Cover not available

In:Spoken Corpora and Linguistic Studies
Edited by Tommaso Raso and Heliana Mello
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 61] 2014
► pp. 271–294

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

Exploring the prosody of stance

Variation in the realization of stance adverbials

 | Univerity of Northern Arizona
 | Purdue University
Published online: 14 November 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.61.10bib
Over the last three decades, several studies have applied corpus-analytical techniques to investigate the ways in which ‘stance’ is expressed in spoken and written discourse. Corpus research has shown that there are strong differences among registers in their reliance on the different types of stance expressions. In general, spoken registers express stance to a much greater extent than written registers. Based on analysis of the Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English, the present paper explores some of the ways in which prosody interacts with lexico-grammatical structure in the expression of stance. Two major types of stance devices are explored: stance adverbials and stance verb+complement clause constructions. The analysis will focus on the extent to which these stance devices are marked with prosodic prominence (shown by pitch, length, and amplitude) in comparison to other propositional information in the same utterance. These findings will be interpreted relative to two overall goals: 1. to investigate the ways in which prosodic patterns vary across the different types and functions of stance expressions, and 2. to explore the possibility of a general ‘prosody of stance’ in English.
References (65)
Altenberg, Bengt. 1990. Some functions of the booster. In Svartik (ed.), 193–209.
Anthony, Laurence. 2011. AntConc, Version 3.2.3w. Tokyo: Waseda University. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think – An English modal particle. In Modality in Germanic languages. Historical and Comparative Perspective, Toril Swan & Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds), 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barton, Ellen. 1993. Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English 55: 745–769. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beach, Richard & Anson, Chris M. 1992. Stance and intertextuality in written discourse. Linguistics and Education 4: 335–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006a. University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006b. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 97–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan & Reppen, Randi. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 11: 1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9: 93–124.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1978. Intonation across languages. In Universals of Human Language II, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 471–524. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brazil, David. 1997. The Communicative Value of Intonation in English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe & Nichols (eds), 261–72.
Chafe, Wallace L. & Nichols, J. (eds). 1986. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charles, Maggie. 2003. ‘This mystery…’: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 313–326. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics 27(3): 492–518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, Winnie. 2011. Exploring Corpus Linguistics: Language in Action. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, Winnie, Greaves, Christopher & Warren, Martin. 2008. A Corpus-driven Study of Discourse Intonation:The Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English (Prosodic) [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 32]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan & Biber, Douglas. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Hunston & Thompson (eds), 56–73.
Cresti, Emanuela & Moneglia, Massimo. 2005. C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 15]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crompton, Peter. 1997. Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes 16: 271–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne, Dahan, Delphine & Van Donselaar, Wilma. 1997. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language. Language and Speech40: 141–201.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dressen, Dacia. 2003. Geologists’ implicit persuasive strategies and the construction of evaluative evidence. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 273–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grabe, William & Kaplan, Robert B. 1997. On the writing of science and the science of writing: Hedging in science text and elsewhere. In Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, Raija Markkanen & Hartmut Schroder (eds), 151–167. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1988. Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics 9: 20–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 1993. Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In Register Analysis: Theory and Practice, Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), 57–73. London: Pinter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In Advances in Written Text Analysis, Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), 191–218. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Thompson, Geoff (eds). 2000. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1994. HeHedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes 13: 239–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996a. Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication 13: 251–281. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996b. Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics 17: 433–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998a. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18(3): 349–383.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998b. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 54]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2): 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Tse, Polly. 2005a. Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 24(2): 123–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation [Pragmatica & Beyond New Series 115]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1984. Intensity. In Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), 43–70. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindemann, Stephanie & Mauranen, Anna. 2001. “It’s just real messy”: The occurrence and function of just in a corpus of academic speech. English for Specific Purposes 20: 459–475. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 2000. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In. Hunston & Thompson (eds), 142–175.
. 2003. Introduction. Text 23(2): 171–181.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & White, Peter R.R. 2005. Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2003. “A good question.” Expressing evaluation in academic speech. In Domain-specific English: Textual practices across communities and classrooms, Guiseppina Cortese & Philip Riley (eds), 115–140. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna & Bondi, Marina. 2003a. Evaluative language use in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2(4): 269–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(eds). 2003b. Evaluation in Academic Discourse. Special issue of Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2(4).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, Paul G. 1997. Hedging strategies in written academic discourse: Strengthening the argument by weakening the claim. In Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, Raija Markkanen & Hartmut Schroder (eds), 21–41. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor (ed.). 1989. The Pragmatics of Affect. Special issue of Text 9.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poos, Deanna & Simpson, Rita. 2002. Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging: Some findings from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. In Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 9], 3–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Precht, Kristen. 2000. Patterns of Stance in English. PhD dissertation, Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silver, Marc. 2003. The stance of stance: A critical look at ways stance is expressed and modeled in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2: 359–374. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, John M. & Burke, Amy. 2003. “It’s really fascinating work”: Differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers. In Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, Pepi Leistyna & Charles F. Meyer (eds), 1–18. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna Britta. 1990. Pauses in monologue and dialogue. In Svartvik (ed.), 211–252.
Svartvik, Jan (ed.). 1990. The London-Lund Corpus of spoken English: Description and Research. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Hunston, Susan. 2000. Evaluation: An introduction. In Hunston & Thompson (eds), 1–27.
Tucker, Paul. 2003. Evaluation in the art-historical research article. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2(4): 291–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Varttala, Teppo. 2003. Hedging in scientific research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. In Domain-specific English: Textual Practices across Communities and Classrooms, Guiseppina Cortese & Philip Riley (eds), 141–174. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2005. Please – from courtesy to appeal: The role of intonation in the expression of attitudinal meaning. English Language and Linguistics 9(2): 229–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne, Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne Marie & Aijmer, Karin. 2010. How prosody reflects semantic change: A synchronic case study of of course . In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, Hubert Cuyckens, Kristin Davidse & Lieven Vandelanotte (eds), 103–154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yaeger-Dror, Malcah. 2002. Register and prosodic variation, a cross language comparison. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1495–1536. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Cabrera-Abreu, Mercedes & Eva Estebas-Vilaplana
2025. An exploration into modality, interpersonal meanings and intonation in peer interaction. Spanish in Context DOI logo
Nissen, Vanda & Renata F.I. Meuter
2025. How does age impact understanding of epistemic adverbs in health communication?. Geriatric Nursing 61 ► pp. 596 ff. DOI logo
Elliott, Arielle V & William S Horton
2024. Typing speed and fluency as cues to uncertainty in the real-time production of written messages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 77:7 ► pp. 1498 ff. DOI logo
Staples, Shelley & Karin Puga
2022. Integrating fluency and prosody into multidimensional analysis. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 8:2 ► pp. 190 ff. DOI logo
Unuabonah, Foluke Olayinka, Folajimi Oyebola & Ulrike Gut
2021. “Abeg na! we write so our comments can be posted!”. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 31:3 ► pp. 455 ff. DOI logo
Gut, Ulrike
2020. Spoken Corpora. In A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Gut, Ulrike & Foluke Unuabonah
2019. The use of stance markers in West African Englishes. In Corpus Linguistics and African Englishes [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 88], ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
Pérez-Paredes, Pascual & M. Camino Bueno-Alastuey
2019. A corpus-driven analysis of certainty stance adverbs: Obviously, really and actually in spoken native and learner English. Journal of Pragmatics 140 ► pp. 22 ff. DOI logo
Pérez-Paredes, Pascual & María Belén Díez-Bedmar
2019. Certainty adverbs in spoken learner language. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 5:2 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
Unuabonah, Foluke Olayinka & Rotimi Olanrele Oladipupo
2018. “You're not staying in Island sha o”: O, sha and abi as pragmatic markers in Nigerian English. Journal of Pragmatics 135 ► pp. 8 ff. DOI logo
Ward, Nigel G., Jason C. Carlson & Olac Fuentes
2018. Inferring stance in news broadcasts from prosodic-feature configurations. Computer Speech & Language 50 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Staples, Shelley
2016. Identifying Linguistic Features of Medical Interactions: A Register Analysis. In Talking at Work, ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 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