The study targets how reported speech is used as an interactional resource for building and legitimatizing a particular version of events in the context of peer disputes. Several unfolding multiparty storytelling events within a group of preadolescent girls in a Swedish school setting are analyzed, primarily highlighting the interactional use of previous talk in building credibility for particular affective and moral stances, as well as blame accusations during disputes. Overall, the study highlights different ways that reported speech can function as a resource for legitimizing negative assessments of opposite parties, building alliances, and taking sanctioning actions toward peers.
BambergM (2006) Stories: Big or small?Narrative Inquiry16(1): 139–147.
2.
BanfieldA (1973) Narrative style and the grammar of direct and indirect speech. Foundations of Language10: 1–39.
3.
BesagVE (2006) Bullying among girls: Friends or foes?School Psychology International27: 535–551.
4.
ButtnyR (1993) Social Accountability in Communication. London: SAGE.
5.
ButtnyR (1998) Putting prior talk into context: Reported speech and the reporting context. Research on Language and Social Interaction31(1): 45–58.
6.
ChafeW (1982) Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In: TannenD (ed.) Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 35–53.
7.
CliftR (2006) Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics10(5): 569–595.
8.
CoulmasF (1986) Reported speech: Some general issues. In: CoulmasF (ed.) Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–28.
9.
DanbySTheobaldM (2012) Introduction: Disputes in everyday life—Social and moral orders of children and young people. In: DanbySTheobaldM (eds) Disputes in Everyday Life: Social and Moral Orders of Children and Young People. Bingley, WA: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. xv–xxiv.
10.
DrewP (1998) Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction31(3/4): 295–325.
11.
DuboisJ (2007) The stance triangle. In: EnglebretsonR (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 139–182.
12.
EderD (1998) Developing adolescent peer culture through collaborative narration. In: HoyleSMAdgerCT (eds) Kids Talk: Strategic Language Use in Later Childhood. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 82–94.
13.
EdwardsD (2006) “To be honest”: Sequential uses of honesty phrases in talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction39(4): 343–376.
14.
ErikssonM (1997) Ungdomars berättande: En studie i struktur och interaction. PhD thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala.
15.
EvaldssonAC (2002) Boys gossip telling: Staging identities and indexing (unacceptable) masculine behavior. Text & Talk22(2): 199–225.
16.
EvaldssonAC (2007) Accounting for friendship: Moral ordering and category membership in preadolescent girls’ relational talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction40(4): 377–404.
17.
EvaldssonACSvahnJ (2012) School bullying and the micro-politics of girls’ gossip disputes. In: DanbySTheobaldM (eds) Dispute in Everyday Life: Social and Moral Orders of Children and Young People. Bingley, WA: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 297–323.
18.
GoffmanE (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
GoodwinC (2007) Interactive footing. In: HoltECliftR (eds) Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–46.
20.
GoodwinMH (1990a) He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington, IN; Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
21.
GoodwinMH (1990b) Tactical uses of stories: Participation frameworks within girls’ and boys’ disputes. Discourse Processes13: 33–71.
22.
GunthnerS (1999) Polyphony and the “layering of voices” in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics31: 685–708.
23.
HartupWW (1983) Peer relations. In: MussenP (ed) Handbook of Child Psychology. New York: Wiley, pp. 103–196.
24.
HillJHIrvineJT (1993) Introduction. In: HillJHIrvineJT (eds) Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–23.
25.
HoltE (1996) Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction29(3): 219–245.
26.
HoltE (2000) Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction33(4): 425–454.
27.
IngridsHAronssonK (2014) Reported speech and reported affect in child custody disputes. Research on Language and Social Interaction47(1): 69–88.
28.
JeffersonG (2004) Glossery of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: LernerGH (ed) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–31.
29.
KarlssonMEvaldssonAC (2011) It was Emma’s army who bullied that girl: A narrative perspective on bullying and identity making in three girls’ friendship groups. Narrative Inquiry21(1): 24–43.
30.
KyratzisA (2004) Talk and interaction among children and the co-construction of peer groups and peer culture. Annual Review of Anthropology33: 625–649.
31.
LeudarIAntakiC (1996) Discourse participation, reported speech and research practices in social psychology. Theory & Psychology6(1): 5–29.
32.
LeungCB (2009) Collaborative narration in preadolescent girl talk: A Saturday luncheon conversation among three friends. Journal of Pragmatics41: 1341–1357.
33.
LiCH (1986) Direct speech and indirect speech: A functional study. In: CoulmasF (ed.) Direct and Indirect Speech. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 29–46.
34.
LicoppeC (2004) “Connected” presence: The emergence of a new for managing social relationships in a changing communication technoscope. Environment and Planning D: Society & Space22: 135–156.
35.
MaynardD (1985) On the functions of social conflict among children. American Sociological Review50(2): 207–223.
36.
MaynardD (1986) Offering and soliciting collaboration in multi-party disputes among children (and other humans). Human Studies9: 261–285.
37.
OchsESchieffelinB (1989) Language has a heart. Text & Talk9(1): 7–25.
38.
RomaineSLangeD (1991) The use of like as a marker of reported speech and though: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech66(3): 227–279.
39.
SheldonA (1996) You can be the baby brother, but you aren’t born yet: Preschool girls’ negotiation for power and access in pretend play. Research on Language and Social Interaction29: 57–80.
40.
StewardKAMaxwellMM (2010) Storied Conflict Talk: Narrative Construction in Mediation. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
41.
SvahnJEvaldssonA-C (2011) ‘You could just ignore me’: Situating peer exclusion within the contingencies of girls’ everyday interactional practices. Childhood18(4): 491–508.
42.
SvahnJEvaldssonA-C (2013) Talking moral stances into being: The interactional management of moral reasoning in Agression Replacement Training (ART) classroom sessions. Text & Talk33(6): 793–815.
43.
VoloshinovVN (1971) Reported speech. In: MatejkaLPromorskaK (eds) Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 149–175.
44.
VoloshinovVN (1973) Marxism and the philosophy of language (trans. L. Matejka and I. Titunik). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
