Stance and Subjectivity

Kockelman, Paul

doi:10.1525/jlin.2004.14.2.127

Cited by 115 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…BENVENISTE [1966LYONS 1977;TRAUGOTT 1989;TRAUGOTT & DASHER 2002). Combining observations by JAKOBSON (1990JAKOBSON ( [1957) and GOFFMAN (1981), KOCKELMAN (2004) discusses modal markers in Q'eqchi' Maya as an expression of the speaker's level of commitment to the reality of some event. Kockelman goes on to describe this expression of commitment as a "first-order" stance, but notes that speakers may also convey a "meta-stance", that is, display a position concerning (their own or another's) first order stance.…”

Section: Perspective In Epistemic Markingmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Epistemic marking and multiple perspective: An introduction

Bergqvist

2015

STUF - Language Typology and Universals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1This paper discusses forms of epistemic marking that instantiate multiple perspective constructions (see Evans 2005). Such forms express the speaker's and the addressee's simultaneous epistemic perspectives from the point of view of the speaker, crucially relying on the assumptions of the speaker with regard to the addressee's knowledge. The analysis of forms considers established semanto-pragmatic concepts, such as semantic scope, mitigation strategies and communicative intention (as marked by sentence-type) in the exploration of forms. In addition, the notion of knowledge asymmetry is discussed alongside the concepts of epistemic status and stance as tools for a semantic analysis of investigated forms.

show abstract

Section: Perspective In Epistemic Markingmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Kockelman 2004) and evidentiality (MUSHIN 2001). A marker of stance is an expression of 'subjectivity' a notion that in of itself is both problematic and important for perspective-taking in grammar (e.g.…”

Section: Perspective In Epistemic Markingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic marking and multiple perspective: An introduction

Bergqvist

2015

STUF - Language Typology and Universals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Level 2 coding compiles specific characteristics of the media articles, including the main topics and scale at which it is positioned. Level 3 coding identifies policy actors that are cited in the media articles and their opinion statements -or stances (Kockleman 2004) -on REDD+. The study identified 829 individual stances across the 604 articles.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving consensus and managing expectations: media and REDD+ in Indonesia

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates policy actors' positions on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) expressed in Indonesian media, and shows how these policy debates have evolved between 2007 and 2012. Results indicate media debates have moved beyond early, buoyant consensus on REDD+ as a win-win solution for economic growth and environmental conservation, to clearly acknowledge the need for institutional and governance reform. Several shifts in the frequency and nature of REDD+ discourse around 2010 -including from an international to a national level focus and an increase in the level of optimism -suggests the 2010 Letter of Intent between Indonesia and Norway has the potential to be a significant driver of change. Results also indicate that translating political will into measurable performance at a local or jurisdictional level is likely to require a broader appreciation of the complex interests, expectations and implications associated with the necessary reforms, and stronger engagement with key actor groups whose vested interests go beyond REDD+ itself. We observe an apparent desire on the part of Indonesian national authorities to have their cake and eat it too; that is, to keep their forest and clear it too.

show abstract

“…By 'commitment', I here refer to the speakers' explicit claim of a particular stance as his or her own, which thereby makes that speaker socially responsible, or accountable, for holding that stance. In other words, use of CQF constitutes a commitment event in the terminology of Kockelman (2004), by which the speaker clarifies his or her role as a principal, rather than as an animator of the concurrently quotatively framed utterance and the stance it expresses (Goffman 1981).…”

Section: Structural Characteristics and Interactional Functions Of Comentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The result is a defeasible distancing from the stance expressed by the quoted utterance (see below for further discussion). The commitment-enhancing effects of CQF then follow straightforwardly: since LQC attributes stances to quoted individuals, CQF brings about the explicit attribution of a stance to the speaker, thereby rendering the use of CQF a commitment event (Kockelman 2004), with no distancing inferences. Güldemann's (2008) discussion of the pragmatics of 'quotative indices' in African languages suggests that the analysis of third-party quotation and self-quotation that I have outlined here is of broad applicability, since for the languages in his sample, third-party quotation is generally associated with distancing, self-quotation with 'illocution reinforcement'.…”

Section: Cqf and The Pragmatics Of Quotationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanti self-quotation

Michael¹

2014

Benjamins Current Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter describes two quotation strategies employed by speakers of Nanti, one involving grammaticalized quotatives and another involving complement-taking verbs of saying, and examines the consequences of the pragmatic differences between these strategies for two key questions in the study of evidentiality: first, the importance of degree of grammaticalization in delimiting ‘evidentials’; and second, the importance of the analytical distinction between epistemic modal and ‘source of information’ evidential meanings. Nanti use of the two quotation strategies is specifically analyzed in the context of self-quotation practices in order to isolate specific aspects of their pragmatics. This analysis shows that the lexical quotative strategy expresses that the quoted party is not only the source of the content of the utterance, but is also an ‘illocutionary source’, who is committed to the interactional force of the utterance, while the grammaticalized quotative strategy does not indicate such a commitment. The functional difference between lexical and grammatical quotative strategies in Nanti is compared with differences between lexical and grammaticalized quotative and reportive strategies found in other languages, and the Nanti results are found to be consistent with cross-linguistic tendencies towards functional differentiation of lexical quotative and reportives, on the one hand, and their grammaticalized counterparts, on the other. These facts, it is argued, motivate a distinction on functional grounds between grammaticalized reportives and quotatives and their lexical counterparts, supporting the use of grammaticalization as a criterion for distinguishing evidentials proper from evidential strategies. The commitment-augmenting function of the lexical quotative construction in Nanti self-quotation is then examined in light of the commitment-diminishing function commonly attributed to quotatives and reportives (and also found in Nanti). It is argued that both types of commitment-modulating effects emerge as implicatures from the basic information and illocutionary source semantics of Nanti lexical quotatives, and from pragmatic reasoning based on whether the quoted party is first person or third person. The fact that both commitment-modulating functions of Nanti lexical quotatives are derived from semantics of lexical quotatives elements is argued to show that the distinction between information source and epistemic modal meanings, often taken to be a pivotal notional distinction in defining evidentiality as a grammatical category, is also essential to the proper analysis of the pragmatics of evidential strategies in discourse.

show abstract

Stance and Subjectivity

Cited by 115 publications

References 36 publications

Epistemic marking and multiple perspective: An introduction

Epistemic marking and multiple perspective: An introduction

Moving consensus and managing expectations: media and REDD+ in Indonesia

Nanti self-quotation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About