Article In:
Narrative Inquiry: Online-First Articles

A different perspective on epistemics and deontics

Conveying story evaluation through the construction of status-stance relations via direct reported speech

ORCID logo | KU Leuven
ORCID logo | Tampere University
ORCID logo | Tampere University
ORCID logo | Tampere University
Thus far, few studies have investigated the evaluative points narrators may convey through the sequential features of reported exchanges in their stories. In this article, we conduct a micro-oriented narrative analysis on how epistemic and deontic status-stance relations are depicted by narrators in sequences of reported turns. We thus uncover how hierarchies and potential transgressions between the characters in the storyworld are “shown” rather than “told” to the story recipients, who are in this way equipped to evaluate the story as a whole and the story characters’ accountability for their interactional behavior in particular. Furthermore, we argue that the narrators’ discursive set-up of epistemic and deontic relations in these reported exchanges also displays their emic perspective to them. Therefore we believe that our approach can pave the way for a novel approach to epistemics and deontics, complementing the insights gained in the conversation-analytic examination of these phenomena in situ.
Keywords: narrative, evaluation, epistemics, deontics, direct reported speech
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • Literature review: Epistemics and deontics
  • Aims of this study
  • Data and method
  • Analysis
    • Epistemic relations
    • Deontic relations
    • Deontic and epistemic relations
  • Discussion and conclusions
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (51)
References
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (trans. M. Holquist & C. Emerson). University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bochenski, J. M. (1974). An analysis of authority. In F. J. Adelman (Ed.), Authority (pp. 56–85). Martinus Nijhoff. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buttny, R. & Cohen, J. R. (2007). Drawing on the words of others at public hearings: Zoning, Wal-Mart, and the threat to the aquifer. Language in Society, 36(5), 735–756. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buttny, R. & Williams, P. L. (2000). Demanding respect: The uses of reported speech in discursive constructions of interracial contact. Discourse & Society, 11(1), 109–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buttny, R. (1997). Reported speech in talking race on campus. Human Communication Research, 23(4), 477–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carranza, I. E. (1998). Low-narrativity narratives and argumentation. Narrative Inquiry, 8(2), 287–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, A. & Van De Mieroop, D. (2017). Indian women at work: Struggling between visibility and invisibility. In D. Van De Mieroop & S. Schnurr (Eds.), Identity struggles: Evidence from workplaces around the world (pp. 147–164). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clifton, J., Van De Mieroop, D., Sehgal, P. & Aneet, B. (2018). The multimodal enactment of deontic and epistemic authority in Indian meetings. Pragmatics, 28(3), 333–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Klewitz, G. (1999). Quote — Unquote? The role of prosody in the contextualization of reported speech sequences. Pragmatics, 91, 459–485.Google Scholar
Craven, A. & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (1998). Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31(3/4), 295–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Estellés-Arguedas, M. (2015). Expressing evidentiality through prosody? Prosodic voicing in reported speech in Spanish colloquial conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 851, 138–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, R. (2023). Celebrity gossip headlines and reliability in a Common Ground-based framework. Journal of Pragmatics, 2161, 75–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeman, M. (2006). Life “on holiday”? In defense of big stories. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 131–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 25(1–2), 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S. (1999). Polyphony and the ‘layering of voices’ in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(5), 685–708. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, H. (1998). Reported speech and survivor identity in on-line bone marrow transplantation narratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2(1), 53–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinonen, K. (2019). Affektinen vitsi ja hitsi sekä niiden muodostamat kiteymät puhutussa vuorovaikutuksessa. Faculty of Arts, University of Helsinki. [URL] (accessed 22.6.2023)
Heinrichsmeier, R. (2021). Who gets to speak: The role of reported speech for identity work in complaint stories. Journal of Pragmatics, 1741, 43–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 551–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hogeweg, L. (2009). The meaning and interpretation of the Dutch particle wel . Journal of Pragmatics, 41(3), 519–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holt, E. (2000). Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 331, 425–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, B. (2016). ‘Oral versions of personal experience’: Labovian narrative analysis and its uptake. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(4), 542–560. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. & Waletzky, J. (1966). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12–44). University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Narrative pre-construction. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 37–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landmark, A. M. D., Gulbrandsen, P. & Svennevig, J. (2015). Whose decision? Negotiating epistemic and deontic rights in medical treatment decisions. Journal of Pragmatics, 781, 54–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M., & Macbeth, D. (2016). The epistemics of epistemics: An introduction. Discourse Studies, 18(5), 493–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, E. (2006). ‘You tell all the stories’: Using narrative to explore hierarchy within a Community of Practice. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(5), 611–640. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E. & Capps, L. (2001). Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Giving a source or basis: The practice in conversation of telling “how I know.” Journal of Pragmatics, 8(4), 607–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, G. & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruusuvuori, J., & Lindfors, P. (2009). Complaining about previous treatment in health care settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(12), 2415–2434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 31–74). Free Press.Google Scholar
(1992). Lectures on conversation (Ed. Gail Jefferson). Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (2003). We knew that’s it: Retelling the turning point of a narrative. Discourse Studies, 5(4), 535–561. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M. (2010). Affectivity in conversational storytelling: An analysis of displays of anger or indignation in complaint stories. Pragmatics, 20(2), 229–277.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Language in Society, 43(2), 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2018). Social deontics: A nano-level approach to human power play. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 48(3), 369–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Deontic authority and the maintenance of lay and expert identities during joint decision making: Balancing resistance and compliance. Discourse Studies, 23(5), 670–689. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies, 14(3), 277–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van De Mieroop, D. & Clifton, J. (2013). Enacting power asymmetries in reported exchanges in the narratives of former slaves. Discourse Processes, 50(1), 52–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van De Mieroop, D. (2019). Implying identities through narratives of vicarious experience in job interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 1521, 61–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). A deontic perspective on the collaborative, multimodal accomplishment of leadership. Leadership, 16(5), 592–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). The narrative dimensions model and an exploration of various narrative genres. Narrative Inquiry, 31(1), 4–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zayts, O., & Schnurr, S. (2017). Epistemic “Struggles”: When Nurses’ Expert Identity is Challenged by “Knowledgeable” Clients. In D. Van De Mieroop & S. Schnurr (Eds.), Identity struggles: Evidence from workplaces around the world (pp. 79–94). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar