1887
Volume 24, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper elaborates on one element of the theory of Dialogic Syntax, Du Bois’ main tool for stance-taking, namely creative resonance. The examples are taken from a recording of a car ride which was part of data collected for the analysis of Hebrew. The focus in the analysis is on misalignment, when participants use stance acts to distance themselves from each other. The main claim of this paper is that whenever a stance act takes place, the relations between the participants are at stake. I show how creative, and to a lesser extent pre-existing, resonance can be used for creating and enhancing distance in misalignment. The discussion connects resonance and Dialogic Syntax with other frameworks for the study of language and interactions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.24.1.02dor
2017-08-18
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Becker, Alton L.
    1982 Beyond translation: Esthetics and language description. In Heidi Byrnes (ed.), GURT 1982: Contemporary perceptions of language: interdisciplinary dimensions, 124–138. Washington D.C., WA: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1987 Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?Journal of Pragmatics11(2). 131–146. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90192‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5 [Google Scholar]
  3. Clayman, Stephen & John Heritage
    2014 Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Paul Drew (eds.), Requesting in social interaction, 55–86. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Clift, Rebecca
    2006 Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of sociolinguistics10(5). 569–595. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2006.00296.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00296.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2014 What does grammar tell us about action?Pragmatics24(3). 623–647. doi: 10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou [Google Scholar]
  6. Dori-Hacohen, Gonen
    2010 ‘You nag so much’: Description of confrontational discourse between two women. Hebrew Linguistics62–63. 201–230. [Hebrew]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2014 Establishing social groups in Hebrew: ‘We’ in political radio phone-in programs. In Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou (ed.), Constructing collectivity: ‘We’ across languages and contexts, 187–206. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.239.13dor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.239.13dor [Google Scholar]
  8. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  9. 2014 Towards a Dialogic Syntax. Cognitive Linguistics25(3). 359–410. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024 [Google Scholar]
  10. In prep. Reasons to resonate: Motivating Dialogic Syntax.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Du Bois, John W. & Elise Kärkkäinen
    2012 Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text and Talk32(4). 433–451. doi: 10.1515/text‑2012‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0021 [Google Scholar]
  12. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hacohen, Gonen & Emanuel A. Schegloff
    2006 On the preference for minimization in referring to persons: Evidence from Hebrew conversation. Journal of Pragmatics38(8). 1305–1312. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  15. Haddington, Pentti
    2006 The organization of gaze and assessments as resources for stance taking. Text & Talk26(3). 281–328. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  16. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2012 The epistemic engine: sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction45(1). 30–52. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685 [Google Scholar]
  18. Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly68. 15–38. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jefferson, Gail 2004 Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  20. Labov, William & David Fanshel
    1977Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Maschler, Yael
    2009Metalanguage in interaction: Israeli-Hebrew discourse markers. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.181
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.181 [Google Scholar]
  22. Maschler, Yael & Bracha Nir
    2014 Complementation in linear and Dialogic Syntax: The case of Hebrew divergently aligned discourse. Cognitive Linguistics25(3). 523–557. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0029 [Google Scholar]
  23. Mondada, Lorenza
    2011 The management of knowledge discrepancies and of epistemic changes in institutional interactions. In Tanya Stivers , Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 27–57. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.003 [Google Scholar]
  24. Nir, Bracha , Gonen Dori-Hacohen & Yael Maschler
    2014 Formulations on Israeli political talk radio: From actions and sequences to stance via dialogic resonance. Discourse Studies16(4). 534–571. doi: 10.1177/1461445613519525
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613519525 [Google Scholar]
  25. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 Agreement and disagreement with assessment: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In John Heritage & Maxwell J. Atkinson (eds.), Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2003 Grammar and social organization: Yes/No interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review68(6). 939–967. doi: 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  27. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1968 Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist70(6). 1075–1095. doi: 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  28. 1972 Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In David N. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 79–106. New York, NY: MacMillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1987 Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly50. 101–114. doi: 10.2307/2786745
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2786745 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1988a On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A single case conjecture. Social problems35(4). 442–457. doi: 10.2307/800596
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800596 [Google Scholar]
  31. 1988b Description in the social sciences I: Talk-in-interaction. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics2. 1–24. doi: 10.1075/iprapip.2.1‑2.01sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/iprapip.2.1-2.01sch [Google Scholar]
  32. Schegloff, Emanuel
    2000 On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology26(1). 715–720.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2003a On ESP puns. Studies in language and social interaction. In Phillip J. Glenn , Curtin D. LeBaron & Jennifer Mandelbaum (eds), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper, 452–461. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2003b The surfacing of the suppressed. In Phillip J. Glenn , Curtin D. LeBaron & Jennifer Mandelbaum (eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper, 204–223. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2007Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  36. Stivers, Tanya
    2013 Sequence organization. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 191–209. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Stivers, Tanya & Makoto Hayashi
    2010 Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society39. 1–25. doi: 10.1017/S0047404509990637
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.24.1.02dor
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.24.1.02dor
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error