a linguistic toolbox for cda

7/27/2019 A Linguistic Toolbox for CDA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-linguistic-toolbox-for-cda 1/25

A B S T R A C T This article is aimed at introducing a French discourse analysismodel, e.g. the ‘star model’, initiated by the LAA team led by Robert Vion inAix-en-Provence, to English-speaking researchers. It will be argued thatlanguage activity is multi-dimensional and can be traced at variousheterogeneous levels of speech productions belonging to macro as well asmicro orders. Speakers achieve different varieties of positioning which result innegotiating an interactional space within a pre-given situation. The model isprecisely designed to offer a unified and comprehensive view of suchheterogeneous phenomena in constant interconnection. In this study, we alsointend to illustrate our approach through the analysis of two different corpora.Speakers’ strategies under extreme conditions will be analysed; the varioussequences used were taken from a special corpus which we were asked to studyas part of a national research programme. In order to illustrate interactionalspace shifts, we will also use the transcript of a meeting which took placebetween a patient and a medical investigator in a hospital in Marseilles.

K EY W OR DS : discourse analysis, enunciation, integrative pragmatics, positioningstrategies, verbal interaction

1. Introduction

Any situation of communication is characterized by multidimensional param-eters. Every speech production, whatever it may be, is necessarily related to adiscourse genre or interaction type. In this pre-existing setting, every subject willinitiate, undergo and negotiate an interactive space with his/her partners inwhich he/she simultaneously handles various positions, or to be more exact,various positioning processes. What is needed in order to describe verbal interac-tions is an overall theory capable of taking into account the general dynamics of speech production and reception in its full complexity and heterogeneity. Anexample of this integrative pragmatics approach has been developed by Vion(1995, 1999) and constitutes the theoretical basis of the LAA team.

A R T I C L E 289

A linguistic toolbox for discourseanalysis: towards a multidimensionalhandling of verbal interactions

L A U R E N T R O U V E Y R O L ,C L A I R E M A U RY- R O UA N , R O B E R T V I O N A N DM A R I E - C H R I S T I N E N O Ë L - J O R A N DU NI VE RS IT É D E P ROV EN CE A N D FA CU LT É D E M ÉD EC IN E,L A T IM ON E , M A R S E I L L E

Discourse StudiesCopyright © 2005

SAGE Publications.(London, Thousand Oaks,

CA and New Delhi)www.sagepublications.com

Vol 7(3): 289–313.1461-4456

(200508) 7:3;10.1177/1461445605052188



The model initiated by the LAA team originates from Vion (1995) mainly, andwas originally designed to deal with natural conversation; later, the initial modelwas adapted to take into account other forms of communication as well, provid-ing analyses oriented towards various goals. While Bertrand et al. on emotionaltalk (2000), Priego-Valverde on humour (1998, 2001), Maury-Rouan on co-enunciation (1998) and on discourse particles (2001b), Brémond on discoursestructure and particles (2003) all used natural conversations as corpora, themodel has also been successfully applied to literary discourse (Vion et al., 2002),media discourse in English (Rouveyrol, 1998), and doctor–patient interactions(Priego-Valverde and Maury-Rouan, 2003). Concepts were developed or intro-duced on the grounds of these various kinds of corpora: taxemes (Rouveyrol,1999), hypocorrection (Maury-Rouan, 2001a), discourse structuration in

general: on effacement strategies (Vion, 2001b), discourse instability (Vion,2000), positioning changes (Vion, 2001b), taxemic markers (Rouveyrol, 1999),discourse lures (Maury-Rouan, 2001b, 2003), and modality (Vion, 2001a,2003). This article is intended to apply the model to a specific corpus consistingof the verbal productions of members of a scientific team experiencing adapta-tion to an extreme environment.

The aim of the research group is to carry out discourse analyses bridging thegap between written and oral communication, monologue and dialogue, thanksto a model able to deal with the various relevant levels. In our view, speakerscommunicate according to social positions and adopt roles. The relation thuscontracted by the different actors and dynamically co-elaborated through dis-course activity can be defined in terms of interrelational positioning processes. Such

realities are dissociated into different types which altogether enable the analyst tomap discourse activity bridging the gap between various heterogeneous anddynamic phenomena. ‘Realities of different calibre have to be handled simulta-neously by every speaker. They range from macro to micro, associating social posi-tions to interlocutive, intersubjective and enunciative ones’ (Vion, 1995: 181).

These positioning processes are complementary and work on a ‘one-to-one’basis: it is not possible to speak from a given position without conjuring up theaddressee in the complementary one and validate the process. If you speak as ateacher, the addressee can assume no other position than that of a student orpupil. Such positions, linked to power relations but not always, are initiated inthe course of interaction and are constantly modified.

To situate our research in relation to all other available analytical frames does

not seem to be a realistic task. However, it remains possible to try to target acertain number of works closely linked to the levels taken into account by ourmultidimensional model close to the perspective of enunciative and integrativepragmatics such as that of Berthoud (1996), Jeanneret (1999) and Verschueren(1999).

For that reason, instead of beginning this article with a traditional overviewof general questions, we have opted for a presentation of our theoretical perspec-tive step by step, which will enable us to confront our model at each level with

290 Discourse Studies 7(3)



our different sources, neighbouring approaches among the various current fore-ground domains in European and international linguistics.

2. Analysing discourse and dialogue: introducing the ‘star model’ – the state of the art

We attempt to analyse discourse by using what we call the ‘star model’ (Figure 1). If we start from the top, moving counter-clockwise, we realize that we shift frommacro to micro realities. The first three positioning processes relate to the inter-personal handling of the interaction. Subjects evolve in a social frame, whoserules and practices they have integrated as members of a specific community.

All five positioning processes: institutional, modular, subjective, discursive,

and enunciative influence each other in a non-hierarchical way and togetherform the interactive space. Figure 1 indicates that they are all linked. Carefulindependent study in each area of investigation is necessary at the start but thepursued aim of analysis is to establish such links in their overall dynamics.

Our multidimensional perspective formalizes the complexity of languagefrom its start. This approach is in sharp contrast to modular attempts in whichlanguage complexity is divided into various components treated relativelyautonomously from each other in a first phase, and connected only in a secondphase.

Rouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 291

‘Modular’ Positioning

‘Institutional’Positioning

‘Enunciative’ Positioning

‘Discursive’ Positioning‘Subjective’ Positioning

INTERPERSONAL AND SOCIAL

RELATIONS

INTERLOCUTIVE RELATIONS

F I G U R E 1. The star model of positioning processes



2 . 1 ‘ I N S T I T U T I O N A L’ P O S I TI O N I NG P R OC E S S E S

Institutional positioning processes are achieved thanks to realities which areexterior and prior to the interaction. Some examples could be: doctor–patient,teacher–student ... These institutional positions refer to a typology of interac-tions but by no means can be reduced to social functions or professional activi-ties. Communication situations are retro-actively determined by discourseactivity carried out by speakers. Some variation is to be expected, which in theend modifies or qualifies the pre-existing frame.

We owe much, here, to the interactional sociolinguistics approach whoseinspiration comes from sociology, social anthropology and ultimately linguistics.Gumperz’s work casts light on how subjects share grammatical knowledge andcontextualize it. Institutional positioning processes of sociological order also

echo Erving Goffman’s views. Goffman describes how language is used in partic-ular social situations: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), Behavior inPublic Places (1963), Interactional Rituals (1967), Relations in Public (1971),Frame Analysis (1974), and Forms of Talk (1981). In the linguistic field, the viewsof both authors have been taken up and developed by researchers such as Brownand Levinson (1987), Schiffrin (1987), Tannen (1989) and more recently Drewand Heritage (1992). This level of the model is also connected to linguistic genretheories and verbal interaction typologies Vion (1992, 2000), Bronckart (1996),Adam (1992, 1997, 1999), Swales (1990).

The institutional positioning process is the broadest type, which in the caseof interactional exchanges enables us to handle the situation and the socialrelations at work at the beginning. In written monologal productions, these

institutional processes help us define discourse genres.

2 . 2 ‘ M O D U L A R ’ P O S I TI O N I NG P RO C E S S ES

Modular positioning processes have to do with specific interactional phaseshandled temporarily by speakers, belonging to a secondary genre subordinatedto the general frame. These phases are called modules in our perspective. To givean example, in a TV talk show, we could clearly imagine a politician trying to ini-tiate a ‘polemical module’ with fierce attacks directed at an ideological opponentwithin a friendly debate. Another example would be a doctor–patient interactionin which speakers might initiate conversational modules on children/theweather. The doctor could even ask the patient for advice on matters such as soft-ware, mechanics. The dominant genre is still the medical consultation; conversa-

tional modules are local subordinate genres. At this level, we are not far from theconcepts of ‘discourse types’ and orders of discourse, developed by Fairclough(1989, 1995), derived from Foucault (1984).

‘Modular’ and ‘institutional’ processes are also conceptually connected to theperspectives of ESP (English for Specific Purposes) analysis. Anglo-Saxonresearch in applied linguistics has produced abundant data in this perspective, inwhich a relation between interaction and professional settings is drawn, BusinessEnglish is an example. Scientific discourse was analysed by Swales (1990) among




others. Media discourse has also been thoroughly discussed by Bell and Garrett(1998). The ‘critical discourse analysis’ approach produced the greater part of media discourse analysis; Fairclough (1989, 1995, 2000) uses Halliday’s micro-linguistic systems (1973; Halliday and Hasan, 1976) as a basis. French-speakingresearchers such as Ghiglione (1989) have focused on political discourse withoutnecessarily considering a general set of media discourse social practices. FewAnglo-Saxon researchers have worked on debates; Livingstone and Lunt (1994)are among the exceptions. Most researchers focus mainly on the case of news,scrutinizing discourse practices (Van Dijk, 1998), or issues of neutrality(Clayman, 1992).

2 . 3 ‘ S U B J E C T I V E ’ P O S IT I O N IN G P R OC E S S E S

‘Subjective’ positioning processes are to do with the relation established betweenthe verbal exchange dynamic and the general objectives which speakers assignthemselves. We here consider images of self in relation to hierarchical position-ing processes built in the course of the interaction; such processes are linked tothe more general notion of Ethos derived from ancient rhetorics (Amossy, 1999).Such built images are also connected to discourse situations, for example in themedia and institutional settings, as shown by Ghiglione and Charaudeau (1999),Scannell (1991), Vion (1998c) and Adam in Amossy (1999). Our concept of images of self is based on G.H. Mead’s theory of subject (1934) later theorized byGoffman in his drama-based conception of communication. Moreover, Goffman’snotion of figure is closely connected to LAA’s subjective positioning processes,seen as a fragment of the subject activated by and through discourse. At this

level, speakers have to deal with face-work strategies: Goffman’s FTAs (face-threatening acts), formalized by Brown and Levinson (1987), FFA (face-flatteringacts), along with the notion of ‘taxeme’ designed by Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1990,1992, 1994, 1996) are helpful in formalizing phenomena at this level. We dealwith conquered or lost positions in relation to images built by co-speakers:expert/non-expert, honest/dishonest, strict/lax; and more direct interactionalprocesses: confident/impulsive.

2 . 4 ‘ D I S C U R S I V E ’ P O S I TI O N IN G P R OC E S S E S

‘Discursive’ positioning processes mainly concern discourse structuration andcognitive tasks brought into play by speakers, such as narration, argumentation,description, explanation (Adam, 1992). Discourse can thus be segmented into

various moves or sequences, packages of utterances oriented towards the samegoal or strategy (Gumperz, 1982), sharing an inherent coherence. The way thesedifferent sequences are chained together to form coherent discourse with aspecific communicative goal constitutes one of our main areas of investigation.

Following Austin (1962) and Searle (1969), authors such as Roulet et al.(1992), Trognon and Brassac (1992) or Moeschler (1999) see discourse struc-ture as a succession of speech acts, and refer thus to an illocutionary logic.Discursive positioning processes allow us to conceive discourse as co-activities




organized into a hierarchy. A description can be embedded in a narration, beingitself part of a persuasive sequence. These processes also enable subjects to con-struct and deconstruct unstable discourse balances, which produces a dynamicvision of textual structure (Mosegaard-Hansen, 1998; Vion, 2000). At this level,cognitive tasks are considered, corresponding to types of discourse and languagefunctions.

2 . 5 ‘ E N U N C I A T I V E’ P O S IT I O N IN G P R OC E S S E S

‘Enunciative’ positioning processes concern purely enunciative phenomena andlead the analyst to use the concept of ‘enunciative staging’ designed by Vion(1998a) to study how speakers stage themselves in their own speech and marktheir degree of involvement. Do they seem to speak alone, to be the only source of

their discourse or do they summon virtual speakers, creating built-in voices? Inorder to make this clear, we need to distinguish between two enunciative orders:speaker and source, in a polyphonic perspective inspired by Bakhtine (1984) andDucrot (1984). A given speaker is not necessarily the upstream source of his/herutterance, he/she may just be a relay-speaker a mere physical speaking body‘quoting’ from other people’s discourse, whether these people are identified, realor not. The voices staged in speakers’ discourse will be referred to from now on asutterers, in order to distinguish them from the physical speaker.

We also have to try to give an account of the different ways through whichspeakers stage themselves in their speech to operate a meta-control, togetherwith the kind of modulation or footing which is achieved. Vion’s enunciativestaging typology offers a good starting point provided that it is agreed that an

utterance can be linked to different modes at the same time and that the typologyremains open. Moreover, it would be dangerous to expect a sequence to be com-posed only of utterances referring to just one mode such as ‘unicity’ or ‘duality’.Sequences are necessarily heterogeneously composed; therefore discourse activ-ity cannot be reduced to a linear catalogue of successive enunciative staging actsbelonging to the same mode. Accordingly, Vion sees discourse linearity composedof breaks or waves evoking the movement of breathing and thus speaks of ‘enunciative breathing’. The five modes encompassing enunciative staging canbriefly be presented as follows:

1. ‘Enunciative unicity’: speaker builds an enunciative position which gives theimpression he/she is the sole master of his/her words.

2. ‘Enunciative duality’: speaker builds two positions. Utterances may thusappear as ambiguous, implicit or opaque.

3. ‘Enunciative parallelism’: speaker stages several utterers and seems to speaksharing their views.

4. ‘Enunciative opposition’: speaker stages several utterers and seems to goagainst them.

5. ‘Enunciative self-effacement’: speaker’s voice seems to have deserted his/herspeech production.




Within these five modes, sub-categories are made available by the collocation of adjectives to identify data more clearly: ‘polyphonic’ is used to refer to severalutterers, ‘diaphonic’ to speaker and addressee, ‘exophonic’ to speaker and anabsent utterer.

This set of tools introduced by Vion (1995, 1998a) follows up Goffman’sForms of Talk (1981). The concept of footing has been set up to evaluate aspeaker’s involvement strategy in relation to a participation framework. Thisnotion has been discussed (Levinson, in Drew and Wooton, 1988; Léon, 1999)and used in many ways. The positions sketched: animator, author, principal andfigure constitute a set which is coherent with the typology of enunciative stagingpresented above. We may ask whether the position named figure belongs to thesame order as the other three. Léon (1999) presents Goffman’s work, restricting

it to three positions instead of four, so does Schiffrin (1994). Clayman (1992)introduces a new insight into the perspective, pointing to the part of responsibil-ity which the addressee takes in influencing a speaker’s choice as to the positionassumed. Thus, discourse is clearly seen as co-constructed; monologal units arethen brought back into the interactional game, which is exactly what the LAAteam attempts to suggest.

Approaches allowing one to cross enunciative and discursive levels, connect-ing the utterance production axis with pragmatics are extremely rare. Doing socasts a new light on certain markers or discourse particles (Schiffrin, 1987;Fernandez-Vest, 1994; Aijmer, 1996; Mosegaard-Hansen, 1998). The ‘star’model was designed to combine the two dimensions opening the door to enuncia-tive integrative pragmatics. Likewise, Jeanneret (1999) clearly displays a similar

programme in the title of her book, whereas Verschueren (1999), negating theexistence of such an approach, establishes links between elements belongingeach to argumentative, illocutionary and cognitive orders. Our model enablesanalysts to transgress strict interactional borders to deal with monologal texts(Vion, 1999; Vion et al., 2001). The same goal has been present in the GenevaSchool since the beginning (Roulet et al., 1985, 2001); as well as in Linell (1998)and Nølke’s research (1994; Nølke and Adam, 1999) and is one of the mainpreoccupations of the LAA.

3. From theory to data3 . 1 T HE S AJA MA C OR PU S

As part of a national research programme, we were asked to investigate the waydiscourse is used in extreme situations to let speakers’ subjectivity emerge. Agroup of 10 young male and female scientists volunteered for an expedition to an18,000 ft summit in Bolivia named ‘Sajama’.

The expedition programme included 10 biological research protocols target-ing human adaptation to the lack of oxygen (hypoxia) in high altitude, a frequentcause of pulmonary oedema (Richalet et al., 1994). The study of verbal datawas also planned, in order to contribute to the understanding of psychological




adaptation to extreme environment (Noël-Jorand et al., 1995; Blanchet et al.,1997).So, together with blood tests, subjects had to submit to audio-taped interviews

and self recordings before, during and after ascension. The recordings consistedin telling the way they felt about the whole experience, the group and their ownreactions to the ordeal they were going through.

3.1.1 The impact of the institutional and modular levelsEven looking casually at the transcripts, it is quite clear that whether the subjectsface the tape-recorder alone or reply to the pre-established questionnaire read bya member of the expedition, they actually are speaking to an absent addressee.This absent addressee can be identified as the partially fuzzy representation they

have of the scientific authority that organized the expedition. This accounts forthe fact that subjects’ speech is linked to the image of what one should be and do,according to the image they build of that fantasized authority and its expectancy,rather than the spontaneous expression of their feelings; a discrepancy illustrat-ing the combined influence of the institutional and subjective levels. The targetedimage (built for themselves and for others at the same time), is that of someoneworthy of the confidence placed in them and in their ability to cope with thetasks they have been assigned. The situation also contains a paradox in the factthat subjects are asked to give their feelings away whereas the institutional situa-tion is far from favouring this. These facts point to the notion that the institu-tional setting drastically influences the way in which speakers express themselves.

At the modular level, we are led to consider that only one sub-type of interac-

tion is present in the interviews: that of the questionnaire. The interviewer onlyreads out the questions, refraining from giving any audible feedback, rephrasingor eliciting reactions, which constitutes an additional obstacle for the emergenceof subjectivity. Nevertheless the corpus remains an interaction because discourseis addressed and an interviewer is present, even if he does not appear to be themain addressee.

There are interconnections between the setting and the discourse position aswell: when speakers are asked to describe the landscape surrounding them or totalk about their arrival, we find that description and narrative sequences areflawed with argumentative markers. Instead of hearing personal stories, we arefaced with self-justification. For instance ‘donc’ (so) becomes twice as frequent forone speaker, and three times as frequent for another speaker at times when they

try to conceal their suffering and pain.It is also possible to show that the impact of the institutional setting weighs

deeply on involvement strategies, resulting in the particular balancing of enun-ciative staging modes. Despite the paralysing format of the situation, the pres-sure of the hostile conditions the subjects have to cope with entails enunciativefluctuations in which overflowing subjectivity phases are immediately counter-balanced by the suddenly reappearing awareness of the general context, leadingto phases of rationalizing discourse.




Two different reasons account for such a tendency to repress the outflow of subjectivity: (1) each member of the expedition having to be up to the demandsof the extreme situation, they must take care of their image as we have alreadyindicated; (2) as we previously explained (Bertrand et al., 2000), too muchemotion, generally speaking, is an obstacle to the sharing of subjectivity, since itlies in every communication and undermines it. Communication demands thesynchronization of emotional states, and therefore implies a certain degree of distanciation.

3.1.2 Discursive and enunciative levels3.1.2.1 Modalizing lexical choicesAccordingly, the use of épuisée (exhausted ) to characterize a physical state by one

of the members of the expedition will be immediately modified and softened: je me sens essentiellement épuisée + mais bon j’espère que dans quelques jours + toutsera rentré dans l’ordre

(I feel mostly exhausted + but well I hope that within a few days + everything will beback in order)

The expression of subjectivity conveyed by épuisée (exhausted ) is modalized by theadverb essentiellement (mostly) and by the choice of je me sens (I feel) instead of jesuis (I am), and by a rationalizing discourse introduced by mais bon (but, well).Mais (but) indicates that a counter-argument or at least a conflicting kind of dis-course is about to follow; the particle bon (well) introduces a positioning shiftassigning a higher degree of relevance to the following statement. The presence

of mais (but) reminds us of the overall argumentative tonality underlying thesedescriptive sequences.As in the above-mentioned example, strong lexical choices as in: découragée

(discouraged ), inquiète (worried ) are usually corrected by modalizations: un peu (alittle), un certain (somewhat), un tout petit peu (very little) or followed by rationaliz-ing clauses marked by particles mais (but), bon (well), mais bon ... confirming thefact that too much exposure of self and feelings is not in good taste.

3.1.2.2 Polyphonic use of negationIn the same way, negative clauses can give rise to two different voices: (1) onepositive voice representing a potential or existing discourse; and (2) speaker’sown voice denying the previous statement. For instance, negation in:

(2) Pour moi, ça ne se passe pas très bien

(For me, things are not going very well)

constitutes a form of moderating as compared with non-negative statement:

(1) Pour moi ça se passe (très ) mal

(For me, it’s going (really) bad)




3.1.2.3 Enunciative swayingSome subjects confront two different opinions in their own discourse, directlystaging two different voices: (1) one of the voices expressing their personal opin-ion; and (2) a second one opposed to it and allocated to the group or to the evalu-ating authority, or to some doxa. This somewhat basic form of polyphony isfrequent in one of the female subjects who uses it as a means of putting her owndiscourse into perspective, so as to avoid excessive assertiveness in her frequentphases of self-depreciation. Once again alternation of opinions (voices) is basedupon the use of the connective particle mais (but) which includes a spectacularrise of its frequency:

je sens que++ je suis pas très utile + que je peux pas vraiment au maximum+

mais je pourrais faire plus

mais de toutes façons y a pas grand-chose à faire de plus + donc moralement je mesens un peu inutile

I feel that ++ I’m not being very helpful + I’m not actually doing my best

but I could do better

but anyway there is not much more that could be done + so morally I feel kind of useless

Statement (1) corresponds to speaker’s own voice; statement (2) stages othervoices, possibly referring to those of the group members; in statement (3) thespeaker’s voice is heard again, rephrasing her original opinion. It is notable thatmoves (1) and (3) linked to the speaker’s opinion are considerably modulated(sens que – pas très – pas vraiment: feel that – not very – not actually; de toutes façons – pas grand-chose – un peu: anyway – not much – kind of ) in contrast to (2) in whichthe voice of the group is staged. The same type of enunciative swaying is presentin one of the male subjects:

je me fous absolument.; (2) en fait c’est faux (3) je m’efforce (..): (1) I really don’t givea damn (2) in fact it is not true (3) but I do my best to (..)

3.1.2.4 About enunciative markersAs the expression of emotion is generally contained by subjects, we have to bevery careful in investigating verbal data to be able to spot the alternation of phases of subjectivity and curbing utterances. Along with the modalizing of

strong lexical choices and the staging of alternate voices, the use of particlessuch as ‘ben’, ‘quoi’, ‘eh bien’, ‘bon’, etc. can also reveal changes in the stagingstrategies.

Markers such as ‘eh bien’ (well) or ‘bon’ (so) tend to point to rationalizing dis-course whereas ‘ben’ or ‘quoi’ (you know) appearing at the end of utterances tendto accompany self-centred sequences marked in higher subjectivity and lessershare. Subjectivity sways would be relatable to enunciative phases shiftingbetween dramatization and trivialization, self-centredness and lack of focusing.




Practically, rationalization discourse contains modalizers like ‘vraiment’ (really),‘évidemment’ (obviously), ‘en fait’ (in fact) or meta-enunciative comments such as‘let’s say that’, ‘a sort of’ and the use of pronouns like ‘nous’ (we) or ‘on’ (colloquialfor we in spoken French). Conversely, discourses in which subjectivity emergescontain lexical choices which are inconsistent with the inter-subjectivity neces-sary for verbal exchange, and first-person pronouns.

In one given subject’s speech, the distanciation of emotions reveals unex-pected traces in his use of personal marks: in the Paris recordings, his use of ‘ je’(I ) is conventional, and bears no emotional aspect. On the summit, an emotionalaspect is present but the form ‘I ’ is replaced by more impersonal discourse mark-ers such as ‘on’ (one) and ‘ça’ (that). More precisely, there seems to be a systematicbinary partition: ‘ je’ is used for positive emotions, whereas ‘on’ is linked to the

negative ones:(on scenery): ‘within a five or ten meter distance + I like very much + but beyond thatone has great difficulty coping’.

So negative aspects relate to ‘others’, and positive aspects are endorsed by thespeaker alone.

As for enunciative staging modes, explicit unicity corresponds to positiveness,whereas parallelism or exophonic opposition is linked to negativeness.

On the summit, rather characteristically, in certain subjects’ speech, thepositive pole only is made explicit through the argumentative confrontation.Enunciative moves generate and place in the foreground a negative implicitcounter-part. The speaker counter-argues positively ‘facing’ an unspoken dis-

course which appears only through his counter-argument, revealed for instancethrough the accumulation of ‘quand même’ (all the same):

‘a protective value, all the same, which exists in the group’

‘Altiplano is all the same a very impressive thing’

In another subject’s speech, the same enunciative structure appears regularly.This time, this marker activates a fictive addressee that the speaker tends to mini-mize or repress, here again producing a co-enunciation phenomenon.

3.1.3 DiscussionBy comparing speech productions of subjects, whether in ordinary context orunder extreme conditions, we have been able to identify general tendencies

linked to high altitude and the effect of hypoxia (Vion et al., 2001), but alsopersonal characteristics such as differences in strategies or personality features.For instance some subjects will resort to humour, whereas others will make useof a certain rationalized discourse. Some subjects’ dramatized or self-centredreactions result in isolation from the group and its lack of concern; other speak-ers, although in pain, do everything they can to cope rationally and to set asidetheir own unease. Yet, personality features are partially neutralized by belongingto the group and by the mission itself, so that the expression of emotions is




constantly qualified, softened, broken, resulting in a rationalizing type of dis-course or in surpassing oneself, which is more representative of the group thanof individual subjects.

3 .2 T HE M AR S EI LL ES C OR PU S

We are going to study a meeting which took place in a hospital in Marseillesbetween a patient suffering from severe headaches (Mylène) and a member of the medical staff (Sabine) in charge of handling an interview for a multidiscipli-nary research programme focused on the verbalization of pain.

3.2.1 The interactive frameAt the most general level, we first have to define the situation in which the verbal

exchange develops, i.e. establish a link between our corpus and one or severaltypes of interactions. In interactional studies carried out after Goffman, interac-tion types are defined according to the nature of the social relation that actorssettle. This relation expresses itself through positioning processes, interactionalgoal, a degree of cooperation, the level of formality in turns and the way they arehandled. The first part of our meeting may then be defined as a medical inter-view, the goal of which is to build knowledge and not to diagnose or to deliver aprescription. The complementary positioning process on which it dwells associ-ates a patient giving information and a member of medical staff whose functionconsists in collecting information in a way which is coherent with that goal. Inthis particular meeting, presented in Appendix 1, the actors build a type of rela-tion which is far more complex than that which is defined by the positioning

process constituting the situation. Besides, the co-construction process adds acertain unpredictability to the development of discourse. It then appears neces-sary to make room for dynamic discourse activities shaped by actors endowedwith a certain power of action within a permanent interactive frame defining thesituation. As mentioned above, the interactive frame is defined by an ‘institutional’positioning process whereas the interactive space, that is to say, the complex rela-tion co-constructed by subjects implies a dynamic link between five types of posi-tioning processes (institutional, modular, subjective, discursive and enunciative).

The definition of the communicative situation by the institutional positioningprocess allows us to combine different successive interactions within a singlemeeting, which more traditional definitions assimilating interaction to meetingdo not make possible. In the meeting which is dealt with here, it is possible to dis-

tinguish two successive interactions bringing together the same subjects. If thefirst two extracts equate with an interview, what happens from line 91 andonwards radically modifies the initial positioning process: Sabine (the doctor), onlearning that Mylène (the interviewed patient) works in the field of medicalresearch, completely modifies her attitude and within a few turns closes themedical interview and opens a consultation for her own sake, enabling her toconsult the medical knowledge of Mylène (the patient). The initial positioningprocess investigator/interviewee gradually yields to expert/non-expert, which




implies a reversal of ‘high’ and ‘low’ positions. Considering that Sabine indicatesthat ‘it is not at all in our interview’ when she initiates this new frame, consider-ing also that the two subjects in presence never come back to the first medicalinterview, it may be argued that the meeting is composed of two separate succes-sive interactions, bringing together the same subjects, but in different socialrelations and different frames (an interview and a consultation). We shall seethat at the level of the complex relation built by subjects (interactive space) thesecond interaction develops in a particular climate, which is the natural follow-up to the interview.

3.2.2 The interactive spaceAfter studying several interviews between a member of medical staff and a

patient asked to verbalize his/her pain, it was possible to confirm that the patientorients his/her descriptions and narrations according to a ‘thesis’ correspondingto his/her personal diagnosis of the possible origins of the pain. Very often, thispersonal diagnosis was contrary to the official medical diagnosis. The descrip-tion of the pain, aimed at in the course of the interview, will be integrated intoan argumentative structure in which the patient will attempt to persuade his/herpartner. As the latter belongs to the medical field, the attempt is a tricky one.

The first interaction, the interview destined to produce knowledge, consists of extracts 1 and 2, as well as the first lines of extract 3. If the institutional position-ing process defining the interactive frame remains the same throughout theinteraction, the interactive space constantly modifies itself, even if two distinctmoments are identifiable.

Extract 1 (a module oriented towards discussion by Mylène)In extract 1, Mylène will set up particular discursive positions, dwelling on theargumentative component of language. She will then back her thesis (myheadaches are psychosomatic) with medical arguments:

I had a treatment both for the thyroid and the beginning of menopause. (line 4)

I had my eyes checked (. . .) so everything is all right. (15–17)

I had already done a head scanner. (20–1)

X-rays have been done too to have a look at rhumatism (. . .). (21–2)

This argumentative sequence is integrated into the interview and compels

Mylène to take up the institutional position of ‘patient’. To convince her partner,the activated interactional module will belong to the conversation order (sym-metrical positions with a focus on content). At the enunciative level, Mylèneeither endorses her own words using the first person pronoun (I, unicity mode) orspeaks with her doctors (enunciative parallelism):

So I came to consult Doctor B / We’ve done /we’ve spoken a lot to try to see if therewas no problem. (13–15)




one could / could have believed this to be the cause. (19)

we’ve done x-rays to see a little. (21)

well we found small things. (24)

At the enunciative level, the activated positions alternate between unicity andenunciative parallelism but also have self-effacement brought into play. This modeallows the speaker to present discourse as objective and as a general authoritativeopinion:

Because the treatments for Menopause, it’s always with hormones and it alwaysfavours headaches. (7–9)

The notion of authority initiated by the enunciative parallelism mode, one voice

of which is part of the medical order; as well as the universal truths derivingfrom the use of the effacement mode enhances the impact of the speech that thepatient endorses then more directly. As for subjective positions, Mylène presentsthe image of a rather expert person who possesses a sort of medical knowledge.Not only does she argue, eliminating gradually all the possible organic causes of her headaches, but, as we have just seen it, she asserts some medical knowledge,notably about the secondary effects of menopause treatments. The overall studyof interrelated positions allows analysts to cast light on subjects’ activities andstrategies. After the analysis of this first sequence we can make a certain numberof points:

1. Mylène apparently accepts the position of patient-informer, which helps todefine the complementary frame of the interview. Also, she has no choice, if

a subject refuses the positioning process defining a specific frame, communi-cation is completely blocked and nothing would be constructed until somekind of frame was found and accepted by participants.

2. While accepting the starting frame, Mylène, through her play on other posi-tions, modifies the institutional process: wanting to initiate a conversationmodule, taking up the attitude of an expert, setting up arguments andplaying on enunciative positions which endows her with a certain authorityand leads her to play higher than expected on the institutional process of information giver.

We will not go as far as to assert that this lack of consideration towards the inves-tigator because of an immodest play would account for Sabine’s refusal to take

the argued thesis (my headaches are psychosomatic) into account. This refusal isnonetheless clear-cut:

Why psychosomatic? it’s not because the CAUSE is not KNOWN (laughter) that nec-essarily there is no cause. (32–3)

Extract 2 (module oriented towards conversation by Mylène)In this second part of the interview, Mylène is radically going to change strategyand then continue her persuasion work in another manner. Although she is a




researcher in the medical field (which Sabine will learn only at the end of theinterview), she pretends not to know medical terms directly concerning herself.

They found something there, which shrinks, I don’t know the name (laughter).(34–5)

Beside the fact of stating her ignorance which consolidates Sabine in her positionof expert, the peal of laughter seems to have a very complex function: infantilizeat the subjective position level and it is also an attempt at setting up a form of complicity and proximity (modular level), enunciative distanciation, etc. Thesame configuration appears just after that:

‘that’s it (laughter) / it’s / they are terms that I generally forget, hah.’ (41–2)

A subtle analysis should also take into account the production of hein (hah) as adiscourse marker. The interview becomes more dialogical with consistentlylonger turns from Sabine. This general configuration will then gradually engen-der a conversation module with enunciative positions linked to duality andhumour. This is what is noticeable when speaking about her weight, Mylènesays:

‘then may be also by the ... important mass.’ (56)

The lexical choice of ‘mass’ (volume) implies an enunciative distanciation and aplay in the act of stating. This self-derisive humour accompanied by a little laugh,which seems to be targeting a feminine complicity, illustrates the radical modifi-cation of Mylène’s positioning. All the more so if one considers that instead of producing an argumentation, at the subjective positioning level, she will make dowith the setting up of a narration by which she tells herself. The dual enunciativeplay identified on ‘mass’ will carry on with the expression ‘tir groupé’ (shootingparty; line 64) to talk about a set of analyses already done and will be found lateron:

‘I started losing a bit of weight, but well, it’s not ... that brilliant.’ (70–1)

As we have indicated, this sequence is not based on direct argumentation butrather on a narration-description component which develops into a long mono-logue (lines 65–72). This type of narration functions as an argument in adiscourse which bears a persuasive goal. Its interest lies in the fact of arguingimplicitly, without risking offending the partner, showing a sort of knowledge inkeeping with the position of expert.

In the course of this module oriented towards conversation, one notes thatcooperative complicity gradually invades Sabine’s speech in such a way that thetwo women finally manage to coordinate their laughter (lines 75–6). Such coor-dination does not appear anywhere else; Mylène ends the narration with anutterance bearing argumentative echoes:

and::::::::::::: then I had to have my teeth operated on and the headaches came back(low) of course (laughter). (74–5)




The voice volume drop evoking confidential talk, the use of the style of speakingadverb (of course) and laughter clearly mark a positioning, which, on the subjec-tive side, targets complicity and proximity. After this second sequence, Sabineagrees to take into account Mylène’s own thesis. It is not possible to evaluateSabine’s degree of acceptance but it seems difficult to disassociate this concessionfrom all the interactive play on various positioning processes.

A few points have been given here and doubtless the analysis must be carriedfurther. It would also be necessary to take into account the different pauseswhich precede marked lexical choices, hesitation structures (and the momentswhen they occur in discourse), breaks and incomplete utterances, modalizations(anchoring of discourse in fictive, real or fantastic worlds), modulations (distan-ciation strategies bearing on the act of discourse), rephrasing strategies, meta-

discursive commentaries, turn overlaps, discourse markers, etc. (all the varioustraces of language activity which generally constitute the basis of the analysescarried out by the LAA team).

Also, a linguist is less concerned with the efficiency of strategies than withthe analysis itself. It is of little interest whether Mylène’s strategies allow her toachieve her goal or not. Strategies are coordinated lines of action that must bedescribed using linguistic concepts first. Interactive strategies would then dependon the particular way subjects play this complex game of positioning processes.The different strategies: intimidation, persuasion, kow-tow, seduction, researchof success, competition, minimal involvement, consensus reaching, etc. couldthen be visualized by specific configurations of plays on those various positions.

Extract 3 (consultation)As mentioned above, as early as line 97, a second interaction appears: Mylènebecomes the expert that Sabine consults. Given the fact that a certain interac-tional complicity was initiated earlier, Mylène will have to act modestly in theposition of expert, just as Sabine was doing in the preceding interaction. If theinteractive frame is altered, the relational history woven in the course of the firstinteraction will continue in the second one. As a result, Mylène who, in thecourse of the interview, had partially managed to initiate a conversationalmodule playing on complicity and proximity will develop her role of expert, byhesitating in her speech and trying to avoid a structured aspect. These hyper-correction phenomena are probably explainable by the modesty law, accordingto which one must not let one’s face be exalted excessively nor a fortiori exalt it

oneself (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1996).In other situations, they can also reflect the difficulty that a subject feels when

speaking about his/her profession to partners who do not have a very clear ideaof it. Here are other examples of the hypocorrection phenomena:

– hesitation structures: ‘euh’ (huh) 16 occurrences in five short monologues. – qualifiers such as:

To put it that way (100, 102),




that kind of thing (113),that kind of problem (100).

– simplified and ordinary syntactic forms:

this is very molecular biology (106)at the chromosome level (106–7)

– numerous modalizers which blur Mylène’s positioning:

simply (101), rather (102,103,107), ‘quand même’ (even so, come on), (108).

3.2.3 Discussion: heterogeneity and instability of unitsThe analysis of this meeting enabled us to discuss different types of phases:interactions, when distinct interactive frames follow one another; modules wheninteraction types are developed locally; and sequences when discourse activitytypes are linked to cognitive discursive tasks. Other smaller units also exist:exchanges, interventions, turns, speech acts and utterances.

Whatever the type of unit considered, it is necessary not to adopt a simplisticconception of the overall structure seen as a mechanical construction of homo-geneous units. In certain cases it will be possible to identify the beginning andthe end of a conversational module in a specific interactive frame, when the twosubjects cooperate narrowly. However, a difference in availability of subjects forthe setting of a conversational module will inevitably lead to complex situations.In extract 2, Mylène struggles to initiate a conversational module in the inter-view (constituting the interactive frame of the meeting) through lexical choices,enunciative positionings and the use of narration-description sequences. Sabine,

on the contrary, will resist this invitation, restricting herself to a production of discursive forms closer to interview than conversation. At this particular point,we have a ‘structuration conflict’ which can persist because it does not directlyaffect the institutional positionings defining the interactive frame. However, asMylène continues her attempts, Sabine’s utterances move closer to a conversa-tional involvement. The coordination of peals of laughter, the expression of com-plicity and accepted togetherness sketch a conversational attitude subordinatedto the position of investigator. It then becomes clear that the question concerningunits is complex: for Mylène, we can identify an attempt to initiate a conversa-tional module, whereas for Sabine, there is an evolution towards a form of conversational communication but the line is never really crossed. In such condi-tions, the conversational module which should concern both co-participants is

very difficult: the two subjects tend towards it according to different rhythms butdo not reach a conversational level. However, this orientation towards a conver-sational order is obvious in extract 2, all the more so by comparison with Sabine’slimited interventions in extract 1. Discourse is never constituted of stable andhomogeneous units, which would appear in order, one after the other. In differ-ent interventions, the ‘same’ conversational module can take up various forms, just as a certain text type such as narration can take very distinct forms depend-ing on the discourse genres in which it is integrated (literary works, narration of




ordinary life, fairy tales). Within a unified theoretical approach we assimilate thenotion of interactive frame to that of verbal interaction genres as well as that of discourse genres.

Not only the ‘same unit’ will take up a very different form depending on theframe in which it is produced, but also, depending on the activity of subjects atthe level of the interactive space. The ‘units’ used will then be taken at differentlevels of their achievement (it is then possible to draw a link to Gülich andQuasthoff ’s narrativity degrees (1985) and Adam’s prototypical logic (1992)).

Beside the complexity deriving from the compositionality of units and theaction of subjects, structuration conflicts between various participants willconstitute a supplementary factor of heterogeneity and instability of units. Thisis what we can see with ‘discussion’ (extract 1) and ‘conversation’ (extract 2).

Given the constraints linked to the frame, these modules cannot become stable inthe interview. This is obvious in both cases by Sabine’s reluctance to go too far inthe activation of such modules. However, considering that Mylène struggles toset them up and that Sabine must show she is cooperative, the orientationtowards these modules remains important, even if neither of them will be fullyactivated. We will have to posit that distinct degrees of activation are possible fordiscourse units in relation to the configuration of the interactive frame andstructuration conflicts occurring between participants.

4. Conclusion

The ‘star’ model, by permitting scrutiny of the various levels of verbal communi-

cation, makes possible the fact of putting heterogeneous phenomena into astructuring perspective. It is true that psychological or sociological factors whichinfluence individuals are complex and numerous, but as such they do not belongto our scope of investigation. The interest of the linguistic approach we defendlies rather in the attempt to bring to light the way in which levels as varied asinstitutional, modular, subjective, discursive and enunciative positioningprocesses must be taken into account to produce an analysis concerned withsocial practices as well as micro-linguistic strategies.

The attitude of subjects towards language productions evolves in such a waythat the development of discourse will be characterizable by discourse breaksand a relative enunciative instability.

The interest of the model presented here lies in the attitude, apparently para-

doxical, of presenting concepts analysing discourse from clear-cut categorieswhile focusing on instability, heterogeneity and the dynamism of discoursestrategies.

A P P E N D I X 1 T HE M YL EN E/ S A B I NE I N T E RV I E W, 1 5 J U N E 1 9 9 2

M = Mylène: patient (and a medical researcher at the INSERM, a professional statusSabine is not aware of during the first part of the interview)S = Sabine (doctor in charge of the interview)




Excerpt 1

1 M et puis euh:::: depuis déjà:: pas mal d’années je souffre de migraines /2 c’est pour ça que je suis venue voir euh le Docteur B. / parce que3 (1,59) le dernier trimestre de l’année dernière euh:: (0,98) j’étais en4 (+) traitement et pour la thyroïde et pour un début de ménopause5 puisque j’ai 46 ans (+)6 S hm hm7 M et je sais pas si ce sont ces médicaments associés / parce que les8 traitements pour la ménopause c’est toujours sous forme d’hormones9 et ça favorise toujours (+) les migraines

10 S mm=11 M euh j’ai eu des migraines atroces c’est-à-dire que je me retrouvais12 par terre euh::: obligée de faire venir le SAMU / euh::: enfin évidem-

13 ment un stade très très (1,07) / donc je suis venue consulter M. B.14 euh (1,15) on a fait / on a parlé pas mal pour essayer de voir si y15 avait pas de problèmes / J’ai fait un examen des yeux (++)16 S hm oui pour chercher une cause17 M pour savoir euh:: s’il y avait quelque chose / donc c’est normal /18 comme aussi j’avais eu des problèmes de diabète et que ma mère19 est diabétique donc on pourrait / on aurait pu croire à ça / euh j’ai20 j’avais déjà fait un scanner (+) euh de la tête donc je savais qu’y avait21 rien d’important / ts hm on a fait des radios pour voir un peu euh au22 point de vue euh rhumatisme23 S si on avait (xxxxxx)24 M bon (+) là il y a un petit quelque chose / il y a un pincement / enfin on25 a trouvé des des petites choses qui peuvent euh (1,80) être une26 petite part de (+) de ces douleurs

27 S hm hm28 M Notamment un effet de torticolis que j’ai / quelque chose qui ressem-29 blerait à ça de gène pour euh tous les mouvements (+) mais::::30 (soupir) (1,59) je crois aussi que le / la migraine c’est:::: (bas)31 psychosomatique (rire) et que::::::://32 S (rapide) pourquoi psychosomatique c’est pas parce qu’on ne33 connaît pas la cause (rire) que forcément il faut dire qu’y en a pas(...)

Excerpt 2

34 M ils ont trouvé quelque chose là qui se rétrécit dont je sais pas le35 nom (éclat de rire)36 S oui dans le bras (xxx)

37 M oui=38 S à cause des côtes?39 M dé:::filé::::trachéo-brachial40 S trachéo-brachial?41 M c’est ça oui (rires) / c’est des / ce sont des termes que j’oublie42 généralement hein43 S thoraco-brachial: hein44 M thoraco-brachial45 S oui parce que la trachée elle est loin quand même hein / C’est là




46 quand vous levez les bras vous avez des (++)47 M oui::: j’ai / je48 S des sensations mm49 M oui si je porte un poids qui est / qui m’oblige à faire ça je peux plus50 euh::51 S hm hm52 M j’ai l’impression que tout le bras53 S oui ce sont les artères qui sont un peu coincées par la pre/54 M voilà55 S mière côte56 M puis aussi peut-être par le (+) volume (rire) important57 S vous pensez que58 M euh donc euh euh pour continuer ce qui a été fait donc (++) euh::59 (1,63) t / je suis allée consulter ch:::::::::ez le Professeur V

60 S oui61 M aussi pour euh voir //62 S pour le diabète toujours?63 M les problèmes de diabète de poids de thyroïde enfin (+) pour faire64 un groupé euh un tir groupé(...)65 M oui j’avais déjà fait un:: traitement mais c’était peut-être pas assez66 équilibré (+) là j’ai refait les examens et::: (+) et puis euh::: je prends67 je reprends des hormones du 13ème au 25ème jour des règles (+)68 pour essayer aussi de de compenser un peu le / les problèmes hor-69 monaux / Pour le diabète c’est ç / ça a l’air é / tout à fait équilibré /70 bon là j’ai commencé un peu à perdre du poids mais enfin c’est71 c’est pas folichon c’est à dire c’est trois kilos depuis euh / bon enfin72 ça fait pas longtemps non plus (1,51)73 S mm74 M et:::: là je dois me faire opérer des dents et la migraine elle est75 revenue (bas) évidemment (rire)76 S (rire)77 M donc c’est pour ça que je dis que c’est très //78 S vous pensez que le79 M psychosomatique80 S comment vous l’éprouvez cette douleur vous pouvez me la décrire81 un petit peu (++) même la caractériser (+) essayer d’imaginer (++)(...)82 S vous pensez vous qu’il y a un problème euh83 M oh oui84 S psychosomatique important / vous pensez que ça correspond ça

85 corresponde à des problèmes dans votre vie là où (...)(...)

Excerpt 3

86 S c’est vrai quand on est soumis à des stress ou à des responsabilités on ++87 M oui oui oui mais bon je crois pas parce que quand même la profession c’est une88 habitude / c’est pas dès maintenant que je suis ++ / ça fait 25 ans que je travaille89 + je veux dire bon90 S vous travaillez dans quelle +




91 M je travaille à l’INSERM à la recherche médicale92 S oui93 M sur les récepteurs / c’est fond/ c’est de la recherche fondamentale94 S mais ça m’intéresse / j’ai + / ça fait euh / j’ai une maîtrise d’histologie générale95 et j’ai fait un peu de96 M euh sur le97 S de biochimie / c’est pas du tout dans notre entretien98 M euh sur le euh euh récepteur euh à l’antigène / c’est-à-dire euh les fonctions99 euh alpha bêta et gamma delta euh et les relations avec euh les complexes Cb3,

100 Cb4, Cb8 / enfin ce genre de problème / enfin si vous voulez101 S vous êtes biologiste au départ102 M je suis chim / aide-chimiste au départ / mais si vous voulez c’est plutôt euh /103 je travaille plutôt dans le problème de la structure + de l’analyse germinale104 euh de ces gênes qui conduisent à

105 S XX106 M donc c’est très biologie moléculaire et structure euh au point de vue107 chromosomes euh cartographie des gênes euh / plutôt de ce côté de l’étude108 S donc d’un point de vue plus biochimique que médical quand même109 M euh ni chimique ne médical + très fondamental110 S très fondamental111 M simplement euh pour pouvoir construire des gênes les mettre dans des112 cellules eucaryotes et voir euh l’expression si on apporte des mutations113 ce genre de choses114 S d’accord non ça m’intéresse beaucoup parce que en même temps que mes115 études de médecine j’ai fait plusieurs CES d’histologie embryologie parasitologie

A P P E N D I X 2 T R A N S CR I P T IO N C O N V EN T I O NS

: the immediately prior syllable is prolonged. The number of colons isproportional to the prolongation

/ self-interruption// interruption or overlapping by an interactant+ pause: the number of + increases with the duration of the pause(1,51) exact duration of the pause(xx) what has been uttered is uncertain= no time elapses between utterances(laughs) description of aspects of paraverbal or nonverbal behaviourunderscored uttered simultaneouslyCAPITAL LETTERS stressed syllables

A P P E N D I X 3 T RA NS LAT IO NS O F F RE NC H T ER MS

balancement énonciatif alternating voices/enunciative swayingconnecteurs connective discourse particlesdiscursive discursiveenonciatif enunciativeespace interactif interactive spacemarqueurs structurels pattern markersplace (réalisee) positionplace institutionnelle institutional positioning




place modulaire modular positioningpositionnement positioningpositions sociales social positionsrapport de place (interrelational) positioning processrelation contractée contracted relationrelation interlocutive interlocutive relationsrelation interpersonnelle et sociale interpersonal and social relationsrôles rolessubjective subjective

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

This research was funded by the ‘Ministère National de la Recherche et de Technologie’,Programme ‘COG13B’, ACI Cognitique. Corpora are the property of the Département de

Biomathématiques, Statistiques et Informatique, Faculté de Médecine, Marseille: ‘TheSajama Corpus’, and of the LAA team: ‘The Marseilles Corpus’.

R E F E R E N C E S

Adam, J.-M. (1992) Les Textes: Types et prototypes. Paris: Nathan.Adam, J.-M. (1997) Le Style dans la langue. Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.Adam, J.-M. (1999) Linguistique textuelle. Des genres de discours aux textes. Paris: Nathan.Aijmer, K. (1996) Conversational Routines in English. Harlow: Longman.Amossy, R. (ed.) (1999) Images de soi dans le discours: La construction de l’ethos. Lausannne:

Delachaux et Niestlé.Austin, J. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bakhtine, M. (1984[1952–3]) Esthétique de la création verbale. Paris: Gallimard, Coll N.R.F.Bell, A. and Gar rett, P. (eds) (1998) Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Berthoud, A.C. (1996) Paroles à propos: Approche énonciative et interactive du topic . Gap:

Ophrys.Bertrand, R. et al. (2000) ‘L’observation et l’analyse des affects dans l’interaction’, in

C. Plantin, M. Doury and V. Traverso (eds) Les Émotions dans les interactions, pp.169–82. Lyon: ARCI.

Blanchet, A., Noel-Jorand, M.C. and Bonaldi, V. (1997) ‘Discursive Strategies of Subjectswith High Altitude Hypoxia: Extreme Environment’, Stress Medicine 13: 151–8.

Brémond, C. (2003) ‘La portée co-énonciative de “bon”: Son rôle dans la structuration del’objet discursif’, Revue de Sémantique et de Pragmatique 13: 9–23.

Bronckart, J.-P. (1996) Activité langagière, textes et discours. Lausanne: Delachaux etNiestlé.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Clayman, S.E. (1992) ‘Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of News-

Interviews Discourse’, in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction inInstitutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds) (1992) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Drew, P. and Wooton, A. (eds) (1988) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order .Cambridge: Polity Press.

Ducrot, O. (1984) Le dire et le dit. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power . London: Longman.Fairclough, N. (1995) Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.




Nølke, H. and Adam, J.-M. (eds) (1999) Approches modulaires: De la langue au discours.Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé.

Priego-Valverde, B. (1998) ‘L’humour (noir) dans les conversations: Jeux et enjeux’, LesRegistres de la Conversation, Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 3: 123–44.

Priego-Valverde, B. (2001) ‘C’est du lard ou du cochon? Lorsque l’humeur opacifie la con-versation familière’, online journal, Marges Linguistiques 2: 195–208 (http://www.Marges-linguistiques.com).

Priego-Valverde, B. and Maury-Rouan, C. (2003) ‘La mise en mots de la douleur’, in J.M.Colletta and A. Tcherkassof (eds) Perspectives actuelles sur les émotions: Cognition,langage et développement. Brussels: Hayen, Mardaga.

Richalet, J.P., Souberbielle, J.C., Antezana, A.M., et al. (1994) ‘Control of Erythropoiesis inHumans during Prolonged Exposure to Altitude of 6,542 m’, American Journal of Physiology 266: R556–R764.

Roulet, E. et al. (1985) L’Articulation du discours en français contemporain. Berne: Peter Lang.

Roulet, E. et al. (1992) ‘Actes de langage et structure de la conversation’, Cahiers deLinguistique Française 13: 76–107.

Roulet, E., Filliettaz, L. and Grobet, A. (2001) Un modèle et un instrument d’analyse de l’or-ganisation du discours. Berne: Peter Lang.

Rouveyrol, L. (1998) ‘Vers une stylistique de l’interaction télévisée?’, Bulletin de la Société de Stylistique Anglaise 19: 9–44.

Rouveyrol, L. (1999) ‘Pour une stylistique du taxème dans le débat politique télévisé:Analyse de quelques réseaux interactionnels signifiants’, Asp 23/26: 99–120.

Scannell, P. (ed.) (1991) Broadcast Talk. London: Sage.Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Schiffrin, D. (1994) Approaches to Discourse. London: Routledge.Searle, J. (1969) Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Tannen, D. (1989) Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational

Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Trognon, A. and Brassac, D. (1992) ‘L’Enchaînement conversationnel’, Cahiers de

Linguistique Française 13: 76–107.van Dijk, T. (1998) News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Verschueren, J. (1999) Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.Vion, R. (1992) La Communication verbale: Analyse des interactions. Paris: Hachette.Vion, R. (1995) ‘La Gestion pluridimensionnelle du dialogue’, in Cahiers de Linguistique

Française 17: 179–203.Vion, R. (1998a) ‘La Mise en scène énonciative du discours’, in B. Caron (ed.) Proceedings

of the 16th International Congress of Linguists (CD-ROM). Oxford: Elsevier Sciences.Vion, R. (ed.) (1998b) Les Sujets et leurs discours: Enonciation et interaction. Aix-en-

Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence.Vion, R. (1998c) ‘De l’instabilité des positionnements énonciatifs dans le discours’, in

J. Verschueren (ed.) Pragmatics in 1998: Selected Papers from the 6th InternationalConference, vol. 2, pp. 577–89. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.

Vion, R. (1999) ‘Pour une approche relationnelle des interactions verbales et des dis-cours’, Langage et Société 87: 95–114.

Vion, R. (2000) ‘Les Activités de recadrage dans le déroulement discursif’, in E. Nemeth(ed.) Pragmatics in 2000: Selected Papers from the 7th International Prgamatics Conference,vol. 2, pp. 583–97. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.

Vion, R. (2001a) ‘Modalités, modalisations et activités langagières’, online journal,Marges Linguistiques 2: 209–31 (http://www.Marges-linguistiques.com).




Vion, R. (2001b) ‘Effacement énonciatif,et strategies discursives’, in A. Joly and M. deMattia (eds) De la syntaxe à la narratologie énonciative (Textes recueillis en homage à René Rivara), pp. 331–4. Paris: Ophrys.

Vion, R. (2003) ‘Modalisations et modalités dans le discours’, XVIIème congrès interna-tional des linguistes, Prague, juillet 2003, in Actes (CD-ROM). Oxford: Elsevier.

Vion, R., Burle, E. and Rouveyrol, L. (2002) ‘De l’interaction au texte littéraire, transgres-sion d’un modèle du genre’, in E. Roulet Les Analyses de discours au défi d’un dialogueromanesque, pp. 469–81. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.

Vion, R., Rouveyrol, L., Maury-Rouan, C., et al. (2001) ‘Outils linguistiques pour l’analysedu discours et des émotions’, Revue Française de Psychiatrie et de Psychologie MédicaleV(49): 49–56.

L A UR E N T R OU V E Y RO L is a Lecturer in English and Linguistics at the University of Nice(Sophia Antipolis). His research includes domains such as discourse analysis, verbal inter-actions, genre analysis and, more particularly, media discourse events such as Britishpolitical panel debates, on which he has published widely. His main current interest is toanalyse and compare speakers’ co-constructed positioning strategies as they emerge byand through discourse within a mediatized situation of communication. A D D R E S S : AFL(LAA) Laboratoire Parole et Langage, UMR 6057, CNRS, Université de Provence, France.[email: [email protected]]

C L A I R E M AU RY- R O U A N is Senior Lecturer at the University of Aix-en Provence where sheteaches linguistics. Her main research domains include the relationship between verbaland non-verbal aspects in discourse and more particularly the analysis of micro-enuncia-tive phenomena such as hypocorrection and discourse lures, in relation to interaction

dynamics and non-verbal components of exchanges. She is the author of around 50 jour-nal articles, several book chapters and lectures. A D D R E S S : AFL (LAA) Laboratoire Paroleet Langage, UMR 6057, CNRS, Université de Provence, France. [email: [email protected]]

RO BE RT V IO N is Professor of General Linguistics at the University of Aix-en-Provence(Aix-Marseille), in the Language Sciences Department. His research mainly focuses onverbal interaction, discourse analysis, pragmatics, enunciation theory and the verbaliza-tion of sensory impressions. The general perspective adopted in his research consists of analysing discourse dynamics, laying emphasis on language activities co-constructed byspeakers as well as on discourse heterogeneity. He has published La Communication verbale(Paris: Hachette, 1992) and has co-edited several books, one of which is Les sujets et leursdiscours (Aix-en-Provence: University of Provence Press, 1998). A D D R E S S : AFL (LAA)Laboratoire Parole et Langage, UMR 6057, CNRS, Université de Provence, France. [email:

[email protected]]

M A R I E - C HR IS TI NE N OË L- J O R A N D is a researcher at the Biomathematics and StatisticsDepartment of the Timone Medical School in Marseilles. Her research topics includediscourse analysis which she uses as part of a larger research on human adaptation tohigh altitude chronic hypoxia, and as a method of investigating schizophrenic patients’speech. A D D R E S S : Département de Biomathématiques, Statistiques et Informatique,Faculté de Médecine, La Timone, Marseille, France. [email: maria-christine.noel-

[email protected]]


a linguistic toolbox for cda

Documents