Content uploaded by Maarit Siromaa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maarit Siromaa on Jun 03, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
SKY Journal of Linguistics 18 (2005), 197–221
Maarit Niemelä
Voiced Direct Reported Speech in Conversational
Storytelling: Sequential Patterns of Stance Taking
Abstract
The paper discusses how voiced direct reported speech (DRS) can display a speaker
stance in talk-in-interaction. The analysis concentrates on the sequential organization of
matching voiced DRS and the types of actions that this practice performs within three
storytelling sequences. Two of the extracts exemplify voiced DRS sequences in
displaying a shared stance, whereas one extract illustrates a contrary case of recipient-
initiated voiced DRS in displaying a disaligning stance. The analysis of three examples
indicates that a voiced DRS utterance that displays a shared stance appears to be a
preferred response to voiced DRS. A sequence of subsequent matching voiced DRS
utterances therefore appears to be an orderly phenomenon in interaction and a
sequentially relevant practice of stance taking.
1. Introduction
In this paper I examine the role of voiced direct reported speech (DRS) as
an interactional practice of stance taking.
1
Voicing (Couper-Kuhlen 1998)
here refers to the speaker’s attempt to produce a type of voice quality that
mimics the voice quality of the original speaker or attempts to replicate a
certain affective way of speaking (e.g. angry, whiney, exaggeratedly polite,
dumb-sounding or stilted). This paper is part of a current research interest
in the linguistics of affect in conversation.
2
DRS has been widely studied
1
The present study builds upon my MA thesis (Niemelä 2003) and has been much
revised based on the observations, comments and feedback from Elise Kärkkäinen, Jane
Stuart-Smith, Tiina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa and Pentti Haddington and three
anonymous reviewers, to all of whom I owe my deepest gratitude.
2
Research on affect in conversation is being/has been conducted by, for example, Ochs
1989 (affect) , Sandlund 2004 (emotions), Local & Walker in the project “Phonetic and
interactional features of attitude in everyday conversation” (http://www-
users.york.ac.uk/~lang4/emotion-proposal.html) and Sorjonen et al. in the project
“Language and Social Action” which focuses on the affiliative and disaffiliative
MAARIT NIEMELÄ
198
within the field of linguistics; however, it has not been investigated in more
detail as a linguistic resource of displaying affect in talk-in-interaction.
3
DRS is a recurrent and potentially an affectively charged interactional
resource and therefore an appropriate object of study within the framework
of stance taking. My aim is to examine and describe the sequential
environment in which voiced DRS appears in storytelling. Furthermore I
will expand on the interactional functions of this device and its role as a
resource in the participants’ co-construction of stance.
In what follows I will suggest that the use of voiced DRS not only
does stance taking but more importantly can induce similar conduct in
other conversationalists; thus, other participants subsequently recycle DRS
with matching voicing in the following turns. Voiced DRS is recycled by
the recipient in naturally occurring talk-in-interaction, which can be
interpreted as conversationalists’ strive for solidarity and a shared stance.
Recent studies have also established that stance taking is an interactional
rather than an individual process (cf. DuBois 2003a, Haddington 2004,
2005, Keisanen under review, Kärkkäinen 2003, Rauniomaa under review).
As Kärkkäinen et al. (2004: 49) suggest, “stance taking is an activity that is
essentially dialogic, interactive and intersubjective in nature: it is oriented
to by co-participants who frequently engage in jointly constructing and
negotiating their stances across turns”. In DuBois’ (2000b) understanding,
speakers frequently construct a stance by building on, modifying, and
aligning or disaligning with the immediately co-present stance of a dialogic
partner. The present study deals with DRS as one practice of stance taking,
which will be analyzed as it occurs in naturally occurring conversational
interaction.
DRS can be characterized as a common feature in conversational
storytelling. Several studies have pointed out that DRS is often used at the
climax of stories (see Drew 1998, Clift 2000, Golato 2000). According to
Mayes (1990: 326), DRS in narrative is used to perform the task of
highlighting and dramatizing the key elements. Thus, the locus of DRS in a
piece of conversation, especially in storytelling, emphasizes its function as
what Clark and Gerric (1990: 764) call ‘highlighting demonstration’ that
depicts the original conversation. Holt (2000: 435) also states that people
activities across languages and institutional settings (http://www.uta.fi/laitokset/sosio/
project/affiliation/index.htm).
3
Sandlund’s (2004) study on emotion in institutional academic talk and Besnier’s
(1993) study on reported speech and affect on Nuculaelea Atoll deal with this
phenomenon.
VOICED DIRECT REPORTED SPEECH IN CONVERSATIONAL STORYTELLING
199
often use DRS when they tell amusing stories. DRS can be used as a punch
line in a humorous story or at the peak of a complaint sequence (see Drew
1998, Haakana forthcoming).
Moreover, reported speech has a dualistic function in talk-in-
interaction. According to Besnier (1993: 161) reported speech, on one
hand, is “the representation of linguistic actions” and, on the other hand,
“commentaries about these actions”. Due to the dualistic nature of DRS,
investigating it provides direct access to stance taking processes. Narrators
not only report what has been said but also use DRS to do something in this
interaction here and now: the teller chooses what to present and how, and
through these choices constructs a specific representation of the original
situation and seeks a specific response from the recipient. This paper shows
that DRS is often not only designed to convey affective meaning but often
responded to by recipients it by producing a similar DRS utterance. Mathis
and Yule (1994: 63) refer to this as echoing an attitude, “which appears to
function as a means of both linguistic and psychological convergence”. It
therefore appears legitimate to say that the elicited response is an act of
stance taking.
I look at the sequential organization of matching voiced DRS and the
types of actions that this practice performs within three storytelling
sequences. The analysis of conversation sequences in this study will be
based on what Sacks (1984: 25) refers to as “actual occurrences in their
actual sequence”, which displays the interactional relevance of voiced DRS
in naturally occurring talk-in-interaction. Hence I approach voiced DRS
mainly within the framework of Conversation Analysis (see Goodwin
1991, Hutchby & Wooffit 1998), but I will also adopt the point of view of
Interactional Linguistics (Ford et al. 2003, Selting & Couper-Kuhlen 2001),
which aims at describing recurrent linguistic resources as means of
accomplishing interactional functions.
This paper is organised as follows. Chapter 2 will deal with the data
used in the present study in more detail. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 move on to
present the analyses of the use of DRS in interactional stance taking.
Chapters 3 and 4 exemplify voiced DRS sequences in displaying a shared
stance, whereas chapter 5 introduces a contrary case of recipient-initiated
voiced DRS in displaying a disaligning stance.
MAARIT NIEMELÄ
200
2. Data
My data consists of recordings of naturally-occurring conversational
interactions.
4
I will first look at two extracts
5
taken from the Santa Barbara
Corpus of Spoken American English (SBCSAE). The first extract (59 sec)
comes from a tape called ‘Raging Bureaucracy’. This 20-minute-
conversation was recorded in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in September 1990.
The primary conversationalists on the tape are three sisters, who are all in
their twenties. The second extract (43 sec) is taken from a tape called
‘Cuz’. The conversationalists are Alina and Lenore, two cousins in their
mid-thirties. The lively 30-minute-conversation was recorded in Los
Angeles, California, in November 1988. I will then move on to analyse a
third extract (47 sec) taken from a tape recorded in Glasgow in 2004. The
two informants on the tape are Carrie and Stephen, who are close friends in
their late twenties and early thirties, and who at the time of the recording
had not seen each other in a while. The 45-minute-conversation was
recorded in Carrie’s flat.
3. Voiced DRS in collaborative storytelling: displaying a shared
stance
Example 1
6
presents a sequence of DRS utterances with matching voicing
in negotiating a shared stance, thus emphasizing the fundamental role of
responses and participation in joint stance taking. In the following example
Carolyn, Sharon and Kathy discuss the reliability and competence of
substitute teachers (tutors). Carolyn categorizes them into passive ones,
who do not seem to care about teaching at all, and active ones, who have
just started working as substitute teachers and are therefore still
enthusiastic but not very experienced.
4
In my data there are speakers of both American English and Scottish English. There
may be differences between the conversation practices of speakers of different varieties
of English; however, my assumption is that there are no major differences in the use of
voiced DRS. Thus, my intention is not to evaluate only speakers of American and
Scottish English but to draw conclusions of the use of DRS among English-speaking
comversationalists in general.
5
For full transcription key, see Appendix I
6
Examples (1) and (2) are originally transcribed by using the so-called Discourse
Transcription (DT) conventions (Du Bois et al. 1993) which has been used to transcribe
all the SBCSAE tapes.
VOICED DIRECT REPORTED SPEECH IN CONVERSATIONAL STORYTELLING
201
Example (1): Square root of pi (Raging Bureaucracy 345.58)
1 CAROLYN: you have to tell (.) students,
2 never get_
3 (0.3)
4 CAROLYN: give a tutor any
thing.
5 (0.5)
6 CAROLYN: any
thing.
7 (.) ever.
8 (0.2)
9 CAROLYN: .hh not even homework.
10 they wouldn’t let us give homework to hh the high
school
11 (.)tut[ors ].
12 SHARON: [(I know)].
13 CAROLYN: because they just,
14 they lose it.
15 SHARON: (.).hhh
16 CAROLYN: they don’t care.
17 (0.2)
18 SHARON: yeah.
19 (0.2)
20 SHARON: w[ell ],
21 CAROLYN: [°they do]n’t give a shit about any
thing°.
22 (0.2)
23 SHARON: I know.
24 CAROLYN: hhh[((noise))]
25 SHARON: [I I ],
26 (.)I hadn’t thought of that at th- at that point ( ).
27 @°let me out of he[:re° ]/@.((anxious))
28 CAROLYN: [((clearing throat))un]less they’ve just
29 begun, ((1.9 paper rustling in the background))
30 CAROLYN: subbing,=
31 SHARON: =well this [woman ],
32 CAROLYN: [because th]en they’re like,
33 SHARON: hhhh
34 1→ CAROLYN: .hhh @ what are we gonna learn today. ((perky))
35 SHARON: uh [hu ]
36 1→ CAROLYN: [.hhh see] I’m originally a (.) PE teacher,
37 [but ],
38 SHARON: [uh huh] huh huh huh huh [hu: ]
39 KATHY: [ah hah hah hah hah hah hah ]
40 1→ CAROLYN: [I guess I can teach ma[th
/@]?=
41 SHARON: [uh
42 huh huh huh huh hu:]
43 CAROLYN: =[you know,
44 they] come in with that
attitude,
45 and they go,
46 1→ (.)((thump)) @↑I’ve always↑ wanted to teach math.
47 SHARON: uh huh
48 1→ CAROLYN: .hh now, ((perky))
49 1→ .hh [what are we on ]? /@
50 2→ SHARON: [@it’s gonna be ] (.) [great/@]. ((perky))
51 CAROLYN: [eh heh ]
52 .hh you know,
MAARIT NIEMELÄ
202
53 and you’re saying,
54 (.)uh,
55 CAROLYN: we’re o::n,
56 ((thump))
57 (0.3)
58 CAROLYN: uh:::,
59 (0.2)
60 KATHY: eh heh heh=
61 CAROLYN: =<square root of pi:>?
62 [uh,
63 KATHY: [eh heh heh heh heh]
64 CAROLYN: and they look at ] you and they go,
65 (1.9)
66 3→ CAROLYN: @the what/@? ((dumb-sounding))
67 SHARON: (.)e heh heh heh heh heh heh heh
68 CAROLYN: °so they don’t know what the hell they’re doing/°.
69 3→ [@uhm ],
70 4→ SHARON: [@pi=]? ((dumb-sounding))
71 3→ CAROLYN: .hhh [why don’t we go out and run some laps/@].
72 4→ SHARON: [I didn’t bring any pie with me today ].
73 CAROLYN: you [know,
74 KATHY: [eh heh heh]
75 CAROLYN: they]_
76 they don’t know what they’[re doing ]?
77 4→ SHARON: [I don’t think] we can have pie
78 ‘til lunch, kids/@.= ((dumb-sounding))
79 KATHY: =eh heh [heh heh]
80 CAROLYN: [yeah.
81 se]e?
82 it’s like,
83 (0.6)
84 CAROLYN: distorted.
85 (0.5)
86 CAROLYN: °they don’t know what they’re doing/°.
Carolyn produces an explicit evaluation of the passive substitute teachers in
her ‘own voice’, her natural speaking voice (i.e. relatively low in pitch,
evenly paced and moderate in loudness) on line 21 they don’t give a shit
about anything. She moves on to introduce the category of the active
substitute teachers unless they’ve just begun subbing, because then they’re
like on lines 28, 30 and 32. Those lines provide a setup for DRS: she
escalates her affective opinion by introducing the first voiced DRS
utterances on the following lines 34–40 when she utters what are we gonna
learn today, see I’m originally a PE [Physical education] teacher, but I
guess I can teach math. The overall pitch of the utterance is notably high,
which is a crucial element in depicting this exaggerated perky and
enthusiastic voicing. To achieve such voicing, Carolyn also modifies other
prosodic parameters: the tempo is faster, the rhythm more ‘jerky’, and the
volume increased. She also produces a tighter articulation by producing
VOICED DIRECT REPORTED SPEECH IN CONVERSATIONAL STORYTELLING
203
intense velars, alveolar stops and plosives compared to her prior turns.
Voicing is enhanced with a slightly inquisitive tone of voice, which,
conjoined with the phonetic design and semantic content, creates the
impression that the reported speaker is enthusiastic but not very bright.
Carolyn then elaborates on the affective frame of the voiced DRS utterance
and the entire sequence, by explicitly topicalizing the stance displayed by
the previous animation of the substitute teacher’s attitude, they come in
with that attitude on line 44. After this she engages in a further enactment
of the active substitute teacher by continuing the use of the same voicing in
the next DRS utterance on lines 46–49, I’ve always wanted to teach math.
now, what are we on.
The following fundamental frequency analyses
7
are presented to give
support to the auditory analysis of the data. Carolyn’s utterances on lines
52–61 (see Figure 1) represent a sample of her ‘own voice’, that is, her
natural speaking voice. We can see that her pitch varies between 181 Hz
and 237 Hz, making the pitch span 4.6 semitones. However, when she uses
voicing in a DRS utterance on line 46 (see Figure 2), the fundamental
frequency shows that the overall pitch is considerably higher, between 271
and 666 Hz and the pitch span thus is 15.5 semitones. Pitch alone is not the
variable feature for doing DRS, as high pitch can certainly be part of the
speaker’s ‘own voice’ as well. But clustered together with changes in
tempo, volume and rhythm, speaker’s use of high pitch achieves the desired
voice quality (i.e. perky and enthusiastic voicing of a substitute teacher).
7
In Figure 1–4, the topline and the baseline of the Praat pitch tracts represent the
highest point and the lowest point of the speaker’s actual pitch range that has been
calculated by measuring a representative sample of approximately two minutes of
speech. The logarithmic mark (the horizontal line) across the tract represents the median
of the speaker’s range.
MAARIT NIEMELÄ
204
You know and you're saying
uh
we're o:::n
(pause)
square root of pi
137
668
200
500
300
Time (s)
0
5.7951
Figure 1. F0, example (1), lines 52–55, 61
I've always wanted to teach ma::th
137
668
200
500
300
Time (s)
0
1.43383
Figure 2. F0, example (1), line 46
Further, Sharon responds to Carolyn’s lengthy DRS sequences by
producing a matching second DRS utterance when she utters it’s gonna be
great on line 50. Voiced DRS utterances are often produced in overlap with
other participants’ turns, which complicates the measurement of
fundamental frequency. Here Sharon’s utterance overlaps with Carolyn’s
utterance on line 49, what are we on?, which makes it impossible to draw a
pitch curve of Sharon’s voiced DRS. However, based on an auditory
analysis one can argue that Sharon’s voicing follows along the lines of
Carolyn’s voicing on line 46–49. In fact, her voicing is significantly similar
to the voicing that Carolyn uses to report the speech of an enthusiastic
VOICED DIRECT REPORTED SPEECH IN CONVERSATIONAL STORYTELLING
205
substitute teacher. It depicts vigour and liveliness as her pitch rises to a
slightly higher level compared to her normal voice. Also the tempo of her
speech is faster and she utters the sentence in a fast and snappy manner.
Sharon thus engages in what Szczepek (2001) calls “prosodic matching of
voice quality”, in which co-conversationalists imitate each other by
producing matching voice quality patterns and thus link their own talk to
the talk of the preceding speaker. Sharon’s voiced DRS emerges from and
ultimately rests upon the stance displayed in the prior talk, thus
complementing it with the second sample of the enthusiastic substitute
teacher in a sequence of matching voiced DRS utterances.
The phenomenon described above is repeated soon afterwards in the
conversation. By contributing a third and a fourth voiced DRS sequence of
the same type, the conversationalists continue to participate in negotiating
and displaying a shared stance on the issue of substitute teachers. Carolyn
produces an imaginary dialog between herself and the generic substitute
teacher when she utters the square root of pi on line 61, in answer to the
substitute teacher’s question on line 49, what are we on. When she
produces her ‘own speech’ she uses more or less her normal voice; in other
words, she does not apply any particular voicing that would depict an
affective animation. She further continues the dialog on line 66 by
producing a question the what? as a response to the DRS on lines 55–61,
where she herself was the reported speaker. The voiced DRS sequence is
designed to invite laughter: as Haakana (2002: 217) suggests, alterations in
voicing and voice pattern can be used in such a way. The co-
conversationalists indeed respond by laughing on lines 67, 74 and 79, thus
signalling that they understand and, at least seemingly, agree with the
current speaker. Previous research (e.g. Jefferson 1984, Glenn 1989) shows
that, with the exception of troubles-telling, recipients’ laughter displays
affiliation and a shared stance with the prior speaker.
On line 68 Carolyn concludes the dialog by summing up her stance
explicitly in words, so they don’t know what the hell they’re doing. This
evaluation is nevertheless followed by further enactment of the substitute
teacher’s bewilderment, or a voiced DRS utterance by Carolyn on lines 69
and 71, uh, why don’t we go out and run some laps?. Sharon now also
responds to Carolyn’s preceding evaluation sequence on lines 70 and 72,
when she produces a fourth subsequent DRS utterance pi? I didn’t bring
any pie with me today. The semantic content of her utterance ridicules the
generic substitute teacher: it displays a scenario in which the substitute
teacher cannot tell the difference between the square root of pi and lunch
MAARIT NIEMELÄ
206
pie, for instance. Carolyn’s utterance on the other hand displays the
substitute teacher as someone who is unfamiliar with the notion of square
root of pi and attempts to hide it by rather taking the children out to run
laps. Both of these utterances of reported speech are produced by applying
similar voicing to that in the earlier DRS utterances of this extract. They
can be treated as extensions to Carolyn’s previously enacted dialog, and the
fact that they are produced simultaneously in almost the same way supports
the claim that voiced DRS is produced as a response to a certain kind of
stance.
Next, after her further enactment of the substitute teacher’s erratic
behavior, Carolyn repeats her earlier explicit evaluation by stating that they
don’t know what they’re doing on line 76. At the same time, Sharon
produces one more DRS utterance on lines 77–78, I don’t think we can
have pie till lunch, kids, which is a continuation of her own DRS on lines
70 and 72 and of the voicing introduced in the previous utterances. The
semantic content and voicing of Sharon’s DRS utterance create a humorous
impact which seems to indicate that it is designed to invite laughter from
the recipients as well as to participate in the stance taking process. But
possibly because it overlapped with Carolyn’s DRS, it was lost and was not
adequately reacted to by the other conversationalists. Sharon’s utterance
only receives a reaction from Kathy, who appears to be laughing at both
rivals, the overlapping utterances by Carolyn and Sharon, at the same time.
Therefore, Sharon’s utterance does not get individual attention from the
recipients. Sharon then reintroduces a display of her stance by
reformulating and repeating her voiced DRS utterance, thus providing the
participants with a further possibility to acknowledge the utterance
(Rauniomaa in progress). Sharon’s turn, which is marked here as part of the
fourth DRS sequence, is one more subsequent reported speech utterance
that contributes to the establishment of a shared stance between
participants. All Sharon’s voiced DRS utterances are what Mathis and Yule
(1994: 74) call ‘zero quotatives’,
8
i.e. they are not preceded by any
quotatives (e.g. ‘she said’ or ‘she goes’) and there is thus no attributed
speaker. Carolyn’s previous turns provide the relevance for Sharon’s DRS.
Kathy responds with laughter on line 79 and Carolyn utters yeah, see?
on lines 80–81, which can be seen as a display of affirmation that the
8
The term ‘free-standing quotation’ introduced by Clark and Gerric (1990: 772) also
refers to the phenomenon of reported speech that has no initial markers such as she said
or she goes, the only indicator of DRS thus being prosody.
VOICED DIRECT REPORTED SPEECH IN CONVERSATIONAL STORYTELLING
207
conversationalists have successfully participated in acting out and have
now reached a mutual stance. She produces a follow-up to the series of
matching voiced DRS sequences by yet again explicating the stance in it’s
like, distorted, they don’t know what they’re doing on lines 82–86, which
brings the overall sequence to an end. Carolyn thus sums up the shared
stance that was formulated by using voiced DRS.
In this first example, Carolyn is the primary storyteller whereas
Sharon acts as a co-teller who produces prosodically similar extensions to
the current speaker’s reported speech utterances. Carolyn sets up the
context for the upcoming sequence of (matching) voiced DRS utterances
and finally it is Carolyn who also produces a concluding follow-up. Thus,
Carolyn and Sharon collaboratively construct a shared stance towards
substitute teachers.
4. Voiced DRS in second stories: resonating with prior stance
In the previous example, the recipient contribution is in line with the
projected storyline. The storyteller and the recipient only momentarily
discontinue the telling to evaluate aspects of the story by producing
matching voiced DRS sequences, and thus establish a shared stance. The
following example 2 provides a similar practice in terms of collaborative
stance taking. Nevertheless, the sequential environment of the use of
voiced DRS is different from that in the first example: here the first story
prompts a second story (Sacks 1992: 765, Tainio 1996: 16, Routarinne
1997: 152, Norrick 2000: 112, Arminen 2004: 320) from the initial
recipient. I apply Du Bois’ (2003b) notion of resonance, or the process of
activating “potential affinity across instances of dialogic language use”
throughout the analysis of voiced DRS in the second story. Example 2 thus
provides a similar practice to that of the first example in terms of
collaborative stance taking, i.e. the recipient’s use of voiced DRS in the
second story sustains and contributes to a stance displayed in the first story.
In example 2 Alina first tells about an older guy and a young chick
who are a couple. Lenore then tells a second story about a tape she has
made on which guys talk about younger women. Both stories ultimately
deal with the relationship between an older man and a younger woman, or
the attitudes of men towards younger women.
MAARIT NIEMELÄ
208
Example (2): Real pill (Cuz 200.73)
1 ALINA: the friend that was there with them,
2 is this older guy with this young chick.
3 (1.2)
4 ALINA: @and she was like a real pill, ((whiny))
5 you know,
6 LENORE: [hm mh mh mh mh mh mh ((nasal sound laughter))
7 gh gh gh] ((glottal laughter))
8 ALINA: [she’s sitting there,
9 with this hai:r pulled back,
10 in a little pony tai::l].
11 LENORE: [HHHH ]
12 ALINA: [and she’s like] sitting the:re and/@,
13 .hh he said,
14 I would have been here,
15 >but @she was so late. ((annoyed))
16 and getting her any place on time/@<,
17 she’s going,
18 1→ .hh @well, ((whiny))
19 1→ I had to get rea::dy::/@.
20 .. [I don’t know why:.
21 LENORE: [hm mh mh mh mh mh ]ah [hah hah hah hah hah]
22 ALINA: [.skuh hm mh mh]
23 .hhh nothing was gonna help her.
24 .hhh no makeup,
25 no nothing.
26 1→ cause she’s the little @gir=l, ((girly))
27 1→ and he’s the older man,
28 1→ and [he’s taking care of me /@].
29 LENORE: [HHHH ]
30 ALINA: .nff
31 (0.5)
32 LENORE: ... g[od ],
33 ALINA: [tsk]
34 LENORE: it sounds like the tape I made last night,
35 and these guys s-(.) [start] talking about,
36 ALINA: [.nff ]
37 LENORE: (.) you know,
38 some,
39 2→ .hh @you know, ((sappy))
40 2→ h she’s so vul[nerable /@.
41 ALINA: [((drinking sound))]
42 LENORE: .hh she’s probably like] twenty-six,
43 2→ and she looks thirteen, ((sappy)) @
44 2→ and it[’s just so],
45 ALINA: [.nhhh ]
46 2→ LENORE: .hh it’s like/@,
47 .hh >what did<_
48 they said something like,
49 2→ .hh @[you know what], ((sappy))
50 ALINA: [.nff ]
51 2→ LENORE: .. it’s the butterfly,
52 2→ £you can’[t catch/@_
53 ALINA: [AH HAH HAH HAH]
VOICED DIRECT REPORTED SPEECH IN CONVERSATIONAL STORYTELLING
209
54 LENORE: .hh] and I’m l(h)ike,
55 I’m t(h)rying not(h) to vomit,
56 [>lis(h)tening< to this/£.
57 ALINA: [£give me= br=eak.
58 LENORE: ah hah hah]
59 ALINA: give me a break /£].
60 .hhh
61 LENORE: .hh[h]
62 ALINA: [that] stupid little b::itch.
63 she just married [d:addy to take care of her ].
64 LENORE: [.hh ((swallowing sound)) hh]
It is noteworthy that Alina starts implementing voicing already prior to the
actual DRS utterance on lines 4–12 when she describes the younger woman
to Lenore. Alina applies the whiny voicing outside the DRS sequence and
thus animates her evaluative description and gives it further potency by
prosodically enhancing her negative stance towards the protagonist. The
rises and falls of the intonation pattern are strongly exaggerated. The
implications of using such an exaggerated voicing just prior to a DRS
utterance could be that the change in voice quality not only emphasizes the
message that the speaker is setting forth but also prepares the ground for
the following DRS. Additionally, the boundaries of voicing are not clear
cut: voicing is not restricted to DRS but appears to be a phenomenon that is
more diffuse in nature. She also evaluates the younger woman verbally on
lines 2 and 4 by using the terms young chick and a real pill
9
that both
present her in a negative light. Alina’s evaluative utterances as a whole
display the upcoming reported speaker as someone with unwanted
characteristics, as a perky, overzealous, and rather nonsensical girl.
On lines 18–19 Alina uses DRS when she utters well I had to get
ready (pitch track illustrated in Figure 3). She applies voicing that imitates
a little girl’s voice, which is high in pitch and also significantly more
whiney, breathy and theatrical than Alina’s own voice. The following
fundamental frequency curve represents Alina’s utterance on lines 1–2 (F0
in Figure 3) the friend that was there with them was this older guy with this
young chick. This utterance can be seen to represent a sample of Alina’s
natural speaking voice.
9
A disagreeable or tiresome person.
MAARIT NIEMELÄ
210
The friend that was there with them was this older guy with this young chick
80
513
100
200
300
Time (s)
0
2.86766
Figure 3. F0, example (2), lines 1–2
I had to get rea:: dy:
80
513
100
200
300
Time (s)
0
1.52671
Figure 4. F0(4), example (2), line 19
The pitch curve shows that Alina’s utterance is situated approximately
between 125 and 206 Hz, making the pitch span 8.6 semitones, whereas the
frequency of the voice fundamental of her DRS on lines 18–19, I had to get
ready (see Figure 4), is considerably higher, between 140 and 413 Hz with
a significantly wider pitch span of 18.7 semitones. Additionally, the
difference in pitch movement between F0 in Figure 3 and F0 in Figure 4 is
phenomenal: the pitch in 4 shows more dramatic and noticeable rises and
falls.
In contrast to example 1, Lenore replies to Alina’s story on line 34 by
producing a topic marker that acts as a preface to her second story It sounds
like the tape I made last night. The second story here is a response, as
Jefferson (1978: 220) suggests, to something that in the ongoing
VOICED DIRECT REPORTED SPEECH IN CONVERSATIONAL STORYTELLING
211
conversation reminds the participant of a story.
10
Lenore’s story turns out to
be somewhat similar to Alina’s and concerns men and their attitudes
towards younger women. However, Lenore’s story, which also contains
extensively animated reported speech utterances, provides a different angle
to the subject in that it seems to ridicule the men rather than the younger
women. Lenore thus recycles the practice that Alina introduced in the
preceding storytelling sequence by applying voiced DRS on lines 39–52 in
her second story. It must be noted that Lenore does not recycle a
prosodically matching voicing to Alina’s voicing but rather a voicing that
performs the same action, namely ridiculing the reported speaker.
On lines 35–38 Lenore indicates that she is about to describe what the
men were talking about by stating
and these guys [start] talking about, you
know, some,
but on lines 39–40 she already switches into voiced DRS and
states you know, she’s so vulnerable
. She applies voicing that is more
breathy and gentle than her own voice. The tempo is also slower and there
are pauses that create a dreamy and sappy tone of voice, which is full of
emotion. By switching from regular talk to voiced DRS, Lenore is able to
display, on one hand, how the reported speaker presumably characterized
the girl as someone who is vulnerable and, on the other hand, her own
stance towards the reported speaker by adding a melodramatic and
ridiculing voicing to the reporting. It can be argued that Lenore’s sudden
shift into voiced DRS produces the desired results with a minimum
expenditure of energy, time, and words. Previous research (Holt 1996,
Mayes 1990) shows that DRS is an extremely effective and economical
way of reporting someone else’s speech and conveying affective
information. But by adding voicing, Lenore here not only significantly adds
to the efficiency of DRS as a stance taking practice, but actually constructs
the negative implication which is not conveyed by the actual words spoken.
It is the voicing that turns an otherwise straightforward DRS utterance
around and creates a rather negative affective stance towards the reported
speaker. In the present example, Lenore does not provide Alina with
descriptive information about her stance towards the two guys on her tape
but uses only voiced DRS to display her affective stance towards them.
Lenore’s telling is contingent (Ford 2002) with Alina’s previous telling:
10
Jefferson (1978) describes the process of launching into storytelling from ordinary
turn-by-turn talk; however, my data shows that more or less the same procedure applies
to launching into second stories as well.
MAARIT NIEMELÄ
212
Alina has just used a similar practice in her previous story, which provides
the relevance for Lenore’s use of voiced DRS to display her stance.
Lenore produces further matching voiced DRS to quote the men on
lines 43–46 and 49–52 by uttering and she looks thirteen and it’s just so,
it’s like […] you know what, it’s the butterfly you can’t catch. The sappy
and affectionate voicing further continues the prosodic design of her
previous voiced DRS. She then concludes by reporting with a laughing
voice her own rather negative reaction to the two men on lines 54–56, and
I’m like, I’m trying not to vomit, listening to this (to the men).
Alina responds to Lenore’s evaluative account of her own feelings by
producing a follow-up, give me break, give me a break. that stupid little
bitch. she just married daddy to take care of her on line 57–63, which sums
up the sequence of voiced DRS utterances. Alina thus adds to her previous
comments on the young chick by producing a strong evaluation that stupid
little bitch on line 62, which enhances her already harsh opinion of her.
Both stories display similar stances towards the older guys; however, they
seem to have slightly different approaches to the matter at hand. In Alina’s
first story, the negative attitude is directed essentially towards the young
chick rather than the older guy, whereas Lenore’s story portrays the older
guys as sappy and sentimental i.e. in a negative way. Nevertheless Alina’s
final explication on line 63, she just married daddy to take care of her,
takes a more or less negative stance towards the older men as well, i.e. she
implies that the young woman just marries an older guy so that he would
provide for her, which portrays the older man as somewhat gullible. In her
follow-up, Alina thus finally wraps up the two stories and a shared stance
towards the older men and younger women.
Previous research (Houtkoop & Mazeland 1985, Ford 2002) shows
that participants identify stories and project their ending, for example,
based on recognizable story components. In the present example, Lenore
exploits the participants’ shared knowledge of the identifiable story
components to compose a second story, which resonates structurally with
the first story. Both storytellers first produce a preface followed by a telling
sequence which includes a series of evaluative voiced DRS utterances.
Both voiced DRS sequences are also displays of stance towards the same
subject: the relationship between (older) men and younger women. Both
stories also resonate in that they apply prosodically designed voicing to
display stance towards the subject matter at hand.
VOICED DIRECT REPORTED SPEECH IN CONVERSATIONAL STORYTELLING
213
5. Responding to recipient-initiated voiced DRS: agreeing with a
disaligning stance
The following extract provides a contrasting example of the use of voiced
DRS in storytelling: it differs from previous examples in that it is the
recipient who acts as the initiator of DRS, and thus the sequential
environment but also the function are different.
Moreover, this particular
example exemplifies the stance-relevant function of voiced DRS in
displaying a disaligning stance. Despite the conflicting stance expressed by
the recipient, the initial storyteller responds by producing a matching
voiced DRS utterance. Most importantly, it manifests the orderliness of
subsequent matching voiced DRS utterances which are collaboratively
produced by co-participants.
In example 3, Carrie tells Stephen a story about an occasion when she
visited a bar which advertises half priced Bloody Mary cocktails. Carrie
was told by the bartender that the bar has run out of tomato juice, which is
an essential part of the drink. Carrie then suggests that the bartender get
some tomato juice from the grocery store next door. When her suggestion
is refused she offers to take the money and go to the store herself to get
some tomato juice. Carrie’s friend Ronald is the third character in her story.
Example (3): You’re a pushy bastard (Glasgow tape)
1 CARRIE: #a(h):n/#,
2 he was going,
3 (.) we:ll,
4 (0.1)
5 CARRIE: we’re really busy_=
6 =I was going,
7 no honestly,
8 it’ll take you <two minutes>.
9 (0.7)
10 CARRIE: and he went,
11 @oh, (.) ((discouraged))
12 well,
13 (0.3)
14 CARRIE: [you know I can’t really/@]_=
15 STEPHEN: [°you’re a nighmare/° ]?,
16 CARRIE: =and I was like,
17 if y- I was your manager,
18 (0.3)
19 CARRIE: you would be ↓there
↓now.
20 STEPHEN: buying up [( )].
21 CARRIE: [(go) you ha]ve to go and get stuff,
22 if you run out,
23 you’ve got a shop nearby,
MAARIT NIEMELÄ
214
24 (.) .hhh he just went @a:lright/@,=
25 =and he went off,
26 and when he came back,
27 (he goes),
28 @eh I don’t think we’re going to be able to do it.
29 .hh what else can I offer you/@.
30 .hh @no.
31 give me the money,
32 (0.3)
33 CARRIE: and I will go and get it/@.
34 and he was like,
35 (1.0)
36 CARRIE: @ehh .hh ((nervous))
37 oh,
38 ehh he/@.
39 CARRIE: (.) and he was just like,
40 it ↑didn’t even seem to affect him.
41 (.)I was getting real
ly annoyed?,
42 and Ronald’s just going,
43 (0.2)
44 STEPHEN: ↑you’re a [pushy ] bastard?,
45 CARRIE: [you’re like,]
46 ↑yeah↑ well_
47 (.)↑fuckin’ right
though.
48 1→ STEPHEN: @there’s a sign outside [saying Bloody Marys], ((angry))
49 CARRIE: [eh he he ]
50
51 1→ STEPHEN: (.)I [WANT ONE ]/@!
52 2→ CARRIE: [@ and
you don’t have] tomato juice/@. ((angry))
53 (0.2)
54 Ronald’s going,
55 you’re like The Loog.
In this example, the positioning of the series of DRS utterances is yet again
different compared to the previous two examples. Here voiced DRS does
not involve the actual story line or the climax of the story. Instead, Stephen
interrupts Carrie’s storytelling 0.2 seconds after her utterance on line 42,
and Ronald’s just going, when he displays his understanding of the story so
far and produces an explicit assessment of Carrie’s behaviour by stating
you’re a pushy bastard on line 44. Stephen thus provides a setup for the
following voiced DRS utterance, which is directed against the protagonist,
namely the teller of the story. Stephen’s DRS utterance serves as an
example of what Goodwin (1997:78) calls byplay, in which the evaluation
provided by the recipient turns aside from the actual storyline but
nevertheless “serves to delineate the principal conversational activity in
progress”.
Carrie stops the telling after Stephen’s assessment and defends her
action by uttering yeah well, fucking right though on lines 46–47. She thus
treats Stephen’s comment as criticism towards her actions. Stephen then
VOICED DIRECT REPORTED SPEECH IN CONVERSATIONAL STORYTELLING
215
produces a voiced DRS utterance, there’s a sign outside saying Bloody
Marys, I want one on lines 48 and 51, which falls into Tannen’s (1989:
110) category of dialogue constructed by the listener. He fabricates a direct
order which the protagonist could have produced in situ. He applies a
snappish and exaggeratedly demanding voicing, which gives the
impression of an exceedingly demanding customer and thus displays the
protagonist as a demanding and tantrum-prone individual, i.e. indeed a
pushy bastard. Nevertheless his voicing is over-exaggerated to such an
extent that it creates a comical effect; at least the recipient, Carrie, responds
with laughter, which partly overlaps with the utterance. Stephen’s voiced
DRS utterance does not actually act as a direct order but rather functions as
an account for the previous assessment, you’re a pushy bastard, and as an
animated representation of Stephen’s stance towards Carrie’s behaviour.
The most striking aspect of this extract is that despite the conflicting
stances of the participants the initial storyteller responds to the recipient’s
disaligning stance by producing a matching voiced DRS. On line 52 Carrie
produces an overlapping collaborative completion to Stephen’s voiced
DRS. She utters and you don’t have tomato juice, which is prosodically and
semantically designed to act as a continuation and provides an alternative
ending to the first half of Stephen’s voiced DRS, there’s a sign outside
saying Bloody Marys.
There's a sign outside sying bloody marys
a:nd you don't have tomato juice
50
600
70
100
200
300
Time (s)
0
4.10993
Figure 5. F0, example (3), lines 48, 52
F0 in Figure 5 shows the overall pitch pattern of the collaborative
completion, which seems to comply with the earlier findings on the
MAARIT NIEMELÄ
216
phonetic design of collaborative completions, i.e. they are designed so that
they follow the overall pitch of the prior talk and thus appear as
continuation of that talk (see Couper-Kuhlen 1996, Szczepek 2000, Local
2005).
Carrie’s completion displays understanding of what has just been
suggested by Stephen. It can be argued that Carrie nevertheless does not
see eye to eye with Stephen in terms of a shared stance because she
immediately resumes storytelling after her prosodically matching
collaborative completion. Local (ibid: 10) suggests that often in
collaborative constructions “not only is the incoming speaker bringing the
turn to a syntactic and prosodic completion, they are potentially bringing
the activity which the turn-in-progress was undertaking to a completion.”
Carrie here participates in bringing the disaligning activity, initiated by
Stephen (you’re a pushy bastard), to a completion and immediately
resumes storytelling on line 54, Ronald’s going, by partially repeating what
she had said on line 42, and Ronald’s just going, before the recipient-
initiated DRS sequence began. The sequence initiated by Stephen is treated
by both participants as a separate disaligning evaluation sequence which is
not expanded any further. Participants nonetheless engage in stance taking
by recycling each others voicing, which seems to indicate that responding
to voiced DRS with subsequent voiced DRS can be more or less an ordered
phenomenon in interaction. Furthermore, it accomplishes a display of
alignment and a shared stance between participants.
6. Conclusion
Voiced DRS is a sequentially relevant interactive practice of stance taking
in conversational storytelling. As we have seen, conversationalists can
recycle each other’s voicing in conversation, which can be seen as
indicative of a shared stance and part of a wider stance taking activity
between co-participants. By way of recycling matching voicing in DRS,
participants thus engage in the reciprocal activity of building a shared
stance turn by turn.
Matching voiced DRS can appear in various sequential environments
in conversational storytelling. Chapter 3 introduces an example of a
sequence of matching voiced DRS utterances within a single story. The
initial storyteller provides a setup for the voiced DRS sequence, which is
followed by a series of voiced DRS utterances by her. The recipient then
produces a subsequent series of voiced DRS utterances, which in turn
VOICED DIRECT REPORTED SPEECH IN CONVERSATIONAL STORYTELLING
217
sometimes overlap with further voiced DRS utterances from the initial
teller, who finally wraps up the sequence by producing a follow-up.
In chapter 4 the recipient’s use of voiced DRS in the second story
builds upon and contributes to a stance displayed in the first story. The
teller of the first story sets up a context for voiced DRS and again produces
a series of voiced DRS utterances. The teller of the second story then
produces a similar series of voiced DRS utterances, which resonate with
the prior stance by way of applying a voicing that performs the same
overall action as in the first story. Finally, a concluding follow-up is
produced by the teller of the first story.
Chapter 5 introduces the stance-relevant function of voiced DRS in
displaying a disaligning stance. Unlike in the first two examples, the voiced
DRS is not in line with the projected story line, but rather interferes with
the story line of the initial teller. The initial storyteller nonetheless responds
by producing a matching voiced DRS utterance, which momentarily
displays a shared stance and thus allows her to resume the telling. This
seems to indicate that a voiced DRS utterance that displays a shared stance
is in fact a preferred response to a first voiced DRS. This suggests that the
occurrence of subsequent matching voiced DRS utterances is an orderly
phenomenon in interaction. It therefore appears that, in the analyzed
examples, matching voiced DRS is a sequentially relevant practice in
stance taking. However, a larger collection of matching voiced DRS within
the storytelling structure and a detailed look at the non-occurrence of
matching voiced DRS is needed in order to establish how strong an
interactional order it represents.
Appendix: Transcription key
For the purpose of this paper, I have compiled a transcription key from
Tainio (1997) and Gardner (2001) which chiefly follows the notation that is
based on the Jeffersonian system. All examples have been transcribed into
intonation units. No capital letters have been used except in names and first
person singular personal pronouns.
. terminal contour: falling
? terminal contour: strongly rising
?, terminal contour: slightly rising
; continuative contour : slight fall
MAARIT NIEMELÄ
218
yes_ continuative contour: level pitch
, continuative contour: slight rise
! strongly animated tone, pitch movement in any direction
[ ] overlapping
= latching
( . ) micropause (less than 0.2 sec)
(2.0) length of pause in approximate seconds
ye:s stretching of sound
ye- truncated word
yes
contrastive stress or emphasis
YES increased volume
°yes/° decreased volume
hhh audible breath
.hhh audible in-breath
↑ A marked upward shift in pitch, high pitch has sudden onset but
gradually wanders down
↓ A marked downward shift in pitch, low pitch has sudden onset
but gradually wanders up
ye(hh)s within-speech aspiration, laughter
((cough)) untranscribable sounds, transcriber’s comments or description
of voice quality e.g. ((angry))
(yes) uncertain hearing, transciber’s best guess
( ) uncertain hearing
-yes, ¯yes higher, lower than surrounding speech
£yes/£ smiley voice
#yes/# creaky voice
>yes< faster than surrounding speech
<yes> slower than surrounding speech
@yes/@ change in voice quality, usually reported speech
References
Arminen, Ilkka (2004) Second stories: the salience of interpersonal communication for
mutual help in Alcoholics Anonymous. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 319–347.
Besnier, Niko (1993) Reported speech and affect on Nukulaelae atoll. In Hill, Jane H.
and Judith T. Irvine (eds.), Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse, pp.
161–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
VOICED DIRECT REPORTED SPEECH IN CONVERSATIONAL STORYTELLING
219
Clark, Herbert H. & Richard J. Gerrig (1990) Quotations as demonstrations. Language
66: 764–805.
Clift, Rebecca (2000) Stance-taking in reported speech. Essex Research Reports in
Linguistics, vol. 32. University of Essex.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (1996) The prosody of repetition: on quoting and mimicry. In
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & M. Selting (eds.), Prosody in conversation: interactional
studies, pp. 366–405. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
—— (1998) Coherent Voicing. On Prosody in Conversational Reported Speech.
Interaction and Linguistic Structures, InLiSt, No. 1. http://inlist.uni-
konstanz.de/issues/1/index.htm [1999, March 30].
Drew, Paul (1998) Complaints About Transgressions and Misconduct. Research on
Language and Social Interaction 31(3&4): 295–325.
Du Bois, John, S. Schuetze-Coburn, S. Cumming & D. Paolino (1993) An Outline of
Discourse Transcription. In Edwards, J & M. Lampert (eds.), Talking data:
Transcription and coding in discourse research. pp. 45–87. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Du Bois, John (2000a) Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Part 1. Six
hours of digitized audio and transcriptions on 3 CD-ROMs. Linguistic Data
Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
—— (2000b) Taking a stance: Constituting the stance differential in dialogic
interaction. Paper given at the conference of the American Anthropological
Association, San Francisco, November 2000.
—— (2003a) Stance and Consequence in Interaction. Paper given in Langnet
conference in Oulu University, Finland, September 2003.
—— (2003b) The Dialogic Moment. Paper given in a lecture series on “Stance and
Dialogic Syntax in Interaction. University of Oulu, Department of English,
September 2003.
Ford, Cecilia (2002) Contingency and units in interaction. Discourse Studies 6(1): 27–
52.
Ford, Cecilia, Barbara Fox & Sandra Thompson (2003) Social interaction and grammar.
In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and
Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. 2, pp. 119–143. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Gardner, Rod (2001) When listeners talk: Response tokens and recipient stance.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Glenn, Phillip (1989) Initiating shared laughter in multi-party conversations. Western
Journal of Speech Communication 53: 127–149.
Golato, Andrea (2000) An innovative German quotative for reporting embodied actions:
Und ich so / und er so ‘and I’m like / and he’s like’. Journal of Pragmatics 32:
29–54.
Goodwin, Charles. & John Heritage (1991) Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of
Anthropology 19: 283–307.
Goodwin, Marjorie (1997) By-Play: Negotiating Evaluation in Storytelling. In G. R.
Guy, C. Feagin, D. Schriffin and J. Baugh (eds.) Towards a Social Science of
MAARIT NIEMELÄ
220
Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov 2: Social Interaction and
Discourse Structures, pp. 77–102. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Haakana, Markku (2002) Laughter in medical interaction: From quantification to
analysis, and back. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6(2): 207–235.
—— (forthcoming) On the interactional differences between ‘saying’ and ‘thinking’:
Reported thoughts in complaint stories. In: Elizabet Holt & Rebecca Clift (eds.):
Voicing – Reported speech and footing in conversation.
Haddington, Pentti (2004) Stance taking in news interviews. SKY Journal of Linguistics
17: 101–142.
—— (2005) The Intersubjectivity of Stance Taking in Talk-in-interaction. Oulu,
Finland: Oulu University Press.
Hautkoop, Henneke & Harrie Mazeland (1985) Turns and Discourse Units in Everyday
Conversation, Journal of Pragmatics 9: 595–619.
Holt, Elisabeth (1996) Reporting on Talk: The use of direct reported speech in
conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29(3): 219–245.
—— (2000) Reporting and Reacting: Concurrent Responses to Reported Speech.
Research on Language and Social Interaction 33(4): 425–454.
Hutchby, Ian & Robin Wooffitt (1998) Conversation Analysis. Principles, practices and
applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jefferson, Gail (1978) Sequential aspects of storytelling in interaction. In Schenkein, J.
(ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, pp. 219–248. New
York: Academic.
—— (1984) On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In J.M. Atkinson and
J.C. Heritage (eds.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis,
pp. 346–369. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Keisanen, Tiina (under review) Patterns of stance taking: Challenging with a negative
interrogative in spoken American English. In Englebretson, R. (ed.) Stancetaking
in discourse: the intersubjectivity of interaction. [Papers from the Tenth Biennial
Rice Linguistics Symposium]
Kärkkäinen, Elise (2003) ’Is she vicious or dense?’ Dialogic practices of stance taking
in conversation. In Toshihide Nakayama, Tsuyoshi Ono and Hongyin Tao (eds.),
Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 12. Recent Studies in Empirical Approaches
to Language. pp. 47–65. University of California, Santa Barbara.
Kärkkäinen, Elise, Tiina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa, Maarit Niemelä & Pentti
Haddington (2004) Interactional practices and linguistic resources of stance taking
in spoken English. In Jan-Ola Östman (ed.) PIC Bulletin 7. University of
Helsinki: 45–48.
Local, John (2005) On the interactional and phonetic design of collaborative
completions. In Hardcastle, W. and J. Beck (eds.), A Figure of Speech: a
Festschrift for John Laver.
Mathis, Terri & George Yule (1994) Zero quotatives.
Discourse Processes 18: 63–76.
Mayes, Patricia (1990) Quotation in Spoken English. Studies in Language 14: 325–363.
Niemelä, Maarit (2003) Stance taking in direct reported speech. Unpublished MA
thesis. Oulu: University of Oulu.
VOICED DIRECT REPORTED SPEECH IN CONVERSATIONAL STORYTELLING
221
Norrick, Neil (2000) Conversational Narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ochs, Elinor (1989) (ed.) The pragmatics of affect, Special issue of Text 9(1).
Rauniomaa, Mirka (in progress) Repetition, recovery and stance taking in spoken
English and Finnish. University of Oulu. Doctoral Thesis.
—— (under review) Stance markers in spoken Finnish: minun mielestä and minusta in
assessments. In Englebretson, R. (ed.) Stancetaking in discourse: the
intersubjectivity of interaction. [Papers from the Tenth Biennial Rice Linguistics
Symposium].
Routarinne, Sara (1997) Kertomuksen rakentaminen [Story Structure]. In Tainio, L.
(ed.) Keskusteluanalyysin perusteet [Introduction to Conversation Analysis], pp.
138–155. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Sacks, Harvey (1984) Notes on methodology. In Atkinson, J. & J. Heritage (eds.),
Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, pp. 21–27.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
—— (1992) (ed. Jefferson, G.) Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sandlund, Erica (2004) Feeling by Doing: The Social Organization of Everyday
Emotions in Academic Talk-in-Interaction. Doctoral dissertation, Karlstad
University: Karlstad University Studies.
Selting, Margaret & Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen (2001) (eds.), Studies in interactional
linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Szczepek, Beatrize (2000) Formal Aspects of Collaborative Productions in English
Conversation. In Interaction and Linguistic Structures, InList, No. 17,
http://inlist.uni-konstanz.de/issues/17/index.htm [2000 June].
—— (2001) Prosodic Orientation in Spoken Interaction. In Interaction and Linguistic
Structures, InLiSt, No. 27, http://inlist.uni-konstanz.de/issues/27/index.htm [2001
November].
Tainio, Liisa (1996) Arkikertomukset kulttuurisen tietämyksen välittäjinä.
[Conversational storytelling as mediator of cultural knowledge] Naistutkimus
9(2): 11–29.
—— (1997) Keskusteluanalyysin perusteet [Introduction to Conversation Analysis].
Tampere: Vastapaino.
Tannen, Deborah (1989) Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in
conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Contact information:
Maarit Niemelä
Department of English
P.O. Box 1000
90014 OULUN YLIOPISTO
Finland
+3588553 3426
e-mail: maarit.h.niemela@oulu.fi
