Epistemics
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Epistemics | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | John Heritage (UCLA, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8603-6447) |
| To cite: | Heritage, John. (2026). Epistemics. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: [ ] |
Epistemics is a topic of conversation-analytic inquiry, focusing on the knowledge claims that are asserted, contested and defended in social interaction. These claims are observable in the ways that persons design and implement social actions and sequences of them (Heritage 2024, see also Wootton 1989). The term derives form the Greek episteme meaning knowledge or understanding, and is the subject matter – epistemology – of a branch of philosophy. Research on epistemics is, together with the analysis of other dimensions of stance, especially deontics and affect (Stevanovic & Peräkylä 2014; Wu, Heritage & Raymond 2026), a central element drawing together the analysis of social interaction with sociological conceptions of identity, role, institutions and social structure.
Epistemic issues are omnirelevant and ubiquitous features of social interaction (Heritage 2018) and are universal across the societies of the world. (The capacity to track the knowledge and social connections of others has also been argued to underly the evolutionary expansion of brain size relative to the size of social groups in hominids and other primates [Dunbar 2003]). From the point, normally reached between the ages of four and eight, that children are able to recognize differences between their own and others’ knowledge of the world (Astington 2006), they enter a world structured in terms of epistemic distinctions. (It seems likely that the representation of others’ beliefs can be traced to the functioning of single neurons [Jamali et al. 2021] where the latter may be an evolved feature of human sociality.) For example, in referring to a neighbor a person might simply use a first name, Mary, or a variety of more complex reference forms: Mary Smith; Mrs. Smith; John’s Mom; Jane’s daughter; Linda’s aunt; David’s girlfriend; my mother; your aunt; Fido’s owner; the woman who drives the white BMW; that neighbor of ours… and so on. While some or many of these expressions may be correct, the choice between them is most centrally shaped by what the recipient is presumed to know about ‘Mary’ and how she knows it (Schegloff 1972). The choice, in other words, is one made on epistemic grounds.
The kinds of choices just described involve speakers in taking account of what others know in designing their turns at talk. Other kinds of epistemic choices involve the evidential calibration of knowledge claims in terms of, for example, their sources in firsthand knowledge, inference or hearsay (Aikhenvald 2004, 2021). 57% of the 400+ languages surveyed in the World Atlas of Language Structures Online (WALS) impose this distinction as a grammatical choice on their speakers (de Haan 2013). Another variation involves epistemic modality (Palmer 2001) in which claims can be adjusted as more or less certain as in ‘He may have robbed the bank’ (van der Auwera & Ammann 2013). And in egophoric languages the relative access to knowledge of the participants in relation to some state of affairs is expressed in grammaticalized form (Grzech & Bergqvist 2025; Sandman & Grzech 2022; San Roque, Floyd & Norcliffe 2018; see also Evans, Bergqvist & San Roque 2018a, 2018b).
Within CA, interest in epistemic questions mainly focuses on circumstances in which interactants have asymmetric epistemic status or access to knowledge. Interactants are conceived as differentially informed about the topics their conversations touch upon. The prototypical case is one in which A asks B a question, reflexively framing A as lacking some form of knowledge (K-) and reciprocally constituting B as the knowledgeable (K+) party (Heritage 2010). These asymmetries may be rooted in different life experiences, including personal memories, expectations, desires and hopes, or in institutionally sanctioned knowledge and roles that are found in the medical and other professions, or simply that A saw an event whereas B only heard about it, or saw it more recently than B, or even something as ephemeral as A just saw something a moment ago that B didn’t. The differential may not be restricted to actual knowledge, but may also involve rights to know it, or even to articulate it. For example, it is well documented that patients may possess a good deal of knowledge about their medical conditions, but may find themselves unable to articulate it in the doctor’s office with any degree of authority.
A general feature of social interaction is that persons design their epistemic stance in talk to match their epistemic status. This epistemic stance is indexed using a very wide-ranging set of methods that are fitted to the actions and sequential contexts in play. The fit between epistemic stance and status is relied upon by the recipients of talk as an element in determining the social action to which they should respond. For this reason, epistemic issues absolutely permeate other domains of conversational organization including, most importantly, action formation (Heritage 2013, 2022) where arguably the most fundamental action distinction in interaction – between requesting and giving information – hinges upon epistemic status (Heritage 2012a), which can readily override the epistemic stance otherwise conveyed by grammatical form and other aspects of turn design. Relative epistemic status is arguably a vital support to the rather unreliable (Levinson 2012) use of intonation to mark questions that is depended upon by about 18% of the world’s languages (Dryer 2013a), not to mention those languages for which there are no attested means of marking actions as questioning. It may be added that, in a context in which early determination of the social action being implemented by an incoming utterance is a central feature of response construction (Levinson 2013; Levinson & Torreira 2015), epistemic status may be a vital early clue in the process (Heritage 2022). Similar considerations may apply to the 314 languages in which question particles are deployed to signal polar questions in sentence-final position (Dryer 2013b) – long after the construction of response has been initiated.
Our understanding of the significance of epistemics for action formation and sequence in interaction progressed rapidly following the publication of work by Heritage and others (Heritage 2012a, 2012b; Stivers et al. 2011). In particular, the recognition that epistemic status is central to participants’ ability to discriminate between assertions and questions – the two primary conversational actions undertaken in human interaction – has become important in the analysis of action formation, sequence organization and repair. Critics have claimed that the concept of epistemics is ‘cognitivist’ and refers to a “hidden order”, discernable only to the analyst (e.g. Lynch and MacBeth 2016), critiques which have been effectively rebutted in publications demonstrating that epistemic phenomena are a basic order of social organization (Drew 2018; Heritage 2018, 2024; Whitehead et al. 2025) alongside turn-taking, sequence organization, repair and others identified by Schegloff (2006). Thus, these critiques notwithstanding, epistemic phenomena continue to be a primary and heavily research topic of investigation among interaction researchers.
For example, from the earliest studies in CA onwards, epistemic issues have been seen as crucial to a wide variety of interactional processes. For example, Lerner (2003, see also Stivers & Robinson 2006; Raymond, Robinson and Bolden 2027) showed that epistemic status is implicated in next-speaker selection: K+ recipients are selected to speak next in contexts where there is differential knowledge access among potential recipients. In 1979, in a classic paper, Charles Goodwin showed that speakers will design and re-design turns to accommodate different recipients’ presumed knowledge. Again, numerous analysts from Sacks onwards have explored the centrality of epistemic issues in news delivery sequences, under the auspices of a general norm that bars speakers from telling things that recipients already know (Maynard 2003; Pomerantz 1980; Terasaki 2004). As noted above, Sacks and Schegloff showed the centrality of identifying the knowledge of a recipient as a means to design a recognizable reference to persons (Sacks & Schegloff 1979; Schegloff 1972, 1996, see also Heritage 2011). Epistemic issues have similarly been found to infuse many aspects of repair sequences, including self-repair (Drew, Walker & Ogden 2013; Raymond & Gill 2025) and responsibility for other-initiated repair (Robinson 2006, 2013). Finally, epistemic issues are central to many aspects of a very wide range of interactions in institutional contexts (Drew & Heritage 1992; Heritage and Clayman 2010).
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2021). The web of knowledge: Evidentiality at the cross-roads. In The Web of Knowledge (pp. 1-139). Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004466425_002
Astington, J. W. (2006). The developmental interdependence of theory of mind and language. In N. C. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of Human Sociality (pp. 179-206). Berg.
de Haan, F. (2013). Coding of Evidentiality. In M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/78, Accessed on 2025-12-02.)
Drew, P. (2018). Special Issue: Epistemics – the rebuttal. Discourse Studies, 20(1).
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at Work: Language Use in Institutional and Work-Place Settings. Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R. (2013). Self repair and action construction. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational Repair and Human Understanding (pp. 71-94). Cambridge University Press.
Dryer, M.S. (2013a). Polar Questions. In: M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/116, Accessed on 2025-12-02.)
Dryer, M.S. (2013b). Position of Polar Question Particles. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/92, Accessed on 2025-12-03.)
Dunbar, R. I. (2003). The social brain: Mind, language, and society in evolutionary perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 163-181.
Evans, N., Bergqvist, H., & San Roque, L. (2018). The grammar of engagement I: framework and initial exemplification. Language and Cognition, 10(1), 110-140.
Evans, N., Bergqvist, H., & San Roque, L. (2018). The grammar of engagement II: Typology and diachrony. Language and Cognition, 10(1), 141-170.
Goodwin, C. (1979). The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 97-121). Irvington Publishers.
Grzech, K., & Bergqvist, H. (2026). Expanding the Boundaries of Epistemicity: Epistemic Modality, Evidentiality, and Beyond (Vol. 393). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Heritage, J. (2010). Questioning in medicine. In A. F. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Why Do you Ask?: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse (pp. 42-68). Oxford University Press.
Heritage, J. (2011). Territories of Knowledge, Territories of Experience: Empathic Moments in Interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 159- 183). Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 1-25.
Heritage, J. (2012b). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 25-50.
Heritage, J. (2013). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15, 547-574.
Heritage, J. (2018). The Ubiquity of Epistemics: A Rebuttal to the ‘epistemics of epistemics’ Group. Discourse Studies, 20(1), 14-56.
Heritage, J. (2022). The multiple accountabilities of action. In A. Deppermann & M. Haugh (Eds.), Action Ascription in Interaction (pp. 297-326). Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (2024). The epistemics of epistemics: Validating claims about epistemic stance in conversation analysis. In J. D. Robinson, R. Clift, K. Kendrick, & C. W. Raymond (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods in Conversation Analysis (pp. 419-451). Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. E. (2010). Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Blackwell-Wiley. Jamali, M., Grannan, B. L., Fedorenko, E., Saxe, R., Báez-Mendoza, R., & Williams, Z. M. (2021). Single-neuronal predictions of others’ beliefs in humans. Nature, 591(7851), 610-614.
Levinson, S. C. (2012). Interrogative intimations: On a possible social economics of interrogatives. In J.-P. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives (pp. 11-32). Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 103-130). Wiley-Blackwell.
Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 731.
Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32, 177-201.
Lynch, M. & Macbeth D. (2016). Special Issue: The epistemics of Epistemics. Discourse Studies, 18(5).
Maynard, D. W. (2003). Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. University of Chicago Press.
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and Modality. Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. M. (1980). Telling My Side: 'Limited Access' as a 'Fishing' Device. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186-198.
Raymond, C. W., & Gill, V. T. (2025). Pre-emptive Repair of Potential Misunderstandings: Prospective Procedures for Managing Intersubjectivity and Steering Social Action. American Sociological Review, 90: 690-725.
Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., & Bolden, G. B. (2027). Turn-Taking in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, J. D. (2006). Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational repair. Communication Monographs, 73, 137-161.
Robinson, J. D. (2013). Epistemics, action formation and other-initiation of repair: the case of partial questioning repeats. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational Repair and Human Understanding (pp. 261-292). Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons and Their Interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 15-21). Irvington Publishers.
Sandman, E., & Grzech, K. (2022). Egophoricity and evidentiality: Different categories, similar discourse functions: Insights on conversational data from the Tibetan Plateau and the Amazonian Foothills. Interactional Linguistics, 2(1), 79-109.
San Roque, L., Floyd, S., & Norcliffe, E. (2018). Egophoricity: An introduction. In Egophoricity (pp. 1-78). Benjamins.
Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction (pp. 75-119). Free Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in interaction: a partial sketch of a systematics. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora (pp. 437-485). John Benjamins.
Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language and the arena in which culture is enacted. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), The Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction (pp. 70-96). Berg.
Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Language in Society, 43(2), 185-207.
Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (Eds.). (2011). The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge University Press.
Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367-392.
Terasaki, A. K. (2004). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 171-223). John Benjamins.
van der Auwera, J., & Ammann, A. (2013). Epistemic Possibility. In: In: M.S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/75, Accessed on 2025-12-02.)
Whitehead, K. A., Stokoe, E., & Raymond, G. (2025). Categories in Social Interaction. Taylor and Francis.
Wootton, A. (1989). Remarks on the Methodology of Conversation Analysis. In P. Bull & D. Roger (Eds.), Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 238-258). Multilingual Matters.
Wu, R.-J., Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W. (2026). Stance in interaction. In M. Burdelski & T. Greer (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 109-124). Routledge.
