From stance to identity: Stancetaking in contemporary English risk discourse
Abstract
The study focuses on stancetaking – an intersubjective and context-bound discursive activity that unites micro- and micro-properties of discursive interaction. The purpose of this work consists in discovering discursive ways of situational identities construction in contemporary English risk discourse as a result of stancetaking on risk. The theoretical background for this research comprises post-structuralist and socio-constructionist approaches to discourse analysis, establishing a new, socio-cognitive, direction in discourse studies. Contemporary English risk discourse serves a situational environment for investigating stancetaking in this work. It is approached as a discursive phenomenon of two types – a risk discourse proper (communicative situation of risk) and a discourse about risk (metacommunicative situation of risk). Discursive framework of communicative situation of risk reveals cognitive, pragmatic, and interactional dynamics of stancetaking in the conditions of in situ discussion of eventual stances (decisions) on risks. The inquiry resulted in determining the stance-takers’ situational identities, ranging from risk-averse to risk-taking subjects. Investigation of conversational patterns and discursive dynamism of stance alignment enabled identification and characterization of interactional mechanisms of stancetaking in situations of risk. Explorations of stancetaking in ex situ discursive conditions of metacommunicative situations of risk shed light onto socio-semiotic potential and pragmatic-rhetorical patterns of stancetaking. Complex analysis of the stance-takers’ language output provided a basis for establishing a typology of their situational identities, constructed in mediated discourse situations – layman, expert, mediator whose strategic speech behavior depends upon the balance of epistemic and affective components in their respective stances.
Downloads
References
Arundale, R. B. (2013). Conceptualizing ‘interaction’ in interpersonal pragmatics: Implications for understanding and research. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 12-26.
Arutyunova, N. D. (1999). Yazyk i mir cheloveka [Language and a Human World]. Moskva: Yazyki russkoy kultury Publ.
Bamberg, M., de Fina, A., & Schiffrin, D. (2011). Discourse and Identity Construction. In S. J. Schwartz (Ed.). Handbook of Identity Theory and Research. Retrieved from http://www.clarku.edu/~mbamberg/Material_files/Discours%20and%20Identity%20Construction.pdf
Beck, U. (1999). World Risk Society. London: Polity Press.
Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor Books.
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9, 93-124.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.). A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 369-394). Malden: Blackwell.
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuka, W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. Chafe, & J. Nichols (Eds.). Evidentially: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology (pp. 261-272). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Chafe, W. (2003). The analysis of discourse flow. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 673-687). Malden, Oxford, Carlton: Wiley-Blackwell.
Clark, H. (1986). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, R. (1997). Chromosome 6. New York: Putnam’s Sons.
Cook, R. (2001) Shock. New York: Putnam’s Sons.
Crystal, D. (2010). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20(1), 43-63.
De Fina, A. (2011). Discourse and Identity. In Dijk, T.A., van (Ed.). Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (pp. 263-282). London: Sage.
Demyankov, V. Z. (2002). Politicheskij diskurs kak predmet politologicheskoj filologii [Political discourse as an object of political philology]. Politicheskaya nauka. Politicheskij discurs: istoriya i sovremennyye issledovaniya, 3, 32-43
Dijk, T.A. van. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Du Bois, J. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.). Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction (pp. 139-182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Du Bois, J. (2010). Towards a Dialogic Syntax. Retrieved from http://www.lattice.cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf/DuBois_forthcoming_Towards_a_Dialogic_Syntax—DRAFT_2—2—1.pdf
Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetaking in discourse: An Introduction. In R. Englebretson (Ed.). Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction (pp. 1-25). Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Erikson, E. (1994). Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.
Fairclough, N. (1998). Critical Discourse Analysis. London, New York: Longman.
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, Ch. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer, & F. E. Kittay (Eds). Frames, Fields and Contrasts (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fillmore, Ch. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.). Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111-138). Seoul: Hanshin.
Gergen, K. J. (1991). The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York: Basic Books.
Givón, T. (2005). Context as Other Minds. The Pragmatics of Sociality, Cognition and Communication. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, Ch. (2013). The Cooperative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8-23.
Gumperz, J. J. (2003). Interactional Sociolinguistics: A Personal Perspective. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 503-517). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Context of situation. In M. A. K. Halliday, & R. Hasan (Eds.). Language, Context and Text (pp. 3-14). Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Harré, R. (2003). The discursive turn in Social Psychology. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 688-706). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action, formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language аnd Social Interaction, 45(1), 1-29.
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes, (Eds.). Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography оf Communication (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Ilyin, Y. P. (2012). Psihologiya riska. [Psychology of Risk]. Sankt-Peterburg: Piter Publ.
Irvine, J. T. (2009). Stance in a colonial encounter: How mr. Taylor lost his Footing. In A. Jaffe (Ed.). Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives (pp. 53-71). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jaffe, A. (2009). Introduction: the sociolinguistics of Stance. In A. Jaffe (Ed.). Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspective (pp. 3-28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnstone, B. (2009). Stance, style, and the linguistic individual. In A. Jaffe (Ed.) Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives (pp. 29-52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Joseph, J. (2004). Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kiesling, S. F., Pavalanathan, U., Fitzpatrick, J., Han, X., & Eisenstein, J. (2018). Interactional Stancetaking in Online Forums. Computational Linguistics, 44(4), 689-718.
Koopman, C. (2011). Rorty’s Linguistic Turn: Why (More Than) Language Matters to Philosophy. Contemporary Pragmatism Editions, 8(1), 61-84.
Krasnykh V. V. (2001). Osnovy psiholingvistiki I teoriyi kommunikatsiyi: kurs lektsiy [Basics of Psycholinguistics and Communication Theory: A Course of lectures]. Moskva: Gnozis Publ.
Kshanovskij O. C. (2015). Diyeslivni formy z evidentsiynym znachennyam u suchasnij perskij movi. [Verbal forms with evidential meaning in the modern Persian language]. Visnyk Kyivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu im. Shevchenka. Skhadni movy i literatury, 1(25), 20-24. (in Ukrainian).
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Locher, M. (2010). Interpersonal Pragmatics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Luhmann, N. (2005). Risk: A Sociological Theory (Communication and Social Order). New Brunswick (N.J.) – London: Aldine Transaction.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Martynyuk, A. P. (2009). Razgranicheniye discursa i teksta s pozitsiy integratsionnogo podhoda. [Distinction between discourse and text from the positions of integrational approach]. Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni V. N. Karazina. Romano-hermanska filolohiya. Metodyka vykladannya inozemnykh mov, 866(59), 49-55 (in Russian).
Matuzkova, Y. P. (2014). Identichnost’ i lingvokultura: metodologiya izucheniya: [monographiya]. [Identity and Linguistic Culture: Methodology of Research: monograph]. Odessa: Izd-vo KP OGT Publ.
Morozova, O. I. (2008). Diyalnisnyj styl myslennya u linhvistychnykh doslidzhennyakh [Dynamic style of thinking in linguistic research]. Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni V. N. Karazina. Seriya: Romano-hermanska filolohiya. Metodyka vykladannya inozemnykh mov, 811(55), 41-45 (in Ukrainian).
Morozova, O. I. (2011). Stance: pozytsiya sub’yekta dyskursyvnoyi diyalnosti. [Stance: position of the subject of discursive activity]. Visnyk Kyivskoho natsionalnoho linhvistychnoho universytetu. Seriya: Filologiya, 14(1), 87-93 (in Ukrainian).
Myers, G. (2010). Stance-taking and public discussion in blogs. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(4), 263-275.
Ochs, E. (1993). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti, & Ch. Goodwin (Eds.). Rethinking Context (pp. 335-358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. (1979). Modality and the English Modals. London, New York: Longman.
Papafragou, A. (1997). Modality: a case-study in semantic under determinacy. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Prikhodko, A. N. (2003). Vyskazyvaniye v modalno-epistemicheskom aspekte. [A statement in modal-epistemic aspect]. Kultura narodov prichernomorya: (naucnnyj zhurnal / Krymskiy nauchnyj tsentr NAN Ukrayiny), 42, 21-27 (in Russian).
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sandman, P. (1992). Mass media coverage of technological and environmental risks: A survey of research in the United States and Germany. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 199-230.
Schegloff, E. A. (1999). Discourse, pragmatics, conversation, analysis. Discourse Studies, 1(4), 405-435.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 462-482.
Schehr, R. C. (2005). Conventional risk discourse and the proliferation of fear. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(1), 38-58.
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 44(4), 695-729.
Shakhovski, V. I. (2010). Emotsiyi: dolingvistika, lingvistika, lingvokulturoloriya. [Emotions: Pre-linguistics, Linguistics, Linguistic Culture]. Moskva: Knizhnyj dom LIBROKOM Publ.
Shevchenko, I. S. (2015). Discurs kak kognitivno-kommunikativnyj fenomen, edinits y i kategorii [Discourse as cognitive-communicative phenomenon: units and categories]. Lingvisticheskie issledovanija: sbornik statej EGU, 5, 146-158 (in Russian)
Silverstein, M. (2005). Axes of evals: Tokens versus type interdiscursivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1), 6-22.
Slovič, P. (2010). The Feeling of Risk. New York: Routledge.
Stallings, R. A. (1990). Media discourse and the social construction of risk. Social Problems, 37(1), 80-95.
Swan, D., & Linehan, C. (2001). Positioning as a means of understanding the narrative construction of self: A story of lesbian escorting. Narrative Inquiry, 24, 517-638.
Tabouret-Keller, A. (1998). Language and identity. In F. Coulmas (Ed.). The Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 315-326). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ushchyna, V. (2014). Stancetaking in the discourse on risk: Identities construed. In D. Glynn, & M. Sjölin (Eds.). Subjectivity and Epistemicity. Corpus, discourse, and literary approaches to stance (pp. 215-237). Lund: Lund University Press.
Ushchyna, V. (2015). Epistemic stance and the linguistic realization of expert identities in risk communication. In M. Boguslawska-Tafelska, & A. Drogosz (Eds.) Towards the Ecology of Human Communication (pp. 33-50). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Ushchyna, V. A. (2016). Pozytsiyuvannya subyekta v suchasnomu anhlomovnomu dyskursi ryzyku. [Stancetaking in contemporary English risk discourse]. Unpublished doctor dissertation, Kyiv National Linguistic University, Kyiv, Ukraine (in Ukrainian).
Ushchyna, V. (2018). Manipulative use of RISK as a stance in political communication. Discourse and Society, 29(2), 198-221.
Vorobjova, O. P. (2006). Ideya rezonansu v linhvistychnykh doslidzhennyakh [The idea of resonance in linguistic research]. In O. O. Taranenko (Ed.). Mova. Lyudyna. Svit.
Do 70-ricchya prof. M.P. Kocherhana (pp. 72-86). Kyiv: Vyd. tsentr KNLU Publ.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
Yefimova, N. N. (2000). Ontologizatsija kontsepta "risk" v angliyskoy frazeologiyi. [Ontogization of the concept of “risk” in the English phraseology]. Unpublished candidate dissertation thesis, Irkutsk State Linguistic University, Irkutsk, Russia (in Russian).
Zinn, J. O. (2010). Risk as Discourse: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Proceedings of CADAAD (Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines) Forum, 4(2), 106-124.
Copyright (c) 2020 Valentyna Ushchyna
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors, who publish with this journal, accept the following conditions:
The authors reserve the copyright of their work and transfer to the journal the right of the first publication of this work under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Non-Derivs License (CC BY-NC-ND), which allows other persons to freely distribute a published work with mandatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.
Authors have the right to enter into separate additional agreements for the non-exclusive dissemination of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal (for example, to post the work in the electronic institutions' repository or to publish as part of a monograph), provided that the link to the first publication of the work in this journal is given.
The journal policy allows and encourages the authors to place the manuscripts on the Internet (for example, in the institutions' repositories or on personal websites), both before the presentation of this manuscript to the editorial board and during review procedure, as it contributes to the creation of productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
