From stance to identity: Stancetaking in contemporary English risk discourse

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

From stance to identity: Stancetaking in contemporary English risk discourse

V. Ushchyna

Valentyna Ushchyna (Lesya Ukrainka Eastern European National University, Lutsk, Ukraine; University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA)

The study focuses on stancetaking - an intersubjective and context-bound discursive activity that unites micro- and micro-properties of discursive interaction. The purpose of this work consists in discovering discursive ways of situational identities construction in contemporary English risk discourse as a result of stancetaking on risk. The theoretical background for this research comprises post-structuralist and socio-constructionist approaches to discourse analysis, establishing a new, socio-cognitive, direction in discourse studies. Contemporary English risk discourse serves a situational environment for investigating stancetaking in this work. It is approached as a discursive phenomenon of two types - a risk discourse proper (communicative situation of risk) and a discourse about risk (metacommunicative situation of risk). Discursive framework of communicative situation of risk reveals cognitive, pragmatic, and interactional dynamics of stancetaking in the conditions of in situ discussion of eventual stances (decisions) on risks. The inquiry resulted in determining the stance-takers' situational identities, ranging from risk-averse to risk-taking subjects. Investigation of conversational patterns and discursive dynamism of stance alignment enabled identification and characterization of interactional mechanisms of stancetaking in situations of risk. Explorations of stancetaking in ex situ discursive conditions of metacommunicative situations of risk shed light onto socio- semiotic potential and pragmatic-rhetorical patterns of stancetaking. Complex analysis of the stance-takers' language output provided a basis for establishing a typology of their situational identities, constructed in mediated discourse situations - layman, expert, mediator whose strategic speech behavior depends upon the balance of epistemic and affective components in their respective stances.

Key words: communicative situation, identity, interaction, metacommunicative situation, risk discourse, stance, stancetaking.

В. Ущина. Від стансу до ідентичності: позиціювання в сучасному англомовному дискурсі ризику/

Увага у роботі зосереджена на позиціюванні - міжсуб'єктній та контекстно-залежній дискурсивній діяльності, що об'єднує мікро- та макро- особливості дискурсу. Мета статті полягає у розкритті дискурсивного конструювання ситуативних ідентичностей в англомовному дискурсі ризику як результату позиціювання суб'єктів дискурсивної взаємодії стосовно ризику. Теоретичним підґрунтям дослідження стала низка пост-структуралістських та соціо-конструкціоністських підходів до аналізу дискурсу, об'єднаних соціокогнітивною дискурсологією - новим напрямом дискурсивних студій. Сучасний англомовний дискурс ризику слугує ситуативним контекстом для вивчення позиціювання. Дискурс ризику тлумачиться як феномен двох типів - власне дискурс ризику (комунікативна ситуація ризику) та дискурс про ризики (метакомунікативна ситуація ризику). Розкриття когнітивних, прагматичних та інтеракційних особливостей позиціювання здійснено завдяки аналізу динаміки дискурсивної взаємодії учасників комунікативної ситуації ризику в умовах безпосереднього прийняття рішень стосовно ризику. У результаті виокремлено ситуативні ідентичності учасників ситуації ризику, що варіюються в діапазоні від обережного до схильного до ризику суб'єкта. Аналіз конверсаційних поведінкових паттернів та дискурсивної динаміки узгодження стансів дозволив виявити і схарактеризувати інтеракційні механізми позиціювання. У ex situ умовах метакомунікативної ситуації ризику фокус уваги змістився на соціо-семіотичний потенціал та прагма-риторичну специфіку позиціювання, що дозволило виокремити характерні для такої дискурсивної взаємодії ситуативні ідентичності - суб'єкт-експерт, суб'єкт-дилетант та суб'єкт-медіатор, мовленнєва поведінка яких залежить від збалансованості епістемічного та афективного компонентів у складі їхніх стансів.

Ключові слова: дискурс ризику, ідентичність, інтеракція, комунікативна ситуація, метакомунікативна ситуація, позиціювання, станс.

В. Ущина. От станса к идентичности: позиционирование в современном англоязычном дискурсе риска.

Внимание работы сосредоточено на позиционировании - интерсубъектной и контекстно-зависимой дискурсивной деятельности, объединяющей микро- и макро-особенности дискурса. Целью статьи является раскрытие дискурсивного конструирования ситуативных идентичностей в англоязычном дискурсе риска как результата позиционирования субъектов дискурсивного взаимодействия относительно риска. Теоретическим основанием исследования послужила совокупность пост-структуралистских и социо-конструкционистских подходов к анализу дискурса, объединенных социокогнитивной дискурсологией - новым направлением дискурсивных изысканий. Современный англоязычный дискурс риска в этой работе стал ситуативным контекстом для изучения позиционирования. Дискурс риска рассматривается как феномен двух типов - собственно дискурс риска (коммуникативная ситуация риска) и дискурс о риске (метакоммуникативная ситуация риска). Раскрытие когнитивных, прагматических и интеракциональных особенностей позиционирования осуществлено с помощью анализа динамики дискурсивного взаимодействия участников коммуникативной ситуации риска в условиях непосредственного принятия решений касательно риска. В результате выделены ситуативные идентичности участников ситуации риска, варьируемые в диапазоне от осторожного до склонного к риску субъекта. Анализ конверсационных поведенческих паттернов и дискурсивной динамики согласования стансов позволил определить и охарактеризовать интеракционные дискурсивные механизмы позиционирования. В ex situ условиях метакоммуникативной ситуации риска фокус внимания переместился на социо-семиотический потенциал и прагма-риторическую специфику позиционирования, в результате чего выделены ситуативные идентичности, характерные для такого дискурсивного взаимодействия - субъект-эксперт, субъект-дилетант и субъект-медиатор, речевое поведение которых зависит от сбалансированности эпистемического и аффективного компонентов в структуре их стансов.

Ключевые слова: дискурс риска, идентичность, интеракция, коммуникативная ситуация, метакоммуникативная ситуация, позиционирование, станс.

Introduction

discursive cognitive pragmatic pattern

Professor Scott F. Kiesling (University of Pittsburgh, USA) once half-jokingly pronounced a phrase that became life-changing for me as a researcher: “I see stance almost everywhere. Everything is stance”. Ever since, I have never ceased investigating stance-taking in all complexity of its discursive manifestations. This brought me to understanding its specifically remarkable role in the discourse of risk where stance-taking is equaled to choosing a decision on risk, and sometimes it is the discursive activity of a stance-taker that makes risk be risk.

The active linguists' interest to stance and stancetaking (Biber, & Finegan, 1989; Du Bois, 2007; Englebretson, 2007; Jaffe, 2009; Johnstone, 2009; Kiesling, 2018; Morozova, 2011; Myers, 2010) can be explained by the shift of their attention from the speech behavior of individual speakers to the patterns of their discursive interaction. The term stance was initially introduced by Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan in their article Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect (1989, p. 124) as “the lexical and grammatical expression of attitudes, feelings, judgments, or commitment concerning the propositional content of a message”. In further explorations of stance, scholars notified its dynamicity, interactionality, and indexicality (Morozova, 2011; Du Bois, 2007; Irvine, 2009; Kiesling et al., 2018).

As an interdisciplinary concept, stance embraces individual and social, linguistic and extra-linguistic aspects of discursive interaction. It was formulated on the grounds of previous research of such diverse linguistic categories as modality (Bybee et al., 1994; Palmer, 1979; Papafragou, 1997; Prykhodko, 2003), evidentiality (Aikhenvald, 2015; Chafe, 1986; Kshanovkij, 2015), evaluation (Arutyunova, 1999), assessment (Martin, 2005), emotionality (Scherer, 2005; Shakhovskij, 2010; Vorobjova, 2006), affect (Biber, & Finegan, 1989; Ochs, 1993), footing (Goffman, 1981), position (Davies, & Harre, 1990), perspective (Berman, & Slobin, 1994; Chafe, 2003).

Stancetaking is a contextually sensitive phenomenon. In this work, different facets of stancetaking were studied in the context of the English risk discourse which can be roughly defined as a communicative activity of the English language speakers associated with discussing various aspects of risk. Never before, the notion of risk received such a close attention from sociologists (Beck, 1999; Luhmann, 2005), psychologists (Ilyin, 2012; Slovic, 2010) media researchers (Sandman, 1992; Schehr, 2005), and linguists (Fillmore, & Atkins, 1992; Ushchyna, 2018; Yefimova, 2000; Zinn, 2010). As well as never before was risk communication so broad-based and urgent, which makes this research timely and crucially important.

Thus, the purpose of this work consists in discovering discursive ways of situational identities construction in contemporary English risk discourse through disclosing the versatility and multifacedness of cognitive, pragmatic and sociolinguistic features of discursive stancetaking. The study unites two focal points - (1) stancetaking of a risk-taker in a process of self- and other- identification in the discourse and by means of discourse and (2) risk discourse as a situational context for stancetaking.

Theoretical background and methodology

Taking into consideration “a methodological shift in philosophical orientation away from the metaphor of our minds as machines for representing the world through our ideas toward the metaphor of our beliefs as aspects of the vocabularies in which we justify ourselves to one another” (Koopman, 2011, p. 64), this study coherently combines two philosophical styles of thought - representational (static) and practical (dynamic) (Rorty, 1979).

In linguistics, such philosophical integration (Martyniuk, 2009; Morozova, 2008) can be found in interpreting discourse as both a process and a result (Krasnykh, 2001; Shevchenko, 2015). Paradigmatic milestones of these methodological perspectives do not compete, but rather offer the research instruments that allow an investigator to effectively focus on various aspects and properties of discourse without drastic methodological limitations. Such methodological combination is characteristic for socio-cognitive discourse analysis (van Dijk, 2008) - a new direction in discourse studies that serves a theoretical framework for this research.

Socio-cognitive discourse analysis rests on a non-classical interpretation of subjectivity and post-structuralist tradition of discourse studies. The socio-constructionist interpretation of “subject”, “self” or “persona” (Bamberg et al., 2011; Davies, & Harre, 1990; Gergen, 1991) is fundamental to the research of stance. In accordance with it, subjectivity, as well as intersubjectivity of stance are constructed in discourse and by means of discourse. Moreover, discourse activity of an individual subject is inseparably connected to his / her world perceiving activity, which is on the one hand cognitive, and on the other - social, i. e. impossible in isolation from other participants of life exertion.

As such, a stance subject, or a stance-taker, is inseparably intertwined with the term identity in its socio-constructivist interpretation (Berger, & Luckmann, 1966; Bucholtz, & Hall, 2004; Taburet- Keller, 1998). According to this reading, identity is characterized by constructiveness, dynamicity, and fragmentarity. It can be not only constructed but also perceived through manifold of stances, taken by the speakers in different situations of communication. Among the diverse approaches to identity in psychology (Ericsson, 1994; Davies, & Harre, 1990), sociology (Joseph, 2004; Tabouret-Keller, 1998), and linguistics (Benwell, & Stokoe, 2006; Bucholtz, & Hall, 2004; Matuzkova, 2014), its simultaneously static and dynamic character as well as dialectics of its existence on both individual and social levels of human life, are central for this research. Individual and collective identities constructed by the discourse participants by means of accumulating their stances in similar discourse situations are known as “contextual” (Crystal, 2010, p. 50), or “situational” (De Fina, 2011, p. 268) identities.

As a situational context for stancetaking risk discourse is defined on the basis of its thematic orientation (Demyankov, 2002). It is the theme of risk that is seen as the fundamental feature of risk discourse when approached from a situational perspective (Arutyunova, 1999; van Dijk, 2008; Fairclough, 1998). Our understanding of discourse as both a process and a result found its application in distinguishing two types of risk discourse - risk discourse proper (communicative situation of risk) and discourse about risk (meta-communicative situation of risk). The methodological structure of the study comes from this division. It is also relevant for stancetaking (process) and stance (result) demarcation.

According to Kiesling et al. (2018, p. 687), stance is “the discursive creation of a relationship between a language user and some discursive figure, and to other language users in relation to that figure. This discursive figure can be an interlocutor, a figure represented in the discourse, the animator, ideas represented in the discourse, or other texts”. For example, in the following statements “I know” [SBC_Risk]) or “I don't know” [SBC_Risk]), the speaker informs his / her listener about his / her knowledge concerning the object of interaction (epistemic stance). While in the statements “that's really interesting” [SBC_Deadly Diseases]) and “I'm just happy” [SBC_Raging Bureaucracy]) the speaker is constructing his / her affective stance. In the former sentence, the reference to the object of stancetaking is realized via demonstrative pronoun that, and a positive evaluation is expressed through the predicative “really interesting”. In the latter utterance, the speaker explicates his emotional state “I'm just happy”. All the above statements contain the information about one or the other component of a previously formed stance, presenting rather the result than a process.

The representatives of dynamic, or practice-based, approach to discourse analysis (De Fina, 2011; Du Bois, 2007; Englebretson, 2007; Morozova, 2008) focus on the interactionality and intersubjectivity of stancetaking. According to this view, the central role is given to interaction as an inherent component of stancetaking, e.g.: “Do you agree? “I agree, ” Joanna said. I just think we have to consider all the options. ” (Cook, 2001, p. 345). In this fragment, the speakers are engaged in discussing their stances on the object of stancetaking. The interactive exchange consisting of a question “Do you agree?” and a reply “I agree”” presents an adjacency pair in which stance alignment takes place. The stance-taker not only acknowledges the presence of her interlocutor, but also aligns her stance with the stance of her communicative partner. Initially agreeing with the previously declared stance, further Joanna mildly disagrees, verbalizing her disalignment in the following remark (Ijust think we have to consider all the options'). It can be stated that while stance predicate “think” belongs to stance-expressing language resources, stance predicate “agree” functions as a stance-constructing one.

Therefore, there are five dimensions of stance in the focus of this investigation - cognitive, pragmatic, interactional, social and speech - and five corresponding methodological principles of their discursive analysis. Cognitive dimension correlates with the principle of interpretation of the situational context as a cognitive and subjective structure (Dijk, 2008) or mental model (Givon, 2005) enabling social sense-construing through conceptualisation and categorization. Pragmatic dimension gives consideration to the conditioning of situational (contextual) identities as well as the speakers' stances by their pragmatic purposes, contextual properties and formal specifics of discourse interaction. Interactional dimension encapsulates inherent interactionality of stance. It represents not only the situational specificity of speech behavior of communication participants in a certain situation but also their intersubjective contextual constructs, consisting of their cognitive projections of knowledge, beliefs and expectations about this situation. Social dimension correlates with the principle of social normativity of communication, including the interlocutors' awareness of each other's social statuses and status-related communicative rights and obligations. Speech dimension typifies interrelation of formal linguistic structure of stancetaking and situational context of interaction.

Methods and data

Being a complicated and multifaceted discourse activity, stancetaking requires complex methods for its comprehensive analysis.

Textual actualization of the risk discourse situation (both CSR and MSR) or at least one of the components of their linguistic cognitive models (scenario and frame respectively) served as the main criteria for data selection. Lexical units of risk (risk, hazard, danger, peril, jeopardy, safety etc.) or the words denoting distinguished ontological features of the situation of risk (uncertainty, choice, chance, possibility of gains and losses) were used as the topical and nominative markers of the situation of risk. The data were taken from authentic sources including corpora (Contemporary American English COCA and Santa Barbara Corpus SBC), the fragments of literary (72 text pieces, total amount of 7215 words, gathered from the 2000-2018 British and American novels) and media (Internet publications concerning risk gathered in 2007-2020 - personal narratives where stances on risk were manifested verbally (45 personal narratives, total amount 6352 words); (2) expert reports and journalist analytical pieces concerning various risks (63 articles, total amount 60 140 words) discourse.

The next step consisted in analyazing discursive dynamics of stancetaking behaviour in the communicative situation of risk (CSR) with the main focus on its cognitive and pragmatic specificity. The methods, used in this stage, allowed embracing of both subjective and intersubjective nature of stancetaking. First of all, based upon the method of ethnographic speech behavior by Hymes (“ethnography of speaking” - Hymes, 1972) the main components of the English communicative situation of risk were distinguished and systematized. Methodology of mental spaces by J. Fauconnier (Fauconnier, 1994) was used for linguistic-cognitive analysis of the stancetaking dynamics approached as the process of decision making in CSR.

Pragmatic and interactional components of stancetaking in CSR were studied by means of sociolinguistic methods of conversation analysis (Sacks, 1992; Schegloff, 1999), interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz, 2003; Linell, 2009), and interpersonal pragmatics (Arundale, 2013; Locher, 2010). Adjacency pair served a unit for analysis at this stage. Besides, method of dialogic syntax (Du Bois, 2010) was used for determining and visualizing the interactionality of stancetaking. And finally, the tools of Membership Categorization Analysis (Sacks, 1992; Schegloff, 2007) served the purposes of analyzing situational distribution of communicative roles stance-takers may fulfill in CSR and, thus, enabled defining typical contextual identities constructed in CSR as a result of stancetaking.

In the following stage of the study, socio-semiotic and pragma-rhetorical features of stancetaking in the MSR were analyzed. Since stance is a discursive construct, respresenting a stance-taker's attitude towards the object of stancetaking, based upon its epistemic and affective evaluation, a complex discourse analysis of stancetaking in MSC was carried out according to the following scheme: (1) first of all epistemic and affective components of stancetaking in MSR were analyzed; (2) based upon this analysis types of collective identities were distinguished; (3) stancetaking strategies used in MSR were determined and analyzed. Correspondingly, methodology of narrative discourse analysis (Benwell, & Stokoe, 2006; Swan, & Linehan, 2001) and integrated methodology of critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1998; Wodak, & Meyer, 2009) were used to disclose the socio-semiotic potential of stancetaking in metacommunicative situation of risk.

Results and discussion

Stancetaking is a complex discursive activity which can be seen as a “semiotic production” (Silverstein 2005, p. 6), engaging numerous participants, variable resources (language including), and different levels of social organization. While taking their stances, the speakers simultaneously are engaged in the multiplex and elaborate discursive interaction that inevitably involves discussion of opposing views, adjustment of contrasting ideas, and conforming to conflicting ideologies.

Stancetaking in communicative situation of risk: cognitive, pragmatic, and interactional perspectives Stancetaking in the CSR is both a mono-subjective and a multi-subjective discursive activity, carried out in interaction of speakers that presumably have different social statuses and fulfill different communicative roles. Let me demonstrate the course of the immediate stance-taking activity in a communicative situation of risk on the example of conversational interaction taken from the work of modern American fiction, serving a literary simulation of real discursive actions:

(1) Si: Mercado sips his beer andfrowns. ”I don't know. Sounds awfully risky.

S2: "It is, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. For a fee."

S1: ”I don't know. I'll have to think about it."

S2: "It's no sweat for you, Mickey. Except for the cash. "

S1: "How much?"

S2: "A hundred grand."

S1: "That'spretty steep."

S2: "It'll take four men."

S1: "That's a lot of money."

S2: "You want him dead or not?"

S1: "I'll think about it." (Grisham, 2019, p. 375).

Participants of the given communicative situation are two criminals named Mercado (S1 - subject1) and Mikey (S2 - subject2). Their occupation as well as the equality of their social statuses define the general tonality (Halliday, 1985), conversational structure (Hymes, 1972) of the described communicative situation, and specificity of the deployed linguistic resources (e.g., the use of elliptical sentences, abundance of slangy expressions no sweat, grand, pretty steep). The object of stance-taking (O) can be defined as “risk of committing a murder”, though it remains unknown to the reader until it is mentioned at the very end of the dialogue. Instead of direct nomination, the reference to risk as the object of the communicants' stance-taking is realized through the indexical pronoun “it”. Mercado's (S1) intention (RISK AIM) is to persuade Mickey to take the risk. While Mickey (S2) sees it as the RISK SOURCE. Consequently, the stances of two interlocutors on the same problem are different - S2 takes a “pro-risk” stance, while S1 takes an “anti-risk” one. A negative evaluation of the possible risky actions is articulated by S1 in his stance-expressing comment “I don't know. Sounds awfully risky” where the explicit evaluative judgment “awfully risky” is introduced by the epistemic statement with uncertain modality “I don't know”. S2 expresses his stance in a stance-aligning utterance “It is. But it's a risk I'm willing to take” where “It is” serves the purpose of interactional alignment with the previous turn, and expresses his apparent consent with his interlocutor's stance. The statement manifesting S2's stance is found in the next sentence; it begins with the contradictory particle “but” and an explicit declaration of his pro-risk stance "But it's a risk I'm willing to take”, enhanced by the addition in a parceled construction “For a fee ”.

Analysis of this conversational exchange illustrates that the act of discursive stancetaking comprises the actions of stance construing, stance perceiving, stance evaluation and stance alignment. Together these actions lead to self- and mutual identification. This proves both inherent subjectivity and intersubjectivity of stancetaking. Discursively manifested stances reflect not only the interlocutors' individual views and positions but pose their reactions to previously uttered words or fulfilled actions. They also demonstrate the level of agreement / disagreement and accommodation / non-accommodation, resulting in alignment / disalignment of their stances.

Stancetaking in CSR as a mono-subjective activity. Stance-taking in CSR consists in speakers' tendency to take comparable stances and, as a result, to construct distinctive personal identities (risk-taking / risk-averse) in resembling situations of communication. As it were, stances comprise epistemic and affective components where epistemic express information about the origin of the speaker's knowledge concerning the object of stance-taking (evidentiality) as well as the subjective reflexivity of the current situational context (modality). Affective components indicate the speaker's emotions, feelings, assessments, and attitudes towards the stance object and towards other communicative participants and their stances.

Linguistic and cognitive features of stancetaking in CSR are inseparably connected with its hypothetical nature. Therefore, the dynamics of its development was reconstructed with the help of mental spaces analysis (Fauconnier, 1994). Mental spaces are assemblies constructed as we think and talk, for purposes of local understanding and action. They are structured by frames and cognitive models. Mental spaces are connected to long-term schematic knowledge, such as the schemas (scenarios) of a situation of risk, a university lecture or a birthday party, and they are constructed and modified with the unfolding and processing of thought and discourse.

Due to the prognostic essence of statements in the situation of risk, epistemic stance stipulates the problematic nature of judgments based not so much on the knowledge or experience as on hypothetical presumptions (Figure 1). Conditional connectives “if” and “when” or prepositional phrases such as “in case of” serve as space-builders for hypothetical mental spaces. The linguistic formulation of discursive actions in the given fragment allows tracing the dynamics of stance-taking in CSR:

“If [space-builder] you help me,” he [pro-risk subject = stance subject x] said, “I'll make it worth the risk. ”

“Yes, you will,” I [anti-risk subject = stance subject y] said. “But what happens if [space-builder] I decide not to get involved? ”

“They'll come after us, ” he said.

He shook his head, “Can't take that chance. ” (Zandri, 2019, p.121).

The first statement in this exchange sets out a frame about a possible action in which at least two people are involved: `x wants y to do something thaty does not like '. From our pre-existing and prestructured background cultural knowledge we can make an assumption about the situational frame of this piece as well as about the roles of its participants as they are highlighted in it (the riskwilling speaker x and the risk-averse speaker y).

Figure 1. Reconstruction of mental spaces development in CSR

Default information is linked to the frame of communicative situation of risk and presents the base mental space (BS) (Figure 1) containing elements * and y associated with two interlocutors - subjects of stance-taking - discussing the topic of “risk” as the object of their stance-taking discursive activities. Presumably, these elements have been linked to other frames by background knowledge and previous meaning construction in the conversation. Through the space-builder if the same sentence also sets up two more mental spaces, which I call “expectation spaces” - ES1 and ES2 as there are two possible ways of the expected situation development: y either takes the risk, or refuses from it (“If [space-builder]you help me, ” he [pro-risksubject = stance subjectx] said “I'll make it worth the risk. ”).

A new sentence sets up new mental spaces: the stance-taker y acknowledges her interlocutor's pro-risk stance “Yes, you will” (stance alignment) but then questions the benefits of their possible future actions, implying the consequences of risk-averse behavior (“But what happens if [space- builder] I decide not to get involved?”'). By this, the speaker constructs two new mental spaces (hypothetical spaces HSi i HS2), through the question what happens? and the following space- builder if. One of these mental spaces (HS1) contains eventual refusal from the potential risky action (I decide not to get involved), while the other one (HS2), though not verbalized, implies her possible consent to take a risk. The risk-averse stance taken by the stance-subject y in the given CSR is expressed in the negative grammatical construction Can't take that chance, which sets out another mental space - decision space DS. As decision spaces usually have an ambiguous and prognostic character, verbalization of stances concerning decisions in the CSR is often found in the statements denoting uncertain or future actions.

Due to the inherent uncertainty and probabilistic nature of the situation of risk, pragmatic specificity of affective stance-taking in the CSR is determined not only by its hypothetical essence but also by its axiological bipolarity. Hence, the emotions that typically accompany the stance-taking speech activity of the CSR participants can be positive (contentment, joy, enthusiasm, fervor) as well as negative (fear, anxiety, disappointment, anger), which influences their decisions on risk. E. g.:

I shuffle through some papers. I examine a brochure from a rival office-construction company. [...] Then, at last, my pulse beating quickly, I find the little key on his key ring. I stare at it for a moment, thinking: Do I really want to do this? Do I really want to risk? [...] But I'm here, I'm on a mission. At last swiftly, I bend down and unlock his secret desk drawer, my hand trembling so much that I have to try three times. (Kinsella 2018: 293).

“As he crossed the landing and slipped up the stairs he felt the thrilling rush of adrenaline that always came to him when he was about to do a job. " (Follet 1992: 54).

In fragment (3), the emotions of the risk-taker are described as utterly perturbing, causing corresponding bodily reactions: my pulse beating quickly, my hand trembling. Such perceptual counteraction of one's organism is characteristic for the emotions of anxiety and fear a person may experience at the moment of running a risk. In fragment (4), similarly, the affective reaction of a risk-taker at the moment of committing a risky action is pictured, but the emotional coloring of his body's somatic answer is opposite to the former one: he felt the thrilling rush of adrenaline that always came to him when he was about to do a job. His feelings are described as quite enjoyable (thrilling) and well-known to a risk-taker who characteristically enjoys the "rush of adrenaline”. He obviously is familiar with them from his previous experience, which is expressed by means of always - an adverb denoting regularity of the action.

Therefore, stance-taking in the CSR is characterized by hypothetical epistemic and bipolar affective assessment, conversationally verbalized in stance-takers' interaction and influencing their decisions. Correlation of modality and evidentiality versus emotions and affect in the process of cognitive-linguistic structuring of stances in the CRS are constitutive for constructing corresponding situational identities, varying from the risk-averse subjects to risk-lovers (including such diverse varieties as cautious or cowardly subjects, prudent and rational risk-takers, noble heroes, gamblers, and adrenalin seekers).

Interactionality of stancetaking in CSR

Another important feature of stancetaking is its interactional nature known as stance alignment (Du Bois, 2007). This analytical framework sheds light on the interactional complexity of stancetaking as a multi-party process.

It was discovered that alignment in CSR can be either consonant (concordant, harmonious, compatible) or dissonant (conflict, non-harmonious, disagreeing). Linguistic expression of consonant stances is based on similar epistemic and affective evaluations of the situation, while verbalization of dissonant stances, on the contrary, represents discordant evaluations, divergent views and clashing tastes. The situational identities can be changed in the process of discursive interaction when two or more opposing stances encounter. For instance, a new stance may appear or a subordinate stance becomes a dominant one. Speech behavior of the communication partners is conditioned by their interaction environment. Interrelation of stance alignment and surrounding context influences linguistic and cognitive dynamics of stancetaking, motivating creation of new interactional circumstances that, in its turn, influence further speech behavior of all the communication participants. Thereafter, an interaction in the situation of risk can be held either as a concerted / persuasive cooperation or as a persuasive / coercive conflict.

The following interactional discursive mechanisms are used by the interlocutors for alignment of their stances: recirculation, feedback, indexical involvement and emotional resonance. These mechanisms have reverse causal and recurrent nature. To illustrate the recurrence of stancetaking we used the “lamination” metaphor by Ch. Goodwin (Goodwin, 2013, p. 9). “Laminated” structure of stancetaking means that stance is a conversationally multi-layered construct enabling a variety of speech actions in the process of its discursive construction and re-construction: repetitions, corrections, questions etc.). All of these speech operations in Goodwin's terms facilitate certain conversational complementation (“adding”, “gluing”, “lamination”) of new stances (“layers”) to already existing ones. Laminated structure is fairly “transparent” which allows “seeing” all the layers through. While layering, stances transform, though stay “readable” and interpretable, e.g.:

[SSi] “Yes, I know it's revenge, and I even figured out what that stupid name on my Canadian passport means. No wonder you wouldn't tell me the name on the phone. I mean, my God - Zeus Rache - how did we come up with that?” [conversational turn 1] [SS2]: “David was looking directly at him. “Abe, we didn't come up with that name. I did. I'm sorry you don't like it.” [conversational turn 2]

: “I'm Czech, remember, and from Sudenland. So, I speak German. I know that “susse rache” means sweet revenge. Couldn't you come up with a better name? And what makes you so goddamn angry that you'd risk it all now? You are risking your friends and_ family, too.” [conversational turn 3]

: “I probably should have let you participate in the decision, but it's too late now, I'm sorry.” [conversational turn 4] (Brandin, 2009, p. 103).

Conversational exchange in the above fragment consists of four turns. Participants of this dialogue (SS1 i SS2 - stance subjects) are discussing the risks of the planned revenge. They are quite aware of the possible losses (you'd risk it all now; you are risking your friends and family) in case they decide to take a risk. Their stances are dissonant, and their interaction is emotionally intensive “persuasive conflict”: one speaker (SS1) takes an anti-risk stance, while the other one (SS2) is pro-risk. The object of discussion (and, thus, of stancetaking) is the name “Zeus Rache”, translated from German as “sweet revenge” (susse rache). This is the name given to one of the participants, Abe, in his Canadian passport, against his will or wish. Abe is a stance-taker who is risk-resilient (SS1). Risky subject (SS2), however, not only verbalizes his stance concerning the Abe's pseudo (we didn't come up with that name. I did) but he also shows his understanding of his interlocutor's affective stance (I'm sorry you don't like it), further explicates his own emotions and awareness of his guilt (I'm sorry) for taking a non-collegial pro-risk decision, which excluded Abe's opinion (I probably should have let you participate in the decision, but it's too late now, I'm sorry). This exchange is an illustration of inherent interactionality of stance and the operation of the emotional resonance mechanism in the process of stance alignment.

In his utterance in turn1 SS1 informs about his epistemic stance using the verb to know - “Yes, I know it's revenge”. He expresses his dissatisfaction by the pseudonym, involuntarily assigned to him: he uses derogatory epithet stupid and demonstrative pronoun that that fulfills the iconic function of deictic estrangement - “that stupid name” The reader only finds out about the hidden meaning later, implied in stylistic antonomasia, used in the speaker's utterance manifesting his epistemic stance: “I know that “susse rache” means sweet revenge”. Besides, spelling out the implications of the borrowing, the speaker refers to risk as an object of stance-taking. He makes it prominent by means of repeated and varied mentions: that stupid name; you wouldn't tell me the name; Zeus Rache, which can be interpreted as an accentuating tactic, a discursive tool for putting the speaker's stance through to the interlocutor, drawing his attention to the problems which are important for the stance-taker. Numerous markers of epistemic stance (I know, I figured it out, I mean, no wonder) used by Abe, are linguistic means of assertive modality demonstrating his certainty in his own righteousness. Abe (SSi) aligns his stance with his partner's stance by means of yes, a pragmatic marker of conversational concurrence. Fulfilling a responsive function, yes is a tool of feedback mechanism of discursive interaction. It not only unites preceding and succeeding turns in a wholesale coherent discursive structure consisting of the speakers' conversational reactions to each other's utterances, but it also signifies the ability of an antecedent utterance to generate the contents of the subsequent one.

In conversational turns2,3 SS2 attempts to persuade SS1 in the righteousness and total safety of his stance concerning the name choice. To do so he uses interactional mechanism of recirculation - repetitive use of stance-constructing language resources. This mechanism is actualized in discourse by means of securing the conversational (Schegloff, 1999), or discursive (Jaffe, 2009) coherence, appearing as a lexical and grammatical cohesion (Halliday, 1985), repetitions, and syntactical parallelism.

Let me illustrate the agency of recirculation mechanism with the help of “diagraph” (Du Bois, 2010) - a graphical means for dialogue transcription:

The given diagraph shows that SS2 uses almost exactly the same words as his interlocutor. He even repeats the syntactic structure, adding only a pronominal address Abe and a noun object name. Thus, the speaker re-uses certain elements from the previous utterance, or recirculates it. The words “How did we come up with that?" are updated by (a) grammatical negation didn't, fulfilling the pragmatic function of disagreement and (b) affirmative remark I did in which inclusive pronoun we is purposefully substituted by an exclusive I. As a result, the “recirculated” utterance gets a new meaning, which leads to constructing a completely different stance.

Besides, in the original text “we” and “I” are highlighted by italics - a graphical means of reproduction of oral intonation emphasizing in a written text. Contraposition of these personal pronouns is treated as an exertion of the interactive mechanism of indexical involvement: on the background of nearly full recirculation of lexical and grammatical linguistic resources only the elements indexing the actual performer of the discussed action (I vs we) are changed. Usually, the mechanism of indexical involvement is realized through speakers' marking of their conversational roles “speaker - listener” (by means of the personal pronouns I, you, we etc.), their social statuses (by means of the address terms, titles and formulas (Mr., Mrs. etc.; forms of reference - he, they, his mom, my friend etc.; proper names), as well as spatial and temporal deixis (by means of demonstrative pronouns, articles, geographical names, and lexis denoting time).

Therefore, interactional mechanisms of stancetaking are engaged in transformation of the communicative partners' stances. At the same time, in the process of discursive interaction, the original situational identities of communicants remain unique and recognizable. However, while accumulating (“laminating”), transformed stances provide speakers with new knowledge not only about each other but also about the surrounding world, correspondingly influencing the process of self- and other-identification.

Stancetaking in metacommunicative situation of risk: socio-semiotic and pragma-rhetorical perspectives

The specificity of stancetaking in metacommunicative situation of risk is framed by the pattern of speakers' engagement in this situation - instead of immediate interaction with other participants in CSR, they inform about earlier taken stances in the ex situ conditions of MSR in their personal narratives, editorials and/or expert accounts / articles, published in media. In fact, the object of stancetaking in MSR is one of the components of CSR that took place before. Such a complex design of stancetaking in metacommunicative situation of risk presupposes multilayered structure of its spatio-temporal parameters. According to Michael Silverstein (2005, p. 6), what actually happens is that people use language and perilinguistic semiotics on particular occasions of discursive interaction; however, such usage on any particular occasion bears the potential relationship to discourse on some other occasion or occasions in a phenomenally different spatio-temporal envelope. This in effect draws two or more discursive occasions together within the same chronotopic frame, across which discourse seems to “move ” from originary to secondary occasion, no matter whether “backward” or “forward” in orientation within the frame.

In other words, MSR is chronotopically inhomogeneous discursive event uniting several occasions, enveloped in different spatio-temporal “coating”. Therefore, stancetaking in MSR is an activity of a meta-discursive character, and manifested stances are meta-discursively premeditated. Communicants do not take their decisions on risks directly, instead they inform of them with a greater or lesser certainty (epistemic stance) as well as with greater or lesser emotionality (affective stancetaking) (Ushchyna, 2014; 2015) ulteriorly. E.g.:

“I'm 100 % convinced that regular cell phone use constitutes serious, long term and even short term health risks and dangers simply because there is too much science conducted by the brightest and the least-financially invested in these technologies to suggest otherwise” (Cohen, 2011).

“I'm not sure, but recent developments suggest the world's increasing use of the internet could be affecting more than just the part of the brain relied on for memory” (Cohen, 2011: comment_Clarke).

In sentence (6), the author informs about his stance on the risk of mobile phones with a high degree of confidence and self-assurance (I'm 100 % convinced that cell phones constitute serious, long term health risks). In sentence (7), the stance-taker is doubting the validity of his own statement concerning the risk of Internet use (I'm not sure, but [...] the world's increasing use of the internet could be affecting [...] the brain), thus, acknowledging his insufficient epistemic status (Heritage, 2012) in a given discourse situation.

Linguistic formulation of stances in MSR greatly depends on the type of text (personal narrative, expert report, or journalistic article) in which stance subjects construct their collective situational identities. They also build upon circumstances of communication, including the author's wish and need to advocate his / her right to possess the information or alternately to disassociate himself / herself from it.

Giving their accounts of former risk-taking experience in personal narratives published online, the stance-takers usually construct lay identities (lay - non-expert, non-specialist in a given area). He / she lives in a space of public discursive practices that can be seen as the area where various discourses, stances, subjects and their identities meet, where individual and social stretches of human existence intersect. Discursive subjectivity of a personal narrative presumes explicit author self-identification which makes stancetaking in it highly subjective and emotional, e. g.:

We are being called to jeopardize our own health and safety to treat our community. It is disgusting. I wish more attention would be given to us on the front lines and the situation we face. We live in the richest country in the world and yet we don't have the tools to perform our job safely. This virus is terrifying. (Lee, 2020)

The fragment above is taken from the personal story of a nurse working with COVID-19 patients in one of California hospitals. Her stance on risk is not verbalized explicitly. She is taking her daily risk not because she is willing to do so but because of her professional duties. Being a RISK SUBJECT she still avoids marking her personal agency in this forced risk-taking event, mentioning her passive role in it (the use of an inclusive we and a passive grammatical construction We are being called to jeopardize our own health and safety to treat our community). The speaker's “own health and safety' is framed as the RISK OBJECT, while coronavirus, derogatorily marked by means of deictic `this', is portrayed as a SOURCE OF THREAT (This virus is terrifying). She sees herself and her colleagues as VICTIMS of risk and the country's authorities (though only implied in a statement “We live in the richest country in the world and yet we don't have the tools to perform our job safely') as the offender. Instead of manifesting her stance on risk, the speaker expresses her stance towards the very act of “being made to take the risk" in an emotionally colored evaluative statement “It is disgusting”. Affective component is predominant in her discursive structuring of stance, while her epistemic stance is formulated only vaguely. Her stance is the stance of a person who not only understands the dangers of her job, but also is aware of who is to blame for it.

In expert discourse, though, the epistemic component of stance becomes more prominent. Instead of emotions, the authors of expert articles focus their attention on pointing out their expert knowledge and high epistemic competence in certain areas of expertise, e.g.:

The estimated economic cost of risk-related disorders in 2001 in Germany was about EUR 3000 million. These data prove that new solutions for OSH have to be developed in order to adequately manage the changes in the world of work. The need to identify and anticipate emerging risks related to occupational safety and health has been emphasized on several occasions at the European level (Brun, 2007, p. 13).

The above fragment was taken from the expert report concerning risks associated with occupational safety. One can find numerous linguistic markers of the author's high epistemic status (e.g. references to research data these data prove that; numbers EUR 3000 million; technical abbreviations OSH) and linguistic competence (e.g. complex syntactic structures, abundant use of terms economic cost, risk-related disorders, occupational safety). At the same time, in this piece of discourse, we have not found even a single marker of affective stance. Taken together, these features indicate the positive correlation between stancetaking in MSR and the level of subjectivity. In expert articles and reports, where the author is not personally involved into the described situation, the level of subjectivity is rather low and stancetaking is predominantly epistemic. Therefore, expert identity, constructed in mediated risk discourse consists of non-affective, non-emotional, or “faceless” stances.

Constructing mediators' identities in analytical articles about risks, journalists not only represent their stances on given problems but they also fulfill their important social function - being a linking rink between experts (government, politicians, researchers) and lay citizens (general, ordinary public). They advise their readers on matters of risk, warn them about possible hazards, help them find appropriate decisions, criticize the stances of other journalists and experts. Having access to wide audiences, mediators also get a special role in society: publicly proclaiming their stances, they influence the process of meaning-making, and so become agents of social semiosis.

Regardless general societal requirements to journalistic impartiality, media people often cannot escape emotional statements and judgmental evaluations, e.g.:

Fears about health risks rose dramatically in Japan on Tuesday with the news of a greater radiation release and renewed warnings to remaining residents within 20 miles to stay indoors. Thyroid cancer is the most immediate risk of radiation and the Japanese government made plans to distribute potassium iodine pills to prevent it (Marchione, 2011).