus, concertedly establish local relevance for an explanandum and for the mother to temporarilydopt the interactional identity of an ‘explainer‘. The mother immediately does adopt this role, signalling her taking the floory a hearable inbreath (line 110). She then explains the meaning of the term Q-note by referring (a) to the conditions that haveo be fulfilled for a student to receive it (a particular grade point average, line 110) and (b) its implications, i.e. the entitlemento taking a high school degree (lines 111–112). The use of terms specific for education like Notendurchschnitt (grade pointverage) and weiterführend (literally: ‘continuative‘) display expertise and a commitment to precision. She produces all of herurn in Standard German (e.g. no elisions or contractions) and highlights some of it through accentuation and an even morexplicit pronunciation (line 111). Here, pronunciation and prosody serve to signal epistemic commitment and epistemicuthority (cf. Sidnell, 2012, p. 311) and a more formal (Ioannidou & Sophocleous, 2010) definition of the situation.

In the end, jokingly suggesting that most students with a Q-note will chose ‘his’ high school (the “city school”) to take aigh school degree (line 114), Yannik implicitly acknowledges that the mother’s explanation has been understandable andatisfactory. The explanatory discourse unit is collaboratively terminated. Afterwards, the two of them continue to discussn what grounds to choose a specific school.

Hence, we see how an explanatory discourse unit is smoothly and collaboratively inserted into an essentially argumen-ative discourse activity. Though the two participants hold oppositional positions as to the value of a certain graduation‘Realschule’), they jointly launch into an explanatory sequence that helps one of the participants comprehend his oppo-ent’s argument. They collaboratively establish the local need for an explanation to follow, and the person co-constructeds ‘knowing’, i.e. the prospective explainer, readily and immediately adopts the interactional identity of an explainer. Thisecomes apparent not only when the mother fills the explanatory slot opened up by the unknowing interactant but already

n advance, when a potential knowledge deficit on part of the son is anticipated. Furthermore, the adult explainer clearlyakes up a knowing stance towards the knowledge in question, by means of the grammatical, lexical, phonological androsodic cues described above that signal expertise and certainty.

.1.2. Rejecting the interactional identity of an explainerLet us now consider a comparable, yet profoundly different case taken from a dinner table talk of 12-year-old Frederik

nd his mother. The excerpt is similar to example 1 (“Q-note”) in terms of (a) the local conversational context, (b) the type of


explanation, and (c) the participation structure: (a) It also represents an insertion of explanatory talk into an argumentation.(b) It also contains a what-explanation (Beals, 1993) of a word meaning. (c) It is also elicited by the child through anexplanatory request, and provided by the adult. In contrast to example 1, however, the explainer-to-be does not readilyadopt the interactional identity of an explainer, but rejects it.

Before the start of excerpt 2, Frederik has talked enthusiastically about the large variety of bubble-tea flavours atMcDonald’s. He asks the mother what flavour she would go for (line 19).

Excerpt 2 : Pubs (F : Frederik, M : mother)

019 F: sag IRgendwas was du gerne MAGST; tell me anything you like

020 M: ja mit (der) (.) graNATapfel datt war schon oke; well, that pomegranate, that was quite okay

021 F: nein was NOCH;no, what else then

022 M: °hh och frederik WEIß ich je[tz ni::ch.] oh Frederik I don’t know no w

023 F: [( )]024 F: [alkoHOL?]

alkohol025 M: [nä:::: ]

no:::026 M: sowatt will_i_nich.

I don’t want such a thing027 (3.9)028 M: bei mc donalds werden die kein ALkohol haben;=

they won’t have alcohol at McDonald‘s029 =WO gibt_s denn bei mc donald alkohol HALlo?

where do you get alcohol at McDonald’s, hello030 (--) seit wann DAS denn;

since when is that031 (1.7)032 F: das GIBT_s doch jetz bald;=

they will have it soon033 =mit den (-)

with the-034 M: aber doch nich bei mc !DO!nald.

but of course not at McDonald‘s035 F: OH.

oh036 M: datt wird_s dann wo!AN!ders geben in in (--) !KNEI!pen und und SOwas.

you’ll get that elsewhere, in in bars and so on037 F: in den ori[giNA]len !BUBB!le tea;

in the original bubble tea038 M: [(nö)]

nope(...) ((Claims and counterclaims go back and forth))050 M: solche sachen wirst du in KNEIpen kriegen (und/oder) in !DIS!kos

vielleicht._ne? you will maybe get such things in bars and discos, won‘t yo u

051 F: ((schlürft)) ((sips))

052 M: DISkos glaub ich eher WEniger. about discos I‘m not so sure

053 F: ((niest)) ((sneezes))

054 M: aber ich denke ma eher in KNEIpen. but I think it is more likely in bars

→ 055 (---) KNEIpen und PUBS. bars and pubs

056 (---)→ 057 F: was is_n PUBS,

what’s pubs
058 (1.6)
→ 059 M: ein PUB. a pub

→ 060 F: was IST das; what is that

→

→

→

→

→

Wacs5wt

o5op

s(wasqTS

aeaatS“n

husqnpt


061 M: hh° <<stöhnend> ja.><<moan ing> ye ah>

062 F: ja (-) kannse nich erKLÄren;_ne, yeah, you cannot ex plain it , can you

063 M: (is) sowatt wie ne KNEIpe bloß (-) eben halt (1.8) hh° nennt sich halt PUB.=

that’s something lik e a ba r bu t just lik e – it is sim ply c alled pub 064 =watt soll_ich dazu SAgen;_ja

what am I suppo sed to say about that, ri ght 065 ((lacht)) ja::;

((laugh s)) yeah:::066 (2.8) 067 F: (jemand) aus unserer klasse macht das AUCH mit diesen (.)

!AU!diogerät. someone fr om my class als o got such an audio device

068 (1.9) 069 M: ja hasse schon erZÄHLT.

yeah you told me alr eady

hen Frederik suggests that one of the available flavours is “alcohol” (line 24), the mother declines (lines 25–26)nd claims that one could not get alcohol at McDonald’s (lines 28–30). By producing a sequence of claims andounter-claims (lines 32–39ff.), mother and son uphold this dissent over who is right for some time. The motheruggests that alcohol was only available in bars, discos, similar establishments (lines 36, 50, 54), and “pubs” (line5). The use of this English loan word leads to Frederik requesting for an explanation of the meaning of thisord: By means of a what-question (line 57) Frederik indicates some problem as to knowing what this word refers

o.Thereupon, the mother does not launch into an explanation immediately. In the first place, after a relatively long pause

f 1.6 seconds, she repeats the word “pub” in the singular meaning, as a noun phrase including the indefinite article (line9). Thereby, she locates the ‘trouble’ in the realm of morpho-syntax. She deals with Frederik’s question as a problemf unfamiliarity with the noun’s plural form, i.e. a communicative problem that can be solved by a less ‘costly’ way ofroblem-handling (cf. Selting, 1988).

At this point, however, a closer look at the turn design of Frederik’s request is insightful: Though at first sight, theequential placement and linguistic form of the question might seem very similar to Yannik’s question in the Q-note-exampleexample 1, “was IS da:s;”, line 109), a detailed comparison reveals critical differences: First, Fredrik’s question is utteredith a short delay, while Yannik’s question was placed simultaneously to the mother’s turn. Secondly, Frederik repeats

nd stresses the noun in question, whereas Yannik – through substituting the noun by a deictic pronoun and prosodicallytressing the copular verb – clearly established a semantic problem right from the start. Consequently, though Frederik’suestion does open up a possible slot for the mother to provide a meaning-related explanation it does so less clearly.he local relevance of an explanandum is thus co-constructed less urgently – an aspect that will be discussed in detail inection 4.2.

Afterwards, by renewing his request (line 60) – this time stressing the copular verb – Frederik reinforces the need forn explanation of the word-meaning to follow. Yet the mother still does not readily adopt the interactional identity of anxplainer. Instead, she initially produces a deep expiration of breath and an acknowledgement token (line 61) – uttered in

moaning voice and with falling pitch. These means serve at least two functions: They delay the searched-for response,nd they serve as “contextualization cues” (Gumperz, 1982) to indicate a reluctant, non-aligning stance towards answeringhe question at hand (cf. Bolden, 2009, p. 123). Thereby, the mother breaks the contiguity of the unfolding course of action.he resists the interactional constraints put forth by Frederik’s explanation-initiating question, and subtly challenges thedefinition of the situation” (Goffman, 1959) implied by his question: She does not readily adopt the explainer’s role and theeed to provide an explanation.

The son, in turn, treats this delay and display of reluctance as a hint to a lack of competence on part the mother: He accuseser of not being able to explain the meaning of the word (line 62). He thus produces an account that casts the mother asnable rather than unwilling to answer (Clayman, 2002, p. 242). Taking into account, however, that (a) she is the adult andupposedly more knowing and linguistically more competent interactant among the two and (b) she has used the word inuestion herself, this attribution of incompetence might be read as a face-threat to the mother’s integrity. In fact, as her
ext turn demonstrates, she takes the son’s presumption as challenging her to deliver an explanation after all (line 63): Sherovides an explanation by constructing an analogy to a similar notion (“something like a bar”) and presents the naming ashe distinctive feature between the two similar notions.


In spite of Yannik’s mother (example 1, “Q-note”) who uses linguistic cues on several levels to display epistemicauthority, Frederik’s mother draws on linguistic devices to reduce epistemic commitment, and distances herself fromepistemic responsibility1: On the lexical level, she uses the modal particles eben (translatable as ‘just‘) and halt (trans-latable as ‘simply’), which render the proposition as self-evident and generally valid (Weinrich, Thurmair, Breindl, &Willkop, 2007, p. 843). Also, she concludes her explanation by rhetorically asking what she was supposed to say aboutthat (line 64). Thereby, she explicitly positions herself as being ‘not the right person’ to provide an in-depth expla-nation of the word meaning of pubs. Furthermore, she uses contextualization cues that complement the reduction ofepistemic commitment and authority: She code-switches to regional substandard pronunciation (i.e. realization of finalfricatives as plosives in watt; contractions). This brings about a local informalization of the conversational context andmay be interpreted as playing down epistemic authority (cf. Eberhardt, 2006, cited in Kiesling, 2009, p. 185). Further-more, the mother terminates her explanatory turn with laughter (line 65). This laughter occurs in a conversationalsurrounding that had been shaped by the son’s face-threatening activity aiming at the mother’s explanatory compe-tence (line 62). It thus may be understood as what Warner-Garcia (2014) describes as “coping laughter” that servesto retrospectively relieve or obscure a previous loss of face. The fact that Frederik does not join in the laughter sup-ports this reading. The disalignment between the two interactants as towards the interactional activity at hand (i.e.explaining the meaning of pub) remains in force. After a short moment of keeping silent, Frederik launches a newtopic (line 67); neither the explanation nor the previous argumentative talk on bubble-tea flavours at Mc Donald’s isresumed.

Hence, as opposed to example 1, explanatory discourse is not as smoothly build into the argumentative dis-course activity. Establishing local relevance for an explanation to follow takes longer since both interactants firstopt for treating the communicative problem at hand as a less severe one. The interactional identity of an explaineris first rejected, and then taken up only after the interlocutor has questioned the prospective explainer’s allegedinability to provide an explanation. The mother does not adopt an authoritative stance when providing an explana-tion for her son. Rather, she uses several devices to informalize the situational framing and to reduce her epistemicauthority. Very similar interactional procedures could be reconstructed for children’s explanations in family talk(see 4.2.2).

4.2. Children explaining to their parents

While the case of adults explaining something to children has been described as the most prevalent participationstructure for explanatory talk in families (Aukrust & Snow, 1998; Blum-Kulka, 2002, p. 96), children have also beendemonstrated to feature as knowing and explaining participants (Blum-Kulka, 2002; Morek, 2012), most of all whenit comes to knowledge located in children’s own life-worlds (e.g. school, hobbies). Morek (2012) has shown that twointeractional tasks are of particular importance in preparing and projecting a child’s explanation-to-be: firstly, the jointestablishment of local relevance for a particular topic (see Sections 2 and 4.1.2), and secondly, the joint constitution ofan explanandum. The former refers to the task of signalling to each other that a particular topic does matter to oneanother at a particular point in conversation. The latter refers to the task of interactively negotiating that an epistemicasymmetry concerning that topic is at stake and should be removed through an explanation to be delivered by a knowingparticipant.

In this section, I present two examples of children’s explanations elicited by their parents. The two extracts are comparableas to the participation structure (children’s explanations requested for by the parents) and the rooting of the explanandumin the preadolescents’ rather than the adults’ life-world. The examples differ, however, in terms of the extent to whichrelevance for a particular issue and its explanation is established, and they also differ in the way the explanation is actuallypresented by the child and worked upon (or not) by other interactants.

4.2.1. Collaborative construction of local relevance for an explanation by the childThe following excerpt (excerpt 3) is taken from a dinner-table conversation of 11-year-old Timo and his parents. Timo

is a member of a hockey club. He tells about an incident where he and his team mates got soaking wet because they weresplashed by the lawn sprinkler. The fact that the sprinkler was activated while the boys were playing on the field causesindignation and incomprehension on part of the parents. They question the sense of this action or rather, its (allegedly)unfavourable timing. Attempting to defend the sense of his club’s practice, Timo explains why the lawn should be wetduring play (lines 126–128).

1 This also holds for her argumentative turns (lines 28–29, 36, 50, 52, 54), in which she uses modal future, modal words (vielleicht, eher), epistemic verbs(I think, I believe), and tag-questions to reduce certainty and display a less knowing epistemic stance.

→

(→

→

→


Excerpt 3 : Lawnsprinkler (Ti : Timo, Fa : father, Mo : mother)

087 Ti: =und wir ham alle direkt im !STRAHL! gestanden,=and all of us were standing right inside the gush of water

088 =weil sich der so im KREIS dreht(e) in der MITte, because it (the sprinkler) was turning in the middle

089 Fa: HEUte,today

090 Ti: ja_a, yeah

091 Fa: <<vorwurfsvoll> (äh) wieso machen die das denn während der TRAIning szeiten;>

<<in a reproachful tone> uhm why do they do that during practice time>092 (1.2) 093 was is_n DAS für ne beKNACKte organisation;

what kind of bonkers organization is that094 [arbeiten ] da nur MINderbemittelte oder was?

do there work only dim people or what095 Ti: [((lacht))] <<lachend> ja.>

((laughs)) <<laughing> yeah.>...) 110 Mo: ja aber warum MUSS man das denn machen wenn ihr dann noch auf_m PLAT Z

sei:d,but why does one have to do that while you are still on the field

111 das verSTEH ich au_nich. I don’t get that either

112 (2.7)113 Ti: <<pp> poah.>

phew114 (-) ja wann <<cresc> wann sollen> die das denn MAchen;

well, when else shall they do that 115 wenn wir GLEICH wenn wir dann–

when we are about to when we -116 wir GEhen ja nie vom PLATZ runter.

we won’t ever leave the fiel d117 (0.8)118 Mo: [HM:::? ]119 Fa: [((lacht))]

((laughs))120 Fa: es gibt ja wohl geNUG zeiten,=

there should definitely be enough hours 121 =in denen KEIN training [stattfindet wo der platz LEER ist; ]

when there is no training, when the field is empty 122 Ti: [<<f> ja aber wir wollen ja mit ] nassem>

RAsen spielen; yeah but we do want to play on wet lawn

→ 123 Fa: <<h> ihr wollt mit nassem RAsen spielen;>= you want to play on wet lawn

→ 124 Ti: =wir !MÜS!sen mit nassem rasen spielen .we must play on wet lawn

→ 125 Fa: waRUM; why?

→ 126 Ti: weil das sonst nicht GE::HT;=because it does not work otherwise

→ 127 =weil der schläger dann besser RUTSCHT;=because then the stick glides better

→ 128 =und wir besser äh sch' HÄRtere BÄLle hinkriegen. and we better manage to hit the ball fast

129 (4.0)

→ 130 Fa: ((seufzt)) (--) <<p > oKAY.> ((sighs)) <<p> okay>

131 (---) <<p> is ja n TÖFter sport.> <<p> that’s a brill sport>

132 (8.6)133 Ti: <<lachend> choh:::>


141 Mo : [NU::R-]but

142 Mo : [ja_a, ]yeah

143 Ti: [JA:. ] yes

144 Fa : EHRlich?really

145 Ti: <<beteuernd> JA;>yes

146 Mo : hm_hm.hm_hm

147 Fa : HIMmel. oh dear

148 (1.3)149 Mo : hm ich denk (ja) das kann man ja SO machen dass dann kein spiel dann

da!DRAUF! ist oder? uhm I’d like to think tha t you cou ld arrang e it in a way tha t there is no play on the field couldn’t you

150 (-) [das geht] doch EIgentlich relativ schnell ne? it should be done quite quic kly shou ldn ’t it

151 Va: [JA::: ]yeah

→ 137 =äh_äh nassem (-) KUNSTrasen; eh_ eh wet artific ial lawn

→ 138 Mo : DOCH.It is.

→ 139 Fa : oder [ist ] das so [dass [VOR dem spiel IMmer der rasen gesprengt wird?

or is it the way that the lawn is always being sprinkle d before the match→ 140 Ti: [DOCH.] [DOCH.]

It is It is

<<smile voice> you can’t judge the whole sport just because of the lawn sprinkler>135 Mo: [(find ich au nich) ]

I think so too→ 136 Fa: [<<vorwurfsvoll> aber es ist] doch nicht norMAL dass man auf nassem

RAsen spielt.=><<reproachful tone> but it is not at all normal that one plays on wet lawn>

<<lachend> SPORT beurteilen.>

134 <<:-)> nur wegen dem RAsensprenger kannst du jetzt nicht den ganzen >

The father is the first to express indignation over the “bonkers organization” (line 93) supposedly administered by “dimpeople” (line 94). He does not understand “why they do that during practice time” (line 91). The implicit reproach (Günthner,1996) cloaked into the father’s questions is not dealt with by Timo in the first instance. Laughingly, Timo simply agrees (line95). Afterwards the mother reinforces the sequential implications for providing an account as towards the sense or legitimacyof the sprinkling practice: She reformulates the problem brought up by the father in a more general way, asking why “one”(German: man) “must” sprinkle the lawn while the boys are on the field (line 110). Thereby, she asks for an explication ofa potential general principle behind that particular sprinkling practice. In conjunction with her explicit display of a lack ofunderstanding (line 111), this opens up a slot for an explanation to follow. Though Timo does not provide an account atonce, he later points to the compulsiveness of playing on wet lawn (line 124), whereupon the father asks a why-question(line 125). The father thereby renews the need for Timo to provide an account that will help the parents understand thereasons behind the sprinkling practice. Though the focus of the problematic issue to be solved has shifted a little (from aproblematization of the timing of sprinkling to the question why sprinkling is necessary at all), the parents continually keepon displaying relevance of an asymmetry of understanding and its dissolution. They bring about local relevance for a verbalexplication of a conceptual system ‘behind’ the problematized issue.

The actual explanation provided by Timo starts in line 126 then: First, he re-invokes the compulsiveness of playing onwet lawn – this time presenting it as an ineluctable prerequisite without which “it does not work”. The physical groundsbehind this necessity are explicated afterwards, when Timo introduces the better seam slippage and the increased abilityto strike fast as the main reasons for the lawn to be kept wet (lines 127–128). He thus refers to the causal relationshipbetween the condition of the lawn, its physical features, and its consequences for the players’ hitting output. In terms ofepistemic stance, Timo positions himself as authoritative and certain about his own assertions: He chooses the declarative
mood, draws on standard language throughout his explanation, and does not use any hedges. Furthermore, he puts an extrastrong accentuation on the words that refer to the necessity of the practice in question (“!MÜS!sen”, line 124; “GE::HT”, line126) which further underlines his positioning as an expert for general principles involved in hockey sport. As Sidnell (2012,

prot

((sisjkmtlmsk

hca

4

tt

→

→

→

→

→


. 295) has pointed out, however, such epistemic modulations do not only display a speaker’s degree of certainty but alsoeflect the “asymmetry that speakers assume to exist between what they know and what their recipients know”. By meansf the above devices, Timo thus also other-positions his parents as knowing less and understanding less about his hobbyhan he himself does as an active player and ‘expert’ of this sport.

In the further course of the sequence, the father indicates – by means of his ironic evaluation of what he calls “brill sport”line 131) – that he has not yet fully understood the sense of pre-match sprinkling. After stating that it was “not at all normal”line 136) to play on wet artificial lawn, Timo and his mother confirm – in a collaborative endeavour against the father’scepticalness (line 144) – that it indeed is common practice. Hence we see, how over a considerably long stretch of talk, thenteractants collaboratively engage in dissolving an epistemic asymmetry in between them. Understanding the necessity ofprinkling the lawn before play is treated as necessary for getting to a joint evaluation of Timo’s story whose amusing pointust resided in the players’ getting soaking wet. Though the parents first take a critical view towards the hockey club’s sprin-ling practice, they strive for understanding the grounds behind it and finally learn why it is necessary. Thereby, the familyembers co-construct an aspect of the child’s life-world as being of particular interest for their communicative exchange at

he dinner-table. By re-establishing sequential implications (such as requests, lines 125, 139), which aim at explicating theogic behind the problematic issue, the child is continuously required to provide more information that helps the achieve-

ent of mutual understanding. By means of explicating causal relationships and taking up a knowledgeable, authoritativetance towards the knowledge in question, the child succeeds in creating common understanding and transferring expertnowledge to the parents.

This kind of mutual and continuous establishment of local relevance for a child’s explanation of an aspect located inis/her life-world, however, could not be found in all the families we recorded. The next section presents a case in point. Thehild’s explanation in excerpt 4 strikingly shares some of the features demonstrated for parental resistance against adoptingn explainer’s role as shown in example 2 (“Pubs”).

.2.2. Reducing local urgency for an explanation by the childExcerpt 4 is taken from a dinner table conversation of Denise (12 years old), her elder sister Ricarda (14 years old), and

he parents. Denise is telling a story about the tenth graders’ pranks at graduation day at her school. While Denise still holdshe floor, Ricarda chimes in and thematizes what the graduates undertook at her own school (lines 6–7, line 12).

Excerpt 4 : Flashmob (De : Denise, Ri : Ricarda, Fa : father, Mo : mother)

002 De: und danach mussten_se (-) dann mussten_se in son klein_n GRUPpen, and then they had to walk around in such small groups

003 (-- ) in_ner KLASse rumgehen,= in the class(room)

004 =und dann ham_se so NOSsa geTANZT und so -and then they dance d „Nossa“ and so on

005 °h danach [sind die dann:: ]and afte rwards they

006 Ri: [das ham die bei-] they did

007 Ri: bei uns aber NICH gemacht;=not do that at our‘s

008 =voll_ASi. that sucke d

009 (1.8) 010 De: HM::-011 und dann sind die:: (-)

and then they 012 Ri: die war_n auf_m FLASHmob;

they have bee n to a flashmob013 (0.9) 014 Fa: HM_hm.

uhum.015 Ri: [(aufm)]

to a 016 M0: [auf ] WAS?

to what 017 Ri: auf_m !FLASH!mob.

to a flashmob
018 De: <<aufgeregt> HM_hm,>
<<excited> uhum.>


→ 019 Mo: watt is DATT_denn. what is that

020 (1.1) → 021 Ri: das IS:: sowas w::ie- ((rülpst))

that’s something lik e ((bu rps))→ 022 von_nem (.) ganz bestimmten st' äh THEma (--) äh so_ne verANstaltung

<<dim> ist das.>= of a cert ain theme (-) eh such_an eve nt is that

→ 023 =kei[ne] AHnung.> no clue

024 De: [ja] yeah

025 (0.7)026 De: und dAs war AUCH bei uns,

and that als o was at ours027 (-- ) ähm da war_n DIE (-- ) EDEka,

uhm they were at „Edek a“028 am PARKplatz und reAL.

at the parking lot, and at „Re al“029 (-) und dann ham die DA so_n FLASHmob gemacht.

and there they did such a flashmob030 also (-) alle in_ner MITte,=

like all in the mi ddle031 =und ham dann so geTANZT.

and they dance d

Ricarda mentions a flashmob, i.e. a spontaneous assembly of people in a public place who present a short, unusual performance(e.g. a song, a choreography). The notion flashmob is apparently unknown to the mother and becomes the object of a what-explanation (a definition, respectively) by Ricarda. While example 3 (“Lawn sprinkler”) represented a case of expanded andcontinuous establishment of relevance for an explanation to be provided, the interactants in example 4 draw on variousmeans to reduce the local relevance of an explanation to occur. They downplay the epistemic asymmetry that surfacesbetween them in their conversation, and they mitigate the need to provide any in-depth explanation that would provideextensive knowledge on the explanandum at hand.

A first hint to the restricted local relevance admitted to the topic introduced by Ricarda is the father’s reaction to itsmentioning: With a slight delay, he produces a response token with final falling pitch (line 14). In contrast to contin-uers (Schegloff, 1982) that ratify and encourage a speaker’s expansion of his/her turn, the placement, first-syllable-accent,and intonation of the father’s response token rather signal the closing of the sequence. The mother, in contrast, displaysa lack of understanding of what Ricarda referred to (line 16). The turn design of her question (“to WHAT?”) though isambiguous as to the type of local problem signalled (Selting, 1988): It may indicate a simple acoustic problem as wellas a semantic problem referring to the meaning of the word in question. Ricarda – though upgrading the local rele-vance of the notion flashmob by means of prosodic highlighting (line 17) – does, however, not explain the word meaning.Instead, she provides a literal repetition of the phrase. She thereby addresses the problem as an acoustic one, i.e. she firstchoses a less severe problem categorization that allows for a less ‘costly’ way of problem handling (cf. Selting, 1988). Thisleads the mother to re-establish her request (line 19), asking what is meant by the notion flashmob. She thus adopts anunknowing epistemic stance. Note, however, that in the original German version she does so by switching to regionalsubstandard (“watt is datt denn”), realizing the final fricatives in was and das as a plosive /t/. Additionally, the finalintonation of her question falls to low. This particular phonological and prosodic design of her turn serves as a contex-tualization cue: The mother ‘informalizes’ the interactive framing, constructs the knowledge on part of the girls as ‘other’and extraneous, and adopts a negative, distant stance towards the prospective explanandum. She thus downgrades the‘seriousness’ as well as the local relevance of any prospective elaboration to follow. This reduction of local relevanceclashes with the previous heightening of local relevance for the topic by the two sisters (lines 17 and 18), as is also sug-gested by the rather long pause (line 20) after the mother’s turn, which indicates some disalignment between the twoparties.

Yet Ricarda does attempt to define the meaning of flashmob (lines 21–22). Notwithstanding that the utterance “anevent of a certain theme” (line 22) does not exactly present an unequivocal explanation of the term, Ricarda draws onlinguistic means that are typical of word definitions: She starts out with the formulaic phrase that is and launches intoa comparison (line 21), which she then gives up in favour of a more abstract description as a type of “event” dealing

wsihaatuae

tfdaaihaat

rreoed1

4

dTwro(fge

4

wT“b


ith a “certain theme”. Syntactic discontinuities and hesitation phenomena (vowel lengthening, filled pauses) displayome difficulties in doing so and bring about a tentative stance. Also, Ricarda concludes her turn by speaking increas-ngly softer (line 22) and using the epistemic marker (Kärkkäinen, 2003) “keine Ahnung” (‘no clue’, line 23). Although shead been attributed the epistemic status of a knowing person by the mother’s question Ricarda here categorizes herselfs ‘not-knowing’ or – literally – as ‘not even having the slightest clue’. In addition, the switch to colloquial language –s indicated by the phrase “keine Ahnung” (as opposed to “weiß ich nicht” – ‘I don’t know’) – serves as a contextualiza-ion cue. It informalizes the situation and signals the abandonment of the informational, explanatory activity. Second, thetterance “keine Ahnung” displays inability and reluctance to provide a more detailed explanation and hence serves as anccount for exiting the explanation. The placement of this no-knowledge marker at the end of her turn strengthens thisxit-effect.

Inasmuch Ricarda has signalled the end of her explanatory effort it is not surprising that none of the interactantsries to continue the explanatory talk on the meaning of flashmob. Neither do we find any acknowledgement tokens,ollow-up questions nor any other devices that have been described as typical for the closing phase of explanatoryiscourse units (cf. Morek, 2012). Instead, Denise resumes the narrative activity and goes on telling about the gradu-tes’ prank (lines 26–31). Interestingly, she does not only incorporate the term flashmob into her report (line 29) butlso provides a description that might be read as a late contribution to the problem of explaining what a flashmobs (“like all in the middle and they danced”, lines 30–31). Since this illustrative account is inserted into her narrative,owever, it is not construed as an autonomous explanation. Instead, it allows for the integration into the narrativectivity and its experience-based unfolding of events in the past. It would thus neither be necessary nor appropri-te here to adopt an authoritative stance of someone who is interactively construed as an expert for a particularopic.

Hence, we see how the surfacing of an epistemic asymmetry between parents and children is downgraded in its localelevance for the ongoing communication to proceed. Whereas interactional constraints to (finally) provide an explanationesulting in mutual understanding had been continually re-inforced in example 3 (“Lawn sprinkler”), here the request for anxplanation is mitigated and combined with a negative stance towards the explanandum. Once again, the explainer’s lackf the knowledge in question and/or a lack of explanatory competence is made relevant in the interaction as an account forxiting the explanatory talk. Interestingly though, an explanation is included as expansion within a narrative, i.e. within aiscourse practice that is not linked to taking an authoritative stance in the same way as explanations are (Kiesling, 2009, p.79).

.3. Initiating explanations in peer talk – a potential thwart to the ongoing activity

The previous two sections have demonstrated interactive procedures drawn upon in family interaction to establishifferent degrees of local relevance for an explanation and to enhance or reduce the epistemic authority of an explainer.he present section expands on these findings by turning to preadolescents’ peer interactions. It demonstrates in whatay explanatory talk is brought about as a locally relevant or locally irrelevant discursive activity within the interactive

ealm of the peer group. Though what-explanations (e.g. of words, figures in video games) were the most common typef explanations in our peer group data, I have chosen a why-explanation as a first example in this section: Example 5“Physics”) is particularly instructive because it shows how an explanation is interactively dealt with as locally appropriateor peer talk among friends though it might at first seem to utterly disrupt the ongoing activity. The sequence, thus, is ofreat analytical value for working out how preadolescents temporarily make explanatory talk their joint communicativendeavour.

.3.1. Displaying and exploring knowledge in peer talkExcerpt 5 is taken from a five-member clique of friends. The preceding interactional context is a series-of-stories in

hich the children (aged 10 to 11 years) tell each other about ‘downfall events’ (e.g. accidents during skiing holidays).hey especially enjoy the slapstick moments of those stories and make use of several verbal and nonverbal techniques ofreplaying” (Goffman, 1974, p. 504) those scenes, often in an exaggerated manner. The transcript starts when one of theoys retells an incident from a Lucky Luke film in which some vehicle crashed.


Excerpt 5 : Physics (Do : Dominik, Be : Ben, Cl : Clara, Ya : Yannik, No : Noah)

172 Do: bei lucky LUKE (-) (hier) die (.) die fliegende WAND, in lucky luke (-) (there) the (.) the flying wall,

173 da da war da war diese BRÜcke,_ne,there there was this was this bridge right

174 also da war KEIne brücke, well there wasn’t a bridge

175 die fahren so AN, they start like that

176 (-) ich fli' (.) die FLIEgen dann so, ((zeigt es mit Flaschenöffner))(-) I fly (.) they fly like that, ((shows the trajectory nonverbally) )

177 und dann HU:I;(-)and then oooooh (-)

178 Be: ZACK jab

179 Do: !BU:FF! puff

180 Cl: hahaha 181 Ya: hehehe 182 dass er dann so [(uuuu:::)]

so he then went like [(oooo:::)]183 No: [abe:::r-]

but→ 184 No: das KANN eigentlich gar nicht GEHen,=

it can’t actually work that way→ 185 =das hat was mit phySIK zu tun;

that’s something to do with physics 186 Do: HM_hm,

→ 187 No: es GIBT keinen GRAden FALL; there is no such thing as straight fall

→ 188 (0.3) KEInen graden FLUG; no straight fall

→ 189 (0.5) der flug geht ERStens immer SO,((zeigt Flugbahn))first, the flight always goes like this ((shows trajectory with hands))

→ 190 Ya: (deshalb )(that’s why )

→ 191 No: und zweitens !KANN! es nicht passieren, and secondly it just can’t happen,

→ 192 dass es SO ((zeigt geraden Fall)) PFJUU geht; that it goes like that ((shows ‘straight fall’)) pooooh;

→ 193 das KANN es nicht.it doesn’t work that way

194 Ya: oder (du/der) spring(S)t so [ganz geRAde;]or (you) jump like that [all straight]

195 Cl: [das GEHT auch] nicht;[doesn’t work ] either

196 Cl: du MUSST dann imm er so ((macht Geräusch und Bewegung)) then you always have to ((shows movement))

197 Ya: oder du stehst da so geRAde so,_ne? or you just stand there straight, right

198 dann kommt FALLtür,=then there’s a trap door,=

199 =und dann- (-) AH::::::::; and then- (-) AH::::::::

200 Be: außer du läufst WEIter und bist SO,= ((zeigt Flugbahn))except for you keep running and then you go ((shows trajectory))

201 =und dann fliegst du da nich so RUNter; and then you don’t plunge downwards like that

202 also [gehst einfach-]I mean you [just go]

203 No: [außer du ] springst SO, ((zeigt parallel Flugbahn)) [except for] you jump like that ((shows trajectory))

204 und dann da FÄLLST_E natürlich sofort;=
and then of course you fall down straight at once
205 =aber- (--) wenn du weit springst-but- (--) if you make a wide jump

206 kann_s AUCH nicht passieren dass du ((zeigt Flugbahn))then it can’t happen either that you ((shows trajectory))

2

Iie

totsi“oraqricswtdsi

ooe‘ncdi(la

bcssapahe

sohkcemw


[((laughte r))]09 [((Gelächter))]

207 Cl: ham wir ja bei ABDel gesehen, that’s what we saw with Abdel, isn’t it,

208 er GLEItet [schön; ] he is like gliding [beautifully;]

n their reactions to Dominik’s story, the friends display pleasure in the slapstick nature of the reported events. They chimen by laughing (lines 180–181), by playfully imitating the crashing down through onomatopoetics (lines 178, 182), and byxpanding Dominik’s story (line 182).

Noah, however, suddenly steps out of the storytelling activity: He introduces a but-fronted dissent (line 183f.) with regardo the physical impossibility of the plunges that his friends have been reporting and mimicking. Pointing out that what thethers were so eagerly enjoying “can’t actually work that way” (line 184) he thwarts the collaborative, joyful appreciation ofhe fictional story. The way he designs his protest turn (line 184) – stressing the modal verb (“KANN”) and using the focus-hifting adverb “eigentlich” (‘actually’ or ‘as a matter of fact’) – does not only signal a knowing epistemic stance, but evenndicates a schoolmasterly and authoritative stance. The peers’ attention is directed to general principles (also see example 3,Lawn sprinkling”) of downfalls. Noah presents himself as the one who takes a step back, who looks at things in the cold lightf day, and who is entitled to corrects his friends’ ‘naïve’ assumptions. His self-presentation as an ‘expert’ of laws of gravity iseinforced by his immediate categorization of the issue as a scientific problem within the domain of physics (line 185). All inll, he puts the collaborative appreciation of the fictional story to an end and launches the activity of factually discussing theuestion of what trajectories are possible in terms of physical law. This re-framing of the ongoing conversational situation isatified by his peers (see the story-teller’s acknowledgement token, line 186). Noah then goes on to expand his turn by explain-ng why the trajectories demonstrated by the others are practically impossible. His explanation thus serves as a warrant for alaim (cf. Blum-Kulka, 2002, p. 91; Heller, 2012). First, he postulates the inexistence of “straight fall” (line 187f.) and demon-trates – with the help of nonverbal means – what kind of trajectory would be normal (line 189). Then again, he illustrateshat kind of trajectory was impossible (line 191f.). He thus introduces general principles to back-up his claim. With regard

o textual genre features, he produces a structural format that is typical for extended arguments or explanations: After pro-ucing a claim as to a generally valid principle (lines 187f.), he lists generalizable regularities that back up his claim. He doeso by employing adverbs of temporal ordering (first, secondly), adverbs of normality (always), and modal verbs, before finallyndicating the closing of his explanation by reformulating his introductory assertion (lines 193 referring back to line 184).

Against the backdrop of most other explanatory sequences in preadolescents’ informal peer talk in our data, the structuref the above explanation is remarkable in different aspects: First, it represents a self-initiated explanation. Self-initiationf a knowledge-transferring multi-unit-turn usually represents a delicate conversational endeavour in informal talk amongquals (see Section 2.1), since “the ‘egalitarian’ style which characterizes informal dialogue is temporarily replaced by a

hierarchical’ one” (Keppler & Luckmann, 1991, p. 145). Secondly, Noahs explanation represents a comparatively long, inter-ally structured discourse unit. As I have reported in another study (Morek, 2014), preadolescents usually tend to stronglyondense their explanations addressed to peers, either in order to downgrade their expert status vis-à-vis the others or toownplay the local relevance of further elaboration. Thirdly, Noah draws on interactive and linguistic means that (a) explicitly

ndex the structure of the explanation (e.g. adverbs, conjunctions), (b) are oriented towards a non-understanding recipiente.g. reformulations, lines 188, 193), and (c) signal an authoritative stance (e.g. declarative mood, accentuation, standardanguage). His explanation does not only ‘formalize’ the framing of the situation but also serves as a vehicle to present himselfs an expert in terms of physics – or a know-better – who ‘teaches’ the others with respect to the law of falling bodies.

Taken together, all the aforementioned features of Noah’s explanation set his explanation apart from what is generally toe expected in peer talk (cf. Schmidt, 2004). Yet his contribution is ratified and taken up by the others. This is remarkable sincehildren – in reaction to ‘inapt’ contributions by peers – dispose of a rich array of sanctioning practices (such as keeping silent,tarting a competing activity, producing metacomments; cf. Dean, Adams, & Kasari, 2013). Nothing of that sort occurs in theequence at hand. Instead, the other group members join in the negotiation of trajectories and collectively gather argumentsnd pieces of knowledge as to the conditions and consequences of certain falling trajectories: Yannik tries to invoke a differentossibility (“straight jumping”, line 194) which is negated and corrected by Clara (lines 195–196); Ben (lines 200–202) andgain Noah (lines 203–204) try to sketch alternative scenarios where a bend fall might be possible, and Noah returns tois previous rebuttal concerning the trajectory expectable in a long jump (lines 205–206). Only when Clara recalls a sharedxperience of the classmate Abdel plunging during an exercise in the gym class (lines 207–208) is the discussion abandoned.

The analysis of this extract shows how the interactive negotiation of knowledge towards a basically science-orientedubject-matter is adeptly interwoven with the peer group’s story-telling practice. Although Noah’s sudden switch from thengoing joyful story-telling to a factual explanation of a physical principle and the authoritative, yet schoolmasterly stancee takes up might appear to thwart the local interaction order, it is ratified by his peers. The peers join in co-constructingnowledge and turn the friend’s self-initiated teaching into a collaborative “knowledge exploration” (Goodwin, 2007). The
hildren interactively bring about exchanging and transferring world-knowledge – and being the addressees of other peer’sxplanations – as a locally relevant, and locally accepted discourse activity. They acknowledge each other as knowledgeableembers in this exchange of world knowledge. These observations did not hold for all cliques represented in our data, asill be portrayed in the following section.


4.3.2. Initiating explanatory talk as a move in playful insultsAs I have reported elsewhere (Morek, 2014), extended sequences of explanatory talk (i.e. encompassing a discourse

unit above the sentence level, see example 5) were found in the peer interactions of children from high socio-economicbackgrounds but not in the peer talk of children from low SES backgrounds. Nevertheless, explanatory slots were observedto be set up also in the peer talk of the latter, in fact by means of meaning-related what-questions. Those requests forexplanation of words occurred within sequences of playful, ritual insulting (cf. Deppermann, 2001; Eder, 1990; Goodwin,2006). Excerpt 6 – taken from a group of five boys – presents a case in point. While they are having a pizza, the boys engagein playfully bugging each other. At one point this leads to a question concerning the meaning of a lexical item the boys useto insult each other (‘gypsy’):

Excerpt 6: Gypsies (Ah: Ahmet, Fl: Florian, Br: Bruno, Mi: Milan, St: Stefan)

002 Ah: ((zeigt auf St)) guck ma wie (der) das ISST._da. ((po ints to Ste fan )) look how he’s eating there

003 Fl: IS so.=ja?= that’s the way.

004 =wir äh müssen das so wie TÜRken und alBAner essen.we ah have to eat like turks and albanians

005 Br: ja ihr SEID türken und albaner.= yes you ARE turks and albanians

006 =ich bin halt POle. but I’m pole

007 Ah: und ziGEUner. and gypsy

008 Fl: [hä:::? ][huh:::?

009 [((Kichern))][((giggling))]

hey what is actually why so funny about gypsi es 019 [( )]020 Fl: [JA:: man wir sind letztens von kik und ich äh RAUSgekommen ich und

[yeah man, last time we were coming out of kik (= a ve ry cheap clothing st ore)021 stefan._ne?

me and st efan, ri ght022 da stand go GOkart._ne?

there was a go gokart, right023 isch nehm den (schlüssel) WEG

I take away the (key) 024 zigeuner kommt hinterHER <<lachend> gerannt;>

gypsy runs after <<laughing > me> 025 ER so gib ma GOkart her.

he’s lik e giv e me go-kart

010 Fl: ich dacht du wärst ha äh halb ziGEUner. I thought you were eh half gypsy

011 ((Kichern))((giggling))

→ 012 Br: (hör ma auf) mit ziGEUner.=alter. stop with gypsi es man

→ 013 Mi: <<an Fl> was IS eigentlich zigeuner;> <<to Florian> wha t actually is (a) gypsy >

→ 014 Fl: stell dir VOR ey ich bin <<mampfend> ( ) wie_n DÖner.imagine I’m <<munching> ( ) like a ke bap>

→ 015 St: zigeuner ham immer so ähm GOkart;= gypsi es always have ah such a go-kart

→ 016 =fahrn se immer da [MIT. ] ride it [alw ays.

[((Gelächter))][((laughte r))

017 Br: <<all> ja=klar.>= eah sure

018 =ey WAS ist eigentlich wieso so LUStig an zigeuner;

026 ((lacht)) ich so ich mach DEN hier so._ne? ((zeigt Mittelfinger)) ((laugh s)) I was like I go like that, right? ((mi ddle finger up))

d1

iGmMqffTBdtmiuwq

imcecog

oip(

5

rlddaidg

toesdeacio

nsio


The boys playfully mock each other by referring to allegedly lacking table manners (line 2) which they relate to theirifferent ethnic belongings (lines 4–10). However, when Ahmet and Florian slander Bruno as being “(half) gypsy” (lines 7,0) Bruno calls on them to stop the mocking (line 12).

At this point, Milan, who has not participated in the preceding exchange, chimes in: He addresses Florian, the originalnsulter, and asks him what gypsy actually means (line 13). Conversational moves of a very similar kind have been described byoodwin (2006). She demonstrates how children who are positioned as spectators of playful ridiculing sequences provideeta-commentary on an attacker’s talk (e.g. by asking if whore was that child’s favourite word, Goodwin, 2006, p. 110).ilan’s question must thus be regarded in its sequential context and the function it assumes within that context. Usually,

uestions like what is. . .? or what does . . . mean? (cf. examples 1 and 2) establish sequential implications for an explanation toollow, in which the apparently unknown word meaning is explicated. However, Milan’s question differs from ‘real’ requestsor explanations of an aforementioned word in two ways: First, he uses the German modal particle “eigentlich” (‘actually’).hereby, a new thematic aspect that is more serious and less superficial than what has been dealt with before (Helbig &uscha, 1991, p. 492), is brought into play. Secondly, as attested by the remainder of the group’s talk recordings, gypsyoes not seem to represent an unknown word to any of the group members since the boys commonly use it as insult inheir in-group interactions. Milan’s question must thus be understood not as a ‘real’ request for explanation but rather as a

ove within the insulting activity. With his utterance, he accomplishes a focus shift by re-directing the focus from findingnsults to discussing the insulting itself. Implicitly, he thereby allies himself with Bruno’s attempt to suspend the mockerynderway and/or to question the integrity of the insulter (Florian). Due to its sequential placement Milan’s request entailshat Günthner (1996) identified as confrontational subdiscourse when she examined accusations syntactically ‘cloaked’ in

uestion formats.It is thus not surprising but rather consequential that Milan’s request is not met by a definition of the word gypsy produced

n a serious key. Florian, the previous insulter, jokingly relates being a gypsy to having bad table manners. He hyperbolicallyimicks how gypsies have a kebab (line 14). In an either jocular way, Stefan ironically generalizing ‘riding a go-kart’ as a

onstituent characteristic of being gypsy (lines 15–16). This remark obviously insinuates a shared narrative about a personalvent the boys had with gypsies – which is later elaborated upon by Florian. The funny nature of Florian’s and Stefan’sontributions is acknowledged by the others – excerpt for Bruno – who start laughing (line 16). When Bruno, the victimf the mockery, implicitly accuses Florian of imprudently using the offensive word gypsy (asking what was so funny aboutypsies, line 19), Florian provides a narrative, jocular account about hijacking some gypsies’ go-karts (lines 20–26).

Hence, sequences like example 6 represent cases of ‘non-explanation’. A question that appears as an explanatory requestn the linguistic surface is issued but the participants jointly treat it as a playful disagreement move within the realm of ritualnsulting. Such questions do not actually ask for serious explanations to be delivered but for other actions that uphold thelayful activity of insulting and mockery (i.e. exaggerations, stories). Such explanatory requests may also be utterly ignoredMorek, 2014).

. Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine how ‘explaining something to someone’ is interactively brought about as a locallyelevant discourse activity in informal talk of different groups and to reconstruct in what way providing explanations isinked to participants’ positioning as knowledgeable persons within a conversational context. Previous ethnographic andiscourse analytic research on the everyday talk of different communities has documented that children’s access to academiciscourse practices (such as co-constructing knowledge and explaining) differs to a great extent. By taking a micro-analyticpproach and including participants’ epistemic stance-taking, the present study extends our knowledge on the underlyingnteractional mechanisms of such differences. It shows how such differences in communities’ repertoires of habitualizediscourse practices are locally brought about on a moment-by-moment basis in everyday interactions of families and peerroups.

One the one hand, findings – as represented by examples 1, 3, and 5 – showed how interlocutors continuously oriento dissolving an epistemic asymmetry in order to secure mutual understanding and the successful accomplishment of thengoing discourse activity – even if those activities were oppositional in nature (i.e. arguments). Interlocutors collaborativelystablish local relevance for an explanandum and clearly signal to each other that an explanation is to be provided in a certainequential context. Interactional roles of explainers are not only readily adopted but also, explainers employ several linguisticevices to display a knowing and authoritative stance and frame the ongoing situation as temporarily ‘more formal’ whenxplicating the knowledge in question. While they use explanations as a vehicle for presenting themselves as knowledgeables to a specific domain and position the addressees as locally unknowing, all interlocutors collaboratively accomplish andlose such co-constructed explanatory discourse. Interestingly, the above interactional procedures were observed not onlyn family talk but also in peer talk where ‘doing being knowledgeable’ might easily conflict with habitualized communicativerientations to entertain instead of ‘teach’ each other.

On the other hand, examples 2, 4 and 6 represented interactive procedures by which participants locally mitigate the
eed to provide in-depth-explanations on a given topic. Participants were not only demonstrated to first draw on lessevere problem-handling strategies once an asymmetry of understanding surfaced in their interactions, but also to reject thenteractional roles of explainers, e.g. by delaying turns and displaying reluctance. Those sequences concurred with reductionsf epistemic commitment and epistemic authority on part of the explainer-to-be and with contextualization cues that


contributed to a more informal – or a non-serious, playful (see example 6) – definition of the situation. Participants presentedthemselves as unknowing and/or unwilling and incapable of explaining. Also, accounts of inability were introduced – eitherby the explainers or the explanation-addressees – in order to open up an exit from explanatory discourse. These findingssuggest the possibility at least, that requests for explanations might potentially be linked to interactive manifestations offace-threats and face-loss in some communities of practice.

Though the main purpose of the study was to disclose interactional mechanisms behind families’ and peer groups’instantiations of explanatory discourse by means of fine-grained analysis, one distributional observation deserves beingpointed to: Each of the examples 2, 4 and 6 –represents either the only one or one of the very rare occasions where slots forexplanatory talk have been opened up at all in those particular families and cliques.2 Interactional methods to reduce thelocal relevance of ‘serious’ explanations to occur and to navigate out of such talk (e.g. by refraining from adopting knowingstances or producing accounts as to a lack of knowledge or competence) thus concurred with patterns of generally rareoccurrence of explanatory discourse. At the same time, interactional structures as represented in examples 1, 3, and 5,where participants collaboratively engaged in establishing explanations and knowledgeable positions, were not to be foundamong these families and cliques. This observation thus points to the link between local interactional mechanisms in actualconversations and the habitualized repertoire (Günthner, 2009; Heller, 2012) of discourse practices (such as explaining,story-telling) a community regularly draws upon. It suggests that families and peer groups who do not consistently engagein explanatory discourse have developed interactional procedures– and use these procedures – to navigate out of explanatorydiscourse.

Certainly, it is not the participants’ agenda to produce or ‘avoid’ explanations. Rather, the study at hand points to therelevance of stance-taking for social interaction. Learning stances and linking “who said what and how, and what kinds ofspeech activity or stance work was taking place” (Kiesling, 2009, p. 175) is assumed an integral part of children’s discoursesocialization. At the same time, particular stances have been demonstrated to be expected in academic discourse at school:Adopting an authoritative, knowledgeable stance is regarded to be one of the challenges of successful participation inacademic discourse practices (Schleppegrell, 2001; Snow & Uccelli, 2009; see Section 1). Interestingly, as the findings ofPhillips Galloway, Stude, and Uccelli (2015) indicate, students first and foremost mention the creation of certain images(e.g. being ‘smart’) when asked about their conceptions of ‘academic language’. This suggests that students are aware of theparticular (epistemic) stance-taking involved in academic, knowledge-constructing discourse practices.

The findings of this study thus imply that one of the difficulties of students to successfully participate in classroom dis-course lies in the contradictions of stance-taking experienced outside school and those expected in discourse practices atschool. Some children regularly experience themselves and others effectively taking up and being acknowledged interac-tional identities as explainers and knowledgeable sharers of knowledge. Others do not only lack access to these interactionalidentities and exposure to explanatory practices but experience these practices as being linked to the interactive disclosureof not-knowing, irrelevance and inability to explicate knowledge for others. Assuming that building up an enduring inter-actional persona across multiple situations is linked to repeated adoptions of certain interactional identities and stanceslinked to certain discourse practices (“stance accretion” in the terms of Du Bois (2002), as cited in Kirkham, 2011, p. 203),it should be more difficult for some students to integrate ‘doing being a knowledgeable person’ into their sense of self andparticipate in such activities in the classroom. Students’ identity management in classrooms has recently been pointed outas playing an important role for their success in participating in discourse activities and thus learning processes in school(Souto-Manning, 2013; Taylor, 2013).

It remains for future research to further examine to what degree and in what way adopting and identifying with interac-tional positions and stances of ‘sharers of knowledge’ serves as an important mechanisms in the development of (oral andwritten) academic language. For the time being, it appears important for teachers to understand that students’ difficultiesor unwillingness to participate in academic discourse practices in the classroom may also be a question of identificatorycompatibility with regard to students’ out-of-school experiences and identities. Teachers’ task thus lies in creating an inter-actional climate in their classrooms that invites and enables all students to become a member of the club of knowledgeableand knowledge-constructing persons.

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this article is part of the research project “Children’s discourse practices in and out of school”(principal investigator: Uta Quasthoff) which is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, reference number: QU34/13–1). I am grateful to Uta Quasthoff, Vivien Heller, and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and valuablecomments on an earlier version of this paper. Any errors or shortcomings that remain are of course my responsibility.

2 All these families and peer groups come from low SES preadolescents’ interactions. Since the qualitative study at hand did not aim at examining class-specific differences and was based on a small sample (see Section 3), this observation must be treated with caution – especially since interactional stylesof families have recently been discussed as possible mediating variables between students’ SES and their language proficiency (Domenech & Krah, 2014).

A

R

AAAAAB

BBBB

B

BBB

B

BCCD

D

D

EE

E


ppendix. Transcription Conventions GAT 2 (Selting et al., 2011)

Sequential structure[] overlap and simultaneous talk[]= fast, immediate continuation with a new turn or segment (latching)Pauses(.) micro pause, estimated, up to 0.2 s duration approx.(-), (–), (—) estimated pause of approx. 0.2–0.5 s, 0.5–0.8 s, 0.8–1.0 s duration(0.5)/(2.0) measured pause of approx. 0.5/2.0 s duration (to tenth of a second)Other segmental conventionsand uh cliticizations within unitsuh, uhm, hesitation markers, so-called “filled pauses”:,::,::: lengthening, by about 0.2–0.5 s, 0.5–0.8 s, 0.8–1.0 sAccentuationSYLlable focus accent!SYL!lable extra strong accentFinal pitch movements of intonation phrases? rising to high, rising to mid– level; falling to mid. falling to lowLoudness und tempo changes, with scope«f» forte, loud«p» piano, softContinuershm, yes, no, yeah monosyllabic tokenshm hm, ye es bi-syllabic tokensOther conventions«:-)> so> smile voice«surprised» interpretive comment with indication of scope((coughs)) non-verbal vocal actions and events() unintelligible utterance

eferences

ntaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing. The social organization of accounts. London: Sage.ukrust, V. G. (2004). Explanatory discourse in young second language learners’ peer play. Discourse Studies, 6(3), 393–412.ukrust, V., & Snow, C. E. (1998). Narratives and explanations during mealtime conversations in Norway and the US. Language and Society, 27, 221–246.utorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung. (2012). Bildung in Deutschland 2012. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.utorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung. (2014). Bildung in Deutschland 2014. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.arbieri, M., Colavita, F., & Scheuer, N. (1990). The beginning of the explaining capacity. In G. Conti-Ramsden, & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Children’s language (Vol.

7) (pp. 245–271). Hillsdale London: Erlbaum.eals, D. E. (1993). Explanatory talk in low-income families’ mealtime conversations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 489–514.enwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.enwell, B., & Stokoe, E. H. (2002). Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials: Shifting dynamics and identities. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 429–453.lum-Kulka, S. (2002). “Do you believe that lot’s wife is blocking the road (to Jericho)?” Co-constructing theories about the world with adults. In S.

Blum-Kulka, & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Talking to adults. The contribution of multiparty discourse to language acquisition (pp. 85–115). Mahwah, London:Erlbaum.

lum-Kulka, S., Hamo, M., & Habib, T. (2010). Explanations in naturally occurring peer talk: Conversational emergence and function, thematic scope, andcontribution to the development of discursive skills. First Language, 30(3–4), 440–460.

lum-Kulka, S., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Introduction: The potential of peer talk. Discourse Studies, 6(3), 291–306.olden, G. B. (2009). Beyond answering: Repeat-prefaced responses in conversation. Communication Monographs, 76(2), 121–143.onsen, M., Bos, W., Gröhlich, C., & Wendt, H. (2008). Bildungsrelevante Ressourcen im Elternhaus: Indikatoren der sozialen Komposition der Schüler-

schaften an Dortmunder Schulen. In Stadt Dortmund (Ed.), Erster kommunaler Bildungsbericht für die Schulstadt Dortmund (pp. 125–149). Münster [u.a.]:Waxmann.

uchmann, C. (2002). Measuring family background in international studies of education: Conceptual issues and methodological challenges. In A. C. Porter,& A. Gamoran (Eds.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement (pp. 150–197). Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

ucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.ekaite, A., Blum-Kulka, S., Grøver, V., & Teubal, E. (Eds.). (2014). Children’s peer talk. Learning from each other. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.layman, S. E. (2002). Sequence and solidarity. In S. R. Thye, & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Group cohesion, trust and solidarity (pp. 229–253). Amsterdam, Oxford: JAI.ean, M., Adams, G. F., & Kasari, C. (2013). How narrative difficulties build peer rejection: A discourse analysis of a girl with autism and her female peers.

Discourse Studies, 15(2), 147–166.eppermann, A. (2001). Disrespecting: A conversational practice for the negotiation of status in juvenile peer-groups. In E. T. Németh (Ed.), Pragmatics in

2000 (pp. 156–164). Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.omenech, M., & Krah, A. (2014). What familial aspects matter? Investigating argumentative competences of learners at the beginning of secondary

schooling in the light of family-based resources. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3, 77–87.
berhardt, M. (2006). Leadership and style-shifting: Women’s use of (ING) (Ph.D. thesis). University of Pittsburgh.ckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology,
21(1), 461–488.der, D. (1990). Serious and playful disputes: Variation in conflict talk among female adolescents. In A. D. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk. Sociolinguistic

investigations of arguments in conversations (pp. 67–84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0898-5898(14)00074-6/sbref0005


























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Ehmke, T., & Jude, N. (2010). Soziale Herkunft und Kompetenzerwerb. In E. Klieme, C. Artelt, J. Hartig, N. Jude, O. Köller, & M. Prenzel, et al. (Eds.), PISA 2009:Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt (pp. 231–253). Münster: Waxmann.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Goodwin, M. H. (2006). The hidden life of girls. Games of stance, status, and exclusion. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Goodwin, M. H. (2007). Occasioned knowledge exploration in family interaction. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 93–110.Goodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. (2012). Peer language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp.

365–390). Malden, MA: Wiley.Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Günthner, S. (1996). The prosodic contextualization of moral work. An analysis of reproaches in why-formats. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & M. Selting (Eds.),

Prosody in conversation. Interactional studies (pp. 271–302). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Günthner, S. (2009). Intercultural communication and the relevance of cultural specific repertoires of communicative genres. In H. Kotthoff, H. Spencer-

Oatey, K. Knapp, & G. Antos (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural communication (pp. 127–159). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.Hausendorf, H., & Quasthoff, U. M. (1996). Sprachentwicklung und Interaktion. Eine linguistische Studie zum Erwerb von Diskursfähigkeiten. Opladen: West-

deutscher Verlag.Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Helbig, G., & Buscha, J. (1991). Deutsche Grammatik. Leipzig: Langenscheidt.Heller, V. (2012). Kommunikative Erfahrungen von Kindern in Familie und Unterricht: Passungen und Divergenzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Heller, V. (2014). Discursive practices in family dinner talk and classroom discourse: A contextual comparison. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(2),

134–145.Heritage, J. (2012a). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52.Heritage, J. (2012b). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38.Hohenstein, C. (2006). Erklärendes Handeln im wissenschaftlichen. Vortrag München: Iudicium.Ioannidou, E., & Sophocleous, A. (2010). “Now, is this how we are going to say it?” Comparing teachers’ language practices in primary and secondary state

education in Cyprus. Linguistics and Education, 21(4), 298–313.Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on ‘I think‘. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Keevallik, L. (2011). The terms of not knowing. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 184–206).

Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Keppler, A. (1989). Schritt für Schritt. Das Verfahren alltäglicher Belehrungen. Soziale Welt, 40(4), 538–556.Keppler, A., & Luckmann, T. (1991). Teaching: Conversational transmission of knowledge. In I. Markovà, & K. Foppa (Eds.), Asymmetries in dialogue (pp.

143–166). Savage: Barnes & Noble.Kiesling, S. F. (2009). Style as stance: Stance as the explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation. In A. M. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance. Sociolinguistic perspectives

(pp. 171–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kirkham, S. (2011). Personal style and epistemic stance in classroom discussion. Language and Literature, 20(3), 201–217.Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Maaz, K., Baumert, J., Gresch, C., & McElvany, N. (Eds.). (2010). Der Übergang von der Grundschule in die weiterführende Schule: Leistungsgerechtigkeit und

regionale, soziale und ethnisch-kulturelle Disparitäten. Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.Michaels, S. (1981). “Sharing time”: Children’s narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10, 423–442.Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Williams Hall, M., & Resnick, L. B. (2013). Accountable talk sourcebook: For classroom conversation that works.Mondada, L. (2013). Displaying, contesting and negotiating epistemic authority in social interaction: Descriptions and questions in guided visits. Discourse

Studies, 15(5), 597–626.Morek, M. (2014). Constructing social and communicative worlds – The role of peer-interactions in preadolescents’ discursive development. Learning,

Culture and Social Interaction, 3(2), 121–133.Morek, M. (2012). Kinder erklären: Interaktionen in Familie und Unterricht im Vergleich. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 438–469). Cambridge,

New York: Cambridge University Press.Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (1994). Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(4),

541–574.Phillips Galloway, E., Stude, J., & Uccelli, P. (2015). Students’ reflections on academic language. Linguistics and Education, 31, 221–237.Preece, S. (2015). They ain’t using slang”: Working class students from linguistic minority communities in higher education. Linguistics and Education, 31,

260–275.Preece, S. (2009). Posh talk: Language and identity in higher education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Quasthoff, U., & Heller, V. (2014). Learning in context: Linguistic, social and cultural explanations of inequality. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(2)

(special issue).Rampton, B. (2006). Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University.Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language. Studies in ethnomethology

(pp. 23–78). New York: Irvington.Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In Deborah Tannen

(Hg.): Analyzing discourse. Text and talk. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12(4), 431–459.Schmidt, A. (2004). Doing peer-group: Die interaktive Konstitution jugendlicher Gruppenpraxis. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Selting, M. (1988). The role of intonation in the organization of repair and problem handling sequences in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(3), 293–322.Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., et al. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2.

Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 12, 1–51.Sidnell, J. (2012). Who knows best? Evidentiality and epistemic asymmetry in conversation. Pragmatics and Society, 3(2), 294–320.Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson, & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Souto-Manning, M. (2013). Competence as linguistic alignment: Linguistic diversities, affinity groups, and the politics of educational success. Linguistics

and Education, 24(3), 305–315.Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The

morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 3–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stukenbrock, A. (2009). Erklären – Zeigen – Demonstrieren. In J. Spreckels (Ed.), Erklären im Kontext (pp. 160–176). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider
Hohengehren.Taylor, F. (2013). Self and identity in adolescent foreign language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Wald, B. (1978). Zur Einheitlichkeit und Einleitung von Diskurseinheiten. In U. Quathoff (Ed.), Sprachstruktur – Sozialstruktur (pp. 128–149). Königstein:

Scriptor.










































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































W

WWZ

Z


arner-Garcia, S. (2014). Laughing when nothing’s funny: The pragmatic use of coping laughter in the negotiation of conversational disagreement.Pragmatics, 24(1), 157–180.

einrich, H., Thurmair, M., Breindl, E., & Willkop, E.-M. (2007). Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache. Hildesheim: Olms.ortham, S. E. F. (2006). Learning identity: The joint emergence of social identification and academic learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

adunaisky Ehrlich, S., & Blum-Kulka, S. (2010). Peer talk as a ‘double opportunity space’: The case of argumentative discourse. Discourse & Society, 21(2),211–233.

immerman, D. H. (1998). Identity, context and interaction. In C. Antaki, & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 87–106). London: Sage.
























































































2015: Show that you know – Explanations, interactional identities and epistemic stance-taking in...

Documents

Transcript of 2015: Show that you know – Explanations, interactional identities and epistemic stance-taking in...