Article published In:
Narrative Inquiry: Online-First ArticlesA different perspective on epistemics and deontics
Conveying story evaluation through the construction of status-stance relations via direct reported speech
Thus far, few studies have investigated the evaluative points narrators may convey through the sequential features
of reported exchanges in their stories. In this article, we conduct a micro-oriented narrative analysis on how epistemic and
deontic status-stance relations are depicted by narrators in sequences of reported turns. We thus uncover how hierarchies and
potential transgressions between the characters in the storyworld are “shown” rather than “told” to the story recipients, who are
in this way equipped to evaluate the story as a whole and the story characters’ accountability for their interactional behavior in
particular. Furthermore, we argue that the narrators’ discursive set-up of epistemic and deontic relations in these reported
exchanges also displays their emic perspective to them. Therefore we believe that our approach can pave the way
for a novel approach to epistemics and deontics, complementing the insights gained in the conversation-analytic examination of
these phenomena in situ.
Keywords: narrative, evaluation, epistemics, deontics, direct reported speech
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- Literature review: Epistemics and deontics
- Aims of this study
- Data and method
- Analysis
- Epistemic relations
- Deontic relations
- Deontic and epistemic relations
- Discussion and conclusions
-
References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].
Published online: 22 November 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.24058.van
https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.24058.van
References (51)
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The
dialogic imagination (trans. M. Holquist & C. Emerson). University of Texas Press.
Bochenski, J. M. (1974). An
analysis of authority. In F. J. Adelman (Ed.), Authority (pp. 56–85). Martinus Nijhoff.
Buttny, R. & Cohen, J. R. (2007). Drawing
on the words of others at public hearings: Zoning, Wal-Mart, and the threat to the
aquifer. Language in
Society, 36(5), 735–756.
Buttny, R. & Williams, P. L. (2000). Demanding
respect: The uses of reported speech in discursive constructions of interracial
contact. Discourse &
Society, 11(1), 109–133.
Buttny, R. (1997). Reported
speech in talking race on campus. Human Communication
Research, 23(4), 477–506.
Carranza, I. E. (1998). Low-narrativity
narratives and argumentation. Narrative
Inquiry, 8(2), 287–317.
Chatterjee, A. & Van De Mieroop, D. (2017). Indian
women at work: Struggling between visibility and
invisibility. In D. Van De Mieroop & S. Schnurr (Eds.), Identity
struggles: Evidence from workplaces around the
world (pp. 147–164). John Benjamins.
Clifton, J., Van De Mieroop, D., Sehgal, P. & Aneet, B. (2018). The
multimodal enactment of deontic and epistemic authority in Indian
meetings. Pragmatics, 28(3), 333–360.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Klewitz, G. (1999). Quote
— Unquote? The role of prosody in the contextualization of reported speech
sequences. Pragmatics, 91, 459–485.
Craven, A. & Potter, J. (2010). Directives:
Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse
Studies, 12(4), 419–442.
Drew, P. (1998). Complaints
about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 31(3/4), 295–325.
Estellés-Arguedas, M. (2015). Expressing
evidentiality through prosody? Prosodic voicing in reported speech in Spanish colloquial
conversations. Journal of
Pragmatics, 851, 138–154.
Finkbeiner, R. (2023). Celebrity
gossip headlines and reliability in a Common Ground-based framework. Journal of
Pragmatics, 2161, 75–92.
Freeman, M. (2006). Life
“on holiday”? In defense of big stories. Narrative
Inquiry, 16(1), 131–138.
Günthner, S. (1999). Polyphony
and the ‘layering of voices’ in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported
speech. Journal of
Pragmatics, 31(5), 685–708.
Hamilton, H. (1998). Reported
speech and survivor identity in on-line bone marrow transplantation narratives. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 2(1), 53–67.
Heinonen, K. (2019). Affektinen
vitsi ja hitsi sekä niiden muodostamat kiteymät puhutussa vuorovaikutuksessa. Faculty of Arts, University of Helsinki. [URL] (accessed 22.6.2023)
Heinrichsmeier, R. (2021). Who
gets to speak: The role of reported speech for identity work in complaint stories. Journal of
Pragmatics, 1741, 43–54.
Heritage, J. (2012). The
epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and
Social
Interaction, 45(1), 30–52.
(2013). Action
formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse
Studies, 15(5), 551–578.
Hogeweg, L. (2009). The
meaning and interpretation of the Dutch particle wel
. Journal of
Pragmatics, 41(3), 519–539.
Holt, E. (2000). Reporting
and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 331, 425–454.
Johnstone, B. (2016). ‘Oral
versions of personal experience’: Labovian narrative analysis and its uptake. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 20(4), 542–560.
Labov, W. & Waletzky, J. (1966). Narrative
analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays
on the verbal and visual
arts (pp. 12–44). University of Washington Press.
(2006). Narrative
pre-construction. Narrative
Inquiry, 16(1), 37–45.
Landmark, A. M. D., Gulbrandsen, P. & Svennevig, J. (2015). Whose
decision? Negotiating epistemic and deontic rights in medical treatment decisions. Journal of
Pragmatics, 781, 54–69.
Lynch, M., & Macbeth, D. (2016). The
epistemics of epistemics: An introduction. Discourse
Studies, 18(5), 493–499.
Moore, E. (2006). ‘You
tell all the stories’: Using narrative to explore hierarchy within a Community of
Practice. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 10(5), 611–640.
Ochs, E. & Capps, L. (2001). Living
narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Harvard University Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Giving
a source or basis: The practice in conversation of telling “how I know.” Journal of
Pragmatics, 8(4), 607–625.
Raymond, G. & Heritage, J. (2006). The
epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in
Society, 35(5), 677–705.
Ruusuvuori, J., & Lindfors, P. (2009). Complaining
about previous treatment in health care settings. Journal of
Pragmatics, 41(12), 2415–2434.
Sacks, H. (1972). An
initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing
sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies
in social
interaction (pp. 31–74). Free Press.
Schiffrin, D. (2003). We
knew that’s it: Retelling the turning point of a narrative. Discourse
Studies, 5(4), 535–561.
Selting, M. (2010). Affectivity
in conversational storytelling: An analysis of displays of anger or indignation in complaint
stories. Pragmatics, 20(2), 229–277.
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic
authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and
Social
Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.
(2014). Three
orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social
relations. Language in
Society, 43(2), 185–207.
Stevanovic, M. (2018). Social
deontics: A nano-level approach to human power play. Journal for the Theory of Social
Behaviour, 48(3), 369–389.
(2021). Deontic
authority and the maintenance of lay and expert identities during joint decision making: Balancing resistance and
compliance. Discourse
Studies, 23(5), 670–689.
Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving
forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse
Studies, 14(3), 277–303.
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking
voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge University Press.
Van De Mieroop, D. & Clifton, J. (2013). Enacting
power asymmetries in reported exchanges in the narratives of former slaves. Discourse
Processes, 50(1), 52–83.
Van De Mieroop, D. (2019). Implying
identities through narratives of vicarious experience in job interviews. Journal of
Pragmatics, 1521, 61–75.
(2020). A
deontic perspective on the collaborative, multimodal accomplishment of
leadership. Leadership, 16(5), 592–619.
(2021). The
narrative dimensions model and an exploration of various narrative genres. Narrative
Inquiry, 31(1), 4–27.
Zayts, O., & Schnurr, S. (2017). Epistemic
“Struggles”: When Nurses’ Expert Identity is Challenged by “Knowledgeable”
Clients. In D. Van De Mieroop & S. Schnurr (Eds.), Identity
struggles: Evidence from workplaces around the
world (pp. 79–94). John Benjamins.