1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Functions of Language
  4. Volume 24, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 24, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper investigates how actively the speaker engages in taking stance at various levels in oral narrative. By using Du Bois’ (2007) stance theory, it shows that the meta-stance marker , a discourse marker that performs the management of stance relations in conversational interaction ( Sakita 2013a ), plays a significant role in oral narrative as well. marks two central modes of stance-taking in a narrative. First, manages the changes of local-spectrum stance-taking that occur among the utterances of/about characters or of the speakers who speak in their immediate, locally shared consciousness. Second, typically manages the narrator’s broad-spectrum stance-taking with respect to the narrative event as a coherent whole. The latter corresponds to the use of that is claimed to be unique for the context of the narrative ( Norrick 2001 ). However, this paper shows that in both local- and broad-spectrum scope functions as a meta-stance marker by managing stance relations. The paper demonstrates that stance is often embedded and effectively highlighted in resonance ( Du Bois 2014 ), both in dialogic and monologic contexts.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.24.1.04sak
2017-08-18
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/fol.24.1.04sak
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Almeida, Michael J.
    1995 Time in narratives. In Judith F. Duchan , Gail A. Bruder & Lynne E. Hewitt (eds.), Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective, 159–189. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
    1981 The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, Douglas , Stig Johansson , Geoffrey Leech , Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
    1999 The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Chafe, Wallace L.
    1994 Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Sandra A. Thompson
    2000 Concessive patterns in conversation. In Bernd Kortmann & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, and contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 381–410. Berlin: Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110219043.4.381
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.4.381 [Google Scholar]
  6. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), 139–182. doi: 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  7. Du Bois, John W. 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]
  8. Englebretson, Robert
    (ed.) 2007 Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.164
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164 [Google Scholar]
  9. Finell, Anne
    1989  Well now and then. Journal of Pragmatics13(4). 653–656. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(89)90054‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(89)90054-4 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fischer, Kerstin
    1998 Validating semantic analyses of discourse particles. Journal of Pragmatics29. 111–127. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)82070‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)82070-X [Google Scholar]
  11. Fludernik, Monika
    2009 Conversational narration: Oral narration. In Peter Hühn , John Pier , Wolf Schmid & Jörg Schönert (eds.), Handbook of narratology, 63–73. Hamburg: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. González, Montserrat
    2004 Pragmatic markers in oral narrative: The case of English and Catalan. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.122
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.122 [Google Scholar]
  13. Greasley, Peter
    1994 An investigation into the use of the particle well: Commentaries on a game of snooker. Journal of Pragmatics22. 477–494. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90079‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90079-5 [Google Scholar]
  14. James, Allen R.
    1983 ‘Well’ in reporting clauses: Meaning and form of a ‘lexical filler’. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik8. 33–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Jucker, Andreas H.
    1993 The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics19. 435–452. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90004‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kärkkäinen, Elise
    2003 Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.115
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.115 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2007 The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), 183–219.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Labov, William
    1972 Language in the inner city. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky
    1967 Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In June Helm (ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts, 12–44. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Lakoff, Robin
    1973 Questionable answers and answerable questions. In Braj Kachru , Robert B. Lees , Yakov Malkiel , Angelina Pietrangeli & Sol Soporta (eds.), Issues in Linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renee Kahane, 453–467. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Mayes, Patricia
    1990 Quotation in spoken English. Studies in Language14(2). 325–363. doi: 10.1075/sl.14.2.04may
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.14.2.04may [Google Scholar]
  22. McNeill, David
    1992 Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Müller, Simone
    2005 Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.138
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.138 [Google Scholar]
  24. Norrick, Neal R.
    2001 Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics33. 849–878. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80032‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80032-1 [Google Scholar]
  25. Östman, Jan-Ola
    1981 ‘You know’: A discourse-functional study. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pb.ii.7
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.ii.7 [Google Scholar]
  26. Owen, Marion
    1981 Conversational units and the use of ‘well …’. In Paul Werth (ed.), Conversation and discourse: Structure and interpretation, 99–116. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Sakita, Tomoko I.
    2002 Reporting discourse, tense, and cognition. Oxford: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 2006 Parallelism in conversation: Resonance, schematization, and extension from the perspective of Dialogic Syntax and Cognitive Linguistics. Pragmatics and Cognition14(3). 467–500. doi: 10.1075/pc.14.3.03sak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.14.3.03sak [Google Scholar]
  29. Sakita, Tomoko I. 2013a Discourse markers as stance markers: Well in stance alignment in conversational interaction. Pragmatics and Cognition21(1). 81–116. doi: 10.1075/pc.21.1.04sak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21.1.04sak [Google Scholar]
  30. 2013b Survey of the discourse marker well in quoted speech in spoken American English. Doshisha Studies in Language and Culture15(4). 331–357.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 2013c Interactional management in conversational concession with the stance marker well . Doshisha Global and Regional Studies Review1. 59–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987 Discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  33. Scholes, Robert & Robert Kellogg
    1966 The nature of narrative. New York, NY: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Schourup, Lawrence
    1985 Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York, NY: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 2001 Rethinking well . Journal of Pragmatics33. 1025–1060. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00053‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00053-9 [Google Scholar]
  36. Smith, James L.
    2006 Narrative: Sociolinguistics research. In J.L. Mey (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 657–660. Oxford: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Svartvik, Jan
    1980  Well in conversation. In Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey N. Leech & Jan Svartvik (eds.), Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk, 167–177. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Tannen, Deborah
    1989 Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Trester, Anna Marie
    2009 Discourse marker ‘oh’ as a means for realizing the identity potential of constructed dialogue in interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics13(2). 147–168. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2009.00402.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2009.00402.x [Google Scholar]
  40. Yule, George
    1993 Vera Hayden’s dilemma: Or, the indirection in direct speech. In Mushira Eid & Gregory K. Iverson (eds.), Principles and prediction: The analysis of natural language. Papers in honor of Gerald Sanders, 233–242. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.98.20yul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.98.20yul [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.24.1.04sak
Loading
Stance management in oral narrative
Functions of Language 24, 65 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.24.1.04sak
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.24.1.04sak
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.24.1.04sak
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited

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