APPROACHING EFL LEARNERS’ STANCETAKING TENDENCIES FROM THE PHONETIC AND COGNITIVE SEMANTIC PERSPECTIVE: A PRELIMINARY STUDY

Узданица XXI III (2024) (стр. 181-197)

АУТОР(И) / AUTHOR(S): Marija N. Janevska, Tamara N. Janevska

 

Download Full Pdf   

DOI: 10.46793/Uzdanica21.3.181J

САЖЕТАК / ABSTRACT:

The study proposes an interdisciplinary approach to EFL stancetaking by joining the fields of phonetics and cognitive semantics. The analysis is conducted on speech data realized by ten third-year English-major students, who were asked to offer their views on censorship. The first goal was to ascertain how the attitudinal assessments are expressed through certain linguistic expressions. In order to do so, the speech data were transcribed and annotated for stance polarity according to the principles underlying both Appraisal Theory (Martin,White 2005) and Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff, Johnson 2003 [1980]). This resulted in a list of metaphorical linguistic expressions with positive or negative evaluation which provided a basis for the subsequent phonetic analysis. Namely, tests were carried out to determine whether or not there were notable differences in the way stance polarity (positive/negative) is signaled acoustically (on the basis of the extracted measures of fundamental frequency and intensity). It was observed that our subjects’ speech exhibited a low degree of metaphoricity, since they predominantly opted for literal or non-metaphorical language when discussing the topic. Linguistic expressions with positive evaluation were generally less frequent, while negative assessment predominated in the transcripts. The comparison of the prosodic properties of these two stance categories revealed that, in our subjects’ speech, negative stance tends to be signaled by an increase in both pitch and loudness, yet the differences between the two groups did not prove to be statistically significant. We hope that the interdisciplinary discussion presented here can facilitate further investigation of the topic on a larger scale.

КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ / KEYWORDS:

stance, prosody, conceptual metaphor, Appraisal Theory, Serbian EFL learners.

ЛИТЕРАТУРА / REFERENCES:

SOURCES
REFERENCES
  • Abrar (2020): M. Abrar, Stance Taking and Identity in Classroom Interactions: A Small Scale Study, Parole: Journal of Linguistics and Education, 10(1), 22–35. DOI:10.14710/parole.v10i1.22-35
  • Biber (2004): D. Biber, Historical Patterns for the Grammatical Marking of Stance, Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5(1), 107–136. DOI: 10.1075/jhp.5.1.06bib
  • Biber (2006): D. Biber, Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
  • Biber (2020): D. Biber, Corpus Analysis of Spoken Discourse, In O. Kang, S. Staples, K. Yaw, K. Hirschi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference, Ames, IA: Iowa State University, 5–7. Available online at: https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/psllt/article/id/15408/
  • Biber, Staples (2014): D. Biber, S. Staples, Exploring the Prosody of Stance: Variation in the Realization of Stance Adverbials, In T. Raso, H. Mello (Eds.), Spoken Corpora and Linguistic Studies, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 271–294. DOI: 10.1075/scl.61.10bib
  • Blagojević (2009): S. Blagojević, Expressing Attitudes in Academic Research Articles Written by English and Serbian Authors, Facta Universitatis: Linguistics and Literature, 7(1), 63–73. Available online at: http://facta.junis.ni.ac.rs/lal/lal2009/lal2009-05.pdf
  • Boersma, Weenink (2021): P. Boersma, D. Weenink, Praat, a System for Doing Phonetics by Computer, [computer software] version 6.1.52, Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Retrieved from: https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
  • Bogetić (2020): K. Bogetić, Vrednosna dimenzija metafora u diskursu: O mogućnostima spoja teorije pojmovnih metafora i teorije vrednovanja, Južnoslovenski filolog, LXXVI/1, 123–142. DOI: 10.2298/JFI2001123B
  • Clark, Yallop (21995): J. Clark, C. Yallop, An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology, Oxford UK & Cambridge USA: Blackwell.
  • Charteris-Black (2004): J. Charteris-Black, Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Cruttenden (1997): A. Cruttenden, Intonation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Du Bois (2007): J. Du Bois, The Stance Triangle, In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 139–182. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
  • Everest (2001): F. A. Everest, Master Handbook of Acoustics, New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Freeman (2014): V. Freeman, Hyperarticulation as a Signal of Stance, Journal of Phonetics, 45, 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2014.03.002
  • Freeman (2015): V. Freeman, The Phonetics of Stance-taking (published doctoral dissertation), University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
  • Freeman (2019): V. Freeman, Prosodic Features of Stances in Conversation, Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, 10(1), 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.163
  • Freese, Maynard (1998): J. Freese, D. W. Maynard, Prosodic Features of Bad News and Good News in Conversation, Language in Society, 27(2), 195–219. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500019850
  • Gray, Biber (2012): B. Gray, D. Biber, Current Conceptions of Stance, In K. Hyland et al. (Eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres, Palgrave Macmillan, 15–33. DOI: 10.1057/9781137030825_2
  • Gray, Biber (2015): B. Gray, D. Biber, Stance Markers, In K. Aijmer, C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 219–248. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012
  • Jaffe (2009): A. Jaffe, Introduction: The Sociolinguistics of Stance, In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.003.0001
  • Johnstone (2009): B. Johnstone, Stance, Style, and the Linguistic Individual, In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29–52. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.003.0002
  • Kappas, Hess, Scherer (1991): A. Kappas, U. Hess, K. S. Scherer, Voice and Emotion, In B. Rime, R. S. Feldman (Eds.), Fundamentals of Nonverbal Behavior, Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 201–238.
  • Kiesling (2009): S. F. Kiesling, Style as Stance: Stance as the Explanation for Patterns of Sociolinguistic Variation, In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 171–194. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.003.0008
  • Kiesling (2022): S. F. Kiesling, Stance and Stancetaking, The Annual Review of Linguistics, 8, 409–426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-121256
  • Ladefoged (2003): P. Ladefoged, Phonetic Data Analysis: An Introduction to Fieldwork and Instrumental Techniques, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Lakoff, Johnson(2003) [1980]: G. Lakoff, M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Larson-Hall (2015): J. Larson-Hall, A Guide to Doing Statistics in Second Language Research Using SPSS and R, London and New York: Routledge.
  • Lee, Narayanan (2005): C. M. Lee, S. Narayanan, Toward Detecting Emotions in Spoken Dialogs, IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, 13(2), 293–303. DOI: 10.1109/TSA.2004.838534
  • Martin, White (2005): J. Martin, P. White, The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Paeschke, Kienast, Sendlmeier (1999): A. Paeschke, M. Kienast, W. F. Sendlmeier, F0-contours in Emotional Speech, Proceedings ICPhS 99, 2, 929–932.
  • R Development Core Team (2022), R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [computer software], version 4.2.1, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from: https://www.r-project.org/
  • Steen et al. (2010): G. Steen, A. Dorst, J. Herrmann, A. Kaal, T. Krennmayr, T. Pasma, A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Turner (2014): J. L. Turner, Using Statistics in Small-Scale Language Education Research: Focus on Non-Parametric Data, New York & London: Routledge.
  • Veličković, Danilović-Jeremić (2020): M. Veličković, J. Danilović-Jeremić, Taking a Stand: Stance Strategies in L1 Serbian English Learners’ Expository Essays, The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 8(2), 147–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP2002147V
  • White (2015): P. White, Appraisal Theory, In K. Tracy (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, First Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1−7. DOI: 10.1002/9781118611463/wbielsi041