Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

Anglistisches Seminar

Sommersemester 2017

Proseminar I Sociolinguistics

Leitung: Kristin Berberich

Stance and Identity expression on Twitter

Anastasija Orlova

Matrikel-Nr. 3334625

Im Neuenheimer Feld 129

69120 Heidelberg

Studiengang: Anglistik (HF), Slavistik (NF). B. A.

2. Fachsemester

Abgabedatum: 30.09.2017
Table of contents:

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…3
2. What is stance?........................................................................................................................3
3. Method………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……4
4. Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……4
4.1. Stance and identity in Twitter replies……………………………………………………………………………4
4.2. Stance and collective identity in hashtags……………………………………………………………....……8
4.3. Retweets and stance-taking………………………………………………………………………………………..11
5. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….12
6. References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….13

2
 1. Introduction

The process of stance-taking has been investigated by many linguists. For example,
Lampropoulou and Myers (2013) studied stance-taking in interviews with a focus on the devices
interviewers and interviewees use to align or disalign with a stance, whereas Kärkkäinen (2003)
investigated epistemic stance and its interactional functions. From sociolinguistic perspective
stance can be examined in its relation to one’s identity.

I decided to focus my research on the dialogic dimension of stance and its engagement in
the process of identity formation by analyzing various tweets from social networking microblog
Twitter. The purpose of the analysis is to show how stances can communicate dialogicaly and
how one’s idenity can be expressed through stance-taking. While conducting the analysis I am
going to draw on Du Bois’ (2007) concept of stance triangle.

2. What is stance?

According to Du Bois’ definition stance “is a public act by a social actor, achieved dialogically
through overt communicative means, of simultaneously evaluating objects, positioning subjects
(self and others), and aligning with other subjects, with respect to any salient dimension of the
sociocultural field” (Du Bois 2007:163). The three most important aspects of stance act are
evaluation, positioning and alignment; together they form the stance triangle. For a stance act
to succeed apart from the aspects mentioned above another three elements are required: the
first subject, the second subject and the shared object of stance. The relations within the stance
triangle are designated as follows: in order to align or disalign with the second subject, the first
subject must give an evaluation to the object of stance in the first place and then take a
position. The interdependence of evaluation, positioning and alignment should be mentioned:
so, by stating “I agree with you” Person A aligns oneself with Person B and simultaneously takes
the same position and evaluation as Person B. (cf. Du Bois 2007:164-165).

The stance triangle presupposes the presence of dialogicality, that is, social interaction,
between the preceding stance (stance lead) and the following stance (stance follow). (cf. Du
Bois 2007:161). A person’s stance follow can only be understood when it references the stance
lead of the other person, that is why both subjects of stance are required. Dialogicality is a
crucial part of the stance act; without it stance-taking is not possible.

3
 As to how stance can be linked to identity, Johnstone (2007) argues that “alignment or
disalignment with another social actor can be accomplished through membership
categorization moves; thus, claims to social identity for oneself and ascriptions of identity to
others fall under the rubric of stancetaking” (Johnstone 2007:52). One evaluates others in
accordance with the stance one has taken. As a consequence, one can ascribe social identities
to oneself and others.

3. Method

For my research I collected about 50 random tweets from Twitter’s homepage and as there are
three modes of communication on Twitter – twitter replies, hashtags and retweeting – I sorted
them into these three categories and after that analyzed each category separately. For my
research I chose qualitative approach, that is, interpretation of texts. The most interesting cases
I included in the paper to show the diversity of the processes which are involved in shaping of
stance.

4. Analysis

4.1. Stance and identity in Twitter replies

The easiest way to engage into conversation on Twitter is to post your own tweet and then wait
for the responses or to write a comment to the tweet of other person. In this section I am going
to analyze the process of stance formation, the relation between stance lead and stance follow
as well as how one’s identity can be expressed through stance-taking.

The first example (1) is a tweet(=stance lead) by User1 in which he expressed his opinion
about tattoos. The following examples (2) to (4) are the responses(=stance follow) to it. Here as
well as in other two sections of the analysis I specified the gender of each participant of the
conversation to avoid confusion.

(1) User1 (man): Saw a boy today in the subway, his whole body covered with tattoos from head to toe
(literally!) and just couldn’t hold back anymore – I don’t like tattoos & never have! I tend to associate
tattoos with hard drinking dockers, sailors & bikers, with self inflicted coloured globs being the realm of
‘prison tatts’. More recently women have started having tattoos. Originally discreet little flowers or
animals but now becoming less femail [sic!] – rings of barbed wire round ankles & arms (very butch) or
whole body coverings! Tattoos on women are equal to graffiti on a stately home. Just opinion.

User1 starts discussion with the referrence to the event that happened to him the same day
(Saw a boy today) and that led him to write a comment. His decision to take a particular stance
4
on this topic is not groundless, instead it is a reaction to what he has experienced (just couldn’t
hold back anymore). User1’s next statement „I don’t like tattoos & never have” is an example of a

permanent stance whereby he positions himself affectively towards the object of stance (I don’t
like) and emphasizes the constancy of his position by using negative particle never. The
following sentence begins with the phrase “I tend to associate” meaning that he does it
frequently; then he once again assigns a negative attribute to the object of stance by
associating it with hard drinking dockers, sailors, bikers and prisoners. He does not reveal his
evaluation overtly; it can only be understood once both the stance-taker and the person to
which the stance is addressed share same world knowledge, views and norms of the society
they live in. In this case phrases hard drinking and prison tatts are most important as alcoholics
and prisoners are usually people of low morality and bad manners, so User1 subconsciously
transfers these qualities to people with tattoos because of such associations. He also refers to
the stereotypes about tattoos established in our society. Tattoos are indeed very often
associated with bikers and prisoners and hence with brutality and roughness. In the following
sentence User1 shifts his attention from tattoos in general to how he feels about tattoos
covering female body. A couple of phrases (discreet little flowers, less female, very butch) give
us a hint that User1 has a traditional view on how a woman should look and what is considered
as female and less female. For him she should be elegant, feminine, as flower is often
associated with femininity and beauty. He expresses his attitude towards tattoos on female by
stating that it looks very butch. The decision to choose not a neutral word but the one with a
negative meaning (butch) gives a strong emotional coloring to the whole comment. He then
supports his opinion with metaphor and highlights the ridiculousness and incompatibility of
tattoos on female body by comparing them to graffiti on a stately home. Tattoos will never look
harmoniously on a woman as graffiti on a stately home. The last phrase “Just opinion” is
particularly interesting as it is already self-evident that User1’s utterance is an opinion in which
he expresses his personal thoughts and views. Wikström calls such self-explanatory comments
“meta-comments” (similar to metalanguage, when the language itself is discussed), “which
seem to have a purpose of explicitly stating the illocutionary point” of the message (Wikström
2014:136). By adding a meta-comment to the end of his message User1 intends to make clear
that he does not present it as a fact or the ultimate truth but that it is just his personal opinion.

(2) User2 (woman): You are absolutely right. Tattoos are horrible, I do not know why anyone in their
right mind would have one done, same with body piercings. My daughter has several biggish tattoos and

5
says it shows her personality, we had to accept her decision but she looks awful. She is a naturally very
pretty girl but when she poses for selfies complete with duck lips, she looks as if she belongs in a not
very nice part of Amsterdam.

In example (2) one can clearly observe how the stance triangle works. User2 aligns herself
with User1 by stating explicitly that he is right. She then gives an evaluation to the object of
stance (tattoos) and thereby positions herself with regard to this topic using the word horrible.
Her further expression “I do not know”, though naturally being epistemic, in this context
demonstrates her perplexity and misunderstanding as to why people make themselves tattoos
and piercing. The phrase “in their right mind” also carries an evaluative undertone and
indicates that User2 categorizes people by appearance: the ones with tattoos are not in their
right mind. She then gives an example of her personal experience stating “my daughter has
several biggish tattoos” and changes stance of object from tattoos to her daughter (she looks
awful). In the same sentence she aligns herself with the group of people, most probably family
members (we had to accept her decision). She and the family do not approve daughter’s tattoos
but they do not forbid her to do them. In the last sentence User2 reveals her judgmental
attitude towards modern trends (poses for selfies, duck lips) and daughter’s appearance by
using a euphemism to compare her looks to the ones of a prostitute ( she looks as if she belongs in
a not very nice part of Amsterdam).

(3) User3 (man): Oh my, Judgy McJudge. Interesting to see all those whom would normally be so
politically correct and ‘dinner party’ attendees suddenly become so horrid. Would any of you sit at a
table with others, some perhaps having tatts, and state, out of the blue ‘Tattoos are offensive’, or
‘horrible’. Perhaps som [sic!] find wearing brown cordrouy [sic!] pants, or shorts with socks under
sandals repulsive, but nobody is going to actually tackle the majority of you old fogies on the matter, are
they? Ok, ok, I hear you, you’re ‘not’ judging these folks, or saying they’re bad… just that they are
unsightly… how about those with visible birthmarks, deformations, burn scarring on the face… the list
goes on.Not everyone has to be aesthetically pleasing to you

User3 or the stance-taker shows an affective disalignment with User1’s stance by taking an
overall sarcastic position. He starts his response with the direct address to User1 who is the
object of stance and calls him “Judgy McJudge” in which he creatively plays with forms of
existing names and surnames. So, he uses a Gaelic surname prefix Mc- to produce the surname.
The form of address carries a disapproving and ironic undertone and serves three purposes.
Firstly, it designates User3’s position in the discussion, as well as his evaluation of the User1’s
statement. Secondly, it provides User1 with a certain quality, namely, that he is judgmental and
that his critical evaluation of people’s appearance is unreasonable. Thirdly, it assigns a sarcastic
meaning to the interjection oh my. User3 then proceeds to maintain affective stance implicitly

6
throughout the whole comment by using words with evaluative meaning, such as interesting to
see, repulsive, old fogies. A matter of particular interest is transformations of the object and
subject of stance. In the third sentence User3 extends the object of stance from just one person
(User1) to the unidentifiable group of people denoted as “any of you” in the text, User1 being
the part of them. However, in the following sentence it becomes clear that the unidentifiable
group are in fact clearly definable people of advanced age (old) and conservative views (fogies)
who wear “brown corduroy pants with socks under sandals”. Starting with next sentence, User3
again addresses only User1 as indicated by „I hear you, you’re ‘not’ judging these folks” which is
a reference to User1 previous comment „Just opinion”. As to the subject of stance, it was
mentioned above that User3 expresses his position mostly indirectly, which means he does not
use any overt indicators of his presence (first person pronoun or first person singular), instead
he uses evaluative words. However, there are two spots in the text where he explicitly reveals
his stance, the first one is epistemic stance „I hear you” and the second one „perhaps some
find” is what Lampropoulou and Myers call „attributive stance”. It is when a stance-taker
attributes a stance „to another person or category of people as an explicit or implicit part of
their own stance-taking” (Lampropoulou, Myers 2013:13). In this case User3 attributes the
stance to other people and simultaniously aligns himself with them in criticizing conservatism
and old-fashionedness of User1, whereby old-fashionedness is associated with corduroy pants
and socks under sandals.

(4) User4 (woman): I don’t think it is possible to deduce anything at all about a person because they
have tattoos, apart from the fact that they like tattoos. I’m a lot more interested in how people think
than how they look, personally. Chacun son goût.

User4 also disagrees with User1 but in contrast to example (3) her disalignment carries an
epistemic character. By using expression “I don’t think” she doubts User1’s statement that
tattoos are attributes of drinking dockers, prisoners and masculine women and that people
should be judged by their looks. She then shifts to the affectionate stance stating “I’m a lot
more interested”, intensifier a lot more serving to strengthen her position. She ends her
comment with a French expression, the translation of it being “each to one’s own taste”. Unlike
User3 User4 uses first person pronoun I in every sentence, revealing herself explicitly as a
stance-taker. In the second sentence she also adds adverb personally to the pronoun I, thus
pointing one more time that it is her own opinion and acknowledging that people may have
different opinions.

7
Summary:
The analysis of selected tweets shows importance of dialogicality in stance formation as well
as the role that stance plays in expression of identity. All examples demonstrate that stance has
an interactional quality and is formed as a reaction to the stance lead (User1) as in the
examples (2) to (4). Stances do not appear out of nowhere, they are always related to other
stances. The analysis also presents the diversity of devices people use to response to other
stances and to make their own statement. In example (2) it is an explicit alignment with User1’s
statement and a reference to personal experience (my daughter), whereas example (3) shows
an affective disalignment by making sarcastic comments, references to User1’s text and a
counter-argument (Perhaps some find wearing brown corduroy pants, or shorts with socks
under sandals repulsive…). In case of example (4) it is an epistemic disalignment as well as an
emphasis on the subjectivity of the statement (repetition of first person pronouns and adverb
personally).
Apart from that, the analysis also shows that the way one shapes own stance (by choosing
specific vocabulary and stylistic devices) can tell a lot about stance-taker’s personality. So,
example (1) reveals User1’s traditional views on what a woman should be. In example (2) User2
gives an insight into her relationship with daughter; though there are misunderstandings
between them concerning daughter’s appearance, User2 does not forbid her to be who she
wants to be. User3 makes an implicit statement that he is not against tattoos by criticizing
User1’s old-fashioned views. In example (4) the message is quite straightforward; User4 does
not put much emphasis on appearance, the inner world of a person is more important for her.
The analysis also demonstrates that through stance-taking one not only reveals his/her identity
but also ascribes different social identities to other people. So, in example (3) User3 attributes
the identity of a judgmental conservative old man to User1.
4.2. Stance and collective identity in hashtags

Another means of communication on Twitter is hashtag. Hashtags are single words or short
phrases which are preceded by symbol #. They are mostly used to indicate keywords and
topics of tweets, however they also perform other functions one of them being a dialogical
function as suggested by Evans.

8
 Evans transfers Du Bois’ notion of dialogicality of a stance to the communicative space of
Twitter and argues that hashtags carry this dialogical function by entering into interactional
relationship with the content of the tweet, hence the main tweet is a stance lead and hashtag
is a stance follow. As a result, communication happens within a single tweet (cf. Evans 2016).

For my analysis I collected several tweets with hashtags (examples 5 to 9) to prove this
theory.

(5) (woman): sittin at home with a cup of hot tea watchin the rain pouring outside #cozy #comfy #good

In example (5), it is not clear what stance the author has taken until the hashtags are
revealed; without them the utterance sounds as a neutral statement. So, the hashtags are the
carriers of the stance. They show that the author enjoys the situation (#good) and that drinking
a cup of hot tea and watching the rain pouring outside is associated with domesticity and
comfort.

(6) (woman): UR better than U think #powerofshe #girlpower

In example (6), the tweet itself is an address to “you” who, at first sight, seems to be an
abstract “you”, that is, anyone who is reading this tweet, but the hashtags #powerofshe and
#girlpower make it clear that the addressee is a female, not any person. Furthermore the
hashtags also reveal author’s sympathy and support towards women and that she aligns herself
with them. So, in this example hashtags serve not only as stance carriers but also to specify the
content of the tweet.

(7) (woman) you can't tell in these pictures but i have the flu so bad i needed an IV #showgoeson
#cutelilproppedupcorpse

In example (7), if we consider the tweet alone, without the hashtags, we might think that the
author is displeased and out of spirits because of the illness (the flu so bad I needed an IV) but
once we add the hashtags the situation changes. The first hashtag #showgoeson shows author’s
position towards the situation. It implicates that although the author (who is a famous
musician) is sick and feels bad she does not lose heart and keeps working on the show. The
second hashtag #cutelilproppedupcorpse is author’s evaluation of her own appearance. It is
interesting how she compares herself to a corpse as well as how she managed to combine
semantically incompatible words: cute and little on the one side and corpse on the other. Such a
choice suggests that although the author, in her opinion, has a visual resemblance to a corpse

9
(author looks bad), which is not a pleasant comparison in itself, she takes it in a positive way by
adding adjectives cute and little. To sum up, apart from stating author’s stance, the hashtags
also exclude ambiguity that might have appeared if there was a tweet without the hashtags.

(8) (man) U.S. withdrawal from the paris accords what a thoughtful decision Mr President!
#donalddump #trumpageddon

Example (8) is similar to example (7) in a way that here the tweet without the hashtags
would have sounded ambiguously as well. One might assume that the author is really of the
opinion that U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accords is a thoughtful decision and that he praises
the president but the hashtags reveal an ironic implication of the message. In the first hashtag
the author plays with rhyme by choosing the adjective that sounds similarly to Trump. In the
second hashtag he combines Trump and Armageddon to create a blend word. In this way the
author states that Trump’s irrational decision may lead to dire consequences. Apart from that,
both hashtags carry a referential function as they refer to and specify the subject of stance.

(9) (woman) Hopefully I’ll meet a man that’s tired of the games, and his loyalty will match mine
#neverever #haha

In the last example (9) the author expresses hope to meet a man of her dreams, however
this hope is quickly dispatched when the hashtag #neverever comes into play. The juxtaposition
of two contradictory statements (hopefully I’ll meet and never-ever) creates a disalignment
within the tweet, that is, the hashtag (stance follow) disaligns with the content of the tweet
(stance lead). The second hashtag #haha is an onomatopoeic expression which usually serves to
represent laughter in a written form, however in this case it carries an emotional undertone
and most likely expresses author’s disappointment, sarcasm and skepticism.

In addition to hashtags’ ability to interact with tweets, they often are also involved in the
shaping of collective identity. It happens when several users united by the common idea post
the same hashtag in their twitters and thus identify themselves as a group. In case of worldwide
trending hashtags even hundreds of thousands people can be engaged in cooperation. For
example, not long ago thousands of users reacted to the destructive earthquake in Mexico and
shared their compassion by leaving the hashtag #PrayForMexico on Twitter timeline.

Summary:

On the basis of the analysis we can make a couple of intermediate conclusions. The analysis
confirms that there is a sort of interactional relationship between hashtags and the content of
10
tweets. So, in (5) hashtags #comfy and #cozy give emotional coloring to the main message, in
(6) they serve as complements to the content of the tweet, whereas in (7) they disambiguate
the content. The interaction, namely discrepancy, between the hashtags and the tweet in (8)
causes an ironic effect. In the last example (9) the author establishes a dialogue whereby she
makes a statement and then responds with disagreement to this statement (#neverever).

Hashtags can also be employed as identity-markers in a way that they often reveal one’s
stance and participate in collective identity formation.

4.3 Retweets and stance-taking

The last means to achieve communication on Twitter is to make a retweet (publication) of one’s
message. It allows a user to share a particular tweet with the audience. Retweets also carry
dialogical function which I am going to prove by means of the following analysis.

(10) @User1 (woman): RT @User2 (woman): It’s taken me 21 years but I’m finally beginning to get rid of
my rose tinted glasses and see people for who they really are – sad but true.

In (10) User1 retweets User2’s message thus engaging in social interaction with her. It is an
example of attributive stance which was already discussed, only in this case it functions other
way round. That means User1 does not attribute her stance to another person, on the contrary
she adopts one’s stance and makes it her own. So, User1 and User2 share not only the same
view but also similar personal experience. Something happend in their lifes that made them
feel disappointed in people. Each one of them reacted to this – User2 by writing a tweet and
User1 by making a retweet.

(11) @User3 (woman): Hate them ppl that judge u for gunna uni. Soz that I go to uni cos the job I
want to do REQUIRES a degree RT @User4 (woman): Hate them ppl that judge u for not gunna uni.
Soz that I work n haven't wasted 3 years doin somethin I don't wanna just to say av graduated

(11) is a bit more complicated instance. Here User3 does not retweet User4’s message
to adopt the stance. Instead she expresses her own (opposite) opinion by commenting the
previous tweet. User3 takes an affectionate stance and states that she hates people who
judge others for going to university, however that is not what she intended to say. She does
not hate these people for real. The illocutionary point of the message and thus the main
purpose is to express her frustration and irritation towards the stance lead. It is an irony. To
emphasize this ironic effect User3 imitates User4’s writing style (orthography, sentence
structure and even vocabulary). She also puts the word requires in upper-case to accentuate
11
the fact that she attends university not to waste her time there but because it is a job
requirement.

Summary:

Retweeting is another way of performing social interaction. It can be achieved explicitly,

when user retweets the original message and then writes a comment to it as in example
(11). However, example (10) demonstrates that communication between a tweet and a
retweet can also happen implicitly by simply “quoting” words of other person and thus
aligning oneself with them.

5. Conclusion

This study confirmed Du Bois’ theory of dialogical nature of stance. It was showed through
different mods of communication on Twitter, namely tweets, hashtags and retweets, that
stances are always related to each other and that one stance is always a reaction to another
one regardless of whether it is a conversation between two and more social actors or only one
social actor is involved.

The study also demonstrates that social interaction between two different stances can be
achieved in many ways (through explicit and implicit alignment, disalignment, attributive
stance, affectionate stance, irony) and that this social interaction has various reasons: to
disambiguate the content of the stance lead, to specify it, to give an emotional colouring to it
and so on(ref. analysis of hashtags).

As to what role stance plays in expression of one’s identity, the study shows that stance
indeed serves as a strong identity-marker. The first part of the analysis „ Stance and identity in
Twitter replies” reveals that the way people react to other stances and the way they shape their
own stance by using particular writing style and linguistic choices says a lot about their
personality. Stance is a reflection of one’s beliefs, knowledge and feelings.

The results however are valid only for this particular study and for this reason cannot serve
as a background for further investigations. Only a very insignificant amount of tweets (about
50) was analyzed so it cannot be claimed that every tweet, retweet and hashtag on Twitter
engages in social interaction. Some larger and more detailed surveys need to be conducted for
the theory of dialogicality to be proved within a larger context.

12
6. References:

1) DuBois, J.: „The stance triangle”, in: „Stancetaking in discourse” by Robert Englebretson.
Amsterdam 2007, p. 139-182.
2) Evans, A.: „Stance and Identity in Twitter hashtags”. Language@Internet, Volume 13,
2016. Retrieved 26.09.2017 http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2016/evans
3) Johnstone, B.: „Linking identity and dialect through stancetaking”, in: „Stancetaking in
discourse” by Robert Englebretson. Amsterdam 2007, p. 49-68.
4) Kärkkäinen, E.: “Epistemic stance in English conversation”. John Benjamins B.V.,
Amsterdam 2003.
5) Lampropoulou, S., Myers, G.: „Stance-taking in Interviews from the Qualidata Archive”.
Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 14, 2013. Retrieved 23.09.2017
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1813/3469
6) Wikström, P. (2014b): “#srynotfunny: Communicative functions of hashtags on
Twitter”. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 27, p. 127-152. Retrieved 21.09.2017 from
http://www.linguistics.fi/julkaisut/SKY2014/Wikstrom.pdf

13