Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published online by De Gruyter Mouton August 4, 2022

Stancetaking in motion: stance triangle and double dialogicality

Shoichi Iwasaki
From the journal Text & Talk

Abstract

Revealing one’s evaluation towards a shared target of stance will likely set off a chain of reactions among all participants in an interaction. This interactive activity widely recognized as stancetaking has attracted the attention of researchers in a variety of fields of inquiry. This paper intends to enrich this line of research by revealing details of stancetaking as an evolving process. It proposes to do so by recognizing two separate layers relevant for stance progression. The first is the external layer where participants physically exchange utterances in order to negotiate their stances. The second is the internal layer where each participant interacts with his/her own internalized and internalizing knowledge. To demonstrate these points, I will analyze excerpts of English conversations between unacquainted speakers who experienced a common major incident in their daily lives (an earthquake and a false missile alarm incident). I will also use a conversation in Thai to demonstrate how a speaker indexes her changing evaluation toward a third person by alternating different third person pronouns.


Corresponding author: Shoichi Iwasaki, Department of Asian Languages and Cultures, UCLA , 290 Royce Hall, Box 951540, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1540, USA, E-mail:

Funding source: Academic Senate, University of California, Los Angeles

Award Identifier / Grant number: 2019-2020

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to three anonymous reviewers who read the original manuscript and provided detailed critical comments and suggestions. I also want to thank Srikant Sarangi, the editor of Text and Talk, who guided me to complete this article and the Special Issue. I take full responsibility for any remaining issues presented in this paper.

Appendix

Transcription conventions

Intonation unit boundaries:

. (period) = terminative/final

, (comma) = continuative

? (question mark) = rising intonation

ˆ = prominence (emphasized articulation)

[ ] overlap

.. (two dots) = short pause, less than 3 s

… (three dots) = untimed long pause, about 3 s

(0.5) = measured pause in second

- (dash) = truncation/cut-off

= (equal sign) = latching

#word = uncertain segment

### = unintelligible

@ = laugh pulse

wo@rd = laughing word

Abbreviations (Thai)

1SG = 

first person singular

COMP = 

complementizer

COP = 

copula

HES = 

hesitation

IRR = 

irrealis marker

PRT = 

particle

Q = 

question particle

References

Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhaĭlovich. 1981 [1934]. The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bodine, Ann. 1975. Sex defferentiation in language. In Barrie Thorne & Nancy Henley (eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance, 130–151. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1996a. Communities, commonalities, and communication. In John J. Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 324–355. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1996b. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cooke, Joseph R. 1968. Pronominal reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2012. On affectivity and preference in responses to rejection. Text & Talk 32(4). 453–475. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0022.Search in Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. On assessing situations and events in conversation: Extraposition and its relatives. Discourse Studies 10(4). 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608091882.Search in Google Scholar

Damari, Rebecca Rubin. 2010. Intertextual stancetaking and the local negotiation of cultural identities by a binational couple. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14(5). 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010.00456.x.Search in Google Scholar

Deppermann, Arnulf & Susanne Günthner. 2015. Temporality in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.27Search in Google Scholar

Dori-Hacohen, Gonen. 2017. Creative resonance and misalignment stance: Achieving distance in one Hebrew interaction. Functions of Language 24(1). 16–40. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.24.1.02dor.Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.07duSearch in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W. 2011. Co-opting intersubjectivity. In Christian Meyer & Felix Girke (eds.), The rhetorical emergence of culture, 52–83. New York: Berghahn Books.Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W. 2014. Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3). 359–410. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024.Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W. & Elise Kärkkäinen. 2012. Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text & Talk 32(4). 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0021.Search in Google Scholar

Enfield, Nicholas J. 2008. Common ground as a resource for social affiliation. In István Kecskés & Jacob Mey (eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, 223–254. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Enfield, Nicholas J. 2011. Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 58–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013Search in Google Scholar

Enfield, Nicholas J. 2013. Relationship thinking: Agency, encrony and human sociality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199338733.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Englebretson, Robert. 2007. Introduction. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction, 1–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.4324/9781315096650-1Search in Google Scholar

Flint, Natalie, Michael Haugh & Andrew John Merrison. 2019. Modulating troubles affiliating in initial interactions: The role of remedial accounts. Pragmatics 29(3). 384–409. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17010.fli.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1978. Response cries. Language 54(4). 787–815. https://doi.org/10.2307/413235.Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles & Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 1992. Assessments and the construction of context. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 147–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Haddington, Pentti. 2004. Stance taking in news interviews. SKY Journal of Linguistics 17. 101–142.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 1998. Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27(3). 291–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500019990.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2011. Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 159–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2012. The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(1). 30–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1). 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103.Search in Google Scholar

Iwasaki, Shoichi & Preeya Ingkaphirom. 2000. Creating speech register in Thai conversation. Language in Society 29(4). 519–554. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500004024.Search in Google Scholar

Iwasaki, Shoichi & Preeya Ingkaphirom. 2005. A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kamio, Akio. 1994. The theory of territory of information: The case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 21(1). 67–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90047-7.Search in Google Scholar

Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territory of information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.48Search in Google Scholar

Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2012. On digressing with a stance and not seeking a recipient response. Text & Talk 32(4). 477–502.10.1515/text-2012-0023Search in Google Scholar

Kecskés, István & Jacob Mey. 2008. Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110211474Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William & David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Laury, Ritva. 2012. Taking a stance and getting on with it: The form and function of the Finnish finite clausal extraposition construction. Text & Talk 32(4). 503–524. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0024.Search in Google Scholar

Lempert, Michael. 2009. On ‘flip-flopping’: Branded stance-taking in US electoral politics. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13(2). 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2009.00405.x.Search in Google Scholar

Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Maynard, Douglas W. & Don H. Zimmerman. 1984. Topical talk, ritual and the social organization of relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly 47. 301–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033633.Search in Google Scholar

Nir, Bracha, Gonen Dori-Hacohen & Yael Maschler. 2014. Formulations on Israeli political talk radio: From actions and sequences to stance via dialogic resonance. Discourse Studies 16(4). 534–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613519525.Search in Google Scholar

Noy, Chaim & Michal Hamo. 2019. Stance-taking and participation framework in museum commenting platforms: On subjects, objects, authors, and principals. Language in Society 48(2). 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404519000010.Search in Google Scholar

Sakita, Tomoko I. 2013. Discourse markers as stance markers: Well in stance alignment in conversational interaction. Pragmatics & Cognition 21(1). 81–116. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21.1.04sak.Search in Google Scholar

Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Karin Aijmer. 2008. The semantic field of modal certainty. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110198928Search in Google Scholar

Siromaa, Maarit. 2012. Resonance in conversational second stories: A dialogic resource for stance taking. Text & Talk 32(4). 525–545. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0025.Search in Google Scholar

Stivers, Tanya. 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1). 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123.Search in Google Scholar

Tainio, Liisa. 2012. Prosodic imitation as a means of receiving and displaying a critical stance in classroom interaction. Text & Talk 32(4). 547–568. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0026.Search in Google Scholar

Takanashi, Hiroko. 2018. Stance. In Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. John Benjamins, 173–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hop.21.sta2Search in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah. 1987. Repetition in conversation: Towards a poetics of talk. Language 63(3). 574–605. https://doi.org/10.2307/415006.Search in Google Scholar

Tedlock, Dennis & Bruce Mannheim (eds.). 1995. The dialogic emergence of culture. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. 1989. A discourse approach to the cross-linguistic category ‘adjective’. In Roberta Corrigan, Fred Eckman & Michael Noonam (eds.), Linguistic categorization, 245–265. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.61.16thoSearch in Google Scholar

Timmermans, Stefan & Iddo Tavory. 2020. Racist encounters: A pragmatist semiotic analysis of interaction. Sociological Theory 38(4). 295–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275120961414.Search in Google Scholar

Vandergriff, Ilona. 2012. Taking a stance on stance: Metastancing as legitimation. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 6(1). 53–75.Search in Google Scholar

Yule, George. 1982. Interpreting anaphora without identifying reference. Journal of Semantics 1(3–4). 315–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/1.3-4.315.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-12-19
Accepted: 2022-07-06
Published Online: 2022-08-04

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Scroll Up Arrow