Discourse stance: orientation, attitude, generality

3. Discourse stance: orientation, attitude, generality

Discourse stance is defined as “how speaker-writers use language to position themselves with respect to a piece of discourse under given circumstances” and instantiates the fact that “any state of affairs in the world can be described in multiple ways” and that “there is no ‘one way’ of talking or writing about a given topic, or about the same situation in the external world” (Berman & Verhoeven 2002, Berman 2005: 109). A large body of research is subsumed by the idea of discourse stance, namely, sociolinguistic narrative and conversational interaction analysis, psycholinguistic conversation analysis, studies comparing written vs. spoken discourse, and studies on children’s discourse development (Berman et al. 2002: 256).

Discourse stance is an “overall communicative framework shaping the course of text construction” and is expressed by speaker-writers via “a broad array of linguistic devices” (Berman 2002: 258, Berman 2008: 760). From a form/function perspective (which characterizes language as being an inventory of linguistic FORMS that speakers deploy to achieve certain communicative FUNCTIONS ), Berman (2005: 107-110) outlined the three dimensions of discourse stance as being 1) ORIENTATION (either to Sender, Text, or Recipient), 2) ATTITUDE (either epistemic, deontic, or affective), and 3) GENERALITY of reference/quantification (how specific or general)—all three of which interact with one another and “can be alternated within a piece of discourse” (Berman et al. 2002: 258).

The speaker-writer’s ORIENTATION in a text is can be directed toward 1) sender (speaker-writer), 2) text (narrative/expository), or 3) recipient (hearer/reader). Discourse that is “deontically judgmental or affective in attitude, and specific in reference” and that has a subjective, (deictically) speaker-centered tone is sender-oriented. Recipient-oriented discourse seems to be addressing hearers/readers directly and is more “communicatively motivated,” evident by the use of discourse markers and use of the second person where a choice of other forms could have been made. Finally, discourse that takes a “conceptual or cognitive point of reference” toward the discourse topic and is characterized by “a totally distanced, impersonal and meta-textual level of orientation” is text-oriented (Berman et al. 2002: 259). The ATTITUDE of a text can be characterized as affective, prescriptive, or epistemic. Discourse expressing an epistemic attitude is characterized by the speaker-writer discussing a proposition “in terms of possibility, certainty, or the evidence for the individual’s belief that a given state of affairs is true (or false)” (Berman et al. 2002: 260). Discourse expressing a deontic attitude is marked by prescriptivism, a judgmental or evaluative stance toward the topic. Finally, discourse that expresses an affective attitude is demonstrated by the speaker-writer giving voice to his or her emotions with respect to a state of affairs. Each of these attitudes marks points along a continuum of objective-to-subjective stances, beginning with an epistemic, universal and objective attitude, through a socially sanctioned deontic attitude (by the speaker’s speech community), to a more subjective set of “reactions and personal feelings that an individual holds in relation to a given topic” (Berman et al. 2002: 260). In terms of GENERALITY of reference, speaker-writers can display varying degrees of generality and/or specificity with regard to the entities and states of affairs in their texts: specific, The speaker-writer’s ORIENTATION in a text is can be directed toward 1) sender (speaker-writer), 2) text (narrative/expository), or 3) recipient (hearer/reader). Discourse that is “deontically judgmental or affective in attitude, and specific in reference” and that has a subjective, (deictically) speaker-centered tone is sender-oriented. Recipient-oriented discourse seems to be addressing hearers/readers directly and is more “communicatively motivated,” evident by the use of discourse markers and use of the second person where a choice of other forms could have been made. Finally, discourse that takes a “conceptual or cognitive point of reference” toward the discourse topic and is characterized by “a totally distanced, impersonal and meta-textual level of orientation” is text-oriented (Berman et al. 2002: 259). The ATTITUDE of a text can be characterized as affective, prescriptive, or epistemic. Discourse expressing an epistemic attitude is characterized by the speaker-writer discussing a proposition “in terms of possibility, certainty, or the evidence for the individual’s belief that a given state of affairs is true (or false)” (Berman et al. 2002: 260). Discourse expressing a deontic attitude is marked by prescriptivism, a judgmental or evaluative stance toward the topic. Finally, discourse that expresses an affective attitude is demonstrated by the speaker-writer giving voice to his or her emotions with respect to a state of affairs. Each of these attitudes marks points along a continuum of objective-to-subjective stances, beginning with an epistemic, universal and objective attitude, through a socially sanctioned deontic attitude (by the speaker’s speech community), to a more subjective set of “reactions and personal feelings that an individual holds in relation to a given topic” (Berman et al. 2002: 260). In terms of GENERALITY of reference, speaker-writers can display varying degrees of generality and/or specificity with regard to the entities and states of affairs in their texts: specific,

Overall, the three dimensions involved in discourse stance make up “a continuum of rhetorical means for moving from the personal to the general, from concrete to abstract, from specific to general, from immediate to distanced [and] from involved to detached (Berman et al. 2002: 263). These aspects of discourse stance ( FUNCTIONS ) are expressed via various linguistic constructions ( FORMS ), such as different kinds of pronominal reference, passive voice, and nominalizations for “abstract, distanced rendering of predicating content” (2008: 758). The discourse stance of a given text, for instance, can be more affective in attitude when interpretives are added to the descriptives of the state of affairs/propositions within the text (2008: 759). An expository text could display less-specific, categorical nominals, generic pronouns, and/or deontic/epistemic modals, which would indicate a more irrealis attitude or one that is cognitively distanced and epistemic (2008: 759). Such an impersonal, detached discourse stance is also often signaled by atemporal generic present statements or irrealis future-oriented contingencies, which is often in stark contrast to the subjectively-involved stance of (oral) personal experience narratives (2008: 760). Linguistic devices working in conjunction form these contrasts of discourse stance: 1) nominal reference (personal pronouns/concrete nouns vs. generic pronouns/abstract nominals), 2) temporal reference (specific past events vs. atemporal, detached generalizations, and 3) agent-orientation (passive vs. active voice). Speaker-writers begin to show knowledge of the use of these linguistic resources for the Overall, the three dimensions involved in discourse stance make up “a continuum of rhetorical means for moving from the personal to the general, from concrete to abstract, from specific to general, from immediate to distanced [and] from involved to detached (Berman et al. 2002: 263). These aspects of discourse stance ( FUNCTIONS ) are expressed via various linguistic constructions ( FORMS ), such as different kinds of pronominal reference, passive voice, and nominalizations for “abstract, distanced rendering of predicating content” (2008: 758). The discourse stance of a given text, for instance, can be more affective in attitude when interpretives are added to the descriptives of the state of affairs/propositions within the text (2008: 759). An expository text could display less-specific, categorical nominals, generic pronouns, and/or deontic/epistemic modals, which would indicate a more irrealis attitude or one that is cognitively distanced and epistemic (2008: 759). Such an impersonal, detached discourse stance is also often signaled by atemporal generic present statements or irrealis future-oriented contingencies, which is often in stark contrast to the subjectively-involved stance of (oral) personal experience narratives (2008: 760). Linguistic devices working in conjunction form these contrasts of discourse stance: 1) nominal reference (personal pronouns/concrete nouns vs. generic pronouns/abstract nominals), 2) temporal reference (specific past events vs. atemporal, detached generalizations, and 3) agent-orientation (passive vs. active voice). Speaker-writers begin to show knowledge of the use of these linguistic resources for the

a. Developmental findings for discourse stance

Berman et al. (2002) made several tentative conclusions about the developmental trends of discourse stance. Distinctions in discourse stance were seen to be carried forth by a range of different, converging, linguistic forms, which in linguistic studies are often analyzed in isolation (Berman et al. 2002: 273, Berman 2004: 110). These linguistic devices, however, interact with one another to express (varying) discourse stance(s), and are considered to be a “confluence of [linguistic] cues” (Berman et al. 2002: 273).

With respect to age and schooling, Berman concluded that just as “the youngest (9-10 year old, grade-school level) children distinguish clearly between narrative and expository genre in both linguistic usage and thematic content,” they also “do so in the expression of discourse stance as well” (Berman et al. 2002: 280-281). This finding is a repeated instance of a prevalent theme in Berman’s findings: the development of usage of linguistic forms is depicted as proceeding from “dichotomy to divergence” (Berman 2004: 110). In narratives, younger speaker-writers show a high level of communicative, affective, and personalized orientation (dichotomy, monolithic, genre-canonic), whereas older speaker-writers show a more generalized stance, taking the form of “generalized evaluative commentary on the nature of [situations],” especially “in the introductory setting and the concluding coda segments” (divergence, rhetorical flexibility) (Berman et al. 2002: 281). In expository texts, a contrasting pattern to narrative text construction emerges. Younger speaker-writers take a deontic stance that is “almost entirely generalized, and so apparently abstract in nature,” and occasionally include “hypothetical With respect to age and schooling, Berman concluded that just as “the youngest (9-10 year old, grade-school level) children distinguish clearly between narrative and expository genre in both linguistic usage and thematic content,” they also “do so in the expression of discourse stance as well” (Berman et al. 2002: 280-281). This finding is a repeated instance of a prevalent theme in Berman’s findings: the development of usage of linguistic forms is depicted as proceeding from “dichotomy to divergence” (Berman 2004: 110). In narratives, younger speaker-writers show a high level of communicative, affective, and personalized orientation (dichotomy, monolithic, genre-canonic), whereas older speaker-writers show a more generalized stance, taking the form of “generalized evaluative commentary on the nature of [situations],” especially “in the introductory setting and the concluding coda segments” (divergence, rhetorical flexibility) (Berman et al. 2002: 281). In expository texts, a contrasting pattern to narrative text construction emerges. Younger speaker-writers take a deontic stance that is “almost entirely generalized, and so apparently abstract in nature,” and occasionally include “hypothetical

With respect to the explicit marking of discourse stance, Berman found that the discourse stance shifts that mature speaker-writers make are marked deliberately, with explicit linguistic devices. Younger children’s shifting of discourse stance “will tend to

be rhetorically inconsistent or communicatively inappropriate” and be characterized by a lack of overt marking of such shifts (Berman et al. 2002: 274, Berman 2004: 110). Rhetorical consistency, therefore, is the aim of this aspect of discourse stance development.

The dimension of orientation in discourse stance seems to develop concurrently with the general “factors of socio-cognitive development” (Berman et al. 2002: 275). Even though younger speaker-writers are expected to use specific and generic, personal and generalized, orientations, mostly the older speaker-writers will adopt a stance that is meta-textual in orientation.

With respect to the dimension of attitude, developing speaker-writers move from personalized attitudes, through socially-conditioned perspectives, ultimately to abstract, “academic-cognitive,” and “universalistic views on given states of affairs,” and from

“affective or deontic to epistemic attitudes” in their texts (Berman 2004:111). That is, attitude development is consistent with “Piagetian and neo-Piagetian analyses of socio- cognitive and moral development” (Berman et al. 2002: 275). This trend is attributable to speaker-writers’ emerging ability to take multiple stances on a given topic (or event), enabling them to intermingle their own social values with abstract theorizing in a text (2002: 275).