Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:32:03.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Stance and Evaluation

from Part I - Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2021

By
Maarit Siromaa  and
Mirka Rauniomaa
Edited by
Michael Haugh ,
Dániel Z. Kádár  and
Marina Terkourafi
Michael Haugh
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Dániel Z. Kádár
Affiliation:
Hungarian Research Institute for Linguistics, and Dalian University of Foreign Languages
Marina Terkourafi
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Get access

Summary

This chapter outlines pertinent work on stance and evaluation that has emerged over the past two decades or so, with a specific focus on studies that have both catalysed and contributed to the discursive turn in sociopragmatics. Such studies share an understanding of stance taking and evaluation as intersubjective, dialogic processes that are collaboratively constructed and negotiated in and through interaction in various contexts. The role of stance and stance taking has been examined as local sequentiallyorganized phenomena in everyday and institutional interactions and in a larger sociolinguistic framework. The study of evaluation has similarly branched out to a discursive direction, adopting various methods that facilitate the analysis of evaluative practices in various discursive contexts. The body of work pertaining to this turn has facilitated a pivotal shift in understanding stance and evaluation as intersubjective rather than subjective phenomena, at the same time putting forward the notion that stance taking and evaluative practices take much more complex and multidimensional forms in face-to-face and mediated interpersonal communication than previously thought. Furthermore, this work has demonstrated the involvement of such practices in a great number of local and global linguistic and social processes to do with issues ranging, for example, from epistemic authority to social distribution of power.

Keywords

stanceevaluationsocial practicemultimodal(im)politenesshumour
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 95 - 116
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alba-Juez, L. and Thompson, G. (2014). The many faces and phases of evaluation. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, M. (2014). An astonishing season of destiny! Evaluation in blurbs used for advertising TV series. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 197–220.Google Scholar
Besnier, N. (1993). Reported speech and affect on Nukulaelae atoll. In Hill, J. H. and Irvine, J. T., eds., Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–81.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. (2009). From stance to style: Gender, interaction, and indexicality in Mexican immigrant youth slang. In Jaffe, A., ed., Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 146–70.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2016). Embodied sociolinguistics. In Coupland, N., ed., Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 173–98.Google Scholar
Burdelski, M. (2013). Socializing children to honorifics in Japanese: Identity and stance in interaction. Multilingua, 32, 247–73.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe, W. and Nichols, J., eds., Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 261–72.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2010). REVIEWS - Alexandra Jaffe (ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Pp. vii 261. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), 518–22.Google Scholar
Conrad, S. and Biber, E. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G., eds., Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 56–73.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2009). Prosody. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J. and D’hondt, S., eds., The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 174–89.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1999). Coherent voicing: On prosody in conversational reported speech. In Bublitz, W. and Lenk, U., eds., Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create It and How to Describe It. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–32.Google Scholar
Coupland, J. (2013). Dance, ageing and the mirror: Negotiating watchability. Discourse and Communication, 7(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, J. and Coupland, N. (2009). Attributing stance in discourses of body shape and weight loss. In Jaffe, A., ed., Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 227–49.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2001). Dialect stylization in radio talk. Language in Society, 30, 345–75.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2011). Politeness and impoliteness. In Aijmer, K. and Andersen, G., eds., Sociopragmatics, Vol. 5 of Handbooks of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 391–436.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. (2007). The stance triangle. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 139–82.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. and Kärkkäinen, E. (2012). Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text and Talk, 32(4), 433–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T. and Lindzey, G., eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 269–322.Google Scholar
Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Field, M. (1997). The role of factive predicates in the indexicalization of stance: A discourse perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 799–814.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A., eds., The Language of Turn and Sequence. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 14–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance, and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2006). Interactive footing. In Holt, E. and Clift, R., eds., Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–55.Google Scholar
Gray, B. and Biber, D. (2014). Stance markers. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C., eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 219–48.Google Scholar
Haddington, P. (2006). The organization of gaze and assessments as resources for stance taking. Text and Talk, 26(3), 281–328.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2007). The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, Language, Behaviour, Culture, 3(2), 295–317.Google Scholar
Heath, C., vom Lehn, D., Cleverly, J. and Luff, P. (2012). Revealing surprise: The local ecology and the transposition of action. In Peräkylä, A. and Sorjonen, M.-L., eds., Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 212–34.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. (2008). The evaluation of status in multi-modal texts. Functions of Language, 15(1), 64–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (2000) Evaluation: An introduction. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G., eds., Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaworski, A. and Thurlow, C. (2006). The alchemy of the upwardly mobile: symbolic capital and the stylization of elites in frequent-flyer programmes. Discourse and Society, 17(1), 99–135.Google Scholar
Kadár, D. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keisanen, T. (2006). Patterns of Stance Taking: Negative Yes/no Interrogatives and Tag Questions in American English Conversation. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B71. Oulu: Oulu University Press.Google Scholar
Kiesling, S. (2009). Style as stance: Can stance be the primary explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation? In Jaffe, A., ed., Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 171–94.Google Scholar
Kockelman, P. (2012). Review of “Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives.” Edited by Alexandra M. Jaffe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 22(2), 105–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kockelman, P. (2010). Language, Culture, and Mind: Natural Constructions and Social Kinds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kockelman, P. (2005). The semiotic stance. Semiotica, 157, 233–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kockelman, P. (2004). Stance and subjectivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(2), 127–50.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2012). On digressing with a stance and not seeking a recipient response. Text and Talk, 32(4), 477–502.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2007). The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 183–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2006). Stance-taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text and Talk, 26(6), 699–731.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I Think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Laitinen, L. (2006). Zero person in Finnish: A grammatical resource for construing human reference. In Helasvuo, M.-L. and Campbell, L., eds., Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 209–31.Google Scholar
Local, J. and Walker, G. (2008). Stance and affect in conversation: On the interplay of sequential and phonetic resources. Text and Talk, 28(6), 723–47.Google Scholar
Martin, J. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G., eds., Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 142–75.Google Scholar
Martin, J. and White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, J. (2009). Discourse or cognition: An introduction to discursive psychology. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 28(2), 50–61.Google Scholar
Niemelä, M. (2011). Resonance in Storytelling: Verbal, Prosodic and Embodied Practices of Stance Taking. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B95. Oulu: Oulu University Press.Google Scholar
Niemelä, M. (2005). Voiced direct reported speech in conversational storytelling: Sequential patterns of stance taking. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 18, 197–221.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335–58.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. and Capps, L. (2001). Living Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. (1979). Modality and the English Modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Potter, J. (1998). Discursive social psychology: From attitudes to evaluative practices. European Review of Social Psychology, 9, 233–66.Google Scholar
Potter, J. and Edwards, D. (2003). Sociolinguistics, cognitivism and discursive psychology. International Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 93–109.Google Scholar
Rauniomaa, M. (2008). Recovery through Repetition: Returning to Prior Talk and Taking a Stance in American-English and Finnish Conversations. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B85. Oulu: Oulu University Press.Google Scholar
Romano, M. (2014). Evaluation in emotion narratives. In Thompson, G. and Alba-Juez, L., eds., Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 367–86.Google Scholar
Scheibman, J. (2007). Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversation. In Englebretson, R., ed., Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 111–39.Google Scholar
Scheibman, J. (2001). Local patterns of subjectivity in person and verb type in American English conversation. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P., eds., Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 61–89.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1996). Narrative a self-portrait: Sociolinguistic construction of identity. Language in Society, 25, 167–203.Google Scholar
Shoaps, R. (2007). Moral irony: Modal particles, moral persons and indirect stance-taking in Sakapultek discourse. Pragmatics, 17(2), 297–335.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2006). Coordinating gesture, gaze and talk in re-enactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(4), 377–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2019). Coming to grips with variation in sociocultural interpretations: Methodological considerations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(10), 1198–215.Google Scholar
Walton, S. and Jaffe, A. (2011). Stuff white people like: Stance, class, race, and internet commentary. In Thurlow, C. and Mroczek, K., eds., Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 199–219.Google Scholar
Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wu, R. (2004). Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×