Larry, I hope you don't mind if I respond on XMCA to your question about what I mean by "stance." Yes, there are a lot of different meanings of "stance." I happen to be using it in a rather circumscribed way and in the tradition of Linguistic Anthropology (which I can't really locate in your 4 traditions - maybe overlaps a couple). In the LA tradition, "stance" is a way of communicating some purportedly "inner" state. The two most common talked about types of stance are epistemic and affective (a dualism that is certainly problematic). The former refers to the states of knowledge that are communicated and the latter refer to the emotional states that are being conveyed. The most interesting types of stance in everyday discourse are those stances that may not be explicitly indicated (e.g., rather than saying "I'm getting upset," raising one's voice when speaking). Lynda is interested in stance because it is crucial for kindergarten teachers. I'm interested in stance because it is crucial for the coordination of "learning" in encounters between high school students and their tutors. Robert is interested in stance because stance is not something that travels over the computer wires particularly well, and this can lead to interactional troubles in tele-mentoring (and email is a particularly difficult medium in which to convey stance, although we do have some aids in this regard ;-) !). Anyway, I've attached one of my personal favorites on "stance" - it is a paper by Paul Kockelman that presents a very nice argument about the importance of "stance" as a better way of studying "subjectivity." The translations can get a little tough to follow, but the point is that there is an incredible diversity of ways of indicating a stance with regard to any given utterance (which then, of course, indicates a stance to whatever might be happening at the time). And here is Kockelman's definition of "stance" - seems better than mine: "Stance may be understood as the semiotic means by which we indicate our orientation to states of affairs, usually framed in terms of evaluation (e.g., moral obligation and epistemic possibility) or intentionality (e.g., desire and memory, fear and doubt)." So long and short of it, "stance" as we are imagining it is something that is conveyed on relatively short timescales - the microgenetic timescale as some like to call it. Apologies for the sketchiness of that definition. Hopefully there is something recoverable in the above. Thanks for askin'. -greg On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > I'm wondering if you can clarify if "stance" as you are using the term is > situated within what has been called "sociocultural linquistics" a more > specific term than "sociolinquistics". > Also if "sociocultural linquistics" is situated within the fields of > "discourse analysis" or "discursive psychology" > My reason for asking is I'm attempting to sort out the overlapping > similarities and differences in the traditions of > 1] discourse analysis > 2] dialgogical > 3]cultural historical/activity > 4] philosophical hermeneutics. > > All the above approaches share the general approach of orienting to the > sociocultural origins and basis of mind and self. > > For example, from discursive approaches comes this definition [by Eva > Magnusson & Jeanne Mareck] > > "The term *discursive* has a dual meaning, reflecting the two meanings of > its root, *discourse* in contemporary theory. > 1st] "discourse" refers to language practices and talk as the medium of > meaning-making and of social relations. The term also carries a second, > broader meaning - as articulated by social theorists such as Michael > Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, and Judith Butler - of institutionalized > practices and ways of thinking that set BOUNDARIES on what can be said > about a specific topic. [I would add and what must remain concealed] > Discourses in this latter sense are heterogeneous assemblages of > scientific, religious, legal, political, and moral statements, arrangements > of physical space, language, and other social practices, all of which serve > to DEFINE reality" > > In other words, as I read this description of the field of discourse > studies, it has many overlapping themes with the notion of "horizons of > understanding". > > I'm attempting to become familiar with each of the ways of exploring > sociocultural themes I listed above. As you discuss social interaction and > stance I want to be clear if this is working within a "sociocultural > linquistic" framework [or tradition??] > > I've said enough on XMCA for awhile so thought I would ask personally. > Thanks, > Larry > > > > -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D. Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition Department of Communication University of California, San Diego http://ucsd.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
Attachment:
Kockelman, p - stance and subjectivity.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca