8/11/2019 Epistemic Stance in English Conversation a Description of Its Interactional Functions With a Focus on I Think_Elise

1/2

ELISE KRKKINEN, Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of itsInteractional Functions, with a Focus on I Think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2003, 207 pp.

This book presents an example of the relatively new functionally orientedapproach to linguistic analysis called Interactional Linguistics (e.g. Selting andCouper-Kuhlen, 2001; Ford et al., 2002). It is an approach that seeks tounderstand how linguistic forms contribute to, and are affected by, their localinteractive context. As Krkkinen herself notes (p. 186), InteractionalLinguistics brings together the discourse analytic practices developed primarilyby the West Coast functionalists and designed to understand the functions oflinguistic forms in real discourse environments (especially in the context of

understanding language change), with Conversation Analytic methods andfindings, designed to understand the routinized behaviours of interactants intalk in interaction.

Krkkinens contribution to this emerging field is a detailed study ofepistemic stance the linguistic coding of knowledge state using conver-sational data from the Corpus of Spoken American English. Linguistic studies ofepistemicity in English have mostly focused on modal auxiliaries, whichrepresent the most grammaticalized expressions of knowledge states, withoutconsidering what other strategies speakers may adopt for expressing somethingabout their knowledge state (e.g. Coates, 1983; Palmer, 1986). Krkkinensapproach is to organically examine the range of forms used by interactants, theirfrequency and environments, and to therefore present a description of the actual

linguistic practices of American English speakers in taking epistemic stances.Like other studies in Interactional Linguistics, the targeted linguistic items areanalysed in terms of their prosodic shape, sequential position and position inintonation units (cf. clause/sentence units).

The first three chapters are relatively brief and present a summary of thetheoretical orientations (Chapter 1), a review of the semantic, pragmatic andinteractional literature on epistemic modality and stance taking (Chapter 2), andan argument for the adoption of the intonation unit (cf. clause or sentence) as aunit of analysis for spoken discourse (Chapter 3).

Chapters 4 and 5 are substantially longer and present the empirical study ofepistemic stance from two analytic perspectives discourse functional andconversation analytic. Chapter 4, Routinization of Stance Marking at the

Linguistic and Interactional Level identifies the actual inventory of forms usedin her corpus, and their syntax with respect to the intonation unit and turnposition. Her findings overwhelmingly show that speakers favour epistemicstance markers that are personalized (e.g. I think, I guess), and which have a highdegree of discourse mobility (e.g. disfavouring syntactically restricted forms likemodal auxiliaries). The preferred forms are overwhelmingly used at thebeginnings of intonation units but, interestingly, not at the beginning of turns.Forms found at the end of intonation units, or which consist of their own

Book reviews 463

8/11/2019 Epistemic Stance in English Conversation a Description of Its Interactional Functions With a Focus on I Think_Elise

2/2

intonation unit are marked and require special explanation. The preference forIU initial epistemic stance marking is attributed to speakers motivations to set uptheir own stance as early as possible to guide listeners to understand thefollowing information from the speakers perspective. The dispreference for turninitial epistemic stance marking is attributed to their occurrence in multi-unitturns.

Chapter 5, Stance-taking as an Interactive Activity: The Case of I Think is adetailed analysis of the interactional functions of the most common epistemicstance marker, I think, Krkkinen identifies three such functions: as a frame orboundary marker, mostly signalling an evaluative aside to the main topic of talk;as a way of introducing a speakers perspective, mostly in evaluative sequenceswhere the speakers stance is at variance with the previous speakers stance; and

as strategy to align a recipients stance with the speakers in interactionaltrouble spots. These interactional functions run in parallel with I thinksepistemic functions as a marker of doubt or certainty. The epistemic value of themarker is shown to be interpretable both from its prosodic shape and from its IUposition. This detailed incorporation of prosodic and sequential information intothe functional analysis of I think, represents a substantial contribution and Ihope will encourage other linguists interested in discourse-functional analysis todo the same.

Chapter 6 (Conclusion) summarizes the main position of the volume andpresents some brief speculations concerning the grammaticalization of I thinkand its status as a discourse marker.

Overall the book is clearly written, well argued with the right amount of data

presented. It should appeal to a range of functional linguists, linguisticallyminded conversation analysts, and those interested in the linguistic expression ofperspective.

R E F E R E N C E S

Coates, J. (1983) The Semantics of Modal Auxilliaries. London: Croon Helm.Ford, C., Fox, B. and Thompson, S. (eds) (2002) The Language of Turn and Sequence. New

York: Oxford University Press.Palmer, F.R. (1986) Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Selting, M. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds) (2001) Studies in Interactional Linguistics.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ilana MushinLinguistics, University of Queensland, Australia

464 Discourse Studies 8(3)