Cover not available

Article published In: Stance, resonance and the power of engagement
Edited by Bracha Nir and Elisabeth Zima
[Functions of Language 24:1] 2017
► pp. 65–93

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Stance management in oral narrative

The role of discourse marker well and resonance

 | Doshisha University
Published online: 4 September 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.24.1.04sak
Abstract
This paper investigates how actively the speaker engages in taking stance at various levels in oral narrative. By using Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), 139–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar stance theory, it shows that the meta-stance marker well, a discourse marker that performs the management of stance relations in conversational interaction (Sakita, Tomoko I. 2013a. Discourse markers as stance markers: Well in stance alignment in conversational interaction. Pragmatics and Cognition 21(1). 81–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), 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, Neal R. 2001. Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 849–878. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). 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, John W. 2014. Towards a Dialogic Syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3). 359–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), 139–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2014. Towards a Dialogic Syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3). 359–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finell, Anne. 1989. Well now and then. Journal of Pragmatics 13(4). 653–656. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 1998. Validating semantic analyses of discourse particles. Journal of Pragmatics 291. 111–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greasley, Peter. 1994. An investigation into the use of the particle well: Commentaries on a game of snooker. Journal of Pragmatics 221. 477–494. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
James, Allen R. 1983. ‘Well’ in reporting clauses: Meaning and form of a ‘lexical filler’. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 81. 33–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1993. The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 191. 435–452. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), 183–219.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mayes, Patricia. 1990. Quotation in spoken English. Studies in Language 14(2). 325–363. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal R. 2001. Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 849–878. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sakita, Tomoko I. 2002. Reporting discourse, tense, and cognition. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013b. Survey of the discourse marker well in quoted speech in spoken American English. Doshisha Studies in Language and Culture 15(4). 331–357.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013c. Interactional management in conversational concession with the stance marker well . Doshisha Global and Regional Studies Review 11. 59–87.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scholes, Robert & Robert Kellogg. 1966. The nature of narrative. New York, NY: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversation. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Rethinking well . Journal of Pragmatics 331. 1025–1060. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, James L. 2006. Narrative: Sociolinguistics research. In J.L. Mey (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 657–660. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yule, George. 1993. Vera Hayden’s dilemma: Or, the indirection in direct speech. In Mushira Eid & Gregory K. Iverson (eds.), Principles and prediction: The analysis of natural language. Papers in honor of Gerald Sanders, 233–242. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Logren, Aija, Sakari Ilomäki & Johanna Ruusuvuori
2025. Management of divergent stances as a resource to maintain progressivity and social relationships. Frontiers in Psychology 15 DOI logo
Ghaderi, Soleiman
2021. The functions and evolution of xob ‘well’ in Persian: A thetical analysis. Lingua 262 ► pp. 103129 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue