Resonance in conversational second stories: A dialogic resource for stance taking

Abstract

This study investigates resonance (Du Bois 2003, 2007) in second stories as a method of anchoring the second telling to the previous telling and as a resource of stance taking. It takes a closer look at the exact ways in which second stories are structurally shaped through initial (first) tellings by examining the resonating elements (of the first stories) that the second tellers recycle in their second stories, i.e., resonating lexico-syntactic, structural, prosodic, and semantic elements. Tellers legitimize, firstly, their tellings by tying back to the previous story and, secondly, their stance by positioning themselves in view of the stance displayed in the previous story. The resonating second story as such can manifest the recipients' interpretation of what they make of the first story and provide a new angle on the first telling, either reinforcing, redefining, or rejecting the gist of the initial telling. Resonance in second stories manifests the fundamental social cohesion that conversationalists uphold, among other ways, by tying back to each other's words.

Full text

1860–7330/12/0032–0525 Text & Talk 32–4(2012),pp.525 – 545
Online1860–7349 DOI10.1515/text-2012-0025
©WalterdeGruyter
Resonance in conversational second stories:
a dialogic resource for stance taking
MAARIT SIROMAA
Abstract
This study investigates resonance (Du Bois 2003, 2007) in second stories as
a method of anchoring the second telling to the previous telling and as a
resource of stance taking. It takes a closer look at the exact ways in which
second stories are structurally shaped through initial ( rst) tellings by examin-
ing the resonating elements (of the rst stories) that the second tellers recycle
in their second stories, i.e., resonating lexico-syntactic, structural, prosodic,
and semantic elements. Tellers legitimize, rstly, their tellings by tying back to
the previous story and, secondly, their stance by positioning themselves in view
of the stance displayed in the previous story. The resonating second story as
such can manifest the recipients’ interpretation of what they make of the rst
story and provide a new angle on the rst telling, either reinforcing, redening,
or rejecting the gist of the initial telling. Resonance in second stories manifests
the fundamental social cohesion that conversationalists uphold, among other
ways, by tying back to each other’s words.
Keywords: resonance; second story; stance taking; storytelling; direct
reported speech (DRS); voicing.
1. Introduction
Thisstudyinvestigatesresonanceinsecondstoriesasamethodofanchoring
thesecond tellingtotheprevioustellingandasaresourceofstancetaking.
I examine two cases of rst story–second story pairs in naturally occurring
ScottishEnglishconversation.
1
Iexploretheintersubjectiveroleofresonance
(DuBois2003, 2007)indisplaying socialcohesion.Inthe analysis,Ihigh-
lighttheconnectionsbetweenthose resonating elements and patterns ofthe
initialorrststoriesthatthesecondtellersrecycleintheirsecondstories.
2
The
analysisshowsthatthetwostoriesareanchoredtoeachotherbyresonating
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

526 Maarit Siromaa
lexico-syntactic,structural,semantic,andprosodicelementsincorresponding
positionsintherst story–second story pairs. Indeed,therststory–second
storypairherereferstothereciprocalunitoftwoconsecutivenarrativesonthe
sametopictoldbydifferentspeakers.
More specically, the prosodic features under investigation in this paper
includetheprosodicandparalinguisticeffectsthatareemployedinthevoicing
ofreportedspeech(Couper-KuhlenandSelting1996).Theauditoryprosodic
analysis in this study concentrates on resonance between instances of the
resoundingofother’svoiceindirectreportedspeech(DRS),showingthatthe
practice of the voicing of reported speech is recycled by the second teller.
Although the type and quality of the voicing is not necessarily the same,
employingtheactualpracticeofvoicedDRSisresonant.Thendingsofthis
studysupportaclaimthatco-conversationalistsmayrespondtovoicedDRSin
theinitialtellingbyproducingasubsequentvoicedDRSintheirsecondtelling
(Niemelä2005,2011).
Resonatingelementshavebeenshowntobeconsequentialintermsofstance
taking.Thepresentstudyshedsnewlightonthephenomenonof“chimingin”
(Couper-Kuhlen1999),there-soundingofother’svoice.Inotherwords,con-
versation participants respond to voiced reported speech produced by other
interlocutorsbychimingin,whichisonewayofindicatingthat“thattheyare
orientingtoabitoftalkasthereportedspeechofagureratherthanascur-
rentspeaker’sownwords”(Couper-Kuhlen1999:4).Szczepek(2001)givesa
detailedaccountofhowspeakersdothis,examiningthewayinwhichinter-
locutorsrepeattheprosodicparametersofotherspeakers,includingintonation
contour,pitchregister,pitchjumps,volume,andspeechrate.Szczepek(2001:
41)putsforwardaclaimthatinsomecases“[p]rosodicorientationthusseems
to create a bridge between two turns that could not be achieved by verbal
means alone.” Couper-Kuhlen (1999: 11) further shows that the prosodic
chiminginofanotherconversationparticipantfunctions,ontheonehand,asa
sign of understanding that the teller is speaking in some particular “other
voice”and,ontheotherhand,asasignofco-alignmentwiththestanceofthe
teller.
Thepresentstudylendssupporttotheviewthatresonantvoicingcanfunc-
tionasadisplayofcongruentstance.Resonatingelementsdonotautomati-
callyindicateacongruentstance(GoodwinandGoodwin1987b;Kärkkäinen
2003).However,allthesecondstoriesinthispaperhappentobecongruousin
relationtothersttellings.Thisstudyalsodiscussesthesequentialorganiza-
tionofresonatingvoicedreportedspeech.Voicedenactmentsbystoryrecipi-
entsdisplayasharedstanceandconstituteoneappropriateresponsetovoiced
directreportingswithinastorytellingsequence.Aresonantinstanceofvoiced
directreportingis therefore an orderlyphenomenonininteractionand a se-
quentiallyrelevantpracticeofstancetaking.
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

Resonance in conversational second stories 527
Iapplyintheanalysistheconversation-analyticmethodofdetailedsequen-
tialandlinguisticanalysisofface-to-faceinteraction(seeSacksetal.1974;
GoodwinandHeritage1991;HutchbyandWooft1998).Ifurtherdrawfrom
thendingsofstudiesoninteractiveandintersubjectivestancetaking(seeDu
Bois2003, 2007; Kärkkäinen 2006, 2007;Englebretson 2007).To date, the
conceptofstoryandtheactivityofstorytellinghavebeenwidelycoveredin
conversation-analytic and other research elds by numerous scholars (see
LabovandWaletzky1967;Goodwin1982;Sacks1986,1992;Lerner1992;
Schegloff 1997; Thornborrow and Coates 2005; Georgakopoulos 2007). A
greatnumberofcontemporarylinguisticresearchdoneonstories,narratives,
andstorytellingreliesontheclassicworkbyLabovandWaletzky(1967)on
narrativestructure.Accordingtotheauthors,astoryorapieceofnarrative,or
whattheyrefertoastheminimalnarrative,musthaveatleasttwoconsecutive
narrativeclauses.Inotherwords,astorymusthaveatleastonetemporaljunc-
tureofevents.
Recentapproachestostories,especiallyintheeldoflinguisticsandsociol-
ogy,emphasizetheunxednatureofthenarrativeinadiscourseenvironment.
Sacks(1992)rstdrawsattentiontoconversationalstoriesasextendedturns
of talk. Producing these situated turns requires negotiation and cooperation
betweentheconversationparticipants.A conversationalstoryishereunder-
stoodasanextended,structuredturnoftalk,whichistypicallytakenbyone
teller,togiveareportofaneventinchronologicalordertooneormorerecipi-
ents in order to perform a social action, e.g., a complaint, a solicitation of
empathy,oranexpressionofsolidarity.Thispaperappliestheoverallstruc-
turalunitsofthestory,i.e.,prefacesequence;tellingsequence,whichincludes
orientation,complication,evaluation,highpoint(orig.climax),andresolution;
andresponsesequence,combiningselectivelytheviewsofSacks(1992)and
LabovandWaletzky(1967)onstorystructure.
Goodwin(2002:25)characterizesstorytellingasaninteractiveprocessin
which“tellersprovidestoryrecipientswithinterpretivetemplatesthattheyuse
tomonitortheeventsbeingreported(frequentlythoughbynomeansalways
markedashavingoccurredinthepast)prospectivelyinordertolocatewhen
thestoryarrivesatitsclimax,theplacewhererecipientsareexpectedtopro-
videaresponsetoit.”Herestorytellingissimilarlyseenasarelevantinterac-
tionalpracticeofstancetakingonitsown,asitisoftenaresultofnegotiating
about some previously introduced topic.As Jefferson(1978: 220) suggests,
something in the ow of the conversation triggers a response from a co-
participantintheformofarststory,whichthenallowsandinvitesfurther
co-participationintheformofrecipientevaluationsandfurtherstorytelling.
3

Second stories (Sacks 1992: 765; Schegloff 1992: 206; Tainio 1996: 16;
Routarinne1997:152; Norrick 2000: 112; Ochs andCapps2001:209–210;
Ikeda2003:90;Arminen2004:320;Hsieh2004:39)indeedhaveareciprocal
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

528 Maarit Siromaa
relationshipwithandaretoldimmediatelyaftertherststory.InSacks’s(1992:
259)understanding,peoplefeelfrustratedifthey,uponhearingastory,havea
similarexperiencetotellbutonlyrememberitthenextday,forexample.
Conversationalists’desiretosharesimilarexperiencesthusmanifestsitself
insecondstories.Attingsecondstoryasaresponsetotheinitialstoryillus-
trateshowandtowhatdegreethetellersympathizesandagreeswiththepre-
cedingstoryandadjustsherstancerelativetothestanceoftherststoryteller.
Ithasthusbeenproposedthatsharedstance,alignment,afliation,andunder-
standingbetweenparticipantscanbedisplayedbyproducingasecondstory,
4

buthowexactlythisisdoneonlexico-syntactic,prosodic,andstructurallevels
hasnotbeenresearchedinanydetail.Thisstudyinvestigatesthecorrespond-
ing resonating actions in the consequent tellings. Moreover, the two stories
exhibitparallelismnotonlyinformbutalsoinfunction.Thatis,theinstances
of voiced DRS in rst and second stories match each other on a functional
level,i.e.,theyappearinthestoryhighpoint,andonaformallevel,i.e.,they
sharematchinglexico-syntacticandprosodicfeatures.
2. Applyingearlierapproachestoparallelismandstancetaking
totheanalysisofsecondstories
Thecurrentsectiondiscussessomeoftheearlierresearchonparallelismand
resonanceandontheintersubjectiveprocessofstancetakingininteractionand
outlinesthemethodofanalysisusedinSection3.Someofthepreviousstudies
havetoucheduponlexical,grammatical,andprosodicresonanceinconversa-
tional or institutional second stories; however, none offermorethan a brief
glanceatthephenomenonofresonatingsecondstories.Thetheoreticalback-
groundisthereforeoutlinedbypresentinganexampleofarststory−second
storypair,implementingtheearlierliteratureonresonanceandstancetaking
foradetailedanalysisoftheresonatingelementsinthetellings.
Parallelism in discourse has been observed and documented by previous
researchonthelevelsoflexis,grammar,andsoundpatterns(seeSilverstein
1984; Tannen 1987; Johnstone 1994; Couper-Kuhlen 1999; Du Bois 2003,
2007;Laury2005;Kärkkäinen2006).GoodwinandGoodwin(1987a)intheir
workonarguinghavediscussedanddocumentedformattyingwhichrefersto
one aspect of parallelism in discourse from a conversation-analytic vantage
point.Theydescribeformattyingasaturn-designfeatureinwhichelements
of previous talk are being recycled to formulate new turns. Goodwin and
Goodwin(1987a:216)furthersuggeststhatinaseriesofargumentativemoves,
“participants frequently tie not only to the type of action produced by last
speaker but also to the particulars of its wording.” The observations by
Goodwin and Goodwin relate to a technique of tying a previous story to a
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

Resonance in conversational second stories 529
secondbywayofthesame-signicanceprocedureintroducedbyRyave(1978:
127)inwhichasucceedingstorytellerorganizesthestory“intermsofasig-
nicancestatementwhichalsoservestoformulateaprecedingstory.”
Theabove-mentionedstudiesemphasizetherecyclingofcertainelements
ofapreviousspeecheventandusingthemasafoundationuponwhichcon-
secutiveturnsrest.Anward’s (2005:28)analysisconcursthat whenever the
recycledelementsarere-uttered,theyappearinanewsequentialcontextand
thereforeareinherentlydifferentinform.OchsandCapps(2001:210)further
concludethatsecondstoriesare thematically and structurally shaped bythe
earliertellingand“provideatemplateforinterpretingtherststory.”Byway
ofexaminingtheparallelisminrststory–secondstorypairs,itispossibleto
takeacloserlookathowexactlysecondstoriesarestructurallyshapedbyear-
liertellings.
Thetermresonance is applied hereinthecurrentanalysisof consecutive
rststory–secondstorypairs,notonlybecauseitisparticularlyusefulforthe
descriptionoftheprocessesofstancetaking,butalsobecauseitdrawsapracti-
calallusiontotheresonanceofsound,i.e.,“thereinforcementorprolongation
ofsoundbyreection”(s.v.resonance,OED1989).Thetermoriginatesfrom
DuBois’s(2007)theoryondialogicsyntaxandisunderstoodbyhimasapro-
cessofactivating“afnityacrossutterances.”
Resonancehasbeendemonstratedtoreachoverarelativelyshortdistance,
i.e.,inthenextturnandtheimmediatelysubsequentturns.However,Arppe’s
(2004:71)analysisshowsthatresonatingpatternscanariseatvariouspointsof
adialogueandnotonlyincloseadjacencypairssuchasassessmentpairs,for
example.Thecurrentstudyattendstothewell-foundedevidenceprovidedby
Arppe(2004)andAnward(2005)fortrackingandidentifyinganactivecon-
nectionbetween resonatingelementsalsoinlongersequencesofinteraction
(i.e.,storyroundsandothersequencesofstorytelling).
Thefollowingexample(1)istakenfromSacks’s(1992:262)lectures,and
itsbriefillustrativeanalysisrepresentsthewaytherestofthecurrentpaperis
organized.Thebestwaytoshedlightontheactivationoftheresonatingcon-
nectionsbetweenstoriesistoapplythenotionofresonancetothetranscriptof
Sacks’sexample.Theanalysisisconductedintwoparts,outliningthemethod
ofanalysisinSection3.Irstanalyzetheresonatingelementsintermsoftheir
location within the structural story frame. That is, I identify and track the
dialogicprocessofresonanceinconcurrentstructuralunitsofthestories,i.e.,
prefacesequence,tellingsequencewhichincludesorientation,complication,
evaluation, high point and resolution, and response sequence (Labov and
Waletzky 1967; Sacks 1992). I then analyze the resonating lexico-syntactic
featuresbydisplayingtheresonatingturnsintheformofadetaileddiagraph
(seeDuBois2007),whichisatoolthatcanbeusedtomapouttheresonating
elementsinsequencesofdialogue.
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

530 Maarit Siromaa
K (whose gender cannot be deduced from the transcript) starts telling
abouthavingatalkwithhisfatherandRproducesatting,consecutivehypo-
thetical constructed explanation for the rst story about a prison warden.
Sacks does not treat R’s response to the rst telling as a second story per
se but sees the constructed explanation as “similar to a telling of a second
story” (Sacks 1992: 263), making it adequate for the purposes of this
demonstration.
(1) Are you mad at me (Sacks1992;seeappendixfortranscriptiondetails)
01 K: Ihadaveryintellectualtalkwithmyfather.
02 R: Ahhowpleasant.
03 K: Yes.Anditturnedoutverygood.
04 R: (From)theoldman’sviewpoint?
05 K: No!Inmyviewpoint.He-agreed.Foronceinhislife.
06 R: Heagreedwithwhat?
07 K: Oh,Idon’tknowIjust-
08 R: heh(He//agreed)hehh
09 K: He-hegroundedme‘causeofmygrades,see.I-Iknow,I
10  deservedtobegrounded,so-
11 R: Noyou//don’t!
12 K: I-
13 K: Ididthough.Withtwofails?You-you’reboundtobe
14  averagingto–you-
15 R: Butchudon’twannabegrounded.
16 K: Isuredo,because–uhwellw-westartingtalkin’//(an’
17  hesaid-)
18 R: Ohyouwanthimtocontrol.
19→ K: No.No.He-hesaysuhareyoumadatmebecauseI
20  groundedju?
21 R: ehhehheh
22 K: Hesezuh–(1.0)–Wellthenwhatareyousohap-orwh-
23  uhunhappyabout?
24 R: heh//Youknowwhatheremindsmeof ?
25 K: IgoOhnogoodreason,//y’know,I-
26 R: Y’knowwhatheremindsmeof,whenthewardentakesthe
27→  guytothegaschamberhesezyernotmadatmepersonally
28  hehh
29 J: Hellno!
30 R: hehhh
31 K: hhhhh
32 R: It’sthesametypeofda(h)mnsituationhehhImeanit’s
33  notmyfaultthatthesocietycouldn’t--
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

Resonance in conversational second stories 531
Thesequentialplacementoftheresonatinglines19and27isidenticalinthe
overallstructuralstoryframe,representingthedirectreportedspeech(DRS)in
thehighpointofthestory,whichincidentallyisafrequentsiteforreported
speech(CliftandHolt2007).Laury’s(2005:185)workonresonatingactions
suggeststhatwhenspeakersrecyclelinguisticelementsthey“canbeseenas
‘doingthesamething’bothinteractionallyandsyntactically,astheydevelop
theirmutualstancetowardthetopicunderdiscussion.”Likewiseinexample
(1),thecorrespondinghighpointsinthestorytellingaresimilarinform,mean-
ing,andfunction,i.e.,theyperformsimilarinteractionaltasks.Theexample
willbeanalyzedinmoredetailbelow.
Sacks (1992: 261) differentiates the kinds of responses that hearers give
to rst stories, namely remembered second stories and hypothetical second
stories,claimingthataconstructedsecondstorymaytthescopeoftherst
tellingevenbetterthananactualrememberedsecondstorybecauseofrestric-
tionsthatarecausedbywhathappened in, and what is remembered of, the
actualeventthatisbeingreported.
Theanalysisoftherststory−secondstorypairinexample(1)illustratesthe
signicanceofresponsestorststoriesandsupportsthendingsofprevious
research (see Du Bois 2003, 2007; Niemelä 2005, 2011; Kärkkäinen 2006,
2007;Englebretson2007;Keisanen2007;Rauniomaa2007;andHaddington
2007)inestablishingthatthestance-takingprocessisindeedinteractiveand
intersubjectiveinnature.Thetwoconsecutivestoriesofexample(1)partici-
pateintheintersubjectivestance-takingprocessthatemergesoutoftheprevi-
ousinteractionandgraduallydevelopsintheongoingtellingeventofthetwo
speakers,namelyKandR.
Krstevaluatesthestanceobject(DuBois2007),namelythejustication
ofhisfatherinictingpunishmentonhimbecauseofpoorgrades.Hepositions
himselfasagreeingwith his father’s actions by stating on lines 9 and10,I
deserved to be grounded,whichsuggeststhatKtakesapositiveandaccepting
stancetowardhisfathergroundinghim.Kfurtherreportsthathisfatherasked
himifhewasangryathimbecauseofthepunishmentbystatingonlines19
and20,He says uh are you mad at me because I grounded you?.Online25,K
beginsareportwhichestablishesthatheisnotangryathisfatherperseandis
unhappy for no good reason. K’s report is interrupted by R, who evaluates
theconductofandtakesanincongruentstancetowardbothK’sfatherandK
himself.RrstdrawsaparallelbetweenthebehaviorofK’sfatherandthat
ofaprisonwardenwhotakestheconvicttothegaschamber.Hefurthertopi-
calizes the explanatory, comparative, and evaluative functions of his hypo-
theticalstorybystatingonline32,It’s the same type of da(h)mn situation[the
conductofK’sfatherandthatofaprisonwarden].Revaluatesthestanceob-
ject,namelythejusticationofK’sfatherinictingpunishmentonK,bycom-
paringthedisciplinaryactionsofK’sfathertocapitalpunishment.Hedoesthis
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

532 Maarit Siromaa
byassigningtothehypotheticalprisonwardenanimaginaryreportedspeech
sequenceonline27yer not mad at me personallythatresonateswiththatof
K’sfatherHe says uh are you mad at me because I grounded you?online19.
Thehypotheticalsecondstoryisproducedinsequentiallyandinteractionally
relevantposition:itimmediatelyfollowsandprovidesaninterpretationofthe
earliertelling.
R disaligns with K, drawing a parallel between the behavior of K’s father
andanimaginaryprisonwarden,whichismanifestedintheresonatingDRS
utterancesonlines19and 27. Both sentences start with matching reporting
clauseshe (says / sez)andarefollowedbyayes–noquestion (are) you (not)
mad at me.K’squestionispositive;R’sresponse,he sez yer not mad at me,is
negativeinform.K’sreportingcontinueswithasubordinatedclausebecause
I grounded u which semantically resonates with R’s subsequent adverbial
personally.TheparallelinstancesofDRSarethelinguisticconstructionsthat
carryforwardtheinteractionalprocessofthestancetaking.Kärkkäinen(2006:
720),along withDuBois(2007),seesresonanceacrossspeakersasone re-
source of stance taking, and further concurs that two resonating utterances
maymanifestadifferentiationofstances.R’sDRSutteranceismodeledafter
thatofK’s,butthedivergentstancesaremadeexplicitintheparticipants’dis-
aligningevaluationsofthebehaviorofK’sfather.Onlines9and10, Kutters
He- he grounded me ‘cause of my grades, see. I- I know, I deserved to be
grounded, so-.Online11,RgivesaresponseNo you don’t!,claimingthatK
does not deserve to be grounded. On line 15 he further claims that K does
notwanttobegroundedeither,But chu don’t wanna be grounded.However,in
K’sunderstanding,hedeservestobegroundedbecauseofhisgrades,andhe
andhisfathernallyseeeyetoeyeonsomething,whichmakesthesituationa
positiveone.RhoweverclaimsthatKdoesnotwanttobegroundedandthat
KandhisfatherarenotinagreementbutratherKisbeingoppressedbyhis
father.Thus,thesimilarresonatingelementsdisplaydivergentviewsanddis-
closethedifferencesinindividualstances.Inthisexample,bothstoriesevalu-
atethesocialphenomenonofpunishmentandthejusticationofinictingiton
individualsfornotconformingtotherulesofthefamilyunitor,onalarger
scale,society.
ThedifferentiationofstancesofKandRisthatKacceptsthedisciplinary
actionshisfatherinictsonhimoutofnecessity,becauseofK’spoorgrades.
RontheotherhandevaluatesthedisciplinaryactionsofK’sfatherinanega-
Figure1. Diagraph of lexico-syntactic resonance in high points
19 K: He- he says are you mad at me because I groundedju?
27 R: he sez yer not mad at me personally
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

Resonance in conversational second stories 533
tivelight.HedisplaysK’sfatherasacharacterwhoostensiblyrelieveshim
oftheresponsibilityofinictingpunishmentonhissonbecauseheissimply
“doinghisjob.”AtthesametimeRimplicitlyjudgestheseeminginevitability
ofthepunishmentandridiculesK’sfather’sclaimofnothavingachoicein
thematter.R’s stancedisalignswiththatofK’sandhe makesitexplicitby
sarcasticallycomparingadomesticpunishmenttoasevereinstitutionaldeath
sentence.
3. Resonatingelementsbetweenrstandsecondstories
Thissectionprovidesfurtheranalysesoftheresonatingelementsbetweenrst
andsecondstories.Thesymmetryinstorystructureswillbeshownrst.Then
thelexico-syntactic,semantic,andprosodicparallelismwillbecomparedand
analyzedin two further rst story–second story pairs.The data used in this
paper consist of audio-recorded transcripts of naturally occurring informal
conversationalinteractionsbetweennativespeakersofScottishEnglish.The
dataextractsaretakenoutofaconversationbetweentwoclosefriends,Carrie
andStephen,recordedinGlasgowin2004.
Ithasbeenestablishedthatconversationalstoriesareafrequentphenome-
non in face-to-face interactions. Not all conversational stories are followed
byaresonatingsecondstory;however,many conversational stories may be
followedbyoneormoresecondstories.Aquantitativeanalysisofhowregu-
larlyresonatingsecondstoriesoccurinvarioustypesofconversationaldatais
outsidethescopeofthisstudy.But,basedoninvestigatingthephenomenait
seemsthatsecondstoriesoccurmoreofteninsituationswheretheconversa-
tionparticipantsarefamilymembers,closefriends,oracquaintances.Itiscru-
cialtoacknowledgethatthespeakersintheexamplesofthispaperarerather
wellacquainted.Therefore,infutureresearchitwouldbeinterestingtoinves-
tigateresonatingfeaturesbetweenstorieswithinamoreheterogeneousgroup
ofspeakers.
3.1. Resonance in the corresponding structural units of the story pairs
Tofurtherillustratetheresonatingfeaturesatdifferentpointsofthestorystruc-
ture,thefollowingexamplesshowtworststory–secondstorypairsthathave
resonatingelementsincorrespondingstructuralunits.Forinstance,thepreface
sequencesoftherstandsecondtellingsmaydisplayaresonantconnection,
whichisillustratedintheanalysisbypresentingtranscriptsofthegivensec-
tionsofthetellings.
Example(2) showsresonancein thehighpoints oftherststoryandthe
secondstory.StephenandCarriearediscussingStephen’sdifcultytosleepon
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

534 Maarit Siromaa
Sunday nights. Stephen has been having trouble sleeping and he gives an
accountofatypicalSundaynight.Heexplainshowhetriestopreparehimself
forbedbutneverthelesshasdifcultybeingabletofallasleep.
(2) I can’t sleep(Glasgowdata2004)
a. Stephen’sstoryhighpoint
71 Stephen: andsoI’msittinggoing,
72  (1.3)
73  @Ican’tbelieve,
74  (.)it’shalfpastfourinthemorning,
75→  andIhavegottogetup,
76→  togotoworktomorrow/@.
77  (0.5)
78 Stephen: uhhuh,
79  (.)uh[huh].
(83linesomitted)
b. Carrie’sstoryhighpoint
162 Carrie: ((SCREAM))
163  anditwaslike,
164  @argh,
165→  Ihavetogetupforwork/@.
166  (.)ehheh.
167  (0.9)
Stephendescribeshisfutileeffortstofallasleepingreatdetailandtowardthe
endofhistelling,onlines73–76,heassignsavoicedDRSutteranceI can’t
believe it’s half past four in the morning and I have got to get up to go to work
tomorrowtohimselfasthecharacterinthestory.HisDRSsequenceconsti-
tutesthehighpointofthestoryandservesasaniconicanimatedrepresenta-
tionofhisdesperatecondition.Althoughthetellerisquotinghisownwords,
theothervoicecomesoffasseparatefromthemainbulkofthetelling.The
animatedvoicing(Couper-Kuhlen1999)ofhisutterancedepictsutterirrita-
tionanddisbelief:theDRSutteranceisaclearerandtighterarticulationand
hasaslowerpace,andthedistinctarticulationoftheDRSutteranceseparates
itfromthesurroundingturns.Bytellingtherststory,Stephenportrayshim-
selfassomeonewhosuffersfrom not being able to fall asleep at night and
positionshimselfinviewofthestanceobject,thetroublewithsleeping.Itis
notable that Carrie rst of all evaluates the stance object from her point of
viewinhersecondstorybydescribingasimilareventofhavinghersleeping
patterndisruptedbyanightmare.Towardtheendofhertelling,shealsopro-
duces,inheraccount,aresonantturntoStephen’sDRSsequence.Sherecycles
someofthefeaturesinStephen’sDRSbyproducingasimilarbutshorterand
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

Resonance in conversational second stories 535
slightlyreformulatedversionargh I have to get up for work onlines164and
165.
Althoughtheprosodicparameters,suchasintonationcontour,pitchregister,
pitchjumps,volume,andspeechrate,ofthereportedspeechsequencehavenot
been measured, the auditory analysis reveals that there is a notable shift in
thosevalues.Intermsofprosody, her DRS utterance is higher in pitch and
louderthanthesurroundingtalk.Italsohasabreathyqualitytoit.Allinall,the
distinctvoicinggivestheimpressionthatthespeakerisfacingapanickysitu-
ation,anditalsodepictsfrustrationandirritation.Niemelä(2005,2011)shows
thatco-conversationalistsoftenrespondtovoicedDRSbyproducing asub-
sequentDRSsequencethatappliesvoicingthatiseithersimilartoorsome-
howcongruentwiththeprevioussequence(cf.“chimingin”inCouper-Kuhlen
1999).ThecurrentexamplesfurtherconcurthatavoicedDRSsequenceofthe
rst speaker does not only echo in the immediately following turns of the
recipientbutalsoasfarasinthesecondstoryprovidedbythesecondspeaker
(83linesintervenebetweenthetwosequences).Moreover,itisnotnecessarily
the exact same voice quality that speakers tie back to over such a lengthy
periodbuttheactualpracticeofproducingavoicedDRSutterance.
BothDRSutterancesareprecededbyslightly differentreportingclauses.
Online 71,Stephenutters and so I’m sitting going,which clearlyidenties
Stephenhimself asreportedspeaker ofthefollowingDRSsequence.Carrie
howeverstatesand it was likeonline163,whichimpliesthatamoreimper-
sonalaccountistofollow.It referstotheactualsituation,whichdetachesCar-
rie’spersonfromtheeventbymakingitmoreuniversallyapplicable.More-
over, it was like suggests that the following report will evaluate the actual
situation,orthestanceobject.TheDRSutteranceprovidesaroughimageof
the general state of mind of a sleep-deprived person from Carrie’s point of
view. In the second story, she displays aspects of herunderstanding of Ste-
phen’srststory(Schegloff1992:206),makingexplicitthatshealignswith
Stephen’stellingandtakesacongruentstance.However,shealsoprovidesa
unique,personalangletotheproblem,contributingtothemutualunderstand-
ingthatStephenandCarriehaveofthetroublewithsleeping.Conversational
storytellingisaninteractionalprocessinwhichparticipantscandeployawide
rangeofstance-takingpractices.ByapplyingareformulatedversionofSte-
phen’sDRSsequenceinhersecondstory,CarriealignswithStephen,placing
herintheexactsamepositionasStepheninhisrststory.Carrieadjustsher
ownstanceonthetroublewithsleepingbylettingtheprosodicandlinguistic
featuresofherownDRSutteranceresonatewiththeDRSsequenceintherst
story.Shethusexpressessolidarityandasharedstancewiththetellerofthe
rststory.
Bywayoftellingresonatingsecondstories,i.e.,modelingthemafterprevi-
ousstories,tellerspositionthemselvesinregardtotherststory’sstance.The
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

536 Maarit Siromaa
secondtellercomplements the story oftheinitialstorytellerby producing a
telling that ts the scope of the initial story, reversing teller/recipient roles.
AccordingtoKärkkäinen(2006:700),resonatingelementsdonotnecessarily
denoteafliationorsharedstance.Here,however,CarrieandStephendisplay
asharedstanceandparticipateinredeningandreinforcingtheirjointunder-
standingof thesocialphenomenonof“troublewithsleeping”andacknowl-
edgingitaspartoftherealmofhumanexperiencebyproducingaresonating
rststory–secondstorypair.
Example(2)presentedarststory−secondstorypairwithresonatinghigh
pointsofthestory.Example(3)presentsasinglerststory–secondstorypair
withresonatingprefacesandhighpoints.Thefourresonantelementsresonate
not only across but also within the stories. That is, in this type of “cross-
resonance”bothprefacesareresonantwithbothhighpoints,andviceversa.
The following example illustrates all relevant sections of the transcripts,
namelytheprefacesandhighpointsofbothtellings.
Stephen,Carrie,andtheirmutualfriendLisahavebeenoutdrinkingafew
nightsearlier.Stephenintroducesthistopicbyrequestingaconrmationfrom
CarriethatLisaactuallyhasbeenfeelingsickafterthenightinquestion.After
receivingconrmationfromCarrie,Stephenstartstelling(therststory)about
thepeculiarcircumstancesofthemorningfollowingtheirnightout:hehad
gonetosleepandwokenupfullyclothed.
(3) I woke up naked (Glasgowdata2004)
a1. Stephen’srststorypreface(storyintroductionviaanannouncementon
line41):
34 Stephen: [soLisawassick]?
35  (0.7)
36 Carrie:  ay,
37  shesendmeatextgoing,
38  <@Iwassick,
39  Ihadagreatnightthough,
40  thanksverymu[ch@>.=
41→ Stephen:  [Iwokeupin]bedwithallmyclotheson.
(14linesomitted)
a2. Stephen’srststoryhighpoint:
55 Stephen: that’sthelastthingIremember.=
56  =Iwokeupinbedwithallthefuckingclothes_
57  likejumperon,
Stephenrstdrawsattentiontothenightinquestiononline34,So Lisa was
sick?,requestingforconrmationfromCarriethattheirmutualfriendLisahad
beenfeelingsickaftertheirnightout.Stephen’srequestforconrmationinter-
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

Resonance in conversational second stories 537
ruptsCarrie’stalkaboutanothersubjectandintroducesanewtopic.Stephen
receivesfromCarrieaconrmationthatLisahadindeedbeensick,ay online
36, and a short recap of text messaging between Carrie and Lisa on lines
37– 40:she send me a text going, I was sick, I had a great night though, thanks
very much.Hethenlaunchesintostorytellingviaanannouncementonline41
I woke up in bed with all my clothes on,thusreservingalongerturntotella
(initial)storyofhavinghadanunusualwakening.Stephenevaluatesthestance
object,namelytheextraordinarycircumstancesofwakingupthemorningfol-
lowinganightofheavydrinking,bydescribinginmoredetailtheeventsofthe
previousnight.Towardtheendofhistelling,henallyprovidesahighpoint
onlines56and57,I woke up in bed with all the fucking clothes_like jumper
on,whichisaresonatingreformulationoftheprefaceofhisstory.Stephen’s
storyprefacefunctionsasagambitthatletstherecipientknowwhattoexpect
andthatisredeemedbythehighpointatthecompletionofhistelling(Sacks
1992).
CarriestartsherowntellingrightafterStephen’sstoryandproclaimsonline
63,I totally woke up in time,statingthatsheindeedhadmanagedtowakeup,
“respectably”,intime.
(3)
b1. Carrie’ssecondstorypreface:
63→ Carrie: [Itotallywokeupintime].
64 Stephen: andIwasn’tduetogetupunti]l,
65  (1.1)
66 Stephen: eighto’clock,
67  orsomethinglikethat.
68  (0.4)
69 Carrie: I-Itotallyhadthatwakingupreallywell,
TheprefaceofCarrie’stelling(online63)resonateswiththeprefaceandhigh
pointofStephen’stellingonline41andonlines56and57.
Carriethenproceedstotellthesecondstoryinwhichshereferstoanother
timewhenshehadhadasimilarexperiencetothatofStephen’sofwakingup
inunusualcircumstances.
(3)
b2. Carrie’ssecondstoryhighpoint:
70  Ithinkthislasttime,
71  IhadbeenoutwithNeal,
72  intheAthletegig,
73  (0.5)
74→ Carrie: Iwokeupnake[d],
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

538 Maarit Siromaa
75 Stephen:  [eh].
76 Carrie: likethreehourslateforwork.
Carriearrivesatthehighpointofherstoryonline74bystating,I woke up
naked. Bytellingtheresonantsecondstory, Carrie aligns with Stephen and
evaluatesthestanceobjectfromherpointofview.Thehighpointofherstory
onlines74and76,I woke up naked like three hours late for work,resonates
withboththeprefaceandhighpointofStephen’sstoryandtheprefaceofher
ownstory.
Thetwostoriesarecompactentitiesthataretightlyanchoredtoeachother
bytheirresonating elements.Thecurrent example demonstratesstorytelling
sequencesas“dynamicallyconstructedspeechevents”(Goodwin1997).The
otherparticipantsofthetellingeventcommentonthestoryoftheinitialstory-
tellerbyproducingexclamations,explicitevaluationsor“animations”thatt
thescopeoftheinitialstory,andinthesecondstorythoseteller/recipientroles
arereversed.Bythetimetheparticipantsreachthesecondstory,theysharea
widerunderstandingofthelocalstance-takingphenomenon.Thesecondstory
ispromptedbytherst,andtherststoryprovidestherelevanceofthesecond
story.
Both stories here comment on the social phenomenon of staying out late
drinkingatnightanditsconsequences,suchaswakingupinunusualcircum-
stancesthenextmorning.Herebothhighpointsofthestoryareparallelstate-
mentsthatdisplayastonishmentanddismaycausedbywakingupwithallor
noclotheson.Coates(2001:81)furtherclaimsthatthecapacityof“sequential
story-tellingtotestifytotheclosenessofparticipantsmeansthatitcanbea
powerful way of ‘doing’ friendship.” Carrie thus displays togetherness and
buildsherstanceonthatofStephen’s,aligningwiththestancedisplayedinthe
rststory.Moreover,sheidentiesherownbehaviorwiththesocialphenom-
enonof (confessing to) unruly and rebellious but “cool” behavior of young
adults.InthecurrentexampleStephenandCarrieconstructareciprocalstance-
takingenvironmentinwhichtheresonatingelementsfunctionasonemeansof
takingastance,reinforcingand(re)deningtheirunderstandingregardingthe
phenomenaofthesocialrealm.
Allthreeexamplesaboveshowthatsecondtellersrecyclelexical,syntactic,
andsemanticelementsoftherststoriesinthesecondtellings,usetherst
tellingasareferencepointofstancetaking,buildingtheirownstanceaccord-
ingtowhathasbeensaidinthersttelling.Secondtellersthusestablishcohe-
sionwiththerststoryandlegitimizethesecondtellingasappropriateinthe
given circumstances and at the given moment in interaction. In the current
examplesthetellers,viareciprocalevaluationandstancetaking,participatein
thereshaping,reinforcing,and(re)constructingoftheunderstandingpartici-
pantshaveofthesocialphenomenainquestion.
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

Resonance in conversational second stories 539
3.2. Lexico-syntactic resonance
Thediagraphsinthegures(Du Bois2007:160)are“usefulforpresenting
dialogicrelations”betweenturnsoftalk.Theysimplylineupthecorrespond-
inggrammaticalelementsoneontopoftheotherandmakevisibletheparal-
lelismbetweenany two or more turns. Here, Figures 2, 3,and4 shed light
on the resonating elements of the previous examples mainly on the lexico-
syntacticlevelbutalsoonthelevelofprosody,lendingsupporttotheanalysis
ofSection3.1.
Figure 2 deals with the example of the rst story−second story pair by
StevenandCarrieon“thetroublewithsleeping”(example[2],I can’t sleep).
Figure2showsthehighpointsoftherstandsecondtelling,oneontopof
theother,exemplifyingthewayinwhichsecondstorytellersinexample(2)
recyclenotonlythelexicalandgrammaticalelementsbutalsothevoicingof
therststory,i.e.,theutteranceshaveasimilarlexico-syntacticaswellaspro-
sodicdesign.
TheDRSutterancesproducedbyStephenonlines75and76,I have got to get
up to go to work tomorrow,andbyCarrieonline165,I have to get up for work,
simultaneouslyexhibitseveralparallelgrammaticalitems.Firstofall,thepro-
noun I takes identical perspectives in both sequences. The following verb
phrasehave (got) to get up inbothturnsembodiestheduressofeachoccasion
of“havingtogetup”afterasleeplessnight.Alsothefollowingadjuncts(to go
to) / ( for) workareparallelintheirfunction.Intermsofprosody,bothturns
carryananimatedvoicequalitythatdepictsfrustrationandirritation.
Here,inthersttelling,StephenproducesaDRSutterancethatdisplaysa
reportofhisownthoughtsandstance.Correspondingly,inthesecondstory,
CarrieuttersaresonantDRSutterancewhichdisplaysareportofherthoughts
andstance.Theseresonantturnsareshortbutveryimportantsectionsofthe
tellings.Afterall,theyarethehighpointsthatembodythegistofthestories.
Whatismore,theresonancebetweenthemaccentuatesthealignmentandcon-
gruentstanceofthetwostoriesand,foritspart,anchorsthetellingstogether.
Thendingsbasedontheexamplesofthecurrentstudywouldseemtosuggest
thatresonantturnsareparticularlycommonatthehighpointsoftellings;con-
sequently,theycouldbeconsideredtorepresentafocalpointintermsofnd-
ingresonanceinstorytelling.
Figure2. Diagraph of lexico-syntactic and prosodic resonance in high points
075 Stephen: and I have got to get up,
076 Stephen: to go to work tomorrow/@.
165 Carrie: @I have to get up for work/@.
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

540 Maarit Siromaa
Therstandsecondstoryprefacesandhighpointsinexample(3)alsohave
a resonating lexico-syntactic structure. The resonating elements not only
anchorthetwotellingstogetherbutalsoprovideasmoothtransitionfromthe
rststorytothesecond.Figure3makesvisiblethedialogicresonancebetween
the rst story−second story pair by Stephen and Carrie on “waking up in
unusualcircumstancesafteranightoutonthetown.”
Figure 3 highlights active afnity between turns that are produced by one
speakerwithinasingletelling.Forinstance,Stephen’srststoryprefaceon
line 41, I woke up in bed with all my clothes on, is a declarative sentence,
whichisalmostidenticalwiththesubsequenthighpointofthesamestoryon
lines56and57,I woke up in bed with all the fucking clothes_ like jumper on.
Moreover,inthesecondstory,Carrieproducesaresonantutteranceasthehigh
pointofherstoryonlines74and76,I woke up naked like three hours late for
work.Alsoher story preface on line 63, I totally woke up in time, contains
manyofthesamelexico-syntacticfeatures.Thesubjectandtheverbphraseof
allutterancesarethesameexceptfortheaddedadverbialtotallyinCarrie’s
secondstorypreface.
Theadverbialphrasesfollowingtheverbelementalldescribethesomehow
peculiar circumstances in which the tellers woke up. Stephen’s with all my
clothes onandwith all my fucking clothes_like jumper onandCarrie’snaked
resonateinthattheyallcommentontheunusualamountorlackofclothingat
themomentofwakingup.Carrie’sadverbialphraseoftimein timeonline63
alsoresonateswiththepreviousadverbialphrase with all my ( fucking) clothes
(on/_like jumper on) onlines41and56 –57inthatitalsodescribestheunusual
circumstancesofactuallywakingup in timeafteranightout.Finally,thehigh
pointofCarrie’stelling,naked, like three hours late for work,onlines74and
76resonateswithbothStephen’sandherownpreviousutterances:rstwith
the unusual amount or lack of clothing at night time and second with the
unusualtimeofwakingup.
Theexamplesinthispapersuggestthatresonanceisagradientfeaturein
rststory–secondstorypairs.Alldiagraphsshowthatcorrespondingturnsin
therstandsecondstoriesmaybemoreorlessparallelintermsoftheirlexis,
syntax,semanticcontent,andprosody.Itisoutsidethescopeofthisstudyto
41 Stephen:[I woke up in] bed with all my clothes on.
56 Stephen: I woke up in bed with all the fucking clothes_
57 like jumper on,
63 Carrie: [I totally woke up in time].
74 Carrie: I woke up nake[d],
76 Carrie: like three hours late for work.
Figure3. Diagraph of Lexico-syntactic resonance in prefaces and high points
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

Resonance in conversational second stories 541
draw conclusions on whether some elements resonate more frequently with
priortalkandactionthanothers. Therefore,itwouldbeworthwhiletoinvesti-
gateinfurtherstudieswhattheconsequencesareofsomesecondtellingsreso-
natingwiththepreviousmorerobustlythanothers.
Alsoitwouldseemthatelementsthatarenotincorrespondingsequential
positionswithinthestorystructuremayindeedresonatewitheachother,e.g.,
therststoryprefacemayresonatewiththerstandsecondstoryhighpoints.
5

Thoseresonatingturnscreatethematiccohesionbetweenandacrossthetell-
ings.Theyalsodisplaythespeakers’stancesandprovideapointofreference
forfurtherstancetaking.
4. Conclusion
Thecurrentpapercontributestothestudyofhowsecondstoriesproduceforms
ofintersubjectivitythroughuseofparallelstructure.Itexaminesintersubjec-
tiveandinteractivestance taking in conversationalstorytelling,focusingon
thesymmetryoflinguisticandprosodicelements,i.e.,resoundingoftheother
voice,betweenconversationparticipants.Thedatashowthattellerssystemati-
callytiebacktoprevioustellings and model new turns on old ones. Corre-
sponding actions in rst and second stories resonate with each other on a
structural-functionallevel,e.g.,inthestoryhighpoint,andonaformallevel,
e.g., in the lexico-syntax andprosody. Resonating elementscreate cohesion
betweenthestoriesbyanchoringthesecondtellingtotherstandthusprovide
therelevanceofthesecondstory.Also,resonancehasbeenpreviouslymainly
treatedasresourcesthatbridgeoverarelativelyshortdistanceintheunfolding
sequenceofturns(i.e.,alocalphenomenon).However,thispapershowsthatit
canextendoverlongerdistancesaswell.
Formalresonanceappearsinalloftheexamplesofthisstudy;however,reso-
natingvoicinginDRSutterancesonlyappearedinexample(2).Thendings
implythatsecondtellerstiebacktosomeratherthanalloftheformalelements
ofthersttellingdependingontheindividualtelling.Inotherwords,interac-
tantscanbeselective.Similarfunctionalresonanceappearsinalloftheex-
amplesinthisstudy.Especiallythehighpointsoftheconsecutivetellingsseem
toberesonant.Further,in example(2),fourresonantelementsresonatenot
onlyacrossbutalsowithinthestories,presentingacaseof“cross-resonance”
inwhichbothprefacesareresonantwithbothhighpoints,andviceversa.
Conversationaliststellstoriesininteractionallyandsequentiallyappropriate
momentstotakedivergentorconvergentstances.Onanindividuallevel,sec-
ondstoriesenabletheconversationaliststogainaccesstoeachother’sexperi-
ences,emotions,andstances.Tyingbacktotherststorywhiletellingasec-
ondisahighlyintersubjectivephenomenon.Thus,theresonatingsecondstory
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

542 Maarit Siromaa
assuchcanmanifesttherecipients’interpretationofwhattheymakeoftherst
storyandprovideanewangleonthersttelling,eitherreinforcing,redening,
orrejectingthegistoftheinitialtelling.Resonatinglexico-syntactic,prosodic,
andsemanticelementsarethesynapsesthatfunctionasmeanstoactivatethis
reciprocalrelationshipbetweenarststory–secondstorypair.Firstly,tellers
legitimizetheirtellingsbytyingbacktothepreviousstory.Secondly,thetell-
ersdisplayand legitimize their stancebypositioningthemselvesin view of
thestancedisplayedinthepreviousstory.Bythetimetheparticipantsreach
the end of the second story, they share a wider understanding of the social
phenomenonbeingassessed.Resonanceinsecondstoriesmanifeststhefunda-
mentalsocialcohesionthatconversationalistsuphold,amongotherways,by
tyingbacktoeachother’swords.
Appendix:Transcriptionkey
For the purpose of transcribing examples (2) and (3) in this paper, I have
compiledatranscriptionkey,chieyfollowingthenotationthatisbasedonthe
CA style transcriptionsystem(Jefferson1985). Example(1)isanunaltered
originaltranscription(Sacks1992).Theboldtypefaceisusedtohighlightthe
sequencesunderexaminationintheexamples,whereastheitalictypefaceis
usedtodifferentiateextractsofexamplesfromthebodytext.
. terminalcontour:falling
yes_ continuativecontour:levelpitch
, continuativecontour:slightrise
! stronglyanimatedtone,pitchmovementinanydirection
[ ] overlapping
= latching
(.) micropause(lessthan0.2sec)
(2.0) lengthofpauseinapproximateseconds
ye- truncatedword
YES increasedvolume
hhh audiblebreath
ye(hh)s within-speechaspiration,laughter
(yes) uncertainhearing,transcriber’sbestguess
@yes/@ changeinvoicequality,usuallyreportedspeech
((SCREAM)) describingparalinguisticfeaturesoftalk
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

Resonance in conversational second stories 543
Notes
1. SeeStoryrounds(Sacks1992;Tannen1984:100).
2. Theterm“initial”isapurelyanalytictoolhere;rststoriesarisefrominteractionandaretrig-
geredbysomethingintheowoftheconversation(seeJefferson1978).
3. Seesame-signicanceprocedure(Ryave1978:127).
4. Mydataandpreviousresearch(e.g.,Sacks1992)showthatsecondstoriesdonotnecessarily
agreewiththepreviousstory.
5. Judgingbyexamples(2) and (3)above,itwould seem thatthereisapattern of resonance
betweentherststoryprefaceandhighpointandthesecondstoryhighpoint,buttheclaim
remainsrathersupercialbasedonsuchasmallsampleofdata.
References
Anward,J.2005.Lexemerecycled.Howcategoriesemergefrominteraction.Logos and Language
2.31– 46.
Arminen,I.2004.Secondstories:Thesalienceofinterpersonalcommunicationformutualhelpin
AlcoholicsAnonymous.Journal of Pragmatics 36. 319–347.
Arppe,H.2004.“I don’t think so at all” — Negotiating a topic in collaboration: A sequence of
assessments.Helsinki:UniversityofHelsinkiprograduthesis.
Coates,J.2001.“My mind iswithyou”:Story sequence in thetalkofmalefriends. Narrative
Inquiry 11(1).81–101.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. 1999. Coherent voicing: On prosody in conversational reported speech. In
W.Bublitz&U.Lenk(eds.),Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and
how to describe it,11–32.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.
Couper-Kuhlen,E.&M.Selting.1996.Towardsaninteractionalperspectiveonprosodyanda
prosodicperspectiveoninteraction.InE.Couper-Kuhlen&M.Selting(eds.),Prosody in con-
versation, 11–56.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
DuBois,J.2003.Resonanceandstructuremapping.Invitedtalkatseminar“Stancetaking,dia-
logicsyntaxandinteraction,”UniversityofOulu,4September.
DuBois,J.2007.Thestancetriangle.InR.Englebretson(ed.),Stancetaking in discourse: The
intersubjectivity of interaction.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.
Englebretson, R. (ed.). 2007. Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction.
Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.
Georgakopoulos,A.2007.Small stories, interaction and identities.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:
JohnBenjamins.
Goodwin,C.2002.Timeinaction.Current Anthropology 43.19–35.
Goodwin,C.&M.Goodwin.1987a.Children’sarguing.InS.Philips,S.Steele&C.Tanz(eds.),
Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective, 200 –248.Cambridge:CambridgeUni-
versityPress.
Goodwin,C.&M.Goodwin.1987b.Concurrentoperationsontalk:Notesontheinteractiveorga-
nizationofassessments(withCharlesGoodwin).IPrA Papers inPragmatics 1.1–55.
Goodwin, C. & J. Heritage. 1991. Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 19.
283–307.
Goodwin, M. 1982. “Instigating”: Storytelling as social process. American Ethnologist 9.
674 – 695.
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

544 Maarit Siromaa
Goodwin,M.1997.Byplay:Negotiatingevaluationinstory-telling.InG.R.Guy,J.Baugh,D.
Schiffrin&C.Feagin(eds.),Towards a social science of language: Papers in honour of William
Labov, vol.2,77–102.Amsterdam&Philadephia:JohnBenjamins.
Haddington,P.2007.Positioningandalignmentasactivitiesofstancetakinginnewsinterviews.In
R.Englebretson(ed.),Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 283–317.
Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.
Holt,E.andClift,R.2007.Reportingtalk:reportedspeechininteraction.Studies in Interactional
Sociolinguistics.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Hsieh,E.2004.Storiesinactionandthedialogicmanagementofidentities:Storytellingintrans-
plantsupportgroupmeetings.Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(1).39–70.
Hutchby,I.&R.Wooftt.1998.Conversation analysis. Principles, practices and applications.
Cambridge:PolityPress.
Ikeda,E.2003.Socializingmissionaryideologiesthroughnarrative.Texas Linguistic Forum47.
81–95.ProceedingsoftheEleventhAnnualSymposiumaboutLanguageandSociety,Austin,
TX,11–13April.
Jefferson,G.1978.Sequentialaspectsofstorytellingininteraction.InJ.Schenkein(ed.),Studies
in the organization of conversational interaction,219–248.NewYork:Academic.
Jefferson,G.1985.Anexerciseinthetranscriptionandanalysisoflaughter.InT.VanDijk(ed.),
Handbook of discourse analysis, vol. 3: Discourse and dialogue, 25–34.London:Academic
Press.
Johnstone, B. (ed.). 1994. Repetition in discourse: Interdisciplinary perspectives, vols. 1–2.
Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
Kärkkäinen, E. 2003. “Isshe vicious ordense?” Dialogic practices of stance taking in spoken
English. In T. Nakayama, T. Ono & H. Tao (eds.), Santa Barbara papers in linguistics 12.
Recent studies in empirical approaches to language, 47– 65. Santa Barbara: University of
California.
Kärkkäinen,E.2006.Stancetakinginconversation:Fromsubjectivitytointersubjectivity.Text &
Talk26(6).699–731.
Kärkkäinen,E.2007.TheroleofI guessinconversationalstancetaking.InR.Englebretson(ed.),
Stancetaking in discourse:Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 183–219.Amsterdam&Phila-
delphia:JohnBenjamins.
Keisanen,T.2007.Stancetakingasaninteractionalactivity:Challengingthepriorspeaker.InR.
Englebretson(ed.),Stancetaking in discourse:Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction,253–281.
Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.
Labov,W.&J.Waletzky.1967.Narrativeanalysis:Oralversionsofpersonalexperience.Journal
of Narrative and Life History 7(1– 4). 3–38.
Laury, R. 2005. Dialogic syntax andtheemergenceoftopicsininteraction.TRANEL ( Travaux
neuchâtelois de linguistique)41.165–189.
Lerner,G.1992.Assistedstory-telling:Deployingsharedknowledgeasapracticalmatter.Quali-
tative Sociology 15(3).247–271.
Niemelä,M.2005.Voiceddirectreportedspeechinconversationalstorytelling.SKYJournal of
Linguistics 18.197–221.
Niemelä,M.2011.Resonance in storytelling: Verbal, prosodic and embodied practices of stance
taking(ActaUniversitatisOuluensisB95).Oulu:UniversityofOulu.
Norrick,N.2000.Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk.Amsterdam&Philadel-
phia:JohnBenjamins.
Ochs,E.&J.Capps.2001.Living narrative. Creating lives in everyday storytelling.Cambridge,
MA&London:HarvardUniversityPress.
OED. 1989. “resonance”. OED online. Oxford University Press. http://dictionary.oed.com/
(accessed25January2012).
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

Resonance in conversational second stories 545
Rauniomaa,M.2007.StancemarkersinspokenFinnish:minun mielestäandminustainassess-
ments.InR.Englebretson(ed.),Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction,
221–252.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.
Routarinne, S. 1997. Kertomuksen rakentaminen [Constructing a conversational story]. In L.
Tainio(ed.),Keskusteluanalyysin perusteet, 138–155. Tampere:Vastapaino.
Ryave,A.1978.Ontheachievementofaseries ofstories.InJ.Schenkein(ed.),Studies in the
organization of the conversational interaction, 113–132. NewYork:Academic.
Sacks,H.1986.Someconsiderationsofastorytoldinordinaryconversations.InU.Qasthoff&
E.Gulich(eds.),Narrativeanalysis:Aninterdisciplinarydialogue.[Specialissue].Poetics 15.
127–138.
Sacks,H.1992.Lectures on conversation,G.Jefferson(ed.).Oxford:Blackwell.
Sacks,H.,E.Schegloff&G.Jefferson.1974.Asimplestsystematicsfortheorganizationofturn-
takingforconversation.Language 50.696 –735.
Schegloff,E.1992.Inanothercontext.InC.Goodwin &A. Duranti,Rethinking context: Lan-
guage as an interactive phenomenon(StudiesintheSocialandCulturalFoundationsofLan-
guage11.)NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Schegloff,E.1997.Narrativeanalysis:Thirtyyearslater.InM.Bamberg(ed.),Oralversionsof
personalexperience:Threedecadesofnarrativeanalysis.[Specialissue].Journal of Narrative
and Life History 7(1– 4).97–105.
Silverstein,M.1984.Onthe pragmatic “poetry”ofprose:Parallelism,repetition,andcohesive
structureinthetimecourseofdyadicconversation.InD.Schiffrin(ed.),Meaning, form, and use
in context: Linguistic applications,181–199.Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversityPress.
Szczepek,B.2001.Prosodicorientationinspokeninteraction.InLiSt — Interaction and Linguistic
Structures 27.1–45.
Tainio,L.1996.Arkikertomuksetkulttuurisentietämyksenvälittäjinä[Mundanestoriesasmedia-
torsofculturalknowledge].Naistutkimus9(2).11–29.
Tannen,D.1984.Conversational style. Analyzing talk among friends.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
Tannen,D.1987.Repetitioninconversation:Towardapoeticsoftalk.Language 63(3).574 – 605.
Thornborrow,J.&J.Coates(eds).2005.The sociolinguistics of narrative.Amsterdam&Philadel-
phia:JohnBenjamins.
MaaritSiromaa(néeNiemelä)receivedherPh.D.inresonanceinstorytellingfromtheUniversity
ofOulu,Finland,andiscurrentlyworkingthereasapost-doctoralresearcher.Herresearchinter-
ests include situated resourcesand practices of social interaction.Address for correspondence:
EnglishPhilology,P.O.Box1000,FI-90014UniversityofOulu,Finland〈maarit.siromaa@oulu.
〉.
Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM

Brought to you by | University of Oulu
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/4/15 8:45 AM