Sociolinguistics 2016
DOI: 10.1017/cbo9781107449787.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Indexicality, stance and fields in sociolinguistics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
39
0
7

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
39
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Stancetaking is a useful framework within which to view language variation, social meaning, and concepts of style (e.g. Jaffe 2009Jaffe , 2016Kiesling 2009). Stance here refers to 'the processes by which speakers use language (along with other semiotic resources) to position themselves and others, draw social boundaries, and lay claim to particular statuses, knowledge and authority in ongoing interaction' (Snell 2010:631).…”
Section: Language Identity and Stancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Stancetaking is a useful framework within which to view language variation, social meaning, and concepts of style (e.g. Jaffe 2009Jaffe , 2016Kiesling 2009). Stance here refers to 'the processes by which speakers use language (along with other semiotic resources) to position themselves and others, draw social boundaries, and lay claim to particular statuses, knowledge and authority in ongoing interaction' (Snell 2010:631).…”
Section: Language Identity and Stancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…As Jaffe () has argued (cf. Coupland and Eckert ), indexical fields are never stable: When we use “indexicality” as a noun, we are essentially reifying what is in fact an ongoing process of indexicalization .…”
Section: Transient Multilingual Communities—proposals For a Research mentioning
confidence: 83%
“…So, as Jaffe rightly points out (2016: 109–110), in talking about “indexical fields” and “fields of indexicalities” we should really be talking “about the process of ‘fielding’ of indexes into supposed coherent complexes” of social meaning. Much recent work within sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology has taken an interest in such processes, emphasizing how indexes—and the linguistic processes they are part of—are not only context‐sensitive but also context‐creating (Jaffe : 86, Kiesling : 177). So, taking an interest in indexicality as a process, emphasizing its active role in emergent meaning making, is not a novel idea (though it is certainly not mainstream in all corners of sociolinguistic theorizing either), but by taking transient social configurations as the object of research, rather than relatively more “fixed” social settings, we are likely to see more clearly how indexicalization unfolds in “real time,” for instance through repeated stance‐taking and by means of metalinguistic discourse (see Lønsmann, this issue).…”
Section: Transient Multilingual Communities—proposals For a Research mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Six aspects are crucial for modelling indexicality at this point (see for detailed discussion: Auer 2017; Blommaert and Rampton 2015;Eckert 2008;Jaffe 2016;Ochs 1992;Silverstein 2003;Spitzmüller 2013b): First, the relationship between indexical elements and social evaluations is always mediated and tripartite; the discursive conceptualizations of the respective social meanings serve as a mediator. For example, in applying this concept to visual modality, e.g., to technical coding orientation, it is important to notice that the specific indexical assemblage (i.e., semiotic choices of modality markers) is not directly connected to the social evaluation "real": In the first instance, the semiotic elements as such are (only) evaluated as "useful" (measurable, functional, etc.).…”
Section: Central Conceptsmentioning
confidence: 99%