Cover not available

Article published In: Narrative Inquiry
Vol. 36:1 (2026) ► pp.65–90

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

A different perspective on epistemics and deontics

Conveying story evaluation through the construction of status-stance relations via direct reported speech

ORCiD logo with link | KU Leuven
ORCiD logo with link | Tampere University
ORCiD logo with link | Tampere University
ORCiD logo with link | Tampere University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with KU Leuven.

Published online: 22 November 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.24058.van
Abstract
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.
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
References (51)
References
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (trans. M. Holquist & C. Emerson). University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bochenski, J. M. (1974). An analysis of authority. In F. J. Adelman (Ed.), Authority (pp. 56–85). Martinus Nijhoff. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buttny, R. (1997). Reported speech in talking race on campus. Human Communication Research, 23(4), 477–506. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carranza, I. E. (1998). Low-narrativity narratives and argumentation. Narrative Inquiry, 8(2), 287–317. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Klewitz, G. (1999). Quote — Unquote? The role of prosody in the contextualization of reported speech sequences. Pragmatics, 91, 459–485.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Craven, A. & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1998). Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31(3/4), 295–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Estellés-Arguedas, M. (2015). Expressing evidentiality through prosody? Prosodic voicing in reported speech in Spanish colloquial conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 851, 138–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, R. (2023). Celebrity gossip headlines and reliability in a Common Ground-based framework. Journal of Pragmatics, 2161, 75–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 25(1–2), 1–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamilton, H. (1998). Reported speech and survivor identity in on-line bone marrow transplantation narratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2(1), 53–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 551–578. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hogeweg, L. (2009). The meaning and interpretation of the Dutch particle wel. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(3), 519–539. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holt, E. (2000). Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 331, 425–454. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (2016). ‘Oral versions of personal experience’: Labovian narrative analysis and its uptake. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(4), 542–560. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Narrative pre-construction. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 37–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lynch, M., & Macbeth, D. (2016). The epistemics of epistemics: An introduction. Discourse Studies, 18(5), 493–499. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ochs, E. & Capps, L. (2001). Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Giving a source or basis: The practice in conversation of telling “how I know.” Journal of Pragmatics, 8(4), 607–625. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, G. & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruusuvuori, J., & Lindfors, P. (2009). Complaining about previous treatment in health care settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(12), 2415–2434. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Lectures on conversation (Ed. Gail Jefferson). Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (2003). We knew that’s it: Retelling the turning point of a narrative. Discourse Studies, 5(4), 535–561. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, M. (2010). Affectivity in conversational storytelling: An analysis of displays of anger or indignation in complaint stories. Pragmatics, 20(2), 229–277.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2018). Social deontics: A nano-level approach to human power play. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 48(3), 369–389. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van De Mieroop, D. (2019). Implying identities through narratives of vicarious experience in job interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 1521, 61–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). A deontic perspective on the collaborative, multimodal accomplishment of leadership. Leadership, 16(5), 592–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Hyvärinen, Matti
2025. Vicarious voices and positioning in marking counter-narratives in fiction. Frontiers of Narrative Studies 11:1 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Poppi, Fabio Indìo Massimo
2025. De Vindicta et Resistentia: The failure of migrants’ narrative resistance and the emergence of revenge narratives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 108 ► pp. 102224 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 november 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