Taking a stance on : , sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction*

JOHN W. DU BOIS and ELISE KÄRKKÄINEN

Abstract

This paper explores the domain of affect and emotion as they arise in interac- tion, from the perspective of stance, sequence, and dialogicality. We seek to frame the issue of affective display as part of a larger concern with how co- participants in interaction construct the socioaffective and sociocognitive ­relations that organize their intersubjectivity, via collaborative practices of stance taking. We draw mainly on two research traditions, conversation analy- sis and the dialogic turn in sociocultural linguistics, focusing on their treat- ments of affect, emotion, and intersubjectivity. Key ideas from the respective approaches are the role of sequence in shaping the realization and interpreta- tion of stance, and dialogic resonance as a process of alignment between sub- sequent stances. We present a view of stance as a triplex act, achieved through overt communicative means, in which participants evaluate something, and thereby position themselves, and thereby align with co-participants in interac- tion. Alignment is argued to operate as a continuous variable rather than a dichotomy, as participants subtly monitor and modulate the “stance differen- tial” between them, while often maintaining a strategic ambiguity. Finally, we comment on the rich contributions to the study of stance, affect, and inter- subjectivity in interaction made by the collaborators in this special issue.

Keywords: emotion; affect; display; expression; sequence; stance; stance triangle; resonance; dialogicality; alignment; intersubjectivity; interaction.

1. Introduction

Emotion, or at least the potential for emotion, is everywhere in social life; it is just hard to talk about it. Some would elevate this difficulty to the level of an obstacle or even a proscription: one must not talk about feelings, affect,

1860–7330/12/0032–0433 Text & Talk 32–4 (2012), pp. 433 – 451 Online 1860–7349 DOI 10.1515/text-2012-0021 © Walter de Gruyter Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM 434 John W. Du Bois and Elise Kärkkäinen , it is all just so hard. This could be the plea of a private individual, or the intellectual positioning of a scholar imposing limits on permissible inquiry. The problem is: when something of consequence happens in social life, emo- tion is never very far away. The awareness that conversational co-participants share — that the way events unfold in the sequence of interaction can give rise to emotion — can influence the choice of actions, words, and bodily comport- ment even in moments that appear devoid of remarkable expressive display. Emotion makes its presence felt, whether strongly or subtly, directly or indi- rectly, on multiple levels in social life. Emotion can be a motivator of goals and projects of social actors; a trigger of social action; a factor in framing the inter- actional agenda for as long as the emotion persists; and a determinant of con- sequences that remain when all has been said and done. This observation does not make it any easier to capture what emotion is, or how it works, or why it matters. It just acknowledges the reality that emotion is in principle present in interaction, at least as a potentiality via its projectable consequences on many levels. We might hope that demurring to “affect” instead of emotion, or even to just the “display” of affect, would make things easier. But the challenges of this fraught domain remain. The display of emotion — or affect — can vary from blatant to subtle to unspoken, or anything in between. We find ourselves back to the initial problem: Emotion, affect, and their displays are all hard to talk about, albeit in different ways. The question is: what are we going to do about it? For more and more scholars, silence is no longer an option. The position that one can never know what another is feeling makes for a fine display of philo- sophical skepticism, but by the test of pragmatic action it bears little relation to how people actually live their personal lives, how they react to their own lived experience. Even less does it do justice to our empathic response to the visible, audible, tangible feelings of others. If someone cries out in pain before us, we do not have to ask whether we believe in emotion: we know it when we see it; indeed we feel it bodily. Any lingering intellectual doubts are belied by how we react, and how fast. Affect is measurable, not only by machines but by the most sensitive detector of all for emotion, affect, and other embodied realizations of subjectivity: a human being (Thompson 2001, 2007; Hobson 2006; J. A. Hobson et al. 2009; R. P. Hobson et al. 2012). Affective skepticism may one day be recognized as akin to the philosophical stance of epistemic skepticism which purports to doubt the possibility of knowing the reality of anything at all, even the perceived existence of a world in which we ourselves think, feel, and act — a conceit long since consigned by Moore (1925) and Wittgenstein (1969) to the dustbin of once-potent preoccupations of philosophical specula- tion. Emotion is difficult, to be sure, but its surrogates and kin — affect, feeling, and their expression and display — can be no less challenging. If we want to understand the powerful engines of social life (Enfield and Levinson 2006),

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM Taking a stance on emotion 435 then emotion, affect, and the rest must be in the mix. At the initial stages of inquiry, we may feel more comfortable to speak of the seemingly more man- ageable proxies known as affect displays. This is a reasonable starting posi- tion, and one that is methodologically more accessible to students of naturally occurring interaction. But there is no evading the suspicion that we have ­already entered the territory of emotion. How then are we to navigate the domain of affect, emotion, and intersubjec- tivity in interaction? There are many possible ways to proceed; ours is to try to combine the insights of two research traditions that have concerned themselves with naturally occurring face-to-face interaction, but are only recently finding themselves increasingly concerned with questions of emotion and affect. In the discussion below, we will draw on the sequential perspective of conversation analysis (Schegloff 2007) and the dialogic perspective of Bakhtin (1981 [1934]) and Voloshinov (1973 [1929]); see also Linell (2009) and Du Bois (forthcoming). From both traditions we will draw on their treatment of stance to forge a unifying framework well suited to the task at hand (Bucholtz 2009; Clift 2000, 2006; Du Bois 2007, 2009, 2011; Goodwin and Goodwin 1992; M. H. Goodwin 2006a, 2006b; C. Goodwin 2007; Haddington 2006; Heritage and Raymond 2005; Johnstone 2007; Kärkkäinen 2003, 2006, 2007; Lempert 2008; Local and Walker 2008).

2. Displaying affect in interaction

According to one popular formulation, affect can be seen as involving the overt expression of emotion in communicative context. While emotion has in the past sometimes been thought of as belonging to an essentially private domain of subjectivity originating deep within the psyche of the individual (for cri- tique, see Goffman 1978, Du Bois 2009), the present approach treats affect as crucially involving public display to others within a context of social interac- tion. According to the perspective of the “expressive function” of language, indexical cues represent a significant part of the overt realization of affect ­(Jakobson 1990 [1957]; Silverstein 1976; Gumperz 1992; Ochs 1996; Ochs and Schieffelin 1989; Jürgens et al. 2011). Indexical cues for affect may include multimodal features such as intonation, prosody, voice quality, , body posture, and other signs (Banse and Scherer 1996; Besnier 1993; Selting 1996; Haddington 2006; Maynard 1993; Günthner 1997; Shoaps 1999; Wichmann 2000; Rampton 2006). Combining indexicality with stance theory yields a more dynamic understanding of the practices through which social actors constitute sociocultural constructs, such as identity and epistemic authority (Bucholtz 2009; Clift 2000, 2006; Heritage and Raymond 2005; Lempert 2008; Johnstone 2007; Haviland 1991).

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM 436 John W. Du Bois and Elise Kärkkäinen

One scholar who has not shied away from frankly acknowledging a role for — albeit a circumscribed one — is Golato (2012). Based on a collection of 73 tokens of the German response particle oh in conversa- tion, Golato argues that

[ . . . ] German speakers use oh not only as a marker of surprise, as argued in prior ­research, but as a change-of-state token that signals an emotional change-of-state in general. The emotions that are expressed can either be positive or negative and can ­occur in all positions [ . . . ]. (Golato 2012)

Golato makes the important observation that the use of German oh differs from that of English oh in a striking way. Where English speakers (as documented by Heritage 1984, 2002) mark a “change of state” with oh, German speakers distinguish between affective and epistemic states, expressing a change of ­affective state with oh, and a change of epistemic state (e.g., upon receipt of news) with ach. Though Golato does not pursue this, one could say that from the perspective of German, English collapses the two functions of change in epistemic and change in affective self-positioning, subsuming both under a single generalized rubric. Golato goes on to link the expression of emotion to the idea of stance, articulating a concept of emotional stance:

In all instances in the collection, an oh-prefaced turn communicates an emotional stance of the speaker, such as joy, , physical pain, unhappiness, disgust, etc. I argue that in German, oh serves as a vehicle for embodying and expressing the emotion felt by the speaker. This emotion is not reported on, but instead is portrayed as being expe- rienced at the moment when the oh is uttered. (Golato 2012) Especially noteworthy here are two related observations: the timing of the ­expressed emotion is said to be coterminous with the utterance of the particle; and the particle does not report or describe, but is said to portray. Putting the two together, we might surmise that the verbalization of the oh particle is somehow linked more closely to the lived experience. (Golato cautiously frames this relation as a “portrayal,” but also speaks of oh as a “vehicle for embodying” the expressed emotion.) It must be said that the idea of stance is presented without comment, and is not developed further. This leaves room to contemplate what might be gained by adopting a more developed framework for the analysis of stance, a topic we will return to below. Conversation analytic approaches often situate affect within an interactional and even a quasi-theatrical perspective, where agents are said to perform dis- plays of affect. Here, emphasis is laid on the facultative actions of social actors,­ who strategically manage a repertoire of available emotional or affective dis- plays. This view was argued strongly by Goffman in an influential paper (1978), and has since become a staple of the analysis of affect by students of interaction (Jefferson 1988; Selting 1996; Günthner 1997; Fiehler 2002; Sand-

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM Taking a stance on emotion 437 lund 2004; M. H. Goodwin 2006a, 2006b; C. Goodwin 2007; Local and Walker 2008; Couper-Kuhlen 2009; Golato 2012; Reber 2012). As Golato puts it,

I have argued that there is a certain performative element to [German] oh in that with the production of an oh, the emotion is presented as “experienced at that moment.” The phrasing “presented as experienced at that moment” is vital here as no claims are being made that the producer of an oh actually felt this emotion at the time of production. Instead, an oh is a response cry with a social function (Goffman 1978) that serves to display emotion. (Golato 2012; emphasis in original)

It is not clear how the interpretation of mere “display” here is to be reconciled with the apparent depth of embodiment, as reflected in Golato’s insight that German oh is a “vehicle for embodying” emotion. As noted above, the agnostic stance begs the question of how deeply the emotion may be embodied and ­indeed observably felt, and whether observable consequences may flow from the felt experience of embodied emotion that might override one’s imagined choice of whether or not to display a certain kind of affect. Interesting as it is, we must leave this problem unresolved, as we are not now in a position to ­address it effectively. For the present we must take the path of Goffman and later authors, to speak of emotion or affect in terms of display. In treat- ing affect as a display that can be mobilized by participants, we set aside the question of whether or not such display is to be taken as revealing “authentic” emotion. One major trend in conversation analytic research is the recent upsurge of interactional studies of stance (Goodwin and Goodwin 1992; C. Goodwin 2000; Golato 2012; Reber 2012; see Wu [2004: Ch. 1] and Keisanen [2006: Ch. 4] for good summaries). Viewing the design of the current turn as an inter- actional achievement, we can identify four areas of special interest within the turn construction process: (i) sequential positioning, (ii) syntactic design, (iii) lexical choice, and (iv) prosodic manifestation. As Wu observes, this body of work does not primarily aim at identifying (or classifying) linguistic markers of stance, nor does it treat stance as the product of a single individual speaker, but instead approaches stance “as an emergent product which is shaped by, and itself shapes, the unfolding development of interaction” (Wu 2004: 3). Since evaluation is tied to affect, stance taking in the here-and-now of inter- action serves to link affect to aspects of ideological systems and their expres- sions, including language, , body practices, rhetoric, socialization, prior text, arts, aesthetic artifacts, and more (Ochs 1996; Ochs and Schieffelin 1989; Clancy 1999; Shoaps 1999; Sarangi 2003; Goodwin 2006a; Du Bois 2009, 2011). A number of recent studies of stance include as an essential component the visuo-spatial modality (, facial expressions, gaze, body posture, etc.) and increasingly also the objects and artifacts which participate in practi- cal actions, taking their place alongside the environment of talk. Goodwin and

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM 438 John W. Du Bois and Elise Kärkkäinen

Goodwin (2000: 37) propose that “affect is lodged within embodied sequences of action.” The sense of situated embodiment here implies the coming together of multiple aspects of action, as made explicit by Wu: Like all other human actions, the displaying of a stance commonly requires the si­ multaneous deployment of a multiplicity of linguistic (and non-linguistic) resources, such as the lexical, syntactic, prosodic and sequential aspects of a turn design. (Wu 2004: 19) It is safe to say that even though stance has not in the past been a regular focus of research in conversation analysis, it is more and more becoming one, nota- bly in the work of Goodwin and Goodwin (Goodwin and Goodwin 1992, 2000; M. H. Goodwin 2006a, 2006b; C. Goodwin 2007) and in many other authors as well (Clift 2000, 2006; Wu 2004; Kärkkäinen 2003, 2006, 2007; Hadding- ton 2006; Keisanen 2006; Local and Walker 2008; Golato 2012; Reber 2012). As researchers more and more bring together the twin challenges of affect and stance, the disciplinary activity we survey here proves to be at the forefront of new research in the field.

3. Where stance comes in

How important, and how pervasive, is stance? And what can it bring, if any- thing, to the study of emotion and affect display? In line with a growing num- ber of researchers, we find it useful to pursue the view that every utterance in interaction contributes to the enactment of stance, even if this stance is only evoked and not explicitly spelled out (Ducrot 1984; Du Bois 2007; Martin 2003). Whenever we engage in interaction, we are taking stances: there is never a time out from the social action of taking stances and adopting posi- tions. In the same way, participants attend to the “omnirelevance” (Schegloff 1995) of the potential for stance, affect, and even emotion as a joint achieve- ment. Affect is integrated with stance in myriad ways, and even where it is not overtly marked in an obvious way it may still be oriented to as interaction- ally relevant — by its dispreferred absence, if nothing else. We see stance and affect as closely related phenomena which interact and overlap in a variety of ways. One view of the relation between affect and stance is that affect is one among several types of stance (Ochs 1996), where “stance” is used as a superordinate term to subsume a set encompassing affective stance, epistemic stance, and others. Such an approach is implicit in the definition given by Wu: “[S]tance” is referred to as a speaker’s indication of how he or she knows about, is commenting on, or is taking an affective or other position toward the person or matter being addressed. (Wu 2004: 3)

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM Taking a stance on emotion 439

Wu’s description amounts to a disjunctive definition, i.e., a listing of several alternative types of stance. But the disjunctive approach has its limitations. It is difficult to know how long the list should be, where it should stop, and, most importantly, what it can tell us about the general character of the phenomenon in question. What is it that unifies this particular set of actions into a coherent category called stance? An alternative to disjunctive definition is to seek a prototype definition, which offers the possibility of capturing a more holistic, unifying characteriza- tion. The definition proposed by Du Bois (2007) specifies a conjunction of prototypical features of stance as social action: Stance is a public act by a social actor, achieved dialogically through overt commu­ nicative means, of simultaneously evaluating objects, positioning subjects (self and others), and aligning with other subjects, with respect to any salient dimension of the sociocultural field. (Du Bois 2007: 163) This approach defines the stance act by conjoining features to characterize the prototype. Applied to the domain of emotion, the participant’s expression of affect can itself be considered an act of taking a stance. In the “stance triangle” model (Du Bois 2007), the prototypical stance act is characterized as consist- ing of three subsidiary acts: 1. The subject evaluates an object. What gets evaluated by the speaking subject is thereby constituted as the object of the present stance. The object of stance may be a thing, a person, a situation, an utterance, even another participant’s stance. In the context of affect, the object of evaluation (object of stance) is what a person expresses an overt emotional reaction to, or displays an affective orientation toward. The affect display is itself the expression of evaluation. How can we evaluate this interpretation? Its merit can be tested in the ap- plicability of the stance triangle as a framework for the practical analysis of participants’ affect displays. For example, we note that when participants show affect in public, they give evidence of knowing that their affect is supposed to be about something. Indeed they will be held interactionally accountable for their affect being demonstrably orientable to some aspect of their lived experi- ence. This is in line with a conclusion that was drawn by Goffman (1978), who argued that response cries present an element of public display, even theatrical- ity, in which a social actor must show that her expressive display is about something, such as a crack in a sidewalk that would engender first a problem, then an expressive response. In our terms, affect requires a stance object — what the affective response is presented as observably oriented to. This affective stance object can be anything or anyone that participants express an emotional orientation toward (things, persons, situations, actions, and so on). Its reality is confirmed by the fact that one’s interlocutors will look for it if they do not im- mediately see what it is.

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM 440 John W. Du Bois and Elise Kärkkäinen

2. The subject positions a subject. The speaking subject typically positions herself, via the very act of taking a stance. By invoking a specific evaluation toward some stance object, the subject in effect shows herself to be the kind of person who would make that kind of evaluation about that kind of thing. (Sometimes, however, it is someone else who gets positioned — the addressee or even a third party.) In the context of affect, the positioned subject is the one who makes the affect display — who presents herself as taking a particular af- fective orientation toward a specific stance object. Positioning often occurs as an indirect consequence of overtly evaluating an object, which is made possi- ble by the fact that stances are typically taken within a known “stance field” — a social force field constituted by the history of stances taken, then and now, yielding a sequential and dialogic layering of participants’ positions.

3. The subject aligns with other subjects. By taking a stance in the public space of interaction, that is, by entering the stance field, one finds that one’s own stance is inevitably compared and contrasted with the stances of co-present others. At the most basic level, alignment simply means a “lining up,” that is, a mapping of elements in one stanced utterance onto parallel elements in ­another stanced utterance (Du Bois forthcoming). The first consequence of alignment is simply to highlight the similarities and differences in positioning and evaluation, constituting the basis for what is interpretable as a “stance dif- ferential” (Du Bois 2007). In the context of affect, alignment means that as empathic co-participants we line up our affective stances, assessing the nature of the relation between my feelings and yours about the shared object of our affective orientation. We take stock of the affective stance differential. Alignment thus becomes key to a more dynamic understanding of inter­ subjectivity as dialogically constructed in interaction. Alignment is not to be collapsed with agreement or affiliation, nor should it be treated as binary or dichotomous ( you’re either with me or you’re against me). Alignment becomes a subtly nuanced domain of social action, in which speakers negotiate along a continuous scale the precise nature of the relation between their presently realized stance and a prior stance, whether overtly expressed or left implicit by another. Participants deploy subtle and often elusive signals to articulate the complex and highly variable mapping of the stance–alignment relation. The exact nature of this alignment is in any case often left implicit by co- participants,­ and it is scarcely the business of analysts to impose a specious clarity on such cases. This would negate the participants’ careful wrought achievement of strategic ambiguity. Alignment in this sense, whether it is ­labeled convergent or divergent,1 becomes a key dimension of the social con- struction of intersubjectivity. On this view, intersubjectivity is dynamically constructed in real-time interaction out of the actualized realizations of the subjectivities that participants put on display, via the taking of stances. Inter-

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM Taking a stance on emotion 441 subjectivity is no longer about an attempt, presumably futile, to enforce a ­hegemonic sameness on everyone in a conversation or a community (Rorty 1980). Intersubjectivity presupposes not commonality, but simple commensu- rability (Du Bois 2007). This opens up a space to acknowledge the reality that stances are open to contestation in interaction, as are the very values they ­invoke. The approach to stance as a triplex act linking evaluation, positioning, and alignment is dialogic to the extent that it targets processes of distributed action, calibration and co-construction between the stances taken by successive speak- ers. Intersubjective alignment becomes an integral part of every act of evalua- tion and positioning, though it most often remains implicit, left for participants to infer from a comparison of the several evaluations made in sequence. The measure of the dialogic perspective’s utility lies in its effectiveness in account- ing for how participants respond to a prior speaker’s stance with a stance of their own. The resulting sequence of stance displays juxtaposed across turns is interpreted by participants as defining a dialogic resonance (Du Bois 2007, forthcoming; Du Bois et al. forthcoming) of stances to each other, through which detailed correspondences are established between analogous portions of the sequenced stances. These correspondences contribute to shaping the emer- gent meaning of each stance in the sequence. Each individual’s act of taking a stance becomes in effect a form of distributed action, to the extent that it ­depends not only on the current speaker but also on the interlocutors who take stances that engage with it across successive turns. This methodological criterion unites the perspective of dialogicality with that of sequentiality in conversation analysis. Such an approach is adopted by Kärkkäinen (2006), who elaborates on the essentially intersubjective nature of stance, calling attention to the fact that stances often emerge as a result of joint engagement in stance taking. She also discusses the necessary implications of this for linguistic research: the inventory of linguistic resources used now expands to include syntactic, semantic, and prosodic resonances between con- tributions and stance acts by different speakers (on resonance, see Du Bois 2007, forthcoming; Du Bois et al. forthcoming). The dialogic-sequential ap- proach combines the examination of turn-sequential and dialogic dimensions of social action, ultimately offering new opportunities to work toward a unified and coherent picture of stance. The micro-level analysis of sequential interaction can be further contextual- ized within a larger social perspective, bridging across the two levels: Stance can be approached as a linguistically articulated form of social action whose meaning is to be construed within the broader scope of language, interaction, and socio- cultural value. Setting the problem in this way brings into play several aspects of lan- guage in interaction. As we seek the theoretical resources needed to account for the achievement of stance, we find ourselves faced with a complex web of interconnections

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM 442 John W. Du Bois and Elise Kärkkäinen linking stance with dialogicality, intersubjectivity, the social actors who jointly enact stance, and the mediating frameworks of linguistic structure and sociocultural value they invoke in doing so. (Du Bois 2007: 139–140)

This interest in the consequences of stance for social constructs at the macro- level of social organization is prominent in another line of stance-related ­research on attitudes and evaluation, that of discursive (Edwards and Potter 1993; Potter and Wetherell 1987, 1988; Potter 1998). Where does affect then fit into the stance picture? By attending closely to the role of affect in stance taking, we can begin to build a detailed picture of the interactional construction of emotional life as a socially situated phe- nomenon. The analysis of stance displays relies first and foremost on the ­participants’ orientation toward, and interpretation of, the trajectories of talk and unfolding action, as distinct from the analysts’ orientations to the same. While one common approach compartmentalizes affect by treating it as a sepa- rate type of stance (Wu 2004), we seek a more encompassing approach, seeing affect as a pervasive presence in the field of stance, constituting an always- imminent potential.­ On this view, affect is in principle relevant to any act of stance taking, though this potential may not always be realized in a direct way. Even in its seeming absence, affect can be interpreted as stance-relevant. This is one way to understand the case of negative evaluations of “flat affect,” where participants may attend to and respond to the “noticeable absence” of expected (or projected) affect. Similarly, the argument can be made that so-called “neu- tral” affect may be performed as a kind of stance (or at least a stance-relevant move), one that may be actively cultivated in certain kinds of discourse prac- tice (Biber and Finegan 1989; Hunston and Thompson 2000), such as scien- tific prose (Halliday and Martin 1993), while being rejected as censurable in others. One problem that remains is to account for how any given stance, while clearly a locally occasioned and articulated achievement, may in addition be understood as relating to more distant expressions of stance. In some circum- stances at least, a stance can remain relevant over longer sequences of interac- tion, such as a sequence of stories, which may even be told as part of a recur- ring encounter over several days. The availability of a prior stance as a reference point can extend beyond the current face-to-face engagement to include endur- ing sociocultural constructs such as story rounds (Maarit Siromaa, this issue), allusions, quotes, proverbs, rituals, films, theatrical (re-)enactments, rules, laws, and other prior texts. We have emphasized the structure of stance taking as an activity jointly oriented to by conversational co-participants, involving coordination beyond the current turn and even beyond adjacent turns. The im- plications extend still further, as one can claim that stance “both derives from and has consequences for social actors, whose lives are impacted by the stances

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM Taking a stance on emotion 443 they and others take” (Du Bois 2007: 141). The exploration of stance as a ­motivating framework and as consequential for broader aspects of linguistic and sociocultural structure is in line with the concern of Ochs (1996) to show how affective and epistemic stances serve as central meaning components not only of momentary social acts but also of more enduring social constructs such as social identities.

4. Orientation of the special issue

This special issue of Text and Talk builds on and complements two earlier well- acknowledged special issues of this journal, one on the pragmatics of affect (Text 9 [1], 1989) edited by Elinor Ochs (1989), and the other on social per- spectives on evaluation (Text 23 [2], 2003) edited by Mary Macken-Horarik and James R. Martin (2003). Since we consider evaluation to be a central com- ponent of stance, we see the current special issue as uniting the concerns previ- ously targeted by Ochs and by Macken-Horarik and Martin. In focusing on stance, affect, and intersubjectivity, we seek to further develop their theoretical implications, with the aim to capture new insights about the nature of each phenomenon in its own right, and to explore the ways in which each intimately interacts with the other. This special issue locates stance, affect, and intersubjectivity within a larger research orientation which draws on two major theoretical perspectives that have been applied to the use of language in interactional contexts, the sequen- tial and dialogic perspectives.2 The sequential perspective is closely linked to conversation analysis (CA), where it has supplied a consistent framework for integrating a wide variety of actions that participants achieve in and through turn-taking, including displays of stance and affect, and the interactional achievement of intersubjectivity. The second methodological strand is sup- plied by the dialogic perspective (Voloshinov 1973 [1929]; Bakhtin 1981 [1934], 1993, 1995); see Linell (2009) for a valuable survey. Dialogicality in one form or another has been influential in the emerging field of sociocultural linguistics (Bucholtz and Hall 2005; Du Bois 2009, 2011) and in the associated fields of linguistic anthropology, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, rheto- ric, literature, and others. Dialogicality deals with the ways in which the words of the current speaker engage with the words of others who have spoken before, in ways that generate observable consequences for the production of discourse, the interpretation of situated meaning, and the collaborative con- struction of intersubjectivity. The sequential and dialogic perspectives pursued in this work share an insis- tence on going beyond the overt lexical and syntactic indices of stance to ­encompass linguistic and interactional phenomena not hitherto conceived of

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM 444 John W. Du Bois and Elise Kärkkäinen as indexing stance, including those which are located in the interactional space where relations arise between turns, between utterances, between the evalua- tions and positionings of co-participants. The present work emphasizes the constitutive role of sequential position and dialogic resonance in shaping the recognition and interpretation of stance. It is only in sequential context that a given linguistic pattern or practice can be interpreted as indexing a particular stance. In line with one of the cornerstones of conversation analysis, stance is seen as contributing to social action, becoming an inevitable part of action formation. The treatment of stance as emergent is also characteristic of the dia- logic perspective as applied to interaction, providing further motivation for linking conversation analytic and dialogic perspectives in this special issue. Though the sequential and dialogic perspectives on interaction have often been pursued separately in the past, they effectively complement each other, and offer great potential for mutual contributions in the future. This potential can be seen in the work of several of the contributors to this special issue (Ritva Laury, Liisa Tainio, Maarit Siromaa), who combine them to good effect, gain- ing more insight than either perspective would afford on its own. Most of the papers in this special issue foreground the importance of se- quential position and sequential design in one way or another, pointing to their consequences for some combination of stance, affect, and intersubjectivity. Those situated specifically within a conversation analysis framework include the papers by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Liisa Tainio, and Elise Kärkkäinen. Couper-Kuhlen discusses the sequentially third turn, i.e., affect displays in ­response to rejections of requests or proposals; Tainio similarly examines how teachers in the third turn repeat and imitate prosodically marked student ­answers; Kärkkäinen focuses on the practice of inserting a stance within an extended turn, where such inserts may be indexing stance explicitly (through lexical cues) or only by virtue of their sequential position. In a second major line of inquiry, several papers explore and develop the perspective of dialogicality as one of the foundational themes for the special issue, most importantly the papers by Ritva Laury and Maarit Siromaa. Laury’s paper combines sequential design and dialogicality in examining the use of one grammatical construction, extraposition, in Finnish conversation, to do assess- ments at points of transition. Siromaa investigates a particularly clear case of dialogicality, involving the constitution of dialogic resonance between parallel elements in first and second conversational stories as a resource for inter­ subjectivity in stance taking. Finally, the role of alignment in articulating con- vergence and divergence between participants’ stances is explored by several papers (Laury, Tainio, Siromaa). Several of the papers in the present issue extend the treatment of stance, ­affect, and intersubjectivity beyond the level of the lexical and syntactic ele- ments (words and grammatical constructions) to encompass prosodic dimen-

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM Taking a stance on emotion 445 sions. The papers by Couper-Kuhlen, Kärkkäinen, Tainio, and Siromaa attend to the role of prosody in marking either the realization of stance or its struc- tural organization. Others go beyond this to situate the actions that achieve stance and affect within larger sequences of embodied actions; the idea that stance and affect represent embodied practices is prominent in the papers by Kärkkäinen and Tainio. These papers can be viewed as part of a new turn to take up the challenge of long-neglected aspects of interaction such as embodiment and emotion (Goodwin and Goodwin 2000; M. H. Goodwin 2006a; C. Goodwin 2007). ­Accompanying this larger trend, stance is increasingly being put into focus in conversation studies. A growing body of stance research draws from conversa- tion analysis, interactional linguistics, and other fields of inquiry informed by conversation analysis, as well as sociocultural linguistics and the dialogic perspective.

5. Conclusions

In this paper we have explored the domain of affect and emotion as they arise in interaction, from the perspective of stance, sequence, and dialogicality. We frame the issue of affective display as part of a larger concern with how co- participants in interaction construct the socioaffective and sociocognitive rela- tions that organize their intersubjectivity, via collaborative practices of stance taking. We draw mainly on two research traditions, conversation analysis and the dialogic turn in sociocultural linguistics, focusing on their treatments of affect, emotion, and intersubjectivity. Key ideas from the respective ap- proaches are the role of sequence in shaping the realization and interpretation of stance, and dialogic resonance as a process of alignment between subse- quent stances. We believe that the combined perspectives we have argued for will help us to take important, if preliminary, steps on the way to meeting the intellectual challenge of taking a stance on emotion. Sometimes the first step is a side step, and that strategy will become evident here, in the preference for framing the problem of emotion in terms of displays of affect. This is a methodological move we can live with, as we work toward the next level of understanding of the interrelation of affect and emotion, of feelings and stances, of surface be- havioral displays and deep embodiment, of the individual social actor and the engaged interlocutors, of the verbal description of emotion and the empathic experience of embodied primary intersubjectivity. We are only too keenly aware of the hidden dangers of a cryptic mind–body dualism that threatens to engulf any seemingly safe talk of “displays” of emotion or affect. (Just who is the homunculus doing the displaying, and what does her face look like when

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM 446 John W. Du Bois and Elise Kärkkäinen she is “doing” it?) At some point it will be necessary for research on the social construction of intersubjectivity to bridge the gap between deeply embodied emotion and the public face of what we like to call face-to-face interaction. But these are enduring challenges that will be with us for a long time. In the mean- time we focus on what we can accomplish today, and we have a lot we can work with right now. In this enterprise, the role of stance can be pivotal — once it is situated, as argued here, within the sequential and dialogic perspectives — in providing a theoretical and analytical foundation for future explorations of affect and emotion. We present a view of stance as a triplex act, achieved through overt com- municative means, in which participants evaluate something, and thereby posi- tion themselves, and thereby align with co-participants in interaction. Applied to the domain of emotion, we argue that the expression of affect is itself an act of taking a stance, a claim whose merit is tested in the practical applicability of the stance triangle model to the analysis of instances of the display of affect. We observe that when participants display affect, it is supposed to be about something, and indeed participants are held interactionally accountable for their affect being demonstrably orientable to something. This something is the affective stance object, which can be anything or anyone that participants can express an emotional orientation toward. At the same time, in the very act of invoking a specific affective evaluation toward some stance object, partici- pants position themselves as the kind of person who would make that kind of evaluation about that kind of thing. The third side of the stance triangle comes into play in alignment, which at its most basic is simply a “lining up” of one person’s stance with that of another, taking stock of the parallels and differ- ences in form, meaning, and affective value. Alignment is argued to operate as a continuous variable rather than a dichotomy, as participants subtly monitor and modulate the “stance differential” between them, while often maintaining a strategic ambiguity that does not lend itself to a binary interpretation. The themes raised in the title of this special issue are broad, and no one can provide a definitive treatment of all these matters within the space available. Instead, each author here carves out some salient portion of the problem. Taken together, the papers manage to shed light on the enduring questions of affect, stance, and intersubjectivity, and to take steps toward an understanding of emotion that will be better grounded in the sequential dynamics of dialogic action in social life. We hope to have opened a path toward investigating stance, affect, and intersubjectivity as a unified domain, one that calls for inte- grated treatment within an extended interactional framing. We develop in ­tandem the methodological and analytical implications of the perspectives of sequential design and dialogicality. While the contributions in this special ­issue take a variety of starting points representing a diverse array of approaches to the phenomenon, they are linked by a shared concern with the dynamics

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM Taking a stance on emotion 447 of naturally occurring interaction. Together they present a rich panorama of current research on stance, affect, and intersubjectivity from an interactional perspective. We offer it as an initial contribution to the bigger questions that await us.

Notes

* The authors are grateful for support for their international collaboration from the Academy of Finland and the Emil Aaltonen Foundation, for the project on Interactional Practices and Lin- guistic Resources of Stance Taking in Spoken English (http://www.ekl.oulu.fi/stance/). This generous support made possible the development of the research on stance and affect that is the basis for this article. Moreover, this funding also made possible the larger collaborative effort involving a long-distance group of traveling researchers (Elise Kärkkäinen, John Du Bois, Pentti Haddington, Tiina Keisanen, Mirka Rauniomaa) who spent substantial time at both the University of Oulu and the University of California, Santa Barbara, interacting and collaborating in profound ways to develop the ideas that underlie much of the work in this special issue. 1. What we call divergent alignment is often referred to as “disalignment,” a term we reject as dichotomizing. In contrast, alignment in our sense is analyzed as continuously variable. De- grees of divergent alignment, as well as of convergent alignment, are recognized. 2. Several of the contributions in this special issue were originally presented at the Fifth Finnish Seminar on Conversation Studies, on the theme, “Locating stance and affect in conversation: From syntax to prosody to embodiment” (University of Oulu, 2006).

References

Bakhtin, M. M. 1981 [1934]. The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. 1993. Toward a philosophy of the act. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. 1995. The hero’s monologic discourse and narrational discourse in Doestoevsky’s short novels. In S. Dentith (ed.), Bakhtinian thought, an introductory reader, 157–194. London: Routledge. Banse, R. & K. R. Scherer. 1996. Acoustic profiles in vocal emotion expression. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology 70(3). 614 – 636. Besnier, N. 1993. Reported speech and affect on Nukulaelae atoll. In J. H. Hill & J. T. Irvine (eds.), Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse, 161–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D. & E. Finegan. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9(1). 93–124. Bucholtz, M. 2009. From stance to style: Gender, interaction, and indexicality in Mexican immi- grant youth slang. In A. Jaffe (ed.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on stance, 146 –170. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bucholtz, M. & K. Hall. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Dis- course Studies 7(4/5). 585– 614. Clancy, P. M. 1999. The socialization of affect in Japanese mother–child conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 31(11). 1397–1421.

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM 448 John W. Du Bois and Elise Kärkkäinen

Clift, R. 2000. Stance-taking in reported speech. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 32. Uni- versity of Essex. Clift, R. 2006. Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Socio- linguistics 10(5). 569–595. Couper-Kuhlen, E. 2009. A sequential approach to affect: The case of “disappointment”. In M. Haakana, M. Laakso & J. Lindström (eds.), Talk in interaction — Comparative dimensions, 94 –123. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Du Bois, J. W. 2007. The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Du Bois, J. W. 2009. Interior dialogues: The co-voicing of ritual in solitude. In G. Senft & E. B. Basso (eds.), Ritual , 317–340. Oxford: Berg. Du Bois, J. W. 2011. Co-opting intersubjectivity: Dialogic rhetoric of the self. In C. Meyer & F. Girke (eds.), The rhetorical emergence of culture, 52–83. Oxford: Berghahn. Du Bois, J. W. Forthcoming. Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics. Du Bois, J. W., R. P. Hobson & J. A. Hobson. Forthcoming. Dialogic resonance and intersubjective engagement in autism. Cognitive Linguistics. Ducrot, O. 1984. Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit. Edwards, D. & J. Potter. 1993. Language and causation: A discursive action model of description and attribution. Psychological Review 100(1). 23– 41. Enfield, N. J. & S. C. Levinson (eds.). 2006. Roots of human sociality: Culture, and ­interaction. Oxford: Berg. Fiehler, R. 2002. How to do emotions with words: in conversation. In S. R. Fussell (ed.), The verbal communication of emotions: Interdisciplinary perspectives, 79–106. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Goffman, E. 1978. Response cries. Language 54(4). 787–815. Golato, A. 2012. German oh: Marking an emotional change-of-state. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45. Goodwin, C. 2000. Action and embodiment with situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmat- ics 32(10). 1489–1522. Goodwin, C. 2007. Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society 18(1). 53–73. Goodwin, C. & M. H. Goodwin. 1992. Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 147– 190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, M. H. 2006a. The hidden life of girls: Games of stance, status, and exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell. Goodwin, M. H. 2006b. Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response se- quences. Text and Talk 26(4/5). 513–542. Goodwin, M. H. & C. Goodwin. 2000. Emotion within situated activity. In N. Budwig, I. Uzgiris & J. Wertsch (eds.), Communication: An arena of development, 33–53. Stamford, CT: Ablex. Gumperz, J. J. 1992. Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Günthner, S. 1997. The contextualization of affect in reported dialogues. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (eds.), The language of emotions: Conceptualization, expression, and theoretical foundation, 247–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haddington, P. 2006. The organization of gaze and assessments as resources for stance taking. Text and Talk 26(3). 281–328. Halliday, M. A. K. & J. R. Martin (eds.). 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer.

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM Taking a stance on emotion 449

Haviland, J. B. 1991. “Sure, sure”: Evidence and affect. Text 9(1). 27– 68. Heritage, J. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkin- son & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J. 2002. Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/ disagreement. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox & S. A. Thompson (eds.), The language of turn and se- quence, 196 –224. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heritage, J. & G. Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1). 15–38. Hobson, J. A., R. Harris, R. García-Pérez & R. P. Hobson. 2009. Anticipatory concern: A study in autism. Developmental Science 12(2). 249–263. Hobson, R. P. 2006. From feeling to thinking (through others). In D. D. Hutto (ed.), Radical enac- tivism: Intentionality, phenomenology and narrative. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hobson, R. P., J. A. Hobson, R. García-Pérez & J. W. Du Bois. 2012. Dialogic linkage and reso- nance in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Hunston, S. & G. Thompson. 2000. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jakobson, R. 1990 [1957]. Shifters and verbal categories. In L. R. Waugh & M. Monville-Burston (eds.), On language: Roman Jakobson, 386 –392. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jefferson, G. 1988. On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems 35(4). 418– 441. Johnstone, B. 2007. Linking identity and dialect through stancetaking. In R. Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 49– 68. Amsterdam: John ­Benjamins. Jürgens, R., K. Hammerschmidt & J. Fischer. 2011. Authentic and play-acted vocal emotion ­expressions reveal acoustic differences. Frontiers in Emotion Science 2. http://www.frontiersin. org/emotion_science/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00180/full. Kärkkäinen, E. 2003. Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kärkkäinen, E. 2006. Stance-taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text and 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: John Benjamins. Keisanen, T. 2006. Patterns of stance taking: Negative yes/no interrogatives and tag questions in American English conversation (Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B Humaniora 71). Oulu: Oulu University Press. Lempert, M. 2008. The poetics of stance: Text-metricality, epistemicity, interaction. Language in Society 37(4). 569–592. Linell, P. 2009. Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Local, J. & G. Walker. 2008. Stance and affect in conversation: On the interplay of sequential and phonetic resources. Text and Talk 28(7). 723–747. Macken-Horarik, M. & J. R. Martin (eds.). 2003. Negotiating heteroglossia: Social perspectives on evaluation. [Special issue]. Text 23. Martin, J. R. 2003. Introduction. Text 23(2). 171–181. Maynard, S. K. 1993. Discourse modality: Subjectivity, emotion and voice in the Japanese lan- guage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Moore, G. E. 1925. A defense of common sense. In J. H. Muirhead (ed.), Contemporary British philosophy, 192–233. London: Allen & Unwin.

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM 450 John W. Du Bois and Elise Kärkkäinen

Ochs, E. 1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 407– 437. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (ed.). 1989. The pragmatics of affect. [Special issue]. Text 9. Ochs, E. & B. B. Schieffelin. 1989. Language has a heart. Text 9(1). 7–25. Potter, J. 1998. Discursive social psychology: From attitudes to evaluative practices. European Review of Social Psychology 9(1). 233–266. Potter, J. & M. Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behav- iour. London: Sage. Potter, J. & M. Wetherell. 1988. Accomplishing attitudes: Fact and evaluation in racist discourse. Text 8(1/2). 51– 68. Rampton, B. 2006. Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban high school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reber, E. 2012. Affectivity in interaction: Sound objects in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rorty, R. 1980. From epistemology to hermeneutics. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Oxford: Blackwell. Sandlund, E. 2004. Feeling by doing. The social organization of everyday emotions in academic talk-in-interactio (Karlstad University Studies 36). Karlstad: Universitetstryckeriet dissertation. Sarangi, S. 2003. Editorial: Evaluating evaluative language. Text 23(2). 165–170. Schegloff, E. A. 1995. Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(3). 185–211. Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Selting, M. 1996. Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called “astonished” questions in repair initiation. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (eds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies, 231–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shoaps, R. A. 1999. The many voices of Rush Limbaugh: The use of transposition in constructing a rhetoric of common sense. Text 19(3). 399– 437. Silverstein, M. 1976. Shifters, verbal categories, and cultural description. In K. H. Basso & H. Selby (eds.), Meaning in anthropology, 11–55. Albuquerque: School of American Research. Thompson, E. 2001. and consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8(5–7). 1–32. Thompson, E. 2007. Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Voloshinov, V. N. 1973 [1929]. Marxism and the philosophy of language. New York: Seminar Press. Wichmann, A. 2000. The attitudinal effects of prosody, and how they relate to emotion. In R. Cowie, E. Douglas-Cowie & M. Schröder (eds.), Proceedings, ISCA workshop on speech and emotion: Developing a conceptual framework, 143–147. Newcastle, N. Ireland: Textflow. Wittgenstein, L. 1969. On certainty. Oxford: Blackwell. Wu, R.-J. R. 2004. Stance in talk: A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. Amster- dam: John Benjamins.

John W. Du Bois is Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. A spe- cialist in discourse and sociocultural linguistics, his work centers on the relation between form and function in language, encompassing broadly the linguistic integration of connections among mean- ing, grammar, prosody, interaction, cognition, culture, and action. Publications include “The stance triangle” (2007), Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function (Benjamins, 2003), and the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English (Linguistic Data Consortium, 2000 –2005). Address for correspondence: Linguistics Department, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA 〈[email protected]〉.

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM Taking a stance on emotion 451

Elise Kärkkäinen is University Lecturer in English Philology, based at the University of Oulu. Her research has dealt with different aspects of conversational English, especially modality, preferred argument structure, stance taking, and multimodal analysis of recurrent conversational action for- mats. She is the author of Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interac- tional Functions, with a Focus on I think (2003, Benjamins) and has directed a research project entitled Interactional Practices and Linguistic Resources of Stance-taking in Spoken English (http://www.ekl.oulu.fi/stance/). Address for correspondence: English Philology, Faculty of Hu- manities, Box 1000, 90014 University of Oulu, Finland 〈[email protected]〉.

Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM Brought to you by | Marshall University Libraries Authenticated | 206.212.0.156 Download Date | 8/13/13 5:14 PM 本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络，仅供学习交流使用。

学霸图书馆（www.xuebalib.com）是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源，

提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP 图书馆。 图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研，提供最强文献下载服务。

图书馆导航：

图书馆首页 文献云下载 图书馆入口 外文数据库大全 疑难文献辅助工具