Stance

Du Bois (Reference Du Bois2007) argues that all acts of stance involve three underlying principles: evaluation, positioning, and alignment. As stancetakers (or stance subjects) make evaluations about referents in discourse, they are also orienting themselves in relation to these referents, thereby positioning themselves in the social landscape. In the example—“Those glass slippers are lovely”—the stancetaker is attributing a quality or value to the ‘glass slippers’, the target of evaluation, or the stance object. The stancetaker could have also said that the slippers were “impractical” or “expensive”, instead of “lovely”. These responses do not elicit the same sociocultural values, and consequently, they correspond to different positionings for the stancetaker. Moreover, stancetakers can share the same stance object with another stance subject. If Speaker A states, “Glass slippers really work better in theory than in practice”, Speaker B might respond, “I agree”. These speakers then enter an intersubjective process of alignment, that is, ‘the act of calibrating the relationship between two stances, and by implication between two stancetakers’ (Du Bois Reference Du Bois2007:144). Since speakers can express different degrees of alignment (e.g. ‘I agree’ versus ‘I strongly agree’), we can describe alignment between subjects as converging, diverging, or ambiguous (Du Bois Reference Du Bois2007:162).

These three key processes—evaluation, positioning, and alignment—constitute what Du Bois calls the stance triangle, a framework for analyzing stancetaking in discourse (Figure 1). Importantly, Du Bois argues that speakers do not undertake generic stances but instead take specific stances embedded in a particular dialogic context (Reference Du Bois2007:145). Any study of stancetaking then requires a careful analysis of discourse and the relevant semiotic context.

Figure 1.

The stance triangle (adapted from Du Bois (Reference Du Bois2007:163, fig. 1; 166, ex. 53).

The stance triangle demonstrates that speakers use stance to not only linguistically calibrate alignments between social actors but also to draw upon a mutually recognized system of sociocultural values and interactional positions. Stance objects are not limited to material objects but can refer to any entity relevant in discourse (Kiesling Reference Kiesling, Hall and Barrett2018:4). Thus, stance operates on multiple ‘types and scales of analysis’, taking us ‘from the grammatical through the interactional and on to the cultural and sociological’ (Irvine Reference Irvine and Jaffe2009:3). As speakers assume numerous context-specific and temporary stances, the repetition and accumulation of such stances may result in linguistic forms ideologically associated with certain identities, personae, and characterological figures (Agha Reference Agha2005; Bucholtz & Hall Reference Bucholtz and Hall2005; Moore & Podesva Reference Moore and Podesva2009; Kiesling Reference Kiesling, Hall and Barrett2018, Reference Kiesling2022). Building on this prior work, I argue that stance and personae are also connected through recursive recalibration—the process by which the alignment of individual stances connects to the repositioning of participant roles and personae. By analyzing Betty en NY, I demonstrate how characters use stancetaking to construct and negotiate personae in interaction by using codeswitching to take particular stances and converge (or diverge) in alignment along multiple axes.

Recalibrating participant roles

As speakers take up stances, they are implicitly making claims concerning their epistemic rights. These are their rights to obtain information or evaluate a given stance object. Such claims to knowledge reflect social relations among participants, since knowledge is socially distributed among parties (Heritage & G. Raymond Reference Heritage and Raymond2005; G. Raymond & Heritage Reference Raymond and Heritage2006). Speakers are generally aware of differences in knowledge and relative positioning among participants, and they may make these distinctions interactionally relevant at specific moments in time by drawing upon linguistic resources (Heritage Reference Heritage, Sidnell and Stivers2012a,Reference Heritageb). C. Raymond (Reference Raymond2016) highlights how epistemic rights tie directly into social relations as Spanish speakers select second person singular reference forms in a conversation. Raymond argues that shifts in pronominal forms are used to invoke new identity stances (Reference Raymond2016:642), and thereby recalibrate the relationship between speakers, the context of the interaction, and the goals within that context.

Raymond's approach to recalibration is useful for understanding the dynamics of codeswitching in Betty en NY. Similar to how Spanish speakers exploit meaning distinctions between reference forms to recalibrate the relationship between speakers, codeswitching can also be used to invoke shifts in participant roles, or the temporary orientations assumed by speakers in discourse (cf. Goffman Reference Goffman1981; Bucholtz & Hall Reference Bucholtz and Hall2005). In Cashman's (Reference Cashman2005) conversation analysis of a game of bingo in an urban Midwestern Latinx community, one participant alternated languages to indicate when she was acting as ‘facilitator’ of the bingo game (by speaking English) compared to when she was a fellow ‘participant’ (by speaking Spanish). Similarly, in Mondada (Reference Mondada and Heller2007), speakers used French-English codeswitching to differentiate activities by invoking their respective participant roles during a surgery attended by surgeons and trainees.

Recalibrating participant roles and personae

Codeswitching allows characters to challenge or reiterate their social positioning by serving as an important resource for establishing epistemic rights and participant roles. Throughout the series, Betty must repeatedly assert her business expertise since she is often dismissed because of her appearance. In (1), Betty uses codeswitching between English and Spanish to invoke her roles as a ‘financial expert’ and as a ‘concerned colleague’, respectively, to prevent her financial assessments from going ignored. In the scene, Armando and Betty are meeting with a business contact, Tiffany, to discuss why an agreement with Tiffany's father's company has gone awry. Disappointed Armando brought his assistant along, Tiffany is openly disapproving of Betty (e.g. line 47), especially when Betty questions her father's business decisions.

The crux of the scene comes in line 36, when Tiffany finally reveals why the business deal with V&M is off. Betty's questions (lines 38 and 40) register her surprise and anticipate her negative evaluation in line 41. The codeswitch in line 41 is coupled with a prolonged turn for Betty, her first substantive turn in this interaction. The increase in speech rate (lines 45–48) emphasizes the sudden influx of information, which in turn might index qualities such as ‘nerdiness’ or point to her knowledge of financial issues. This shift to English marks Betty's change from ‘Armando's secretary/assistant’ to a ‘financial expert’ in her own right, establishing her epistemic right to assess and negotiate. This example illustrates that participant roles can be taken up as stance objects. In this case, Tiffany responds by disparaging Betty's role as ‘financial expert’. She belittles Betty, using gesture to mock Betty's increased speech rate (lines 45–48), before interrupting her in line 50. What matters here is not only Betty's shift to English but also her second shift immediately following. After Tiffany's outright dismissal of Betty's social positioning, Betty responds in Spanish with a deferential term of address (line 51) followed by insight from a first-person perspective (line 52). Betty's switches across these turns are reminiscent of what Cromdal (Reference Cromdal2004:47) describes as a peaking device; codeswitching can signal the ‘climax of an argumentative exchange by adding another layer of contrast between the opponents … such turns are typically followed by a switch back into the language originally established for the exchange, either commencing an oppositional step-down sequence or promptly terminating the dispute’. After her codeswitch signals the peak of her negative evaluation, Betty begins a de-escalating sequence. Rather than continue invoking her financial prowess, Betty levels the playing field by taking up a different participant role, that of a ‘concerned colleague’. She even enquires whether Tiffany's company sought counsel in making this decision, a question laid out with some hesitation as evidenced by the micro-pausing in line 55. The question makes Tiffany indignant, who instead chooses to address Armando (line 56) and reduce any reference to Betty to a prepositional phrase, con ella ‘with her’ (line 57). While essentially refusing this entire interaction, Tiffany's reaction demonstrates the dialogic nature of emergent social relations. As Betty uses codeswitching to shift participant roles, the implications of these shifts are evidenced by Tiffany's responses.

Betty en NY does not follow the telenovela trope of relegating English to only matters of finance. Instead, codeswitching is used to invoke various personae associated with English as characters establish their epistemic rights. As both a secretary and part of the Young Hot Elite, Patricia is positioned as Betty's nemesis. However, Patricia's social status is in decline. While Patricia spends much of her time mocking the other secretaries, characters like Daniel (Rodolfo Salas), more powerful and wealthier than Patricia, do the same to her. Daniel spares no opportunity to be cruel to Patricia, even as he pays her to spy on Armando.

Scene (2) begins with Patricia calling Daniel with information about Armando's failed fashion collection. Armando has opted for cheaper clothing materials, but buyers and investors were not impressed with the quality of the final product.

Before Patricia can begin her report, Daniel chides her about unnecessary calls (line 4), emphasizing his negative impression of her by assuming she called for a foolish reason. Thus, Patricia must not only prove the newsworthiness of her information but also her epistemic right to judge what constitutes a successful V&M fashion collection, from the creativity of the designs to the quality of the fabrics. In line 37, she begins her assessment of the fabric, the key detail in pinning Armando, Daniel's target, as the one responsible and not the fashion designer, Hugo (line 6–7). She upgrades her negative evaluation by shifting to English in line 41. In doing so, she is also invoking her role as a fashion connoisseur by showcasing her knowledge of high fashion and expensive goods. Her evaluation aligns her with others, mainly fashion experts and shareholders, who were shocked and even outraged by the quality of the fabric. This position is underscored by Patricia's use of Mexican Fresa-style elements (lit. ‘strawberry’), a characterological figure associated with upper-class youth, typically white and feminine. For instance, the use of the discourse marker o sea in line 38 (Martínez Gómez Reference Martínez Gómez2014; Holguín Mendoza Reference Holguín Mendoza, Potowski and Bugel2015, Reference Holguín Mendoza2018) is a salient feature of Fresa speech. In Holguín Mendoza's (Reference Holguín Mendoza2018) analysis of sociolinguistic capital and Spanish-English bilingual Fresas, codeswitching to English in Fresa speech indexes a privileged, cosmopolitan, and materialistic persona. This is reinforced when the speaker's English speech style is also associated with mainstream, upper- and middle-class linguistic practices. Likewise, Patricia's codeswitch contains elements associated with young women in English, such as discourse particle like in combination with intensifier so in line 41 (Tagliamonte Reference Tagliamonte2008), and the materialistic tenor of the interaction and overall stance of disgust resembles qualities sometimes attributed to Valley Girls (Pratt & D'Onofrio Reference Pratt and D'Onofrio2017). Thus, the codeswitch in line 41 is the climax of Patricia's negative evaluation, concluding the scene and solidifying her status as part of the Young Hot Elite via her cosmopolitan knowledge concerning high-end fashion goods. While Patricia is crafting a different persona than Betty, nevertheless the underlying mechanisms regarding stancetaking are the same—Patricia too uses English to shift participant roles as Daniel challenges her social positioning and epistemic rights. Patricia's phone call with Daniel demonstrates how carefully intertwined participant roles and personae really are. As characters shift participant roles, the types of epistemic claims they make are tied to the personae they are indexing.

In these scenes, Betty and Patricia were each faced with a contentious exchange that required a recalibration of participant roles. They respond by using codeswitching to signal shifts in participant roles and to establish their epistemic rights to make assessments. These shifts do not occur in isolation since recalibration appears to be recursive; changes in participant roles are connected to the recalibration of personae through epistemic rights. That is, personae are not only specified for ‘macro-social, personality-based, and behavioral characteristics’ (D'Onofrio Reference D'Onofrio2019:347) but also for epistemic rights. This is evident in how both Betty and Patricia use the same linguistic resource, codeswitching, to invoke new participant roles and yet do not index the same persona when they speak English. As they draw upon disparate types of knowledge, financial versus high-end fashion expertise, they are also constructing different personae. In the next section, I examine what is at the core of recursive recalibration—recalibrating intersubjective alignments.

Recalibrating intersubjective alignments through stancetaking

While previously I focused on how characters shift participant roles to make evaluations, now I turn to the alignment consequences of these shifts. Alignment refers to the intersubjective process ‘of calibrating the relationship between two stances, and by implication between two stancetakers’ (Du Bois Reference Du Bois2007:144). I expand on the notion of alignment by considering how codeswitching signals alignment as well as how alignment is dialogically constructed as characters contest epistemic rights and negotiate participant roles.

First, codeswitching does not always signal the same type of alignment, such as agreement or social solidarity. When we analyze individual acts of stance used to achieve specific interactional goals, we find that codeswitching can display a range of social meanings. I demonstrate this variability in alignment through two examples. The first involves Betty and her best friend, Nicolás (Mauricio Garza), bickering over Armando's business plan to save V&M money. In (3), Nicolás argues that the very notion of ‘saving money’ is antithetical to the goals of the fashion industry, while Betty defends Armando's position in light of V&M's dubious financial standing.

The codeswitch in line 16 differs from the earlier examples in that Betty does not seem to be the principal of this message but rather the animator (Goffman Reference Goffman1981). Betty is voicing the position of V&M, a position Nicolás disapproves of. The use of English, along with gesture and voice quality, seem to mitigate a potentially dispreferred response (Valdés Reference Valdés1981; Li Wei Reference Wei1994; Zentella Reference Zentella1997), giving it the same lighthearted tone her conversations with Nicolás tend to take. In other words, Betty attempts to rebuild their rapport as they navigate their disagreement. Nicolás responds in kind, smiling and mimicking her back. However, he immediately clarifies the stance object at issue and his position. The contrast between lines 17 and 19 elucidates the function of line 17. While Betty uses codeswitching to voice V&M's stance, Nicolás’ following codeswitch serves to align him with Betty through providing a high degree of parallelism in his verbatim repetition, thus invoking his role as her best friend. Consequently, he must clarify that their views differ on V&M's financial plan and Betty's respective role, even though he is on her side (lines 19–22).

Matching a codeswitch or use of a particular language alone does not necessarily mean alignment with the prior speaker. Rather, codeswitching signals a recalibration process at work. As a point of contrast with (3), codeswitching is used to emphasize the disalignment and power differentials between the interlocutors in (4). Nicolás is upset with Betty's lawyers, Peter (Salim Rubiales) and Frank (Jorge Consejo), since they showed up at V&M without permission. By contrast, the lawyers are not sure what to make of Betty working for the company she is also seizing financially. Consequently, they are overly suspicious when they arrive at V&M and are not allowed to meet with Betty, quickly assuming foul play. In the next excerpt, they call Nicolás to let him know their concerns.

As part of the Wannabes (Figure 4), Peter and Frank often serve as comedic foils on the show as they strive to become big shot lawyers in Manhattan. Thus, Peter's codeswitching in lines 36 and 38 is tied to his own process of persona construction, as he assumes the role of a knowledgeable lawyer and legal counsel. This use of English also functions as an upgraded evaluation of the stance object in line 35; that is, not only is Betty in danger, she may even already be dead, according to Peter. However, Peter and Frank's knowledge of the situation is limited, and so they are unaware that their presence at V&M threatens to expose the entire fraudulent plan to save V&M. Peter's claim to epistemic authority seems to annoy Nicolás (line 37) since it implies a possible oversight on his end. Thus, Nicolás’ main goal in this interaction is to ensure that Peter and Frank will not return to V&M unannounced (lines 47–48). He responds to Peter's stance on Betty's welfare by codeswitching (lines 39–42). Notice that the codeswitch here, even though also in second position (i.e. in the subsequent turn after Peter's initial codeswitch), functions differently from his interaction with Betty. In (3), matching the codeswitch and copying Betty's actions signaled their friendship. With the lawyers, a codeswitch in the same position indicates Nicolás’ superiority as the epistemic authority and as their client. This is emphasized by his sarcastic remarks immediately following (lines 42–46). Codeswitching not only marks shifts in participant roles at the discourse level, but it appears that codeswitching is also engaged in recalibrating intersubjective alignments between two stances, and through recursion, the relationship between two stancetakers.

If we only consider recalibration in terms of participant roles, we risk missing how codeswitching is also engaged in the process of recalibrating individual stances between speakers, which is ultimately what undergirds the recalibration of interpersonal relationships. By teasing apart intersubjective alignments from participant roles, we can analyze more closely how stancetakers pivot in orientation to stance objects and thereby also converge and diverge in terms of alignment. Examples (3) and (4) demonstrate the complexity of alignment as well as the ramifications of using codeswitching to recalibrate intersubjective alignments. In his conversation with Betty, Nicolás uses codeswitching to indicate his alignment and solidarity in terms of friendship, but this is only a partial alignment since the second codeswitch in Spanish (see (4), lines 19–20) clarifies that they are not aligned when it comes to their perspectives on V&M's financial status. Conversely, Nicolás’ codeswitching with the lawyers conveys their strong disalignment and distinctions in epistemic authority, demonstrating how characters dialogically construct alignment as they invoke opposing stances.

Recursive recalibration across an interaction

I now analyze a prolonged example in (5) and (6) of codeswitching, bringing together all the elements of recursive recalibration, to demonstrate how speakers seek to recalibrate social positionings over the course of an interaction. I use multiple stance objects as axes for positionings to track how these stances accumulate and result in recursive recalibration. In (5) and (6), the notion of broadening alignment manifests in how Ricardo (Aarón Díaz), Armando's best friend, persists in obtaining a particular reaction from Armando. What we find is that even in situations where participant roles seem more or less settled, codeswitching still functions as a powerful resource for stancetaking as characters continue to invoke their epistemic rights and dialogically construct alignment.

Excerpts (5) and (6) are longer than the previous examples because this example spans two scenes. Ricardo eagerly wants to know whether Armando and Betty slept together the night before. Previously, Ricardo had encouraged Armando to seduce Betty, convincing him that otherwise Nicolás would do so and take over the company. Up until this point, Armando had begrudgingly followed his advice and continued to consult Ricardo, but now a divide has begun to form as Armando copes with his growing sense of guilt coupled with his increasing affection for Betty. This interaction contains at least three key stance objects with regard to codeswitching. First, the principal stance object (SO1) is the embedded event, Armando and Betty's night in the cabin. Building on SO1, the other stance objects are Armando's sexual prowess (SO2) and his emotional orientation towards the event (SO3). I argue that Ricardo's evaluations and codeswitches work towards a singular overarching goal in this interaction—restoring his friendship with Armando (alignment), preferably as it used to be before Armando became president of V&M.

The interaction begins with Armando making himself a drink, while Ricardo lays back on a couch, drink in hand and legs propped up on a coffee table.

Much of this interaction is characterized by Armando's and Ricardo's differing perspectives on SO1, which consequently results in misalignments for SO2 and SO3. For Ricardo, SO1 is a newsworthy event, worth a thorough discussion, as evidenced by his many requests for details (e.g., lines 7–12, 35–37). Indeed, line 9—“I wanna know I wanna know”—functions as an upgraded evaluation of SO1 as newsworthy. Line 9 also upgrades the epistemic claim begun in line 8, in which Ricardo establishes his epistemic right to know the details of SO1. This claim is rooted in Ricardo's role as the orchestrator behind this scheme (line 5), but now that Armando has acted of his own accord and gone beyond Ricardo's expectations (lines 5–6), there seems to be an increased urgency to know what happened. Furthermore, Ricardo's epistemic rights to evaluate SO1–SO3 also stem from his role as Armando's best friend. The use of bro in line 4 and elsewhere reaffirm Ricardo's claim to their homosociality, their solidarity and heterosexual closeness (Kiesling Reference Kiesling2004, Reference Kiesling, Hall and Barrett2018). Armando, meanwhile, makes clear that he does not want to talk about SO1 (line 39). He explains that he slept with Betty only in vague terms (lines 15–17) or with no words at all (lines 23–24). He avoids facing Ricardo, staring at the ground instead. Nowhere is the stark contrast in gesture and affect more noticeable than when Armando confirms that they slept together (lines 23–27). While Ricardo gleefully yells and laughs, waving his arms in victory, Armando somberly stares at the ground.

Unfazed by Armando's bleak demeanor, Ricardo moves forward with an assessment of SO2. In lines 28–30, Ricardo uses sports metaphors to positively evaluate Armando's sexual prowess. The use of English here indexes a gendered masculine persona, perhaps tied to the US characterological figure of a bro through the use of brospeak (Kiesling Reference Kiesling, Hall and Barrett2018). In Kiesling's analysis of stance in enregistered speech styles, he argues that brospeak is characterized by a high degree of positive evaluative stances that serve to reinforce the solidarity among bros achieved through their homosocial closeness. Likewise, Ricardo recruits this masculine persona to upgrade his evaluation of SO2 in order to highlight his solidarity with Armando. Loaded with misogynistic undertones, Ricardo's positive evaluations in lines 28–30 position him as a ‘sport spectator’ evaluating an athlete. We see a continuation of this participant role in lines 32–34, as Ricardo admits to first doubting Armando's abilities to now Armando winning over his respect. However, Armando does not partake in Ricardo's excitement or accept his compliments. Armando's reticence results in Ricardo continuing to seek out alignment by enacting the same gendered persona.

Finally, Ricardo assumes he understands Armando's perspective with regards to SO3, Armando's emotional orientation to SO1. When Armando refuses to share details in line 39, Ricardo invokes his participant role as an empathetic friend who understands the ‘ordeal’ Armando has undergone. In line 43, nodding, Ricardo says, “Bro I understand”, and he then immediately presents the wrong evaluation of SO3. He assumes Armando had a “terrible” night (line 45), when quite the opposite is the case. Ricardo's attempt at solidarity and understanding as an empathetic friend continues into the next scene.

While Ricardo assumes only the worst about the previous night's events (line 142, 151), he expects a positive attitude from Armando in the present moment. The second scene begins with Ricardo urging Armando to “smile” (line 141), also analyzable as a negative evaluation of Armando's current emotional status. He repeatedly appeals to his role as a sympathetic friend (lines 146–147) to persuade Armando to talk. This culminates in line 153, in which Ricardo also uses codeswitching and gesture to upgrade the evaluation in line 152, emphasizing the emotional relief awaiting Armando if he speaks. However, they continue to be disaligned as Armando remains silent or reiterates that he does not want to speak (line 154).

The tension reaches its climax in the second half (line 168) when Armando firmly asserts these stance objects are no longer up for discussion (lines 168–173). The codeswitch in line 172 does not clearly indicate a new participant role but rather functions as a negative evaluation of the entire interaction, marking Armando's refusal to continue being questioned. Along with line 176, this is the only time Armando codeswitches in these scenes. Once Ricardo concedes, the conversation shifts as Armando takes up a new participant role. He decides to revert to his old ways and return to partying with Ricardo. This shift is confirmed in line 189, when he pulls out a cell phone he calls ‘Armandito’, the name itself a mix of Spanish and English phonology, which contains the numbers of many pretty women. Ricardo immediately understands the significance of the phone. At this point, Ricardo and Armando's intersubjective positions finally converge.

This final example in (5) and (6) showcases the interplay between stances, participant roles, and personae. Ricardo repeatedly invokes his epistemic rights through using codeswitching to take stances, a process closely tied to his bro persona construction as well as his participant roles as Armando's best friend and co-conspirator. The present analysis furthers our understanding of alignment by considering how speakers manage multiple stance objects simultaneously. By tracing Ricardo and Armando's convergence and divergence with respect to three stance objects, we can evaluate alignment at the interactional level, rather than confining it to the calibration of only two stances. In doing so, we can observe how the recalibration of stances and intersubjective alignments builds to the recalibration of interpersonal relationships.

I began with an example of Betty assessing a financial issue and concluded with Ricardo seeking alignment with Armando. While Betty and Ricardo are polar opposites as characters, enemies even, they both use codeswitching when their participant roles and epistemic rights are challenged as well as when they seek to recalibrate the alignment with their interlocuter. And yet, each is also using codeswitching to construct very different personae. While the underlying mechanisms regarding stancetaking may be the same, they are using codeswitching to take different types of stances, which with repetition, result in distinct personae. What this demonstrates is that the meaning of codeswitching is neither fixed nor static; the use of one language does not map onto a singular meaning. Betty and Ricardo each draw upon separate ideological associations already present in the indexical field of English, namely English as the language of finance and brospeak, to construct their respective personae. Thus, it is through this process of recursive recalibration that Betty en NY crafts a range of personae in opposition, who use the same linguistic strategy, codeswitching, to take stances and position themselves in the social landscape.