Large language models are increasingly used as sources of advice and information, including in high-stakes settings, yet little is known about how they respond to user disagreement. We study how a model manages its epistemic authority, referring here to its claim to knowledge, competence, or the right to advise, once a user challenges its answer. Building on Conversation Analysis, we introduce a taxonomy of six challenge types and a four-layer framework for analysing each response: whether the original claim is maintained or changed, where authority is located, how the disagreement is socially managed, and what kind of evidential support is offered. We construct a new dataset of 2,310 controlled challenge scenarios and 32,340 corresponding responses from 14 models, and analyse them using our framework with an LLM-as-judge pipeline, providing a vocabulary which future evaluation and benchmark design can build on. We find that models show conflicting behaviour: they validate users in 85% of responses but maintain their original claim in 65%. They explicitly apologise in 33% of responses, yet 59% of those apologies accompany maintenance of the original claim. They transfer authority most often in advice tasks, doing so in 28% of responses and reaching 57% in health advice and 49% in legal advice, compared with 6% in fact and 3% in explanation tasks. Abandonment of the original claim ranges from 0.8% for GPT-5.2 to 40% for DeepSeek 7B, while complete replacement of the original claim is rare overall at 1.5%.

Over the past decade, the use of emojis in social media has seen a rapid increase. Despite their popularity and image-grounded nature, previous studies have found that people interpret emojis inconsistently when presented in context and in isolation. In this work, we explore whether emoji semantics differ across languages and how semantics interacts with sentiment in emoji use across languages. To do so, we developed a corpus containing the literal meanings for a set of emojis, as defined by L1 speakers in English, Portuguese and Chinese. We then use these definitions to assess whether speakers of different languages agree on whether an emoji is being used literally or figuratively in the context where they are grounded in, as well as whether this literal and figurative use correlates with the sentiment of the context itself. We found that there were varying levels of disagreement on the definition for each emoji but that these stayed fairly consistent across languages. We also demonstrated a correlation between the sentiment of a tweet and the figurative use of an emoji, providing theoretical underpinnings for empirical results in NLP tasks, particularly offering insights that can benefit sentiment analysis models.