Abstract
A conversation between the individuals not only discloses the exchange of information but also divulges other aspects of personalities of the partners. One of the most important revelations is the attitude of the people towards their partner. The utterances of the conversational associates clearly indicate the comfort level in the relation. By doing a discourse analysis, one can easily find out the behavioural pattern of the participants, as indicated by the stance indicators.
Introduction (Stance and Stance Indicators)
Stance is the attitude displayed by the speaker towards the topic of conversation in a particular situation. By carefully examining a talk, stance is expressed by certain characteristics known as stance indicators. These indicators could be anything -the words uttered, gestures made or the style of speaking of the concerned people.
I selected this topic because it deals with the very important aspect of the personality- attitude. If the attitude of the person towards others is known, then it is very easy to find the deepness of the relation shared with other individuals. The stance also reveals whether the speaker is rigid or accommodative, selfish or sacrificial, timid or dominating, caring or neglectful etc. In short, a broader perspective of the people’s mental outlook unfolds with the help of stance analysis.
Stance indicators enabled me to discover the stance shown by the participants. The words uttered by the speakers clearly signal the position they enjoy in the heart of their partners. They can be in a commanding position or at the receiving end during the exchange. They can be serious or casual in the conversation. They can be direct or sceptical in their revelations. They can be formal or informal in their dialogue. Thus, a clear picture about the stand taken by the speaker emerges with the clues provided by the stance indicators.
There are several stance indicators pointing towards the identity of the people involved in the conversation. Prominent among them are: friendly or hostile, interested or indifferent, marked language or unmarked language, credible or sceptical. Many conversations point towards a dominant stance of friendliness or hostility. This becomes evident with the selection of words and other gestures. A blunt refusal can be easily interpreted as the indifferent attitude while ready acceptance or, at least willingness to accept, signals the friendly nature. Another perceptible stance is the involvement in the talks. It is indicated by the profound interest-positive or negative- shown by the participants with the volume of their voice, facial expression, body gestures, keenness to know from the other partner etc. The greater amount of involvement exhibited by the partners shows either their rapport or disgust. On the contrary, if the response is weak and indifferent, it clearly shows the coldness of attitude.
The third stance indicator is about the credibility of the other partner. When the credibility based on the past experience is negative, the listener doubts the thoughts expressed by the speaker, whereas positive credibility fetches immediate acceptability. A person of integrity can easily convince his folks while the arguments of a person with disreputable background are outright rejected by the listeners.
The fourth type of stance indicator is the marked and unmarked form of language used in the exchange of thoughts. If the speaker assumes that the listener has the knowledge at certain expected level, then the unmarked form is used. The conversation between the people of the same trade is the example of this form. Marked form is preferred when the listener is considered to be a novice and every detail needs to be explained for better comprehension. The layman’s language is often facilitated by the marked form.
Research Questions- How is the line of thinking of the communicators expressed during a conversation? What kind of relation do the communicators share with each other? Is the conversation an outcome of the events occurred in the past? What is the level of the knowledge of the participants? Do they have similar temperament?
Analysis Section
Me: What do you think about this? (I’m showing her a picture of a sneaker)
Mia:I don’t like it.
Mia: [Are you hungry?]
Me: U：：m Yes,$ I’m waiting for you to cook for me.$
Mia: Go cook yourself.
Me: Ple:ase:, I’m tired.
Mia: What do want for dinner?
Me: U:m I don’t think there are a lot of options depending on what do you have in the freezer.
Preview- This is the conversation of a couple whose male member is ‘Me’ and female is ‘Mia’. Though the partners share the same place, their likes are different, resulting in frequent disagreements. There is also an open defiance on the part of one partner.
Analysis- Me is completely involved in the conversation and this clear by the fact that he is trying to show a picture to Mia. Mia has a different taste compared to her partner as per turn 2. She is least interested in the conversation as evident from her responses. She responds only when it is essential to deny or defy something. At one point of time Mia does show some momentary care by asking Me if he is hungry (turn 3). However, when Me wants Mia to cook something for him, Mia becomes hostile and says “cook yourself”. During the conversation, Mia’s attitude is cold and uncooperative as most of her replies are direct and sharp. Me’s attitude in the conversation is submissive as he doesn’t argue for meeting his need. Thus relation is tilted more towards Mia who is happy to dominate. Mia relents for a while in the turn 7 but by then Me has given up hopes for a hot dinner. This is clearly proved by the turn 8 where Me admits that he has limited options for dinner. In brief, the stance shown by Mia is hostile and indifferent and Me gives the impression of being compliant and passive.
Excerpt 2
Me: Do you think I’m getting a little allergy on my face? (0.4) It’s itch=.
Mia: You look all right. Relax .
Me: Maybe I eat too much seafood this weekend.
Mia: hh::uh So don’t get the tuna when you order the sandwich.
Me: I know. I’m gonna take a pill.
Mia: You don’t have to eat medicine every time! They are not good for you buddy.
Me: Just in case. You sound like my mom.
Preview-This excerpt clearly points that the character Me is unduly conscious about his appearance and health. Mia, however, rejects his apprehension and assures him that everything is fine.
Analysis- The excerpt starts with a self-doubt Me has about an allergy on his face, caused by itching. He asks Mia who advises Me to stay relaxed as there is nothing unusual on his face (turn 2) . Despite assurance, Me thinks that the overeating of seafood might have caused the allergy and wants to take a pill to nullify the bad effect. Mia again is sceptical about the intention of Me and completely rejects the thought of having the medicine. She responds saying that “you don’t have to eat medicine every time” (Turn 6). Me, on the other hand, reposes complete faith in Mia. This is obvious when he says “You sound like my mom” (turn 7). The stance shown by Mia and Me is scepticism and reliance respectively.
Excerpt 3
Me: I’m checking Kanye West’s new album.
Mia: [Look how cute this puppy is]
Me: Un::h==
Mia: $I want to hug them so bad.$
Me: hhhh== U:hm
Mia: You are not paying attention at all.
Me: What you say?
Mia: >You are pissing me off.
Preview- This excerpt shows the divergent tendencies of the couple. Me is lost in checking a new album whereas Mia wants to hug a puppy. Failed to get a response from Me, Mia ends up getting annoyed.
Analysis- In the beginning, Me is excited about the new album of Kanye West. He is unmindful of what Mia is saying (turn 1). Perhaps, he is least bothered about the Mia’s preferences at that time. His utterance in the turn 3 indicates that he doesn’t want to be disturbed by Mia. On the other hand, Mia, being his partner, wants Me to prefer her to the album. When she finds that two of her appeals (turn 2 and 4) haven’t evoked any response, she starts accusing Me of ignoring her (turn 6). Then suddenly Me gets out of his obsession and, as per turn 7, wants to know the reason for Mia’s displeasure. By then Mia was already upset and she becomes blunt in her response when she blames Me for her anger (turn 8). There is a tug of war happening in this conversation. The stance of Me that comes out is the lack of interest in the conversation, as suggested by his initial utterances (turn 3 and 5). Only when Mia throws the blame, he wakes up to respond. Mia is very much involved in the conversation but for the negative reason. Having failed to draw Me’s attention, she uses the tool of blame to pull Me from his engrossment (turn 8). Mia clamours for the attention that Me is unwilling to part with. Therefore, Mia is showing the involvement with her negative moves while Me tries to stay unaffected.
Excerpt 4
Mia: I want to live next to the China Town. So we can walk up there to get all the foods
Mia: It’s your call. Just book one with the fair price.
Me: How about Sheraton?
Mia: We should try those Air BNB. I heard they are really popular right now and the price is really good==
Mia: Um==It’s other people’s home but I still think it's pretty cool.
Preview- There is a discussion going on between Mia and Me for the place of stay to celebrate the Valentine Day. In this excerpt, Mia uses a name that appears completely strange to Me.
Analysis-In this excerpt, Mia is excited about the Valentine Day celebration at an exotic place next to China Town (Turn 1). In turn 2, Mia gives the freedom to Me to book a hotel at a reasonable price (Turn 2). This shows that she is a price conscious person. When Me asks about the choice, she prefers a place called Air BNB (Turn 4). Now, Me is totally confused about the name. He does not know that it is the name of a website that arranges the accommodation as an alternative to the hotel rooms. Naturally, he replies in an uncertain manner and wants to confirm whether it is a hotel or the people’s house (turn 5). Mia had to clarify that it is the people’s home and not the hotel’s accommodation (turn 6). The confusion in this excerpt arose because of the use of the term completely unknown to Me. Mia assumed that Me would be aware of the name, only to clarify the same later. Therefore, Mia used an unmarked language that acts as a communication gap.
Discussion Section
The microanalysis of the discourse reveals the hidden aspects of the personality and presents a broad picture of the speaker’s behavioural inclinations. Every excerpt that was analysed uncovered a big secret about the personalities of both the partners. The analysis discloses the minute details of the relation shared by the partners. It becomes obvious, after the analysis, that Mia is more confident, firm and wise. Me, the other partner, behaves as an obedient partner. He needs the reassurance of Mia even to believe himself. He is dependent on his partner for most of the things. Naturally, Mia is the decision maker. She takes the correct decision in the interest of her partner.
The first conversation unveils the dominating characteristic of Mia. It appears that she has scant regard for the wellbeing of her partner. However, the subsequent conversation establishes other important aspects of her personalities. Second excerpt provides the proof of the caring nature of Mia and she knows well about the fickle nature of her partner. Consequently, she stops him from doing anything unwanted. Her partner Me also accepts the wisdom of Mia and abides by her. Perhaps, this is the reason, despite the divergent views, there is no clash of ego found in the relation. Deprived of the due attention of Me she deserves, Mia does react, occasionally, and tries to pull the string towards her. This is visible in the form of emotional outbursts in one of the dialogue, which acts as a deterrent to Me. Later, he falls in line and offers the Valentine Day’s celebration. Mia is also a price conscious person and tries to save money for her family, wherever there is a scope. That is the reason she suggests the option of Air BNB for their outstation stay.
The overall picture that emerges out of the series of the conversations is that the couple shares a relation with many twists and turns. One partner is dependent on other, who furthers the relation with much prudence. Except few hiccups of emotional reaction, the relation moves smoothly without confrontation.
