1887
Volume 9, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The current study draws on insights from research on reported speech, or more accurately what Tannen (2007) calls “constructed dialogue” to elucidate its role as an argumentative device as observed in a journalistic interview with a prominent American minister. I explore diverse techniques the minister uses to marshal a multiplicity of respected voices – an impressive Bakhtinian polyphony – to defend faith. An important contribution of this study lies in its integration of what Gumperz (19771982) calls “contextualization cues”, paralinguistic signaling mechanisms (stress, pitch, speech rate, etc.), and constructed dialogue as phenomena which function together. The study reveals how various contextualization cues embedded within constructed dialogue contribute to framing knowledge claims as reliable.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00050.kra
2019-10-29
2019-12-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Auer, Peter
    1992 “Introduction: John Gumperz’ Approach to Contextuatization.” InThe Contextualization of Language, ed. byPeter Auer and Aldo Di Luzio, 1–37. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.22.03aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.03aue [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1984Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Translated byCaryl Emerson. Theory and History of Literature, v. 8. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 10.5749/j.ctt22727z1
    https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt22727z1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Berger, Peter L.
    1969A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Borràs-Comes, Joan, Pilar Prieto, Paolo Roseano, and Maria Del Mar Vanrell Bosch
    2011 “Perceiving Uncertainty: Facial Gestures, Intonation, and Lexical Choice.” InProceedings of the 2nd Conference on Gesture and Speech in Interaction, ed. byCaro Kirchof, Zofia Malisz, and Petra Wagner, 50–54. Bielefeld, Germany: Bielefeld University.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman
    1960 “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” InStyle in Language, ed. byThomas Sebeok, 253–276. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Buttny, Richard and Jodi R. Cohen
    2007 “Drawing on the Words of Others at Public Hearings: Zoning, Wal-Mart, and the Threat to the Aquifer.” Language in Society36 (5): 735–756. 10.1017/S0047404507070674
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070674 [Google Scholar]
  7. Capone, Alessandro
    2010 “On the social practice of indirect reports (further advances in the theory of pragmemes).” Journal of Pragmatics42: 377–391. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  8. Capone, Alessandro, Ferenc Kiefer, and Franco Lo Piparo
    2016 “Introduction.” InIndirect Reports and Pragmatics, ed. byAlessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer, and Franco Lo Piparo, 1–8. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑41078‑4_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41078-4_1 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark, Herbert H. and Richard J. Gerrig
    1990 “Quotations as Demonstrations.” Language66 (4): 764–805. 10.2307/414729
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clayman, Stephen
    2010 “Questions in Broadcast Journalism.” InWhy Do You Ask?: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. byAlice Freed and Susan Ehrlich, 256–78. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Clift, Rebecca
    2006 “Indexing Stance: Reported Speech as an Interactional Evidential.” Journal of Sociolinguistics10(5): 569–595. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2006.00296.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00296.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Constantinescu, Mihaela-Viorica
    2014 “Evidential and Epistemic Strategies in Romanian Parliamentary Debates.” Language and Dialogue4(1):132–148. 10.1075/ld.4.1.08con
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.4.1.08con [Google Scholar]
  13. Estelles-Arguedas, Maria
    2015 “Expressing Evidentiality through Prosody? Prosodic Voicing in Reported Speech in Spanish Colloquial Conversations.” Journal of Pragmatics85: 138–154. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.012 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fairclough, Norman
    1992Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fuller, Robert C.
    2001Spiritual, but Not Religious: Understanding Unchurched America. New York: Oxford University. 10.1093/0195146808.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/0195146808.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gumperz, John
    1977 “Sociocultural Knowledge in Conversational Inference.” InGeorgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, ed. byMariel Saville-Troike, 191–211. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1982Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gunthner, Susanne
    1999 “Polyphony and the ‘layering of Voices’ in Reported Dialogues: An Analysis of the Use of Prosodic Devices in Everyday Reported Speech.” Journal of Pragmatics31(5): 685–708. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00093‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00093-9 [Google Scholar]
  20. Heritage, John and Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly68 (1): 15–38. 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hill, Jane and Judith Irvine
    (eds.) 1993Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Holt, Elizabeth
    1996 “Reporting on Talk: The Use of Direct Reported Speech in Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction29(3): 219–245. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2009 “Reported Speech.” InPragmatics of Interaction, ed. bySigurd D’hondt, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren, 190–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.4.11hol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.4.11hol [Google Scholar]
  24. 2016 “Indirect Reported Speech in Interaction.” InIndirect Reports and Pragmatics, ed. byAlessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer, and Franco Lo Piparo, 167–188. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑21395‑8_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21395-8_9 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ingrids, Henrik and Karin Aronsson
    2014 “Reported Speech and Reported Affect in Child Custody Disputes.” Research on Language and Social Interaction47(1): 69–88. 10.1080/08351813.2014.871806
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.871806 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jefferson, Gail
    1984 “Transcription Notation.” InStructures of Social Interaction, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, ix–xvi. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kärkkäinen, Elise
    2003Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.115
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.115 [Google Scholar]
  28. Keller, Timothy
    2008The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. New York: Dutton.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. King, Martin Luther
    1963 “I Have a Dream.” Washington, D.C.Retrieved fromwww.archives.gov/files/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf
  30. Kristof, Nicholas
    2016, December24. “Opinion: Am I a Christian, pastor Timothy Keller?” The New York Times. Retrieved fromwww.nytimes.com
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kuo, Sai-Hua
    2001 “Reported Speech in Chinese Political Discourse.” Discourse Studies3 (2): 181–202. 10.1177/1461445601003002002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003002002 [Google Scholar]
  32. Nagel, Thomas
    1997The Last Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Parmentier, Richard
    1993 “The Political Function of Reported Speech: A Belauan Example.” InReflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. byJohn Lucy, 261–286. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621031.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031.014 [Google Scholar]
  34. Porter, James E.
    1986 “Intertextuality and the discourse community.” Rhetoric Review5(1): 34–47. 10.1080/07350198609359131
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198609359131 [Google Scholar]
  35. Reber, Elisabeth
    2014 “Obama Said It: Quoting as an Evidential Strategy in Online Discussion Forums.” Language and Dialogue4(1): 76–92. 10.1075/ld.4.1.05reb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.4.1.05reb [Google Scholar]
  36. Roseano, Paolo, Montserrat González, Joan Borràs-Comes, and Pilar Prieto
    2016 “Communicating Epistemic Stance: How Speech and Gesture Patterns Reflect Epistemicity and Evidentiality.” Discourse Processes53(3): 135–174. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.969137
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.969137 [Google Scholar]
  37. Seltig, Margret
    1994 “Emphatic speech style: with special focus on the prosodic signalling of heightened emotive involvement in conservation.” Journal of Pragmatics22(3): 375–408. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90116‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90116-3 [Google Scholar]
  38. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1981 “Tense Variation in Narrative.” Language57(1): 45–62. 10.1353/lan.1981.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1981.0011 [Google Scholar]
  39. 1987 “Discourse Markers.” Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics5. New York: Cambridge University. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  40. Schourup, Lawrence
    2011 “The Discourse Marker Now: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach.” Journal of Pragmatics43(8): 2110–2129. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  41. Smirnova, Alla
    2012 “Argumentative Use of Reported Speech in British Newspaper Discourse.” Text & Talk32(2): 235–253. 10.1515/text‑2012‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0012 [Google Scholar]
  42. Tannen, Deborah
    1981 “New York Jewish Conversational Style.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language30: 133–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 1986 “Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narratives.” InDirect and Indirect Speech, ed. byFlorian Coulmas, 311–322. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110871968.311
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.311 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2006 “Intertextuality in Interaction: Reframing Family Arguments in Public and Private.” Text & Talk26: 597–617.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2007Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. 2nd edition. Cambridge/ New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618987
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618987 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2009 “Abduction, Dialogicality and Prior Text: The Taking on of Voices in Conversational Discourse.” Plenary address presented at the 84th annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Baltimore, MD.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 2010 “Abduction and Identity in Family Interaction: Ventriloquizing as Indirectness.” Journal of Pragmatics42(2): 307–316. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  48. van Dijk, Teun
    2012 “A Note on Epistemics and Discourse Analysis.” British Journal of Social Psychology51(1): 478–485. 10.1111/j.2044‑8309.2011.02044.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02044.x [Google Scholar]
  49. Voloshinov, Valentin
    1973Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Translated byLadislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. New York: Seminar Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wooffitt, Robin
    1992Telling Tales of the Unexpected: The Organisation of Factual Discourse. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00050.kra
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentative discourse , constructed dialogue and contextualization cues
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