33
Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Marqueurs de discours

Steven SchaeferUniversité Paris-Sorbonne

L5AN6320

Page 2: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Les marqueurs de discours ou comment clauses

• Différentes structures• Secondaires par rapport aux propositions

lexicales• Possibilité d’occurrence dans plusieurs

positions par rapport aux propositions constitutives du discours

• Problématique de cerner leur rôle et fonction en discours – plusieurs axes d’approche

Page 3: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Utterance position (simplified)

• INITAL• I think, I know, I believe

(syntactic matrix) – subordinate proposition• MEDIAN• Parenthetic Adjunct - I think, I know, I believe

(« displaced matrix » ) – within proposition(s)• FINAL• main proposition - I think, I know, I believe

(juxtaposed supplementary clause)

Page 4: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Prosody

• MD in onset position (Head) integrated into following syllables i.e. Sub Proposition

• MD in a Separate IU following or integrated into preceding syllables i.e. post -nuclear – or i.e. Pre-head?

Page 5: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Definition of types in Quirk (1985)

• (i) like the matrix clause of a main clause:There were no other applicants, I believe, for that job.

• (ii) like an adverbial finite clause (introduced by as):I'm working the night shift, as you know.

• (iii) like a nominal relative clause:What was more upsetting, we lost all our luggage.

• Comment clauses (i) are either content disjuncts that express the speakers’comments on the content of the matrix clause, or style disjuncts that convey the speakers' views on the way they are speaking

Page 6: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Quirk’s Type 1 Comment clauses• Type (i) comment clauses, which are the most important, generally contain atransitive verb or adjective which elsewhere requires a nominal that-clauseas object. We can therefore see a correspondence between sentencescontaining such clauses and sentences containing indirect statements:

[l] There were no other applicants, I believe, for that job. [2] I believe that there were no other applicants for that job.

• To convert a sentence with a that-clause such as [2] into a sentence such as [l], we have to reverse the relationship of subordination between the two clauses, making the that-clause into the matrix clause, at the same time omitting the subordinator that, and making the matrix clause into the comment clause. Because of this reversal of syntactic roles. the two sentences [l] and [2] are not exact paraphrases; but ;he relationship between them illuminates the function of the comment clause. Furthermore, the verb in the comment clause may have only one of the meanings possible for the verb in the matrix clause. Verbs like believe and think may have a more definitive meaning or may merely hedge (express a tentative meaning); but only the hedging meaning is present in comment clauses.

Page 7: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Prédicats subjectifs

• I believe that there is a God. ['I assert the belief that there is a God’ or 'There may be a God.']

• There is a God, I believe. ['There may be a God.’ ]

• You know that it belongs to me. ['You know that']

• It belongs to me, you know. ['I want you to know that’]

Page 8: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Syntactic considerations• Since the "that" of an object that-clause is normally deletable, onlythe intonation (reflected by comma separation) distinguishes aninitial comment clause from an initial matrix clause:• You know, I think you're wrong. [you know is a comment clause]

• You know (that) I think you're wrong. [you know is a matrix clause]• Comment clauses resemble main clauses in that they contain at

least a subject and a verb and are not introduced by a subordinator. However, they are not independent clauses, since they are defective syntactically: the verb or adjective lacks its normally obligatory complementation.

Page 9: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Semantic Functions• Type (i) comment clauses that are stereotyped may have various semantic• functions :• (a) They hedge, ie they express the speaker's tentativeness over the truth• value of the matrix clause. Commonly, the subject is I and the verb is in the• simple present, but the subject may be an indefinite one or they or (usually• with a passive verb) it and the verb may (for example) have a modal auxiliary• or be in the present perfective. Here are some examples:• I believe, I guess, I think, I expect, Ifeel, I hear, I presume, I assume, I• understand, Isuppose, I consider, Isuspect, I'm told, I have read, I have heard,• I have heard tell, I can see, I may assume, I daresay, I venture to say, one• hears, they tell me, they allege, they say, it is said, it is reported, it is claimed,• it is rumoured, it has been claimed, it seems, it appears

Page 10: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Comparer remarques de Quirk avec Benveniste pp.228-229

• Many type (i) clauses are stereotyped, eg: I believe, you know. Outside this group, however, clauses can be

fairly freely constructed, permitting variations of subject, tense, and aspect, or additions of adjuncts.

Page 11: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Certainty

• (b) They express the speaker's certainty. Commonly, the subject is I and

• the verb is in the simple present. Here ar.e some examples:

• I know, I claim, I see, I remember, I agree, I admit, I'm sure, I'm convinced; I

• have no doubt; it's true, it transpires; there's no doubt; I must say, I must

• admit, I must tell you, I have to say

Page 12: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Emotional attitude• (c) They express the speaker's emotional attitude towards

the content of• the matrix clause. Again, usually the subject is Iand the verb

is in the simple• present. Some are followed by a to-infinitive verb of

speaking. Here are some• examples: '• I'm glad to say, I'm happy to say, I'm pleased to say, I'm

delighted to say, I'm• happy to tell you; I hope, I wish, Ifear, Iregret, I'm afraid; I

regret to say, I'm• sorry to say; it pains me to tell you, it grieves me to say

Page 13: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Claim hearer’s attention• (d) They are used to claim the hearer's attention. Some also call for the• hearer's agreement. At the same time, they express the speaker's informality• and warmth toward the hearer. The subject is usually you or the implied you• of the imperative. Here are some examples:• you know, you see, you realize; you can see, you may know, you may have• heard, you must admit; mind you, mark you; it may interest you to know• Negative questions generally call for the hearer's agreement, eg: wouldn't you• say?, don't you think?, don't you agree?, can't you see?, don't you know? They• are attached to declarative sentences:• It's ethically wrong, wouldn't you say?• Positive questions generally call for the hearer's attention. They are attached• to interrogative sentences:• What's she doing, do you think?• Is the heating on, do you suppose?

Page 14: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

L’assertion et les prédicats subjectifs

• People eat horses in France• I think people eat horses in France• I know people eat horses in France• You know people eat horses in France• You know, people eat horses in France• People eat horses in France, you know • In France you know, people eat horses

Page 15: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Disassertive modality

• Implies weakening of assertive choice (p/p’)• ’ they eat horses, I believe, in France '

• IE →I is the closest to "being the case"; IE →E is not excluded as "being the case"

What will then determine the « local meaning » of a proposition introduced by I believe? And I think?

Does the prosodic realisation impinge on this process of interpretation, and in what way?

Page 16: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

TEO - Modal Categories

• Assertive modality

• Epistemic (event) modality

• Valuative (appreciative) modality

• Subject (deontic or « root ») modality

Page 17: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Assertion in enunciative theory

• Assertive modality• Implies assertive choice (p/p’)• ‘ people eat horses in France’

(validé uniquement pour l’aire géographique qui correspond à la France: domaine de

validation)• IE →I is the case; IE →E is not the case• Choice of <people-eat-horses> categorically

asserted to the exclusion of linguistic complement <not eat-horses>

Page 18: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Assertive Choice

Page 19: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Alterity

• Alterity is a philosophical term meaning "otherness", strictly being in the sense of the other of two, in the phenomenological tradition it is usually understood as the entity in contrast to which an identity is constructed, and it implies the ability to distinguish between self and not-self, and consequently to assume the existence of an alternative viewpoint.

Page 20: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Inverse Subordination

Page 21: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Propositional Value Alterity

• This term applies to utterances where the proposition P (predicative relation) contained in (main proposition), which refers to an external event/property, becomes an unstable assertion when modalized by the clause I think (S-P), so that its opposite cannot be excluded. Ex. I think people eat horses in France. → Gloss: ' It seems to me that people eat horses there, though I’m not certain'

• The choice of value I does not exclude any other.

Page 22: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

A: Why did that have to be a big announcement? (about the publication of the memoirs) Couldn’t you have done it quietly?

B: I think, w- we came to the conclusion it was never going to remain quiet…and therefore you might as well just be open about it…you know, and.. I did it for the reasons I

stated.

Page 23: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Qualitative Alterity• This term applies to utterances where the

proposition (predicative relation) contained in Q (main proposition), which refers to a subjective opinon, valuation or point of view becomes an endorsed assertion when relayed by the « matrix » I think (mod S-P), so that its opposite, if endorsed by another enunciative source, cannot be excluded. Ex. I enjoyed the book. It’s very refreshing, I think . → Gloss: ‘In my opinion, your book was agreeably different’.

• The choice of value I does not exclude any other.

Page 24: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Tony Blair, good afternoon! Er, I enjoyed the book, er I mean that sincerely. It’s quite refreshing I think. It’s unlike… other political memoirs.

Page 25: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Radical Alterity• The enunciating subject can, at some point,

position himself as modal source of his utterance explicitly in relation to another subject-enunciator of the introductory verb.

• Two examples present themselves; either the subject ‘he/she thinks’ has S0 (read ‘I’) as ultimate modal source; or the enunciator-source ‘I’ rejects a proposition (identical) previously endorsed by his or her interlocutor, alterity is then introduced on the intersubjective level, with prosodic focalisation on a key element (i.e.‘I’ or auxiliary)

Page 26: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Example of radical alterity

•-Have you spoken to him since he became PM ? •-No, I mean there’s no particular reason why we – would [..]• -Well, `I think there’s a reason why you 7would

(Richard Bacon and Tony Blair, BBC Interview)

Page 27: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

A: Have you spoken to him since he became Prime Minister? Has he called you?B: Erm….no.

A: No? You’ve not spoken at all? B: No; I mean there’s no particular reason why we, we would, but I mean I…

A: Well I think there’s a reason why you would

Page 28: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

A: (H) .. And then, our job, is to shape the shoe, .. to the horse's foot.... (H) And that, it d- it sounds easy, .. but it's really hard to do. .. I mean, (H) some of em you have to, you know, like say, okay, say your shoe's like this?.. (H) and your horse's foot is just really wide or something? .. (H) Well then you have to put it on the anvil, and get the shoe stretched out, (H) well then once you stretch the shoe out, ..well then, (H) the two corners…they go out, too. You know, okay your shoe's like this? … You stretch this out, well then it's gonna make these go way out, too,

and they get like this?B: Right.

Page 29: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

But I, you know, I wanted it to be homemade, you know… something specialSBC 0004

Page 30: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

I well I started with a couple of novels erm… thinking about all the er looking at all the lovely pictures that came back from Cassini erm about the moon- of the moons of Saturn and wondering what it would be like to walk around there \ there seems if you put a human being there \ you see you immediately have this kind of, kind of tre- … how did they get there, erm why are they there

and, you know how do they live … – STW 8

Page 31: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

Conclusion• A number of factors which are of a social nature and certainly a part of

language use have been barely sketched out here. Some involve pragmatic considerations of an interpersonal nature, and often related either to “speaker strategies”, to assumptions and inferences or to stance in the literature. Interpersonal hedges, monitoring and repair, what makes these all possible? What do they have in common? Whether the utterer seeks to build rapport, to seem to check replies, or to repair hesitations, it is still with language forms, not just with intentions, to which we have no direct access. However, prosodic analysis confirms much of what has been claimed in similar studies on authentic speech use in corpora. Intonation units have been seen to construct functionally and cognitively coherent sequences of spontaneous speech whereas they have traditionally been thought only to echo the syntactic structure of language. Little by little, new research has revealed to what extent these prosodic units obey other constraints and forms of organization.

Page 32: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

• By exploring the hypothesis that all of these expressions are to some extent parenthetical, and typically retain the same interactive function regardless of position, we might conclude that relative position is less important than once thought. In fact, the sense of parenthesis is here an enunciative intervention, not in a strictly linear sense. The point of intervention (position of S0), is variable, but basically links – and opposes – comment clause and proposition, but also the relationship (and affective rapport) between S0 and S'0. Finally, this intervention plays out in the semantics of logical sequences as well, where the comment clause takes its scope in the preceding, following or surrounding propostions.

Page 33: Marqueurs de discours Steven Schaefer Université Paris-Sorbonne L5AN6320

• In addition to its essential (intersubjective) locating function, you know often assumes a linear linking function or combinatorial compatibility with other syntactic positions or logical operators in enumerations, with coordinating expressions of cause and consequence, option, etc. This is true of the discourse marker in all positions; you know can anchor proactively, retroactively (postposed, possibly in recrimination) or in mid-utterance, so that it links an assertion to what follows, effectively presented as shared – or imposed – information.