Running head: UNDERSTANDING STANCETAKING 1

Understanding Stancetaking

Stancetaking in the Classroom

Lauren Porter

Colorado State University

 UNDERSTANDING STANCETAKING 2

Introduction

This paper reviews recent literature related to stancetaking that provides a backdrop

for current perspectives on the topic, examines the evolution of stancetaking, and defines

concepts that are related to stancetaking in order to develop a hypothesis to conduct a

research study on stancetaking in the classroom.

Background Information

In order to understand stance, it is pertinent to first examine the previous waves of

variation studies. These different phases (waves) of research take into account different

perspectives of the relationship between society and language (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015).

Studies in the first and second waves looked at speech being motivated by a speakers

position in society and in social structures, and the third wave shifted to look at speakers as

constructing their own social realities. Stance, which is the means by which speakers position

themselves to ongoing talk and to other interlocutors (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015), was not

studied and examined until the third wave of variation studies. Research from all three waves

of variation studies continues to influence research today (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015).

Another way to think about the three waves of variation studies is that the first and second

waves studied how linguistic variables reflected social identity. In these cases, social identity

held power and influence over linguistic choices. However, in the third wave of studies,

perspective shifted to how speakers chose to use different linguistic variables to position

themselves in society- in these studies, speakers are viewed as the agents with power.

The first wave of variation studies aimed to establish connections or correlations

between social categories such as socioeconomic class, age, race, sex, and ethnicity, and

linguistic variables (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015). Studies in this first wave include Fischers
 UNDERSTANDING STANCETAKING 3

1958 (as cited in Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015) study of the /n/ variable by gender, the fourth

floor study done by Labov in 1966, as cited in Wardhaugh & Fuller (2015), which studied the

use of the (r) variable by different social classes in New York City, Trudgills work in

Norwich in 1974 (as cited in Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015), where he studied different

phonological variables and usage related to social class and level of formality, Shuy,

Wolfram, & Rileys 1968 study (and Wolframs 1969 follow-up study), both cited in

Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015, that examined multiple negation and social class in Detroit, and

others. In these studies, researches had to assign people into different social classes and

groups in order to study them categorically; in other words, the first wave of studies imposed

certain sociolinguistic variables on those being studied. In this way, it can be seen how this

first wave was motivated by examining linguistic variation based on social structures and

individuals positions in society.

The second wave of variation studies began to look more closely at identity in

context, and attempted to understand how speakers used variables, and how those variables

could affect identity. According to Wardhaugh and Fuller (2015), the second wave studies

began to focus on speaker agencysuch studies sought to explain the variation using

ethnographically determined social categories and cultural norms (p. 185). Studies in the

second wave included work by the Milroys in Belfast (1978) and by Milroy (1980, 1987),

both cited in Wardaugh & Fuller, 2015, that showed how stable sets of linguistic norms were

established and maintained in communities; these vernacular norms, so called by Lesley

Milroy, were not symbols of status, but instead were perceived as symbolizing values of

solidarity and reciprocity rather than status, and are not publicly codified or recognized

(Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015, p. 185). Other work in the second wave includes the Cheshire
 UNDERSTANDING STANCETAKING 4

(1978) study on the (s) variable in boys and girls, and Eckerts work (1989, 2000) on

adolescents near Detroit, also both cited in Wardaugh & Fuller, 2015.

As mentioned, the third wave of variation studies represented a shift in perspective,

one that gave agency to the speaker. It is important to note that sociolinguists who study

variation, have noted that there are a range of factors which influence speaker choices about

what variants to use, and that variation is more than moving up and down the continuum

from formal to informal registers (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015, p. 190). In other words, the

third wave represents an opposition to the original ideas that social status or class determines

linguistic variation used. Sociolinguists have begun to view language use in ways that align

with social constructionist views (meaning that there are a wide range of variables and

factors that contribute to variation), and these are all contextual. Stance is an example of one

of these variables.

Understanding Stance

These ideas are important because they pave the way to understanding variation in

other ways, and much of the recent research (part of the third wave of studies), uses the idea

of stance to examine variation in language use. Stance can be defined as the attitude or

position a person takes in conversation (Kiesling, 2009, p. 193). In a conversation, there are

two different kinds of stancetaking place- epistemic stance, the attitude the speaker takes

toward their talk, and interpersonal stance, the attitude the speaker has toward the other(s) in

the conversation. These two parts of stancetaking are connected. Kiesling demonstrates this

connectedness with the example, by taking an epistemic stance of certainty, for example,

one can also take a stance of authority (2009, p. 193). DuBois elaborates on the definition

and understanding of stance saying, stance can be approached as a linguistically articulated

 UNDERSTANDING STANCETAKING 5

form of social action whose meaning is to be construed within the broader scope of language,

interaction, and sociocultural value (2007, p. 139).

Ochs defines various terms related to social identity and situation that are important

to understand stancetaking. In 2009 she noted that, by now it is generally appreciated that

members use cultural forms, including linguistic forms within their code repertories, variably

according to their conceptualization of the social situation at hand (p. 405). In other words,

speakers will use different linguistic variables in different social settings, which means that

speakers will use these variations to establish their stance in different settings. Ochs also

discusses the Indexicality Principle. The Indexicality Principle refers to the assigning of

different situational (indexical) meanings (temporal, spatial, or social identity meanings,

among others) to different forms (such as interrogative forms, diminutive affixes, or raised

pitch, for example) (Ochs, 2009). So, to index is to point to the presence of some entity in

the immediate situation at hand. In language, an index is considered to be a linguistic form

that performs this function (2009, p. 406). In other words, speakers will index a certain

situation based on different social factors, and use a linguistic form as an index to establish

their stance. All of this can be taken to understand that instead of social class determining

linguistic variation and use, speakers will vary their language used on a much more locally

contextualized situation.

Ochs also discusses different types of stances that a speaker can take. While Kiesling

defines epistemic stance as a speakers attitude toward the conversation, Ochs goes a bit

more in depth about the relationship between the speaker and the conversation. She says that

epistemic stance is knowledge or belief, including different degrees of certainty, knowledge,

commitment to the truth of propositions, and more (2009). Additionally, instead of discussing
 UNDERSTANDING STANCETAKING 6

interpersonal stance, Ochs describes affective stance, which refers to moods, attitudes, and

feelings (2009).

Additional important work on the subject includes work by Dell Hymes. Eggins and

Slade refer to Dell Hymes work in order to show how sociolinguistics attempts to

understand how language is used in different social contexts. Eggins and Slade write,

Hymes developed a schema for analyzing context that has as its prime unit of analysis the

speech event in which language occurs (Eggins & Slade, 1997, p. 33). Hymes examines the

speech event, using the acronym SPEAKING, in order to analyze the speech event. This

acronym includes examining the setting/scene, participant, ends (purposes/goals), act

sequence, key, instrumentalities, norms of interaction and interpretation, and genre (Eggins &

Slade, 1997). Sociolinguistic approaches toward discourse analysis, such as the work by Dell

Hymes on speech event analysis, and work on stancetaking, go beyond discourse analysis in

order to attempt to understand the broader context, and other contextual factors, included in

the speech choices.

Understanding stance in context and how it affects linguistic choices is a very

complex area of study that encompasses many different ideas and takes into account multiple

factors. It can be overwhelming to understand where to start when examining all of this, but

DuBois makes it more understandable with his work in 2007. DuBois contributes to this

conversation with his work on the stance triangle. DuBois discusses the complexity of

understanding and accounting for stance, noting the interconnections between dialogicality,

intersubjectivity, social actors, frameworks of linguistic structure, and sociocultural values. In

other words, when looking at stance, there are numerous factors, including: linguistic

choices, relationships between subjects, different contextual social factors, and values.
 UNDERSTANDING STANCETAKING 7

DuBois created the stance triangle in order to depict the different stances that are taken by

subjects in a conversation. The following image is the stance triangle developed by DuBois:

Figure 1. DuBois Stance Triangle.

The subjects are the speakers in the conversation, and the object is the conversation

(or content of the conversation). DuBois notes that, The stance act thus creates three kinds

of stance consequences at once. In taking a stance, the stancetaker (1) evaluates an object, (2)

positions a subject (usually the self), and (3) aligns with other subjects (2007, p. 163).

Another way to think about the stance triangle, according to DuBois, from the first-person

point of view (as one of the subjects) is to say, I evaluate something, and thereby position

myself, and thereby align with you (2007, p. 163).

When subjects evaluate the object, that is, the evaluation is understood as the process

by which a stancetaker orients to an object and characterizes it as having a quality or value.

Positioning is the situating of a subject with respect to responsibility for stance and for

invoking sociocultural value (DuBois, 2007, p. 143). Alignment refers to the calibration of

the relationship between the subjects; in other words, how much the subjects agree with each
 UNDERSTANDING STANCETAKING 8

other. Other work on stancetaking includes research by Kiesling and Schilling-Estes, which is

presented below.

Kiesling conducted research in 1993-1994 at the University of Northern Virginia,

where he studied stancetaking by fraternity men. In his study, he identified how different men

used the linguistic variation ing or in to establish different stances; for example, Kiesling

found that men with age and experience (top of the hierarchy of the fraternity), used ing.

These -ing users put themselves at the top of a formal hierarchy, whereas in users were

more likely to be oppositional, casual, and to build power through solidarity (2009, p. 195).

Kiesling argued that men who used these different linguistic features were taking stances, but

werent thinking about the individual meaning of each linguistic feature. The men who were

using the ing variable drew on the associations of ing being the standard. In this way, by

using ing, men were being correct, and this correctness helps them connect to qualities

associated with people in positions of structural power in society, and use those associations

to help create structural power in the fraternity (2009, p. 196). In terms of stance, these men

were establishing their epistemic stance through their linguistic choices, and were

establishing their interpersonal stance by attempting to access power structures of

correctness in order to position themselves in more authoritative positions (in the case of

the men using ing). Kieslings main argument was that all speakers can connect to different

cultural discourses of identity in interaction through stancettaking.

Identity is just one aspect of stancetaking, but work on stancetaking can be

understood in many different contexts. Kieslings study showed how different men took

stances to establish authority within the fraternity system, and work by Schilling-Estes shows

how stancetaking is established with use of the /r/ variable, and how different rates of use can
 UNDERSTANDING STANCETAKING 9

be linked to factors such as the speakers orientation toward the topic, ethnic group

membership, and subject-subject relationship (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015). In Constructing

ethnicity in interaction (2004), Schilling-Estes discussed more recent studies and how,

these studies have enhanced our understanding of the interplay between reified structures

and speaker agency, as well as of how speakers creatively use linguistic resources in

projecting and shaping various facets of their identities, including gender and ethnicity (p.

164). This work once again points to the new trends in research study related to stance, in

terms of taking into account different sociolinguistic factors (such as gender and ethnicity),

and the focus on the use of linguistic items by the speaker to establish his/her stance.

Stancetaking in the Classrooom

Taking into account that recent research examines how speakers linguistic choices

establish their stance in different contexts, Id like to propose a study that examines

stancetaking in the classroom. This is applicable for my own future work because I will be a

teacher in a public school classroom. Not only do I feel that it is important for me to be aware

of how I am positioning myself toward the object, and evaluating it, but also how I am

aligning myself with other subjects. This is a multifaceted environment, because I will be

working alongside other adults and teachers, but Im more interested in the stancetaking that

will occur between myself and my students. I think that I could become more aware of my

own stancetaking by studying the stancetaking that currently occurs in classrooms.

My hypothesis is that teachers will take different stances, which will be reflected in

their linguistic choices, toward different subjects. In other words, teachers will make different

linguistic choices when conversing with other teachers than they will with students.

Additionally, teachers will take different stances depending on the student with whom they
 UNDERSTANDING STANCETAKING 10

are conversing. I also believe that stance will vary, and be reflected by different linguistic

choices, depending on the context in which the student and the teacher are conversing (on the

playground, in the lunchroom, during class, before or after school).

In order to collect my data and information, I would like to observe different

classrooms (at different times throughout the day) and record dialogue between teachers and

teachers, and between teachers and students. I think that this would be a very time-

consuming research project, because in order to most thoroughly understand all of the factors

incorporated in the different stances, I would need to do plenty of observation in order to

understand the different social contexts at play in each interaction. In other words, because

this project would require going beyond pure conversation analysis, in order to take into

account all of the factors described in this paper that are integral to stance taking

(interpersonal and affective stance, social context, relationships, etc.), I would need to

understand the relationships and social contexts at play in order to analyze them most

thoroughly and accurately.

Stancetaking is a complex network of social contexts, relationships, attitudes, and

linguistic choices. However, by defining stancetaking, examining the three waves of

variation studies that led up to the current research, and reviewing recent literature on the

topic, this paper has established a proper background for understanding stancetaking.

DuBois stancetaking triangle is a particularly useful visual aid for understanding this

complex network, and would also be used as a critical piece for understanding and analyzing

the hypothesis put forth. I chose to write on this topic because I think the newer views on

stancetaking (that speakers make linguistic choices to establish their stance in different

contexts, as opposed to speakers social classes determining their linguistic choices), are
 UNDERSTANDING STANCETAKING 11

especially interesting because it gives agency to the speaker. As a future educator, I am

curious to know how teachers and students establish stance in the classroom, so that I can be

more aware of my, and my students, linguistic choices in stancetaking. Additionally, I am

always looking for ways that students are establishing their own voices and stances; in other

words, this work and research would provide me with the opportunity to examine how

students (and my students) are making linguistic choices to establish their own stances in

conversation, particularly in the classroom.

 UNDERSTANDING STANCETAKING 12

References

DuBois, J.W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse:

subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 138-182). Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.

Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. Washington: Cassell.

Kiesling, S. F. (2009). Fraternity men: variation and discourses of masculinity. In N.

Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), The new sociolinguistics reader (pp. 187-200). New

York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ochs, E. (2009). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In N. Coupland & A.

Jaworski (Eds.), The new sociolinguistics reader (pp. 187-200). New York, NY:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Schilling-Estes, N. (2004). Constructing ethnicity in interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics,

8, 163-195.

Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J.M. (2015). An introduction to sociolinguistics (7th ed.). Wiley

Blackwell.