ELISE KRKKINEN, Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of its

Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I Think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,

2003, 207 pp.
This book presents an example of the relatively new functionally oriented
approach to linguistic analysis called Interactional Linguistics (e.g. Selting and
Couper-Kuhlen, 2001; Ford et al., 2002). It is an approach that seeks to
understand how linguistic forms contribute to, and are affected by, their local
interactive context. As Krkkinen herself notes (p. 186), Interactional
Linguistics brings together the discourse analytic practices developed primarily
by the West Coast functionalists and designed to understand the functions of
linguistic forms in real discourse environments (especially in the context of
understanding language change), with Conversation Analytic methods and
findings, designed to understand the routinized behaviours of interactants in
talk in interaction.
Krkkinens contribution to this emerging field is a detailed study of
epistemic stance the linguistic coding of knowledge state using conver-
sational data from the Corpus of Spoken American English. Linguistic studies of
epistemicity in English have mostly focused on modal auxiliaries, which
represent the most grammaticalized expressions of knowledge states, without
considering what other strategies speakers may adopt for expressing something
about their knowledge state (e.g. Coates, 1983; Palmer, 1986). Krkkinens
approach is to organically examine the range of forms used by interactants, their
frequency 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 are
analysed in terms of their prosodic shape, sequential position and position in
intonation units (cf. clause/sentence units).
The first three chapters are relatively brief and present a summary of the
theoretical orientations (Chapter 1), a review of the semantic, pragmatic and
interactional literature on epistemic modality and stance taking (Chapter 2), and
an argument for the adoption of the intonation unit (cf. clause or sentence) as a
unit of analysis for spoken discourse (Chapter 3).
Chapters 4 and 5 are substantially longer and present the empirical study of
epistemic stance from two analytic perspectives discourse functional and
conversation analytic. Chapter 4, Routinization of Stance Marking at the
Linguistic and Interactional Level identifies the actual inventory of forms used
in her corpus, and their syntax with respect to the intonation unit and turn
position. Her findings overwhelmingly show that speakers favour epistemic
stance markers that are personalized (e.g. I think, I guess), and which have a high
degree of discourse mobility (e.g. disfavouring syntactically restricted forms like
modal auxiliaries). The preferred forms are overwhelmingly used at the
beginnings 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
intonation unit are marked and require special explanation. The preference for
IU initial epistemic stance marking is attributed to speakers motivations to set up
their own stance as early as possible to guide listeners to understand the
following information from the speakers perspective. The dispreference for turn
initial epistemic stance marking is attributed to their occurrence in multi-unit
turns.
Chapter 5, Stance-taking as an Interactive Activity: The Case of I Think is a
detailed analysis of the interactional functions of the most common epistemic
stance marker, I think, Krkkinen identifies three such functions: as a frame or
boundary marker, mostly signalling an evaluative aside to the main topic of talk;
as a way of introducing a speakers perspective, mostly in evaluative sequences
where the speakers stance is at variance with the previous speakers stance; and
as strategy to align a recipients stance with the speakers in interactional
trouble spots. These interactional functions run in parallel with I thinks
epistemic functions as a marker of doubt or certainty. The epistemic value of the
marker is shown to be interpretable both from its prosodic shape and from its IU
position. This detailed incorporation of prosodic and sequential information into
the functional analysis of I think, represents a substantial contribution and I
hope will encourage other linguists interested in discourse-functional analysis to
do the same.
Chapter 6 (Conclusion) summarizes the main position of the volume and
presents some brief speculations concerning the grammaticalization of I think
and 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, linguistically
minded conversation analysts, and those interested in the linguistic expression of
perspective.
RE F E RE NCE 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 Mushin
Linguistics, University of Queensland, Australia
464 Discourse Studies 8(3)