Stance management in oral narrative
The role of discourse marker well and resonance
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
well, a discourse marker that performs the management of stance relations in conversational interaction (
Sakita 2013a), plays a significant role in oral narrative as well.
Well marks two central modes of stance-taking in a narrative. First,
well 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,
well 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
well that is claimed to be unique for the context of the narrative (
Norrick 2001). However, this paper shows that
well 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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.
Well as a discourse marker, meta-stance marker, and narrative boundary marker
- 3.Data and method
- 4.Various levels of stance relation in narrative discourse and organization
- 4.1Local-spectrum stance-taking in narrative discourse
- 4.1.1Stance marking at the para-narrative level
- 4.1.2Stance marking in reported speech
- 4.1.3Stance marking for concession
- 4.1.4Stance marking in the extended sequence of a narrative
- 4.2Broad-spectrum stance-taking at an orientation shift in narrative organization
- 4.3Distribution of well in oral narrative
- 5.Discussion and conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (40)
References
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.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Du Bois, John W. 2014. Towards a Dialogic Syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3). 359–410.
Finell, Anne. 1989.
Well now and then. Journal of Pragmatics 13(4). 653–656.
Fischer, Kerstin. 1998. Validating semantic analyses of discourse particles. Journal of Pragmatics 291. 111–127.
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.
Greasley, Peter. 1994. An investigation into the use of the particle well: Commentaries on a game of snooker. Journal of Pragmatics 221. 477–494.
James, Allen R. 1983. ‘Well’ in reporting clauses: Meaning and form of a ‘lexical filler’. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 81. 33–40.
Jucker, Andreas H. 1993. The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 191. 435–452.
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2007. The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), 183–219.
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
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.
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.
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Norrick, Neal R. 2001. Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 849–878.
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.
Sakita, Tomoko I. 2002. Reporting discourse, tense, and cognition. Oxford: Elsevier.
Sakita, Tomoko I. 2013b. Survey of the discourse marker well in quoted speech in spoken American English. Doshisha Studies in Language and Culture 15(4). 331–357.
Sakita, Tomoko I. 2013c. Interactional management in conversational concession with the stance marker well
. Doshisha Global and Regional Studies Review 11. 59–87.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP.
Scholes, Robert & Robert Kellogg. 1966. The nature of narrative. New York, NY: OUP.
Schourup, Lawrence. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York, NY: Garland.
Schourup, Lawrence. 2001. Rethinking well
. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 1025–1060.
Smith, James L. 2006. Narrative: Sociolinguistics research. In J.L. Mey (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 657–660. Oxford: Elsevier.
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.
Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: CUP.
Trester, Anna Marie. 2009. Discourse marker ‘oh’ as a means for realizing the identity potential of constructed dialogue in interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13(2). 147–168.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Ghaderi, Soleiman
2021.
The functions and evolution of xob ‘well’ in Persian: A thetical analysis.
Lingua 262
► pp. 103129 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.