= - Snunitlearn.snunit.k12.il/snunit/lashon/upload/teachers/... · Web viewIt focuses on...

Berman et al. / Discourse stance / 01-4-3 / p. 1

Final version

Discourse stance

Ruth Berman,a Hrafnhildur Ragnarsdóttir,b and Sven Strömqvistc

aTel Aviv University / bIceland University of Education / cLund University

In press, Written Language and Literacy 5,2 2002.( R. A. Berman, H. Ragnarsdóttir, & S. Strömqvist. 2002. Discourse stance. Written Languages

and Literacy, Volume 5, 2 )

The aim of this article is to integrate findings reported in the preceding articles in this

collection, employing a global discourse perspective labeled DISCOURSE STANCE. The

paper attempts to clarify what is meant by this notion, and how it can contribute to the

evaluation of text construction along the major variables of our project: target Language

(Dutch, English, French etc.), Age (developmental level and schooling), Modality

(writing vs. speech), and Genre (personal experience narratives vs. expository

discussion). We propose a general conceptual framework for characterizing discourse

stance as a basis for an empirically testable potential model of this key aspect of text

construction and discourse analysis. Unlike the cross-linguistically data-based studies

reported in the rest of this collection, which involve quantitative as well as well as

qualitative analyses, this concluding article presents selected pieces of text from our

sample to serve as case studies that illustrate our general line of reasoning, rather than to

test specific hypotheses.

1. Introduction

The term STANCE has been used in the discourse literature in different ways. For example, Biber

& Finegan (1989) define stance as “the lexical and grammatical expression of attitudes, feelings,

judgements, or commitment concerning the propositional content of a message”(1989:124) – to

include adverbs, verbs, and adjectives which mark affect, certainty, doubt, hedges, emphasis,

possibility, necessity, and prediction. Ochs 1990, 1996 specifies “stance” as one of four

dimensions that she discusses in considering the relation between language and culture. She

defines stance as “a socially recognized disposition,” distinguishing EPISTEMIC STANCE, “a


socially recognized way of knowing a proposition, such as direct (experiential) and indirect

(e.g., secondhand) knowledge, degrees of certainty and specificity,” vs. AFFECTIVE STANCE, a

“socially recognized feeling, attitude, mood, or degree of emotional intensity” (1990:2).

These studies derive from quite different perspectives: Biber and his associates (cf. Biber

1995, Biber et al. 1998) analyze recorded written and spoken texts, in terms of the statistical

distribution of different clusters of linguistic markers, as expressing a particular “stance style.”

These researchers deliberately proceed from analysis of linguistic forms,1 with no a-priori

relationship to a particular discourse context or communicative setting. In contrast, Ochs and her

associates (e.g. Ochs & Schieffelin 1983) proceed from the communicative context of situation

to analysis of linguistic forms occurring in different socio-cultural settings. They focus on

conversational interaction, and advocate an ethnographic methodology to assess how children

acquire the ability to “use language constitutively,” on the assumption that “epistemic and

affective stance has … an especially privileged role in the constitution of social life” (Ochs

1996: 420).

The framework for analysing discourse stance which we propose below is parasitic on the

above research, and on a large body of other literature that ranges across literary studies (e.g.

Bakhtin 1986, Leech & Short 1981); sociolinguistic analyses of narrative and conversational

interactions (Labov 1972, Tannen 1989); psycholinguistic research on conversational usage

(Clark 1986, Clark & Gerrig 1990); studies focused on the comparison of written vs. spoken

discourse (Tannen 1982, Chafe 1994); and research on children’s developing discourse abilities

(Shatz 1985, Reilly 1992). Relevant notions that have been alluded to in the literature include

the following (in roughly chronological order).

(a) Evaluation. This critical notion in studies of narrative discourse, since the pioneering

work of Labov & Waletzky 1967, refers to those elements of a narration which flesh out the

sequentially ordered events that it describes (in a presumably objective, descriptive fashion) by

providing the narrator’s personal commentary on those events, and subjective interpretation of

them, and so renders a story more expressive and interesting to the listener.2


(b) Involvement. Chafe 1982 and Tannen 1985 use this term to characterize the interactive

features of texts. Tannen points out, importantly from our viewpoint, that involvement need not

be confined to prototypically interactive situations of face-to-face conversation, or even to

narrative type texts. She refers instead to the “relative focus of involvement,” noting that literary

language, like ordinary conversation, is dependent for its effect on interpersonal involvement. It

fosters and builds on involvement between speaker and hearer rather than focusing on

information or message. It also depends for its impact on the emotional involvement of the

hearer. In contrast, expository prose, associated with literate tradition … depends for its impact

on impressing the audience with the strength and completeness of its argument, that is, with

aspects of the lexicalized message (Tannen 1985:139–40).

(c) Perspective. Our view of discourse stance also interacts with the notion of perspective —

although, again, the two are not the same. The term perspective is used in linguistic analysis

primarily in discussion of grammatical aspect, as in the distinction made by Smith 1991 of

“situation-type aspect” (or [space] Aktionsarten) vs. “viewpoint aspect” (cf. Goldsmith &

Woisetschlaeger 1982). In developmental studies of discourse analysis, perspective has been

considered largely in terms of “agentivity,”, with grammatical VOICE a major distinguishing

feature of different perspectives on a situation (Budwig 1990, Berman 1993, Berman & Slobin

1994:515–38). This is shown in our analysis contrasting the use of passive voice in several

languages (Jisa et al. 2002). Others talk about POINT OF VIEW, which Brown & Yule (1983:146–

48) relate to topic ordering in narratives. Relatedly, Li & Zubin 1995 assume that “choice of an

anaphoric referring expression — full NP, pronoun, or zero — might be a function of context-

dependent cognitive factors”, in distinguishing linear from rhetorical continuity, as well as in the

two perspectives of expressive vs. reportive framing in narrative discourse. These and related

ideas are perhaps most broadly articulated by Chafe (1994:132), in terms of “point of view” and

of “immediacy” vs. “displacement,” taking as a starting point the “fact that consciousness is

oriented from the point of view of an experiencing self.”

(d) Distancing devices. In work which formed the background to the present analysis, we

considered the nature of such dev ices, in the sense of linguistic means used to express a


particular discourse stance along a range of distinctions — including personal(ized) vs.

general(ized), immediate vs. detached, involved vs. distanced, specific vs. general, and

subjective vs. objective (Berman 1999, Jisa & Vigué 1999, Ravid & Cahana-Amitay 1999,

Tolchinsky 1999). The present study attempts to refine and clarify these distinctions in a more

principled frame of reference (§2), as background to specification of the linguistic devices which

serve the over-all purpose of expressing discourse stance (§3).

Our proposal aims at a “top-down” approach to the analysis of discourse stance, at the same

time specifying the forms of linguistic expression which speaker/writers use in realizing this

aspect of text construction. We start by trying to define the functional parameters involved in

this notion (§2) and then examine the linguistic forms which speaker/writers deploy in

expressing stance (§§3–4). In this bidimensional approach to form/function relations, we are

aided by the methodology evolved for data collection and analysis, as laid out in Berman &

Verhoeven 2002 (§1). Our sample provided us (uniquely in the research literature, to the best of

our knowledge) with directly comparable texts dealing with shared thematic content in narrative

vs. expository discourse, in both speech and writing, across four different age groups. The fact

that exactly parallel procedures were adopted across different languages means that we can

directly address the impact of available structural devices and of rhetorical preferences in a given

target language — a recurrent theme in the preceding articles of this collection.

Our characterization of discourse stance thus takes into account two genres of monologic

texts (for comparisons of narrative with other modes of discourse, see Bruner 1986, Giora 1990,

Stutterheim & Klein 1999), both written and spoken, in developmental perspective. Our major

motivation is to examine the complex interaction between linguistic forms and discourse

functions by considering a broad array of linguistic devices as giving expression to several

different dimensions of discourse stance. In the present context, we aim to provide a functionally

based overview that integrates topics discussed elsewhere in this collection, including the

lexicon, noun-slots, verb-slots, voice, and propositional attitudes.


2. Conceptual framework

We consider the notion “discourse stance” as referring to three interrelated dimensions of text-

construction: ORIENTATION (Sender, Text, Recipient); ATTITUDE (Epistemic, Deontic,

Affective); and GENERALITY (of reference and quantification —specific vs. general). These are

functional dimensions which apply across texts, and so differ from what we term “Propositional

Attitudes”, whose scope is the (semantic) proposition or something like a (syntactic) sentence

(see Reilly et al. 2000).3 Central to our present proposal is the idea that all or any of these three

dimensions of stance -- orientation, attitude, and referential specificity or generality -- can be

alternated within a piece of discourse. A given text, may start out with a “sender” orientation as

a deictic center, and then switch to taking the text or even the recipient-addressee as a point of

reference and then either return to the speaker/writer perspective or not. Similarly, a single text

may contain any one or more of the three types of attitudes we are identifying — epistemic,

deontic, and affective — and it may be both specific and general in reference to persons, places,

and times.

2.1 Orientation

This dimension concerns the relation between the three participating elements in text production

and interpretation: sender (speaker or writer), text (narration or exposition), and recipient (hearer

or reader). A SENDER ORIENTATION is subjective, and is deictically centered on the

speaker/writer. It tends to be deontically judgemental or affective in attitude, and specific in

reference; it reflects personal involvement in the content of the text, relating to events and ideas

that the speaker/writer has experienced or thought about. These distinctions are always relative;

e.g., expressions like I think, je trouve, creo contain an epistemic predicate, yet they proceed

from a deictic, sender-oriented viewpoint. A RECIPIENT ORIENTATION is communicatively

motivated; it takes into account, or at least appears to be addressing, the hearer/reader quite

directly. This is found in expressions like you know, or use of 2nd person pronouns in a non-

personal sense, with generic reference (Spanish “tu” arbitrario). Thus, when an English-

speaking woman in the course of an oral narrative makes a generalization to the effect that


people who you know they take advantage of your trust”, this might be construed as more

recipient-oriented than the semantically corresponding people that are known to / who clearly

take advantage of one´s / a person´s trust).4 A TEXT ORIENTATION takes the object that is being

produced orally or in writing as a conceptual or cognitive point of reference. It relates the

representation of the content of the piece of discourse itself (cf. I’m not quite sure how to

formulate the problem, or What I´m going to talk (or write) about is …) to a totally distanced,

impersonal metatextual level of orientation, e.g. When discussing issues such as this …, or In

considering the topic of … In our database, expressions like the latter are confined to the older

subjects, mainly among university graduate adults, occasionally in the texts of high-school

adolescents.

2.2. Attitude

Distinctions of attitude also apply at the more local level of propositional attitudes (Reilly et al.

2000). But as has been noted, e.g. by Ochs 1996, such distinctions express a quite general

discourse stance as well. An EPISTEMIC attitude concerns a relation between a cognising

speaker/writer and a proposition, in terms of possibility, certainty, or the evidence for the

individual’s belief that a given state of affairs is true (or false). A DEONTIC attitude adopts a

judgemental, prescriptive, or evaluative viewpoint in relation to the topic. An AFFECTIVE

attitude, in contrast to the epistemic, concerns a relation between cognising speaker/writer and

their emotions (desire, anger, grief etc.) with respect to a given state of affairs.5 These

distinctions can thus be ranged on a cline — from the more objective, abstract, and universalistic

epistemic attitudes; through socially conditioned deontic attitudes, shared within a group familiar

to the speaker/writer; and on to the most subjective reactions and personal feelings that an

individual holds in relation to a given topic. Psychological studies on socio-cognitive and moral

development (e.g. Hersh et al. 1979), as well as the findings from discourse analysis in our own

sample (Berman & Verhoeven 2002, §4.1), indicate that the ability to combine and interrelate

these different attitudes flexibly and appropriately, in a single discourse context, is the hallmark

of a socially developed adolescent/adult.


2.3 Generality

This dimension concerns the degree of generalization vs. specificity of reference to people,

places, and times referred to in the text. To a large extent, this is a function of, or parasitic on,

the two previous dimensions, since speaker orientation is necessarily highly specific, while

cognitive attitudes may be quite general and universalistic in scope. We distinguish three levels

of expression in this respect: Personal or SPECIFIC in Reference (e.g. I / my parents think, my /

this boy’s father made me / him apologize); GENERIC (e.g. People / We tend to think, It depends

on your / one’s attitude); and IMPERSONAL (It´s well known, the fact that, Spanish se sabe,

French il faut). As the examples indicate, the linguistic means for expressing these different

levels of generality depend on the available devices and typological properties of the different

languages. But distinctions in generality of reference, as in orientation and attitude, are assumed

to be relevant regardless of the particular target language.

This three-pronged approach to discourse stance represents a deliberate attempt to view

language use and discourse rhetoric along clines of interacting factors, rather than in

dichotomous terms of written vs. spoken, personalized vs. objective, or involved vs. distanced.

This over-all conception is supported by our analysis of developing text construction abilities,

which aims at integrating top-down and bottom-up approaches to discourse analysis, from the

perspective of a multiplicity of linguistic forms that can be recruited to express a range of

discourse functions. It is facilitated by the database at our disposal, which allows us to do a

careful examination of comparable, specially elicited texts produced by non-expert subjects in

different languages, at four levels of Age (and schooling), in two Genres (narrative and

expository), and in two Modalities (speech and writing).

3. Linguistic forms of expression

Under this heading, we move from “function” (the notion of discourse stance) to “form,” in the

sense of overt linguistic markings of stance — morphological, syntactic, and lexical. The

breakdown in Table 1 was devised in the framework of a panel presentation concerned with


“Talking and writing about conflict situations at different ages and in different languages”

(Berman 1999).

Table 1 near here

Papers presented at the panel (Ravid & Cahana-Amitay 1999 for Hebrew, Jisa & Viguié

1999 for French, and Tolchinsky 1999 for Spanish) focused on the linguistic forms used to

distinguish the direct, immediate, and highly personalized perspective of personal-experience

narratives from the more distanced, abstract, and impersonal rhetoric of expository discourse.

This analysis was based on a contrast we drew between these two types of texts, working with a

database collected at a prior stage of the study reported on in here. In our current thinking about

discourse stance, as formulated in the preceding section, we have abandoned this rather

dichtomous view to take account of the complex nature of the topic as well as the form and

content of the texts that we have analyzed.

Nonetheless, there are good grounds, psychological and linguistic as well as developmental,

for setting narrative apart from other discourse genres (as cogently argued by Bruner 1986, von

Stutterheim & Klein 1989). This is particularly true in the case of personal experience narratives,

as compared with discussions of a topic such as we elicited (Berman 2001b). For example,

across age groups and languages, the dominant tense in the expository texts is the (timeless)

present, as compared with a preference for past tense forms in the narratives (Ragnarsdóttir et al.

2002). Across Age and Language, nominals functioning as surface subjects tend to be more

generic, impersonal, and/or lexical in expository texts, with a higher proportion of personal

pronoun subjects in narratives (Ravid et al. 2002). Again across Age and Language, expository

texts contain more modal-type predicate modifiers (like should, can) than the narratives, which

have relatively more aspectual verbs (like start, keep on). Where modal expressions do occur in

narratives, they are typically “agent-directed” (Reilly et al. 2002.)

The ideas presented in §2.2, concerning “a CLINE or continuum of rhetorical means for

moving from the personal to the general, from concrete to abstract, from specific to general,

from immediate to distanced, from involved to detached,” thus seem to provide a useful starting

point for examining our proposed characterization of discourse stance. Relevant linguistic


distinctions are as shown in Table 1, along the dimensions of word-internal morphology,

lexicon, syntax, and semantic content:

The way and the extent in which the devices in Table 1 are deployed will vary across a

number of dimensions: text type or genre — e.g. a personal narrative vs. fictive short story and

these compared with an academic text, a newspaper report, or a procedural text; modality –

speech or writing; target-language typology; available structural and rhetorical options; as well

as the rhetorical preferences and style of individual speaker-writers. For example, as shown in

earlier articles in this volume, use of passives and reliance on pronominal subjects and

impersonal constructions interact markedly with whether a language requires a surface subject in

simple clauses (a typological property which sets Spanish and Hebrew apart from the other

languages in our sample). And while all the languages in our sample have passive constructions

which are structurally quite productive, they show different distributional patterns across the

texts in the five languages examined for this topic.

The listing above demonstrates the multiple levels and types of linguistic devices involved in

expressing discourse stance. It also has an advantage over certain prior analyses since it departs

from a strictly dichotomous division in favor of a continuum or cline. The way it is presented

implies a directionality that is helpful for purposes of analysis, rather than being “correct” in

principle. It should not be taken to mean that the features to the left of the chart are in some

sense inferior to, or more juvenile, less developed, or less expressive than those to its right. The

claim is, rather, that a maturely expressive and rhetorically proficient text will be weighted to

one end of the scale or another in keeping with (a) the particular context of discourse and (b) the

communicative goals of speaker/writers on a given occasion. In fact, a hallmark of skilfully

proficient speaker/writers is that they use a wide range of these different devices in conjunction,

and that they do so flexibly, appropriately, and without putting the consistency of the text at risk.

The listing above is lacking in another important respect. It focuses on grammatically and

semantically definable categories, and so disregards RHETORICAL FEATURES of texts that are

crucial to expression of discourse stance. Foremost among these are the domains of DIRECT VS.

REPORTED SPEECH and the use of DISCOURSE MARKERS, two topics that have figured widely –


and controversially -- in the literature.6 But even if we consider only the dimensions in the above

list, every single utterance expresses some type of discourse stance or another, so that in general

it might not be possible to refer to such a notion as a neutral or “default” stance.

4. Selected illustrations

Unlike the other contributions to this volume, the text excerpts discussed in this section do not

provide a survey of the domain under investigation deriving from analysis of our database.

Rather, these excerpts are intended to illustrate the problems facing any attempt to operationalize

these notions, however intuitively satisfying they may be, and to demonstrate the insights that a

data-base like ours affords for tackling such problems.

The first few examples are excerpts that illustrate some of the linguistic options used by

speakers and writers of different ages in different genres.7 The excerpts are taken from texts

that vary in Age, Genre, and Modality; and they differ along the three dimensions of

orientation, attitude, and generality.

The first excerpt gives the first seventeen clauses of a total 68 in the personal experience

account told by an American high school student, a boy 17 years old.8

(1) Uh, I guess the first one that comes to mind, since we were talking about my dad, I went to

middle school in La Jolla, and one of the kids in my classes, it turns out his dad was my

dad’s boss not directly, but his dad was an executive VP of the company, and my dad was

one of the guys that actually works in the lab, and so he was always, I dunno, just bugging

me, saying, you know, if you mess with me, my dad can have your dad fired and all this

stuff … [Eh02mnsb]

The first part of ex. 1 appears totally personalized, immediate, and involved. But closer

inspection of our three dimensions show that it intersperses features of more than a single

discourse stance. In ORIENTATION, it is predominantly sender-based, focusing on the speaker as

protagonist (e.g. I went, my classes, my dad) in relation to his classmate as antagonist (one of the


kids in my class, his dad / my dad), including also cognitively focused attitudinal statements in

the form of “discourse marking” expressions like I guess at the introduction to his story and I

dunno before introducing its high point. This orientation is shifted via direct speech to

protagonist “other” perspective (if you mess with me, my dad / your dad). It also introduces a

receiver orientation in the introductory segment (we were talking about …) and in the formulaic

discourse marker you know. In fact, the narrator starts out with reference to the text as an object

of reflection, the story as a product of the speaker’s activity in a way not found among the

younger children (the first one that comes to mind). In ATTITUDE, too, although the text is

generally in realis mode, reporting on past events, one of these reports includes reference to

hypothetical states of affairs (it turns out that, if you mess with me, my dad can have your dad

fired). On the dimension of GENERALITY, the entire excerpt is highly specific, in reference to

people and places, the only exception being the vague general term and all this stuff.

The bulk of this text falls solidly to the left of the list of forms in Table 1, with constant use

of 1st person, most clauses in past tense, all active voice, mainly singular number (pseudo-

exceptions are one of the kids in my class, one of the guys that actually works in the lab),

concrete nouns, and dynamic action predicates. But as the preceding analysis indicates, these are

general trends. In fact the text shifts stance back and forth — from speaker to text to hearer,

from statements of fact to hypothetical attitudes, and from specific to general. This interspersal

of elements reflecting different types of stance is rare in the texts of younger children, as shown

by the full text of a story told by a 4th grade girl on the same topic.

(2) I think I like pushed her [= the narrator’s sister] because of something, and then I ran away

and she was chasing me and then she and then I hid be … I um went down and then she

kicked me in the mouth. And and my mom told us to like stop and then she made us go to

our rooms. I think it was like ten minutes or five, and then um we came out, and we had to

say sorry, so we did. And that’s it. [Eg04mnsa]


This text adopts a “monolithic” discourse stance. It centers around the speaker as protagonist and

the “other” as antagonist, the predicates are all in past tense and highly dynamic, with no

expression of prepositional attitudes. The text is thus entirely sender-oriented, without direct

reference to the recipient, let alone to the text or the act of text construction as such. It is largely

specific and deictic in reference (I, she, we, us, my mom; the mouth, our room) and factual in

attitude, reporting on events without commenting on them. The most notable departures from a

speaker-oriented, highly specific, concretely personalized discourse stance are her use of the

expression I think at the beginning of the story and then again before the segment that marks its

resolution. This is textually inappropriate, since I think and its counterparts in other languages

(e.g., French je trouve, Spanish creo, Hebrew ani xošev(et) “are typically confined to expository

discourse among older subjects. The only expression of a propositional attitude in this text is

reference to being obliged to perform the speech act of apologizing (We had to say sorry). The

other departure from this monolithic discourse stance is represented in vaguely general

references to causal (I pushed her because of something) and temporal circumstances (it was like

ten minutes or five [sic]). Here again, more maturely proficient story-tellers would probably

have described these circumstances in quite specific terms. This suggests that even in the context

of oral narratives, which both this project and a range of other research have shown to be

structurally well mastered by age 9 years (Peterson & McCabe 1983, Berman & Slobin 1994,

Hickmann 1995), the younger subjects in our sample may not manifest the cognitive flexibility

and rhetorical skill necessary to alternate discourse stance in a well-motivated and clearly

formulated fashion.

This type of text is not an isolated instance. It closely corresponds to the oral expository text

of another 4th-grade English-speaking boy.

(3) I think, I think people should just try to um work stuff out and not just fight about it and

just go to someone that’s more intelligent pretty much and kind of wiser older than you

probably and see how that works out . And you should try to be nice to everyone even if you

don’t like like that person. [Eg05mes]


The discourse stance expressed here is also monolithic, but in reverse. The text is generalized

and non-specific in reference; except for the discourse-marking I think at the outset, its referents

are all generic (people, someone, everyone, that person; you). It is prescriptively deontic in

attitude, reflected in the fact that every single predicate is either modified by the modal should or

else is in imperative mood. As a result, the entire text is couched in an even more general irrealis

mood than would be the case with generalizations formulated in the timeless present tense. And

the text lacks a clearly centered orientation, whether to speaker, sender, or text.

This does not mean that children of this age are either cognitively or linguistically incapable

of adopting a different stance within a given text. But such alternations are far less common in

their expository than in their personal experience narratives, where they are far more proficient

than in constructing expository texts (Berman 2001b). This is shown by the ending of the

narrative text from another 4th-grade English-speaking boy. He ends his narrative (the last 7 out

of 21 clauses), about a time when he was playing golf and he got mad and hit at the door of his

house with a golf club, as follows.

(4) And my mom was home, and then I had to go in. And then maybe today or during the

weekend or last weekend me and my dad got [sic] that stuff, where if you have dents on the

car you fill it in. And we got that, and we did that. And this weekend we’re maybe going to

paint over it [Eg14mns]

This 9-year-old describes the resolution to his narrative by a generalized statement in conditional

mood, with generic reference and in the timeless present tense (if you have dents ...), and he

concludes it by referring to another contingency, a possible event in the future (maybe we’re

going to). This contrasts markedly with the speaker-centered description of a highly specific

series of events that make up the bulk of the 21 clauses in this oral narrative. Note, further, that

the concluding clause is not really a generalized coda that relate story-time to storytelling time in

a fully generalized proposition, since the final statement is still specific and personal in


reference. This type of ending is typically juvenile and supports the observation by Tolchinsky et

al. 2002 concerning the lack of generalized narrative codas, particularly among the younger

subjects.

As is to be expected, these texts differ markedly from those of high school adolescents and

even more so in the case of adults. This is shown by the following oral narrative of an English-

speaking highschool boy in ex. 5. Items marked in italics represent elements which make non-

specific reference of a kind not typically identified with personal experience narrative type

discourse. The text is segmented into paragraph-like narrative segments (setting, episodes etc.),

for ease of reading.

(5) When I was I was in fifth grade, I finally stood up to someone in class that had that had been

bothering me for quite a while. And ever since kindergarten he had been a person who was

who was popular in the class, not because um not because he was someone that everyone

loved or really admired, it was because, it was more like because they were afraid of him and

they thought that if they they joined his pack, then it would be um safer for them.

And um he had made life really and the school year without fun for a number years for a

lot of people, and finally in in second grade I, no it was fifth grade, he finally went so far

that I actually I actually acted against him. I would have I would have just ignored it as as

being something that had been going on for a while, something that you know his nature.

And then um then he just he just interrupted a conversation that I was having with

someone and he told me to shut up and he pushed me and and I just and I just pushed him

back, you know because just to show him I wasn’t going to take that because it was my it

was my conversation and and he was he was almost like an uninvited person intruding into

it.

And um he didn’t want to take that either, so he kicked me and I returned that to

reinforce what I was trying to say before.

And um that’s basically the end of it. He through through physical action, he learned

what what he couldn’t have learned through um speaking and compromising. And I know


that’s that’s what people always say is the key to solving conflicts, but there’s certain

occasions where that doesn’t work, I think. That’s it. [Eh08mns]

As shown by the underlined items, this account of a personal experience is sprinkled liberally

with quantifiers such as indefinite pronouns and non-specific lexical NPs. This is reinforced by

reference to non-agentive, generalized abstract nominals of the kind discussed by Reilly et al.

2002 (e.g. physical action, speaking, compromising, conflicts, occasions) in the concluding part

of the story. These combine with numerous other items of the kind listed to the right end of

Table 1, to demonstrate how far this account deviates from a canonically personalized or

involved “narrative stance.” Its orientation shifts from the very beginning from being centered

on the speaker (who figures as the key protagonist only in the middle parts of the narrative) to

descriptive evaluation of the 3rd person “other” as antagonist. And where attitudes are

expressed, these tend to be epistemic rather than deontic in character, referring to contingent

possibilities (what he couldn’t have learned …”) or reflecting on the evidence for states of

affairs (I know that’s what people always say … but there’s certain occasions where …)

An even more complex and varied representation of discourse stance is illustrated by the

opening parts of the expository texts produced orally by three English-speaking adults in 6a–c. 9

(6) a. Okay, um let me think for a few minutes. Well, I’ve never been one to ah, I’ve never

been good at confrontation and er conflicts make me very uneasy very uncomfortable, so

I try to avoid them at any cost.

And as a young girl sometimes I would find myself being taken advantage of, so as

an adult I have learned that one needs to stand up for their boundaries and they need not,

they should not let take people, it’s in their best interest not to let people take advantage

of them.

So when confrontations arise between people and problems between people, the first

thing that I try to do is I try to look at my part in that confrontation and what did I do to

cause this person to react in the way that they reacted. What was my part? Because I feel


that everything is fifty-fifty, unless somebody’s just totally off their rocker and you know

and you know emotionally unstable.

So my first uh approach to a conflict in a situation is to see … [Ea03fes]

b. Okay, well I think that when you are talking about conflict, as with the story I just told

you, um sometimes you have verbal conflict, sometimes you have silent conflict,

sometimes you have written conflict, so the way you should address it is going to vary.

Um, speaking from experience, there’s a lot of times where there is conflict and I

think it is in the best interest of the relationship of two people maybe to let something lie

if it can be resolved on your own.

However there are other occasions where the subject of the conflict is very serious

and it needs to be addressed. Um if there are things going on where someone’s safety

someone’s wellbeing is endangered, then it must be addressed. Um in other situations it

might be more trivial, and it might cause a dangerous conflict if it is addressed.

So I think that each conflict needs to be considered differently and the ways that you

resolve it need to be need to be considered separately as well. [Ea04fes]

c. I more or less wrote that whether it’s between adults or adults and children that there

ought to be some understanding to the stem the disagreement and that in the case of

adults they can or at least ought to be able to reason with one another, each finding out

what the other wants, and and then sort of you know making concessions to avoid

conflict altogether.

And in the case of children, while it might not be as easy to reason and may require

some more discipline, then then at least the adult should act in the child’s best interest

and try to get what he wants or she wants from the child by making the boy or girl

understand why it’s necessary, rather than using some kind of you know threat of

punishment or bribery.

But essentially it would probably be best to and possible to avoid it altogether if

people came to an understanding ahead of time. [Ea07mes]


These opening excerpts from three adult texts — which are similar to ones found in other

languages, but NOT in the other age groups in our study — illustrate a maturely proficient ability

to vary discourse stance in the on-going course of text production. They illustrate not only the

interaction of different linguistic features in expressing discourse stance, but also the fact that

choice of a particular form of expression is in each case optional, and could have been alternated

to modify the stance expressed slightly, without affecting the semantic or referential content of

the statements being made. These different features include nominal reference, particularly but

not only of grammatical subjects (as noted in Ravid et al. 2002) and of verb tense, mood, and

modality (as in Ragnarsdóttir et al. 2002, Reilly et al. 2002).

The three texts differ in basic orientation: Ex. 6a remains sender/speaker-oriented. Ex. 6b

starts out that way, then shifts to a more general, hence more distanced perspective on the topic.

Ex. 6c refers to self only in relation to the text that the individual wrote on the same topic, and

then moves to a totally “other” orientation. These multiply varied types of stance rely on a

skillful interplay of different degrees of specificity vs. generality of reference (from I, me, my to

generic adults, people, children, occasions, via impersonal it, there and on to abstract

nominalizations such as conflict, disagreement, punishment). Downgrading of agency is further

effected by use of passive voice. These factors combine with propositional attitudes that range

from expression of hypothetical contingencies and use of irrealis mood (when confrontations

arise …; you should address it …; whether it’s between adults or adults and children). They

involve a combination of sender-centered, recipient-centered, and text-centered orientations to

the abstract topic of discussion. These different levels and types of SHIFT in discourse stance —

within and most particularly across different segments of discourse, in the course of on-going

text production — highlight several more general themes that emerge from our study. They

reflect a mature ability to organize the online flow of information from a global, top-down

perspective, even in the spoken medium and even in the less easily accessible expository context

of discourse; this echoes the findings for text openings and closing by Tolchinsky et al 2002.

The shifts in 6a–c reflect differences in choice of individual rhetorical style that we find far

more in maturely proficient text construction, but rarely among school-age children (Berman


1988, 2001a). They most markedly reflect a cognitive ability to adopt multiple perspectives on

an issue; we find this typically among the older subjects in our study (as noted with respect to

written texts by Reilly et al. 2002).

The last two examples we consider reflect the two extremes in types of texts elicited in the

larger study: ex. 7, an oral narrative, and ex. 8, a written expository text, both produced by an

English-speaking man majoring in the sciences at graduate school. Items underlined indicate

communicative, interactive discourse items of the kind termed “markers of collateral discourse”

by Clark 1996.

(7) Okay I don’t know why I’ll bring this up. But but just to okay just to say something.

Uh I had a friend in high school, and he uh he was a pretty good friend, but we kind

of uh there were some things about him I didn’t really like because uh he was kind of,

he had an evil side to him. Like he used to, he used to like catch squirrels and kind of

torture them or shoot birds and things like this. And then uh when we got a little older

you know he was very competitive. Like if I said I liked one girl, then he’d go and

ask her out or you know he’d chase after my girlfriend. So I guess that was a

problem, because because I was good friends with him, but at the same time he had

this like a dark side or something that you know I always knew was there.

And uh anyway we kind of fell you know lost touch after high school. But that I

don’t know why that came to mind. I mean we we always had a we never really had a

conflict, you know we were always friends, but there was always this you know

underlying how he felt about me. If there was something about me that he was kind

of … or if he was just generally competitive or you know. But it was kind of weird

just to have a friend who you kind of have this …

Maybe a lot of friendships are like that with a underlying I mean I don’t know

why that came to mind. [Ea01mns]


(8) Conflicts and problems between people are often avoidable I believe, and yet they

seem to occupy a considerable amount of our time and energy, based on

conversations I have overheard in places like coffee shops.

I think people should take a moment and think .about why the problem is

occurring before taking on an automatic adversary role. If people with a conflict or

problem would try and consider the other person’s point of view perspective and

reason for being at the opposite side of the problem as them, then maybe a resolution

to the problem could be easily reached. It would not only help solve the problem, it

might help straighten out the other person of some deeper conflict and in half the

cases even the person .who is addressing the other side.

Of course not all problems can be dealt with in this way. The world is not a

perfect place. In these cases it is better to avoid the situation and minimize the

problem even to the point where it just fades away I believe. Problems, however, are

meant to be solved, and doing so is one of the challenges and joys of interactions

with other people. Being social is about cooperating, and solving the problems we

have with each other is what makes a society work. [Ea01mns]

Ex. 7 contains nearly one interactive type of “discourse marker” in every clause, as shown by the

underlined items.10 These are almost entirely absent from the essay written by the same man

about a problem of social relevance in ex. 8. This reflects a major distinguishing feature of

spoken vs. written texts in our data base from 4th grade on. The three instances of such

expressions in the essay are never of an interactive or communicative form of “collateral lexical

elements” like okay, just, kinda, like, as they are in the oral narrative. In contrast, the expressions

I think, I believe in the expository essay serve as SEGMENTATION markers, indicating that the

writer has finished a unit of discourse, or is about to begin a new one (Cahana-Amitay &

Katzenberger, to appear).

Both texts from this man reflect the varied nature of discourse stance in a given piece of

discourse. The personal experience narrative contains several text-oriented comments (I’ll bring


this up; okay, just to say something; I don’t know why that came to mind), both in the middle of

the narration and at its conclusion.11 There are numerous expressions of propositionally

modalized attitudes, particularly in the distancing effect achieved by attitudinal statements.

There are many instances of non-specific quantifiers and generalizations (there were some things

about him I just didn’t like; we were always friends but there was always this underlying …; if he

was just generally competitive); these are interspersed between the specific incidents related

between the protagonist rival. This feature is most marked just before the coda (which itself

combines a speaker-orientation with a text-based comment — I mean I don’t know why that

came to mind), in the form of a classic type of “evaluating” comment, generalizing and summing

up the entire narrative: maybe a lot of friendships are like that.

The expository essay of ex. 8 is largely text-oriented; it relies heavily on reference to general

states of affairs and entities like conflicts and problems, adversary role, a resolution to the

problem (non-specific), the world, the situation, challenges, joys, interactions, a society. But

interspersed with these generalities are use of 1st person reference, both generic (a considerable

amount of our time and energy) and deictic, the latter anchored in personal but generalized

experience (conversations I have overheard in places like coffee shops). What most distinguishes

ex. 8 in terms of stance, as distinct from thematic content and level of language use, is that it is

almost totally cognitive and epistemic in attitude, as expressed in such terms as it seems; people

should take a moment; if people would try … then maybe a resolution could be reached; it would

not only help …; it might help, it is better to avoid. This stance, too, is changed in the coda, in

the form of a totally definite statement which, while generalized, is not modally modified in any

way: Being social is about cooperating and solving … is what makes society work.

The question remains as to how these, and other features that play a role in discourse stance,

can be operationalized by means of analytical procedures that can be reliably applied across

different text types, and perhaps even quantified (some such proposals are noted in §6 below).

This is difficult in principle as well as practice, because the functional notion of discourse stance

is so complex and multifaceted (§2) and because such a varied range of linguistic forms and

subsystems are involved in its expression (§3). Another major problem – which, to the best of


our knowledge, has not been sufficiently addressed in the literature – is the confounding of

variables between Genre (personal experience narratives vs. expository discussions) and

Modality (spoken vs. written language), which are clearly demonstrated in exx 7–8, produced by

the same person on the same day.

5. Predictions

The preliminary, partial analyses provided in the preceding section combine — on one hand,

with the conceptual and linguistic framework we have proposed for analysing discourse stance,

and on the other hand, with the findings of the cross-linguistic analyses of different topics

presented in the preceding articles in this collection — to yield the following predictions.

5.1 Forms of linguistic expression: A “confluence of cues”

We assume that distinctions in discourse stance along the three dimensions we have specified

will find expression in a range of different linguistic forms, representing linguistic subsystems

which, in linguistic and even in discourse analysis, are often considered in isolation (see Berman

& Verhoeven 2002, §2.3). That is, various formal devices —including type of surface subject,

personal vs. impersonal pronouns, clause constructions, voice, and mode — will interact in

expressing discourse stance, and in shifting from one stance to another in the course of a given

text. Some of these issues have been demonstrated for the different variables in our study —

Language, Age, Genre (type of text), and Modality (spoken vs. written) — in earlier analyses

presented in the working papers of our project (e.g. Berman 1999, Berman & Sandbank 2000;

Jisa & Viguié 1999, 2000, Reilly et al. 2000, Tolchinsky et al 2000a). Others are reflected in the

findings for different topics in the articles that constitute the present collection.

5.2 Development of intratextual diversity: “From dichotomy to divergence”

A bias towards sender-orientation, affective attitudes, and specific reference will typify the

narrative texts of the younger children, as compared with an almost entirely generalized stance

and deontic atttitudes in their expository texts. With age, we predict an intermixing of different


orientations, attitudes, and levels of specificity of reference within a single text. Adults, in

particular, may adopt a personal orientation in part of their expository texts, and express text-

oriented cognitive attitudes in their narratives. Earlier analyses of our database (published in our

working papers vols. I (Aisenman 1999a) and III [Tolchinsky et al 2000b] in a range of

domains, including temporality marking and thematic content of the texts in our sample, have

led us to the developmental and genre-sensitive hypothesis of growing “divergence from the

canonic” as a function of increased maturity and improved abilities for text construction (see

Berman & Verhoeven 2002, §3.2). We suggest that, with age, personal-experience narratives

come to include more “evaluative” or “non-narrative” elements — and so incorporate a

discourse stance that expresses a text-focused orientation, epistemic attitudes, and generalized

reference. Conversely, the more mature expository texts will include personalized receiver-

and/or sender-oriented comments; they may express deontic judgements and affective attitudes;

and they will be less vaguely general, with specific illustrations of their generalized

propositional content.

5.3. Development of rhetorical consistency: “Mixing” of stance

A related developmental prediction is that, when younger subjects do intersperse distanced

generalizations in their narratives, as well as personalized elements in their expository texts, they

may do so in ways that are rhetorically inconsistent or communicatively inappropriate. They

may also fail to mark these shifts in discourse stance by appropriately explicit linguistic means, a

hallmark of maturely proficient text construction (Berman 2001b).

5.4 Orientation: From sender/receiver communicative stance to text-internal autonomy

We expect even the youngest children in our sample to rely on both specific and generic means

of reference, and to adopt both personal and generalized stances. However, a (meta)textual

orientation will be found mainly among older speaker/writers, as indicated clearly by analyses of

opening and closing segments of text in Tolchinsky et al. 2002, because of factors of general

socio-cognitive development (see §5.7 below).


5.5 Attitudes

Analysis of propositional attitudes in the expository texts of younger children, as compared with

older speaker/writers, reveals a shift from affective to deontic to epistemic attitudes. This can be

related to quite general socio-cognitive developmental trends — from highly subjective,

personalized attitudes, to more socially conditioned views, and eventually to abstract, distanced,

and universalistic views on given states of affairs. Interestingly, just this development is revealed

by the thematic content of evaluative elements in personal-experience recollections of the same

event: the Gulf War of 1990, as related by Israeli pre-adolescents, adolescents, and adults (Segal

2001). The study revealed that the youngest age-group evaluated the events they reported in

subjectively emotional terms of how they felt on the occasion; the adolescents made socially

oriented commentary about the behavior of other people with whom they were involved in the

situation; and the adults gave cognitive evaluations of the situation in terms of general principles

and consequences. As noted by Reilly et al. 2002, this is highly consistent with Piagetian and

neo-Piagetian analyses of levels of socio-cognitive and moral development (e.g. Hersh et al.

1979, Selman 1980). However, in line with the prediction in §5.2, this does not imply any

monolithic development or clearcut dichotomy of academic-cognitive attitudes, on the one hand,

vs. social-communicative attitudes on the other. Clearly, mature speaker/writers can adopt

multiple stances on a given event or state of affairs, and they can integrate abstract propositional

theorizing on a topic with their personal social values, in keeping with different communicative

contexts.

5.6 Generality of reference

This may be an area where cross-linguistic differences and the impact of Language typology are particularly

marked. For example, as demonstrated in earlier articles in this collection, the linguistic expression of an

“impersonal” stance interacts with whether the language requires overt subjects (cf. French on, Swedish man),

or whether it has strongly grammaticized word order constraints— as compared with the strictly subjectless se

marked impersonals in Spanish, and constructions with 3pl. masculine verbs in Hebrew (Thompson 1979,


Berman 1980). In English particularly, speakers (possibly to a greater extent than writers) make use of a very

mixed range of indeterminate pronouns (as illustrated by exx. 5–7 above).

5.7 Cross-modal distinctions: Discourse stance in spoken vs. written language

Differences between spoken face-to-face interaction and writing can be characterized in terms of

several factors, including the duration of the physical signal; the possibility of on-line feedback

and mutual adaptation between sender and receiver, and the distribution of expressive features

— words, tone of voice, gestures, facial expression etc. — across a given piece of discourse

(Strömqvist et al. 1999). All these features have consequences for the construction of stance. The

fact that the signal is long-lasting in writing (whereas it is of very short duration in speech)

allows for a greater ease of metalinguistic reflection and for more long-distance editing in the

written medium. With respect to stance, writing is thus more conducive to text orientation,

especially of a metalinguistic kind. Further, the possibility of on-line feedback and mutual

adaptation between sender and receiver in spoken interaction will tend to promote a greater

degree of recipient orientation than is the case in writing. The speaker is eager to elicit feedback

from the recipient with respect to uptake, understanding, and attitudinal reactions (Allwood et al.

1992).

In terms of Attitude, the simultaneous participation of tone of voice, gestures, and facial

expression in speaking is conducive to more affective attitudes in speech than in writing —

where the expression of affect needs to find a predominantly linear, lexico-syntactic distribution.

Further, the epistemic terms used in speaking tend to assume a time- and turn-saving quality,

because of the high time pressure and reduced room for planning that are typical of speech (I

suppose it could ...; I mean ...; not quite X, but rather Y.) In writing, epistemic terms can readily

be stripped of this particular quality. A similar argument could be made with respect to

quantifiers and the dimension of generality: Cognitively demanding quantification and

generalization can be expected to be commoner in writing than in speech. Many instances of

generalization in speech, e.g. In many cases ... or Most people would agree that ..., may not be


the outcome of careful quantification, but may rather be motivated by time and turn-taking

considerations.

5.8 Cross-linguistic contrasts

As noted with respect to the predictions in §§5.1–7, cross-linguistic differences will emerge in

choice of particular devices for expressing the three dimensions of discourse stance that we have

identified. These will depend on the repertoire of structural and lexical devices available in a

given language. For example, English (unlike French, Spanish, or Hebrew) affords a regular

alternation of grammaticized modals like can, must, should vs. more periphrastic semimodals

like be able to, have to, ought to, respectively, for the expression of prepositional attitudes.

Spanish and Hebrew have highly productive, morphologically marked middle-voice

constructions for downgrading of agency, and thus for expressing a less personal stance, but

English makes restricted use of such constructions, realized mainly in shifts of syntactic valence.

As this suggests, the range of devices available to speaker/writers will interact with quite general

typological features of different target languages, as well as with rhetorical preferences of the

kind noted for picture-book narrations in Berman & Slobin (1994:611–41) and in the study of

passive constructions by Jisa et al. 2002.

5.9 Shared developmental trends

On the other hand, the general developmental trends for discourse stance predicted in the

preceding sections -- for orientation and attitude as well as for the development from

dichotomous intra-genre distinctions at younger ages compared with the diversity and rhetorical

flexibility manifested by mature speaker-writers within the same text -- are not expected to differ

markedly as a function of target language. This is because we assume that the development of

discourse stance, as we define it here, involving multifaceted relations between speaker/writer,

text, and receiver, is related to more general patterns of cognitive, socio-cognitive, and meta-

cognitive development. The domain of discourse stance is thus expected to reflect broader


developments in advanced cognition, as revealed by converging evidence from studies across

varied populations and domains undertaken from very different perspectives.

While not wishing to make claims for universality or identical rates of development,

scholars quite generally agree on the existence of important developments starting

in middle childhood and continuing into adulthood. The most radical of these is the shift from

concrete/physical to a general potential for abstract/formal reasoning that emerges around 11-12

years of age in multiple domains and proceeds on into adulthood (Moshman 1998). With the

advent of formal thought, there is a gradual reversal of the direction of thinking between reality

and possibility in the subject´s method of approach. Possibility no longer appears merely as an

extension of an empirical situation, but instead reality is now secondary to possibility (e.g.

Piaget 1924/1972). Moshman (1998) argues that “the central locus of developmental change in

cognition beyond childhood is in reasoning – that is, in the deliberate application of epistemic

constraints to one´s own thinking" (p. 947), while other studies, too, indicate that genuinely new

metacognitive skills appear in middle childhood and flourish in adolescence (in addition to

Moshman 1998, see, for example, Flavell, Miller & Miller 1993). Increased information

processing capacity, automaticity, and familiarity with a wider range of content knowledge

(Case 1985), reduces the load on the cognitive system, and enables adolescents and adults to

focus on higher-order processes such as planning, organizing, monitoring, and evaluating, while

holding in mind several different dimensions of a topic or a problem in situations where younger

children are more likely to be focus on a single issue or idea (Keating 1990).

Another finding from developmental psychology of relevance to the present study is the

existence of a genuine developmental progression in conceptual domains that are closely related

to the task faced by our subjects; these include perspective-taking abilities (Selman 1980;

Gurucharri & Selman 1982) and moral reasoning (Kohlberg 1984). Thus, similar sequences and

order of developmental levels or phases have been observed in a numerous studies across these

and related domains, although with some variation in rate. Selman & Kohlberg, for example,


describe several developmental levels that reflect an age-related change in focus from the

observable/physical to the abstract/formal and an increasing capacity to differentiate and

coordinate an increasing number of perspectives at an increasing distance from one’s own point

of reference or deictic center. Children progress from egocentered beings who may be unaware

of any perspective other than their own (Stage 0, or preschool children, in Selman’s model) to

sophisticated social-cognitive theorists who can keep several perspectives in mind, and compare

each of them to their own as well as to the view that “most people” would adopt (stage 4, late

adolescence and adulthood). The gradeschool children and the bulk of the junior high school

students in our samples are likely to be at Selman´s level 2. Children at this level easily

differentiate between their own and the other´s perspective, and they will adopt one or the other

of these, but they are as yet unable to coordinate different perspectives concurrently. The parallel

stage in Kohlberg´s theory is that of preconventional morality (level 2) where self-interest (or

concern for the interest of one protagonist) determines the moral value of an action. At Selman´s

level 3, starting in preadolescence, the individual is able to "step outside" a social interaction, to

assume a third-person point of view, and to evaluate and coordinate the perspectives of different

participants in a situation. At this phase of development, young people can readily adopt the

perspective of the group to which they belongs: family, friends, and peers. Moral reasoning is in

the conventional stage, where social approval guides reasoning about justice and actions, but as

yet without any expression of generalized principles or values. This level is not firmly

established until age 15-16 (Walker et al, 1987), the age of our the high school subjects in our

study. At Selman´s level 4, beginning in adolescence, the individual takes a perspective outside

of self and immediate group, as noted above. Morally, this is the stage of law and order

(Kohlberg´s level 4). Later still, at Kohlberg´s post-conventional stage 5, the individual takes

into consideration the relativity of laws, rules and values, and universal ethical principles.

Without wishing to imply any kind of one-to-one relationship between discourse stance

and cognitive development, we feel safe in predicting that the development of discourse stance


will reflect the cognitive, socio-cognitive, and meta-cognitive patterns outlined above. The two

younger age-groups are likely to be predominantly at Selman´s stages 2, and Kohlberg´s

preconventional stage of moral reasoning, whereas the highschool adolescents will be

predominantly at stage 3 in Selman´s and Kohlberg´s theories, and the adults will have reached

stages 4 and 5. Sender and receiver orientations in our characterization of discourse stance will

thus be easily accessible for even our youngest subjects. In contrast, distancing the

speaker/writer and adopting an autonomous text-orientation seems to require (as a necessary

although not sufficient condition) a socio-cognitive and meta-cognitive level achieved only by

the high-school students and adults in our sample. Similarly, affective and deontic attitudes

closely correspond to the socio-moral levels likely to predominate in the two younger age

groups, whereas epistemic attitudes will gain ground among adolescents and adults. We expect

the younger subjects in our sample to adopt a discourse stance that encompasses a rather narrow

range of perspectives, one that is close to their own. Advanced (formal) cognition, higher order

meta-cognitive skills, and relativistic socio-moral reasoning are evidently necessary components

of multifold perspective-taking and the rhetorically diverse and flexible discourse stance adopted

by the more mature high school students and adult speakers/writers in our sample – as reflected

in the sample texts in exx. 6 through 8 of §4 above.

6. Tentative conclusions and desiderata

In addition to the convergent impact of a range of linguistic forms from different subsystems —

verb tense and verb semantics, transitivity and voice, as well as nominal reference and

determiners — the view presented here illustrates a key facet of human discourse in general, and

of discourse stance in particular. There is no “one way” of talking or writing about a given topic,

or even about the same state of affairs in the external world. As is shown clearly by Jisa et al.

2002, speakers and writers have RHETORICAL OPTIONS in the perspectives they adopt towards a

given situation — not only in WHAT they choose to say or write about something, but also in


HOW they choose to word this content. This ties in with another general motif of the analyses in

this collection: Concern with form/function relations, and with how linguistic devices are used to

meet specific discourse functions, must take into account the facts that a given linguistic form

can meet a RANGE of functions (e.g., the pronoun you is used for specific deictic reference, or

impersonally for generic reference), and that a particular discourse function — in our case, the

notion of “discourse stance” — can be met by a variety of forms. In developmental perspective,

prior work on linguistic and narrative development has shown that, with Age, the range of forms

used for any function, as well as the range of functions met by any given form, expand and

become increasingly flexible across time. Furthermore, he present study shows that, with

increased maturity and higher levels of literacy, the expression of linguistic form/discourse

function relations becomes not only more elaborate, but also more consistent and more

appropriate to a specific communicative setting.

We hypothesized that discourse stance would be critically affected by an intersection of

Genre and Modality. That is, oral personal-experience narratives could be expected to express a

more communicatively sender/receiver orientation, more affective attitudes, and more

personalized specific reference — in contrast to written, topic-based expositions, which would

tend to be more text-based in orientation, more cognitively epistemic in attitude, and more

general in reference. The earlier articles in this collection demonstrate that, across the languages

in our sample, even the youngest children (9–10 year old grade-schoolers) distinguish clearly

between narrative and expository Genre in both linguistic usage and thematic content. We now

feel confident in concluding that they do so in the expression of discourse stance as well;

however, the tenor of their texts is less varied in two senses. They use a restricted range of

linguistic means to express the particular perspective they adopt, with respect to the events they

are describing or the topic they are discussing; and they tend to make a rigidly dichotomous

distinction between narratives and expository texts. However, with development and increased

experience with different types of text production, the interaction between Age, Genre, and

Modality reveals a less straightforward patterning. In terms of discourse stance, the personal-

experience narratives of the younger children are highly communicatively oriented, affective,


and personalized, whereas older speaker/writers introduce a more distanced stance into their

personal-experience accounts. These take the form of generalized evaluative commentary on the

nature of such situations, interspersed across the narrative texts; these are particularly marked in

the introductory setting and the concluding coda segments. In the expository texts, in contrast,

we find that a trend which moves from generalities to specifics is embedded in, and elaborates

on, the generalized propositions formulated by the older speaker/writers. The expository texts of

younger children are almost entirely generalized, and so apparently abstract in nature. They

occasionally include hypothetical examples (what happens if/when people do certain things), but

they lack specific illustrative examples of relevant incidents in the past.12 Nor do the younger

children propose specific, concrete solutions to the problems they were asked to discuss. In

marked contrast, high-school students, and even more so university-graduate adults, combine (a)

a general, abstractly text-oriented stance with respect to the topic with (b) specific reference to

illustrative incidents and concrete proposals for how to tackle the problem and (c) personal

commentary on how the situation affects them as individuals. At the same time, the over-all

stance which mature speaker writers adopt, both in their narratives and especially in their

expository texts, is by and large more distanced, detached, and objective than that of the

children.

Finally, some comments on desiderata. By laying out issues of principle concerning the

notion “discourse stance,” we hope that we have progressed to a point where it will be feasible to

operationalize the multiple factors involved in the topic. Several difficulties have been noted in

the course of this paper: the existence of confounding variables, particularly between text types

in terms of both Genre and Modality; the problematic interaction of discourse stance with

linguistic register in the sense of level of usage (colloquial everyday vs. more formal styles of

expression); the need to integrate top-down, macro-level analyses of discourse with bottom-up,

micro-level analyses; and the fact that each language not only has its own structurally defined

range of expressive options, but also has particular rhetorical preferences. Besides, it is not clear

whether one can or should attempt to quantify an issue which is intrinsically qualitative, since it

concerns choices which are optionally determined by the subjective motivations of


speaker/writers, on the one hand, and by the intuitive interpretations of hearer/readers (as well as

of analysts), on the other.13

A first step might be to examine the entire database in each language in order to define the

range of LINGUISTIC FORMS — bound morphology, lexical expressions, and syntactic structures

and processes — that can be alternated across the different dimensions of discourse stance. A

next step might be to analyse the clustering of these forms in the functioning of discourse stance,

with regard to the boundaries of CLAUSE PACKAGES as the basic units out of which texts are

constituted (see Berman & Verhoeven 2002, §1.5). One could also analyze such clusters in

relation to discourse SITES — e.g. settings; episodes; codas in narratives, introductions, and

bodies of text; conclusions in expository texts. Such a strategy has proved extremely effective in

the analysis of opening and closing elements by Tolchinsky et al. 2002. Alternatively, one might

analyse the functioning of particular LINGUISTIC SUBSYSTEMS — N-slot structure and content; V-

slot structure and content; active, passive, and middle voice; and modal expressions — in terms

of the role that they play in the expression of discourse stance. Finally, selected texts in each

language might be analysed to establish discourse stance PROFILES in relation to each of the

variables of the study: Age, Genre, and Modality.

In sum, we believe that the ideas that we have proposed for characterizing discourse stance,

together with our tentative suggestions for how to proceed with analysing this domain, as a

potential source of reference for future research of our own and others, taking as a starting point

the rich and carefully controlled database that this project has made available.


Notes

* The authors are grateful to Åsa Nordqvist (Göteburg University) for her helpful input on

relevant studies based on her research on the topic of direct and indirect speech.

1. The term “form” is used in the sense defined by Berman & Slobin (1994:18) as “an umbrella

term for a range of grammatical morphemes and construction types,” as well as lexical items and

expressions.

2. This is a crude generalization of a notion which has been the focus of considerable attention since

it was first proposed, including application to non-narrative texts (Giora 1990). The idea of

narrative evaluation is reconsidered in a collection devoted to Labov’s narrative research (ed. by

Bamberg 1997), with a retrospective article by Labov 1997 and some studies with a

developmental thrust (including Berman 1997). A pertinent “re-evaluation of narrative

evaluation,” using data similar to that of the present corpus, appears in Aisenman & Assayag

1999.

3. In fact, the concept of stance in the work of Biber, as noted in the introduction, can be seen as an

extension of the concept of propositional attitudes. However, where Biber’s treatment of stance

is confined to the relation between speaker/writers and the content of what they say or write, our

concept of the notion aims to integrate the speaker/writer’s attitude to the FORM of what is said

or written vs. the RELATION they express to the hearer/reader addressee.

4. These examples reflect possible cross-linguistic differences in the actual forms used to express

these different orientations. For example, 2nd person is used with non-personal, generic

reference quite widely in the Dutch and English texts of our sample, as well as in the Spanish

and Hebrew texts, particularly in the less formal spoken medium; but this extension from deictic

to generic reference is rare in such contexts in Icelandic, and French speaker/writers prefer on or

nous.


5. As noted in the introduction to the article on propositional attitudes by Reilly et al. 2002, the

notion of “affect” is not generally included in semantic analyses of modality. However, as

suggested in the concluding part of that article, it seems important to introduce this as a distinct

aspect of the attitudinal dimension of discourse stance, as a polar contrast to an epistemic stance.

Besides, research on narrative development shows that children typically refer to affective or

emotional responses to a given situation before they adopt an epistemic stance in relation to

mental states (Reilly 1992, Bamberg & Reilly 1996, Segal 2001).

6. For example, regarding direct speech, see Coulmas1986, Caldas-Coulthard 1987, 1994,

Nordqvist 2001; on discourse markers, Tannen 1984, 1989, Blakemore 1996, Schiffrin 1987,

Clark 1996, Georgakolopolou & Goutsos 1998, Jucker & Ziv 1998; and in developmental

perspective, Bereiter, Burtis, & Scardamalia 1988, Pak et al. 1996, Meng & Strömqvist 1999,

Katzenberger 2001 (submitted -- using data from our project), and Berman 2001a..

7. For the sake of convenience, the bulk of the examples are from the English-language texts

collected in San Diego by Sarah Kriz, Dana Saltzman, and Anita Zamora, under the direction of

Judy S. Reilly. Preliminary analyses of other languages in our sample show clearly that the ideas

presented are cross-linguistically generalizable, although the specific linguistic devices used in

each case will depend on the lexico-grammatical repertoires and the typological properties of the

different target languages, as outlined in Aisenman 1999b.

8. For ease of reading, we introduce standard spelling and conventional orthography and

punctuation into the transcript versions of these texts, which were segmented into clauses.

9. Examples are all deliberately from spoken language texts, in order to neutralize the effect of

Modality (Halliday 1989). . As noted in §5.8, written language will tend to mitigate a recipient

orientation; cf. also the discussion by Strömqvist et al. 2002.


10. Earlier analyses suggest that the prevalence of such “little words” (Pak et al. 1996) differs across

individuals, and especially across cultures. They appear to be much commoner in the texts we

elicited in Californian English than in Israeli Hebrew and Iberian Spanish; they are even less

frequent in French, and rare in Icelandic. Yet across the sample, the general absence of such

discourse markers is a critical feature of the written texts compared with the spoken texts, even

from the youngest age group.

11. This suggests, as will be noted again in §6, that discourse stance, like all functional elements of

text analysis, needs to be related to SITE, i.e. the particular location and function of the segment

where an expression of is located in the text — setting, episode, high point, coda etc. in

narratives; introduction, elaboration, illustration, summary or conclusion in expository texts.

12. Except for references to the contents of the video clips shown at the outset of the elicitation, as

noted in the discussion of text boundaries by Tolchinsky et al. 2002.

13. One proposal for quantifying was to define a default profile for a given text type, taking oral

narratives and written expository texts as the two extreme cases. Then each text would be

evaluated in terms of the number of “deviations” from the least marked, most canonical forms of

expression for that text type. The pitfalls which such a proposal would encounter highlight the

intractibility of this problem.


References

Aisenman, Ravid. 1999a (ed.) Developing literacy across genres, modalities, and languages:

Working papers, vol. I. Ramat Aviv, Israel: International Literacy Project, Tel Aviv University.

———. 1999b (ed.) Developing literacy across genres, modalities, and languages: Working papers,

vol. II: Typological properties of the project target languages. Ramat Aviv, Israel: International

Literacy Project, Tel Aviv University.

———, & Assayag , Nurit. 1999. Fact and fiction in evaluating narrative evaluation. In Aisenman

1999a (ed.), 38–57.

Allwood, Jens; Nivre, J.; & Ahlsén, Elisabeth. 1992. On the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic

feedback. Journal of Semantics 9:1–26.

Bakhtin, Mikhail. M. 1986. Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bamberg, Michael. 1997 (ed.) Oral versions of personal experience: Three decades of narrative

analysis. (Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7.) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

———, & Reilly, Judy S. 1996. Emotion, narrative, and affect: How children discover the

relationship between what to say and how to say it. In Slobin et al. (eds.), 327-341.

Bereiter, Carl; Buritis, Paul J.; & Scardamalia, Marlene. 1988. Cognitive operations in constructive

main points in written composition. Journal of Memory and Language 27:261–78.

Berman, Ruth A. 1980. The case of an (S)V0 language: Subjectless constructions in Modern

Hebrew. Language 56: 759-776.

———. 1988. On the ability to relate events in narrative. Discourse Processes 11: 468-497.

———. 1993. The development of language use: Expressing perspectives on a scene. Language

and cognition: A developmental perspective, ed. by Esther Dromi, 171–201. Norwood, NJ:

Ablex.

———. 1997. Narrative theory and narrative development: The Labovian impact. Journal of

Narrative and Life History 7:235–44.

———. 1999. Distancing devices. Introduction to Panel on talking and writing about conflict

situations at different age and in different languages. PRAGMA99, International Conference on

Pragmatics and Negotiation, Tel Aviv University.


———. 2001a. Setting the narrative scene: How children begin to tell a story. In Keith E. Nelson et

al. (eds.), Children’s language, 10:1–31. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

———. 2001b. (Why) are expository texts more difficult than narratives? Talk presented at the

Laboratoire de Cognition et Développement, Université René Descartes, Paris.

———, & Sandbank, Ana. 2000. Markers of temporality and other subsystems in developing genre

distinctions. Paper presented at Panel on research on the development of text production in

cross- linguistic perspective, European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction

(EARLI) special interest group, University of Verona.

———, & Slobin, Dan I. 1994. Relating events in narrative: A cross-linguistic developmental

study. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

———, & Verhoeven, Ludo. 2002 (eds.) Developing text-production abilities: Cross-linguistic

perspectives. WL&L 5:000–00.

Biber, Douglas. 1995. The comprehensive analysis of register variation: A cross-linguistic

comparison. Cambridge: University Press.

———; Conrad, Susan; & Reppen, Randi. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating language and

use. Cambridge: University Press.

———, & Finegan, Edward. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking

of evidentiality and affect, Text 9:93–124.

Blakemore, Diane. 1996. Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics 32:32–

347. Brown, Gillian, & Yule, George. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: University Press.

Bruner, Jerome. 1986. Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Budwig, Nancy. 1990. The linguistic marking of non-prototypical agentivity: An exploration into

children’s use of passives. Linguistics 28:1221–52.

Cahana-Amitay, Dalia, & Katzenberger, Irit. 2001. Segmentation in text production: A

developmental perspective. To appear.


Caldas-Coulthard, Carmen R. 1987. Reported speech in written narrative texts. Discussing

discourse, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard, *[page numbers missing] Birmingham: University of

Birmingham.

———. 1994. On reporting reporting: The representation of speech in factual and factional

narratives. Advances in written text analysis, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard 295–308. London:

Routledge.

Case, Robbie Byrne. 1985. Intellectual development. Birth to adulthood. New York:

Academic Press.

———. 1998. The development of conceptual structures. Handbook of child psychology 5th ed.

Volume 2: Cognition, perception and language, ed. by William Damon, Deanna Kuhn &

Robert S. Siegler, 745-800. New York: John Wiley

Chafe, Wallace L. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature.

Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 35–53.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

———. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow of language in speech and writing.

Chicago University Press.

Clark, Herbert H. 1986. Using language. Cambridge: University Press.

———, & Gerrig, Richard J. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66:764–805.

Coulmas, Florian. 1986 (ed.). Direct and indirect speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Flavell, John H, Miller, Patricia H. & Miller, Scott A. 1993. Cognitive development, 3rd

edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Georgakopoulou, Alexandra, & Goutsos, Dionysis. 1998. Conjunctions versus discourse markers in

Greek: The interaction of frequency, position and function in context. Linguistics 36:887–917.

Giora, Rachel. 1990. On the so-called evaluative material in informative text. Text 10:299–320.


Goldsmith, John, & Woisetschlager, E. 1982. The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic

Inquiry

13:79–89.

Gurucharri, Carmel & Selman, Robert L. 1982. The development of interpersonal understanding

during childhood, preadolescence, and adolescence: A longitudinal follow-up study. Child

Development 53, 4: 924-927.

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1989. Spoken and written language. 2nd edn. Oxford: University Press.

Hersh, Richard H; Paolitto, Diana Pritchard; & Reimer, Joseph. 1979. Promoting moral growth:

From Piaget to Kohlberg. London: Longman.

Hickmann, Maya. 1995. Discourse organization and the development of reference to person, time,

and space. In Paul Fletcher & Brian MacWhinney (eds.), Handbook of child language, 194-218.

Cambridge: University Press

Jisa, Harriet, & Viguié, Anne. 1999. Means of impersonalizing reference to conflict situations in

French. Panel on talking and writing about conflict situations at different age and in different

languages, PRAGMA99: International Conference on Pragmatics and Negotiation, Tel Aviv.

———, ———. 2000. A developmental view on the use of distancing devices in expository

texts. Paper presented at Panel on research on the development of text production in cross-

linguistic perspective, EARLI Special Interest Group on Writing, University of Verona.

Jisa, Harriet, et al. 2002. Voice. WL&L 5:000–00.

Jucker, Andreas H., & Ziv, Yael. 1998 (eds.). Discourse markers: Description and theory.

Amsterdam: Benjamins.Katzenberger, Irit. 2001 (submitted). Clause packages: The building blocks of global

text architecture.

Keating, Daniel P. 1990. Structuralism, deconstruction, reconstruction: the limits of

reasoning. Reasoning, necessity, and logic: Developmental perspectives ed. by Willis F.

Overton, 299-319. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1984. The psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper &

Row.


Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

———. 1997. Some further steps in narrative analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life History

7:395–415.

———, & Waletzky, Joshua. 1967. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experiences.

Essays on the verbal and visual arts: Proceedings of the 1966 Annual Spring Meeting of the

American Ethnological Society, ed. by June Helm, 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington

Press.Leech, Geoffrey N., & Short, Michael. 1981. Style in fiction. London: Longman.

Li, Naicong, & Zubin, David A. 1995. Discourse continuity and perspective taking. Deixis in

narrative, ed. by Judith F. Duchan et al., 287–308. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Meng, Katherine, & Strömqvist, Sven. 1999 (eds.) Discourse markers in language acquisition.

Journal of Pragmatics, 31: 1241-1244. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Special issue on Discourse

markers in language acquisition

Moshman, David. 1998. Cognitive development beyond childhood. Handbook of child

psychology 5th ed. Volume 2: Cognition, perception and language, ed. by William Damon,

Deanna Kuhn & Robert S. Siegler, pp. 947-978. New York, John Wiley & Sons.

Nordqvist, Asa. 2001. Speech about speech: A developmental study on form and function of

direct and indirect speech. (Gothenburg monographs in linguistics, number 19). Göteborg,

Sweden: Göteborg University.

Ochs, Elinor. 1990. Cultural universals in the acquisition of language: Keynote address.

Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, Stanford University, 29:1–19.

———. 1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. Rethinking linguistic relativity,

ed. by John J. Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson, 407–37. Cambridge: University Press.

——— & Schieffelin, Bambi. 1983. Acquiring conversational competence. London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul.


Pak, Maria; Sprott, Richard; & Escalera, Elena. 1996. Little words, big deal: The

development of discourse and syntax in child language. In Slobin et al. (eds.), 287–305

Peterson, Carolyn & McCabe, Alyssa. 1983. Developmental psycholinguistics: Three ways

of looking at a child's narrative. New York: Plenum.

Piaget, Jean. 1924/1972. Judgment and reasoning in the child. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield,

Adams.

Ragnarsdóttir, Hrafnhildur, et al. 2002. Verbal structure and content. WL&L 5:000–00

Ravid, Dorit & Cahana-Amitay, 1999. Verbal versus nominal references to conflict situations

in Hebrew. Panel on talking and writing about conflict situations at different age and in

different languages, PRAGMA99, International Conference on Pragmatics and

Negotiation, Tel Aviv..

Ravid, Dorit, et al. 2002. Nominal structure and content. WL&L 5:000–00.

Reilly, Judy S. 1992. How to tell a good story: The intersection of language and affect in

children’s narratives. Journal of Narrative and Life History 2:355–77.

———; Kriz, Sarah; & Zamora, Anita. 2000. The linguistic encoding of stance in written

texts: a developmental study. Paper presented at Panel on research on the development of

text production in cross-linguistic perspective, European Association for Research on

Learning and Instruction (EARLI) special interest group on writing, Verona.

Reilly, Judy S., et al. 2002. Modality and propositional attitudes. WL&L 5:000–00.

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: University Press.


Segal, Michal. 2001. Form and function in the use of evaluative devices in personal

experience narratives from pre-adolescence to adulthood. Tel Aviv University doctoral

dissertation [in Hebrew]

Selman, Robert L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. Developmental and

clinical analyses. New York: Academic Press.

Shatz, Marilyn. 1985. A song without music and other stories: How cognitive process

constraints influence children’s oral and written narratives. Meaning, form, and use in

context (35th Annual Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and

Linguistics), ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, 313–24. Washington, DC: Georgetown University

Press.

Slobin, Dan I., et al. 1996 (eds.) Social interaction, social context, and language: Essays in honor of

Susan Ervin-Tripp. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Smith, Carlotta S. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Strömqvist, Sven; Ahlsén, Elisabeth; & Wengelin, Asa. 1999. The production process in speech

and writing. In Aisenman (ed.) 1999a:1–21.

Strömqvist, Sven, et al. 2002. Lexical density and diversity. WL&L 5:000–00.

Stutterheim, Christiane von, & Wolfgang Klein. 1989. Referential movement in descriptive and

narrative discourse. Language processing in social context, ed. by Rainer Dietrich & Carl F.

Graumann, 39–76. Amsterdam: North Holland.

———, ———. 1999. Question and L-perspectivation. University of Heidelberg, MS.

Tannen, Deborah. 1982 (ed.). Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

———. 1984. Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

———. 1985. Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse. Literacy, language, and

learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing, ed. by Richard Olson et al., 124–

47. Cambridge: University Press.


———. 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse.

Cambridge: University Press.

Thompson, Sandra A. 1979. Modern English from a typological point of view: The function of

word order. Linguistische Berichte 54:19–36.

Tolchinsky, Liliana. 1999. Means of impersonalizing reference to conflict situations in Spanish

expository texts. Panel on talking and writing about conflict situations at different age and in

different languages, PRAGMA99: International Conference on Pragmatics and Negotiation, Tel

Aviv.———, et al. 2000a. Rhetorical moves and noun phrase complexity in written expository texts. In

Aisenman (ed.) 1999a: 257-278. ———, et al. 2000b. (ed.) Developing literacy across genres,

modalities, and languages: Working papers, vol. III. Barcelona, Spain: International Literacy

Project, University of Barcelona.

———, et al. 2002. Text openings and closings: Textual autonomy and differentiation.. WL&L

5:000–00.

Walker, Lawrence J., de Vries, Brian, & Trevethan, Shelley D. 1987. Moral stages and

moral orientations in real-life and hypothetical dilemmas. Child development 58:

842-858.

Ziv ,Yael. 1998. Hebrew kaze as discourse marker and lexical hedge: Conceptual and

procedural properties. In Jucker & Ziv (eds.), 203–60.


Authors’ addresses

Ruth A. Berman Hrafnhildur Ragnarsdóttir

Dept. of Linguistics Dept. of Psychology

Tel Aviv University Iceland University of Education

Ramat Aviv 69978 Stakkahlid 105

Israel Reykjavík, Iceland

[email protected] [email protected]

Sven Strömqvist

Dept. of Linguistics

Lund University

Helgonabacken 12

SE 223 62, Lund, Sweden

[email protected]


Table 1. The cline of (im)personalization: Distancing devices MORPHOLOGY:

Tense Past > (General) Present > Future

Aspect Progressive, imperfective > Perfective, telic

Mood Realis > Irrealis, hypotheticals, contingencies

Person 1st/2nd > 3rd [personal, anaphoric]

Number Singular > Plural

Gender Feminine > Masculine > Neuter

LEXICON:

Pronouns Deictic, personal > Indefinite someone > Impersonal you > we > they > one

Verbs Dynamic, physical > Dynamic abstract > Stative [affective > cognitive]

Nouns Concrete objects > Events > Abstract properties, states

SYNTAX:

Subject NP Personal pronouns > Lexical NP’s > Abstract nominals > Subjectless clauses

Voice Active > Middle [= mediopassives] > Passive

REFERENTIAL (CONCEPTUAL) CONTENT:

Events > Activities [scripts, procedures ] > States [descriptions] > Ideas

Physical > Perceptual > Affective > Cognitive

Specific, immediate, concrete > General, universal

Anchored in time/space > Abstracted away

Episodic > Generalized (semantic memory)

Date post:	27-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buidien
View:	222 times
Download:	4 times

= - Snunitlearn.snunit.k12.il/snunit/lashon/upload/teachers/... · Web viewIt focuses on...

Documents