http://dis.sagepub.com/Discourse
Studieshttp://dis.sagepub.com/content/7/3/289The online version of
this article can be found at:DOI: 10.1177/1461445605052188 2005 7:
289 Discourse StudiesLaurent Rouveyrol, Claire Maury-Rouan, Robert
Vion and Marie-Christine Nol-JorandA linguistic toolbox for
discourse analysis: towards a multidimensional handling of verbal
interactionsPublished by:http://www.sagepublications.com can be
found at: Discourse Studies Additional services and information for
http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://dis.sagepub.com/content/7/3/289.refs.html Citations: by Sara
Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from ABS
TRACT 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 unied 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.KE Y WORDS : discourse
analysis, enunciation, integrative pragmatics,
positioningstrategies, verbal interaction1.
IntroductionAnysituationof
communicationischaracterizedbymultidimensionalparam-eters.Everyspeechproduction,whateveritmaybe,isnecessarilyrelatedtoa
discourse genre or interaction type. In this pre-existing setting,
every subject
willinitiate,undergoandnegotiateaninteractivespacewithhis/herpartnersinwhichhe/shesimultaneouslyhandlesvariouspositions,ortobemoreexact,
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
ofspeechproductionandreceptioninitsfullcomplexityandheterogeneity.Anexampleof
thisintegrativepragmaticsapproachhasbeendevelopedbyVion(1995, 1999)
and constitutes the theoretical basis of the LAA team.ARTI CL E
289A linguistic toolbox for discourseanalysis: towards a
multidimensionalhandling of verbal interactionsL AURE NTROUVE YROL
,CL AI RE MAURY- ROUAN, ROBE RTVI ONANDMARI E - CHRI S TI NE NO L -
J ORANDUNI VE RS I T DE PROVE NCE AND FACULT DE M DE CI NE ,L A TI
MONE , MARS E I L L EDiscourse Studies Copyright 2005SAGE
Publications.(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New
Delhi)www.sagepublications.comVol 7(3): 289313.1461-4456(200508)
7:3;10.1177/1461445605052188 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010
dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from 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-Valverdeonhumour(1998,2001),Maury-Rouanonco-enunciation(1998)andondiscourseparticles(2001b),Brmondondiscoursestructureandparticles(2003)allusednaturalconversationsascorpora,themodel
has also been successfully applied to literary discourse (Vion et
al.,
2002),mediadiscourseinEnglish(Rouveyrol,1998),anddoctorpatientinteractions(Priego-ValverdeandMaury-Rouan,2003).Conceptsweredevelopedorintro-ducedonthegroundsof
thesevariouskindsof
corpora:taxemes(Rouveyrol,1999),hypocorrection(Maury-Rouan,2001a),discoursestructurationin
general:oneffacementstrategies(Vion,2001b),discourseinstability(Vion,2000),
positioning changes (Vion, 2001b), taxemic markers (Rouveyrol,
1999),discourselures(Maury-Rouan,2001b,2003),andmodality(Vion,2001a,2003).
This article is intended to apply the model to a specic corpus
consistingof theverbalproductionsof membersof
ascienticteamexperiencingadapta-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,
thankstoamodelabletodealwiththevariousrelevantlevels.Inourview,speakerscommunicateaccordingtosocialpositionsandadoptroles.Therelationthuscontractedbythedifferentactorsanddynamicallyco-elaboratedthroughdis-course
activity can be dened in terms of interrelational positioning
processes. Suchrealities are dissociated into different types which
altogether enable the analyst
tomapdiscourseactivitybridgingthegapbetweenvariousheterogeneousanddynamicphenomena.Realitiesof
differentcalibrehavetobehandledsimulta-neously by every speaker.
They range from macro to micro, associating social posi-tions to
interlocutive, intersubjective and enunciative ones (Vion, 1995:
181).Thesepositioningprocessesarecomplementaryandworkonaone-to-onebasis:itisnotpossibletospeakfromagivenpositionwithoutconjuringuptheaddressee
in the complementary one and validate the process. If you speak as
ateacher,theaddresseecanassumenootherpositionthanthatof
astudentorpupil.Suchpositions,linkedtopowerrelationsbutnotalways,areinitiatedinthe
course of interaction and are constantly modied.To situate our
research in relation to all other available analytical frames
doesnotseemtobearealistictask.However,itremainspossibletotrytotargeta
certainnumberof
workscloselylinkedtothelevelstakenintoaccountbyourmultidimensionalmodelclosetotheperspectiveof
enunciativeandintegrativepragmatics 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-tivestepbystep,whichwillenableustoconfrontourmodelateachlevelwith290
Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010
dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from 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 artWe attempt
to analyse discourse by using what we call the star model (Figure
1).
Ifwestartfromthetop,movingcounter-clockwise,werealizethatweshiftfrommacro
to micro realities. The rst three positioning processes relate to
the inter-personalhandlingof
theinteraction.Subjectsevolveinasocialframe,whoserules and
practices they have integrated as members of a specic
community.Allvepositioningprocesses:institutional,modular,subjective,discursive,andenunciativeinuenceeachotherinanon-hierarchicalwayandtogetherformtheinteractivespace.Figure1indicatesthattheyarealllinked.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.Ourmultidimensionalperspectiveformalizesthecomplexityof
languagefromitsstart.
Thisapproachisinsharpcontrasttomodularattemptsinwhichlanguagecomplexityisdividedintovariouscomponentstreatedrelativelyautonomouslyfromeachotherinarstphase,andconnectedonlyinasecondphase.Rouveyrol
et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 291 Modular
Positioning InstitutionalPositioning Enunciative Positioning
Discursive Positioning Subjective Positioning INTERPERSONAL AND
SOCIAL RELATIONS INTERLOCUTIVE RELATIONS F I GURE 1. The star model
of positioning processes by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010
dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from 2. 1 I NS TI TUTI ONAL POS I TI ONI
NG PROCE S S E
SInstitutionalpositioningprocessesareachievedthankstorealitieswhichareexteriorandpriortotheinteraction.Someexamplescouldbe:doctorpatient,teacherstudent...Theseinstitutionalpositionsrefertoatypologyof
interac-tionsbutbynomeanscanbereducedtosocialfunctionsorprofessionalactivi-ties.Communicationsituationsareretro-activelydeterminedbydiscourseactivitycarriedoutbyspeakers.Somevariationistobeexpected,whichintheend
modies or qualies the pre-existing
frame.Weowemuch,here,totheinteractionalsociolinguisticsapproachwhoseinspiration
comes from sociology, social anthropology and ultimately
linguistics.Gumperzsworkcastslightonhowsubjectssharegrammaticalknowledgeandcontextualizeit.Institutionalpositioningprocessesof
sociologicalorderalsoecho Erving Goffmans views. Goffman describes
how language is used in partic-ular social situations: The
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), Behavior
inPublicPlaces (1963),InteractionalRituals (1967),RelationsinPublic
(1971),Frame Analysis (1974), and Forms of Talk (1981). In the
linguistic eld, 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).Theinstitutionalpositioningprocessisthebroadesttype,whichinthecase
of interactionalexchangesenablesustohandlethesituationandthesocial
relationsatworkatthebeginning.Inwrittenmonologalproductions,these
institutional processes help us dene discourse genres.2. 2 MODUL AR
POS I TI ONI NG PROCE S S E
SModularpositioningprocesseshavetodowithspecicinteractionalphases
handledtemporarilybyspeakers,belongingtoasecondarygenresubordinatedto
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
erce attacks directed at an ideological opponentwithin a friendly
debate. Another example would be a doctorpatient
interactioninwhichspeakersmightinitiateconversationalmodulesonchildren/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 theconceptsof
discoursetypesandordersof discourse,developedbyFairclough(1989,
1995), derived from Foucault (1984).Modular and institutional
processes are also conceptually connected to theperspectivesof
ESP(EnglishforSpecicPurposes)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. Scientic discourse was
analysed by Swales (1990) among292 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara
Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from
others.MediadiscoursehasalsobeenthoroughlydiscussedbyBellandGarrett(1998).Thecriticaldiscourseanalysisapproachproducedthegreaterpartofmedia
discourse analysis; Fairclough (1989, 1995, 2000) uses Hallidays
micro-linguistic systems (1973; Halliday and Hasan, 1976) as a
basis. French-speakingresearchers such as Ghiglione (1989) have
focused on political discourse
withoutnecessarilyconsideringageneralsetof
mediadiscoursesocialpractices.FewAnglo-Saxon researchers have
worked on debates; Livingstone and Lunt
(1994)areamongtheexceptions.Mostresearchersfocusmainlyonthecaseof
news,scrutinizingdiscoursepractices(VanDijk,1998),orissuesof
neutrality(Clayman, 1992).2. 3 S UBJ E CTI VE POS I TI ONI NG PROCE
S S E SSubjective positioning processes are to do with the relation
established
betweentheverbalexchangedynamicandthegeneralobjectiveswhichspeakersassignthemselves.Wehereconsiderimagesof
self
inrelationtohierarchicalposition-ingprocessesbuiltinthecourseof
theinteraction;suchprocessesarelinkedtothe more general notion of
Ethos derived from ancient rhetorics (Amossy,
1999).Suchbuiltimagesarealsoconnectedtodiscoursesituations,forexampleinthemedia
and institutional settings, as shown by Ghiglione and Charaudeau
(1999),Scannell(1991),Vion(1998c)andAdaminAmossy(1999).Ourconceptofimages
of self is based on G.H. Meads theory of subject (1934) later
theorized byGoffman in his drama-based conception of communication.
Moreover, Goffmansnotionof gure
iscloselyconnectedtoLAAssubjectivepositioningprocesses,seenasafragmentof
thesubjectactivatedbyandthroughdiscourse.Atthislevel,speakershavetodealwithface-workstrategies:GoffmansFTAs(face-threatening
acts), formalized by Brown and Levinson (1987), FFA
(face-atteringacts),alongwiththenotionof
taxemedesignedbyKerbrat-Orecchioni(1990,1992,1994,1996)arehelpfulinformalizingphenomenaatthislevel.Wedealwithconqueredorlostpositionsinrelationtoimagesbuiltbyco-speakers:expert/non-expert,honest/dishonest,strict/lax;andmoredirectinteractionalprocesses:
condent/impulsive.2. 4 DI S CURS I VE POS I TI ONI NG PROCE S S E
SDiscursivepositioningprocessesmainlyconcerndiscoursestructurationandcognitive
tasks brought into play by speakers, such as narration,
argumentation,description,explanation(Adam,1992).Discoursecanthusbesegmentedintovariousmovesorsequences,packagesof
utterancesorientedtowardsthesamegoal or strategy (Gumperz, 1982),
sharing an inherent coherence. The way
thesedifferentsequencesarechainedtogethertoformcoherentdiscoursewitha
specic communicative goal constitutes one of our main areas of
investigation.FollowingAustin(1962)andSearle(1969),authorssuchasRouletetal.(1992),
TrognonandBrassac(1992)orMoeschler(1999)seediscoursestruc-tureasasuccessionof
speechacts,andreferthustoanillocutionarylogic.Discursivepositioningprocessesallowustoconceivediscourseasco-activitiesRouveyrol
et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 293 by Sara
Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from
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-structanddeconstructunstablediscoursebalances,whichproducesadynamicvision
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 NUNCI ATI VE POS I TI ONI NG
PROCE S S E
SEnunciativepositioningprocessesconcernpurelyenunciativephenomenaandleadtheanalysttousetheconceptof
enunciativestagingdesignedbyVion(1998a)tostudyhowspeakersstagethemselvesintheirownspeechandmarktheir
degree of involvement. Do they seem to speak alone, to be the only
source
oftheirdiscourseordotheysummonvirtualspeakers,creatingbuilt-invoices?Inorder
to make this clear, we need to distinguish between two enunciative
orders:speaker
andsource,inapolyphonicperspectiveinspiredbyBakhtine(1984)andDucrot
(1984). A given speaker is not necessarily the upstream source of
his/herutterance,he/shemayjustbearelay-speakeramerephysicalspeakingbodyquoting
from other peoples discourse, whether these people are identied,
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.Wealsohavetotrytogiveanaccountof
thedifferentwaysthroughwhichspeakersstagethemselvesintheirspeechtooperateameta-control,togetherwiththekindof
modulationorfootingwhichisachieved.Vionsenunciativestagingtypologyoffersagoodstartingpointprovidedthatitisagreedthatanutterance
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.Sequencesarenecessarilyheterogeneouslycomposed;thereforediscourseactiv-ity
cannot be reduced to a linear catalogue of successive enunciative
staging actsbelonging to the same mode. Accordingly, Vion sees
discourse linearity composedof breaksorwavesevokingthemovementof
breathingandthusspeaksofenunciativebreathing.Thevemodesencompassingenunciativestagingcanbriey
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.
Enunciativeduality:speakerbuildstwopositions.Utterancesmaythusappear
as ambiguous, implicit or opaque.3. Enunciative parallelism:
speaker stages several utterers and seems to speaksharing their
views.4.
Enunciativeopposition:speakerstagesseveralutterersandseemstogoagainst
them.5. Enunciative self-effacement: speakers voice seems to have
deserted his/herspeech production.294 Discourse Studies 7(3) by
Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Withinthesevemodes,sub-categoriesaremadeavailablebythecollocationofadjectivestoidentifydatamoreclearly:polyphonicisusedtorefertoseveralutterers,diaphonictospeakerandaddressee,exophonictospeakerandanabsent
utterer.Thissetof
toolsintroducedbyVion(1995,1998a)followsupGoffmansFormsof Talk
(1981).Theconceptof footing
hasbeensetuptoevaluateaspeakersinvolvementstrategyinrelationtoaparticipationframework.Thisnotionhasbeendiscussed(Levinson,inDrewandWooton,1988;Lon,1999)andusedinmanyways.
Thepositions sketched:animator,author,principalandgure constitute a
set which is coherent with the typology of enunciative
stagingpresentedabove.Wemayaskwhetherthepositionnamedgure
belongstothesame order as the other three. Lon (1999) presents
Goffmans work, restrictingittothreepositionsinsteadof
four,sodoesSchiffrin(1994).Clayman(1992)introduces a new insight
into the perspective, pointing to the part of responsibil-ity which
the addressee takes in inuencing a speakers choice as to the
positionassumed.
Thus,discourseisclearlyseenasco-constructed;monologalunitsarethenbroughtbackintotheinteractionalgame,whichisexactlywhattheLAAteam
attempts to suggest.Approaches allowing one to cross enunciative
and discursive levels,
connect-ingtheutteranceproductionaxiswithpragmaticsareextremelyrare.Doingsocastsanewlightoncertainmarkersordiscourseparticles(Schiffrin,1987;Fernandez-Vest,1994;Aijmer,1996;Mosegaard-Hansen,1998).Thestarmodel
was designed to combine the two dimensions opening the door to
enuncia-tive integrative pragmatics. Likewise, Jeanneret (1999)
clearly displays a similarprogrammeinthetitleof
herbook,whereasVerschueren(1999),negatingtheexistenceof
suchanapproach,establisheslinksbetweenelementsbelongingeachtoargumentative,illocutionaryandcognitiveorders.Ourmodelenablesanalyststotransgressstrictinteractionalborderstodealwithmonologaltexts(Vion,1999;Vionetal.,2001).
ThesamegoalhasbeenpresentintheGenevaSchool since the beginning
(Roulet et al., 1985, 2001); as well as in Linell
(1998)andNlkesresearch(1994;NlkeandAdam,1999)andisoneof themain
preoccupations of the LAA.3. From theory to data3. 1THE S AJAMA
CORPUSAs part of a national research programme, we were asked to
investigate the
waydiscourseisusedinextremesituationstoletspeakerssubjectivityemerge.Agroup
of 10 young male and female scientists volunteered for an
expedition to an18,000 ft summit in Bolivia named
Sajama.Theexpeditionprogrammeincluded10biologicalresearchprotocolstarget-ing
human adaptation to the lack of oxygen (hypoxia) in high altitude,
a frequentcauseof pulmonaryoedema(Richaletetal.,1994).Thestudyof
verbaldata wasalsoplanned,inordertocontributetotheunderstandingof
psychologicalRouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse
analysis 295 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com
Downloaded from
adaptationtoextremeenvironment(Nol-Jorandetal.,1995;Blanchetetal.,1997).So,
together with blood tests, subjects had to submit to audio-taped
interviewsand 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 byamemberof
theexpedition,theyactuallyarespeakingtoanabsentaddressee.This
absent addressee can be identied as the partially fuzzy
representation theyhaveof
thescienticauthoritythatorganizedtheexpedition. Thisaccountsforthe
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 inuence
of the institutional and subjective levels. The
targetedimage(builtforthemselvesandforothersatthesametime),isthatof
someoneworthyof
thecondenceplacedinthemandintheirabilitytocopewiththetaskstheyhavebeenassigned.
Thesituationalsocontainsaparadoxinthefactthat subjects are asked to
give their feelings away whereas the institutional
situa-tionisfarfromfavouringthis.Thesefactspointtothenotionthattheinstitu-tional
setting drastically inuences 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
discourseisaddressedandaninterviewerispresent,evenif
hedoesnotappeartobethemain addressee.There are interconnections
between the setting and the discourse position aswell: when
speakers are asked to describe the landscape surrounding them or
totalkabouttheirarrival,wendthatdescriptionandnarrativesequencesareawedwithargumentativemarkers.Insteadof
hearingpersonalstories,wearefaced with self-justication. For
instance donc (so) becomes twice as frequent forone speaker, and
three times as frequent for another speaker at times when theytry
to conceal their suffering and
pain.Itisalsopossibletoshowthattheimpactof
theinstitutionalsettingweighsdeeplyoninvolvementstrategies,resultingintheparticularbalancingof
enun-ciativestagingmodes.Despitetheparalysingformatof
thesituation,thepres-sureof
thehostileconditionsthesubjectshavetocopewithentailsenunciativeuctuationsinwhichoverowingsubjectivityphasesareimmediatelycounter-balanced
by the suddenly reappearing awareness of the general context,
leadingto phases of rationalizing discourse.296 Discourse Studies
7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded
from
Twodifferentreasonsaccountforsuchatendencytorepresstheoutowofsubjectivity:
(1) each member of the expedition having to be up to the demandsof
theextremesituation,theymusttakecareof
theirimageaswehavealreadyindicated;(2)aswepreviouslyexplained(Bertrandetal.,2000),toomuch
emotion, generally speaking, is an obstacle to the sharing of
subjectivity, since
itliesineverycommunicationandunderminesit.Communicationdemandsthesynchronizationof
emotionalstates,andthereforeimpliesacertaindegreeofdistanciation.3.1.2
Discursive and enunciative levels3.1.2.1 Modalizing lexical
choicesAccordingly, the use of puise (exhausted) to characterize a
physical state by oneof the members of the expedition will be
immediately modied and softened:je me sens essentiellement puise +
mais bon jespre que dans quelques jours + toutsera rentr dans
lordre(I feel mostly exhausted + but well I hope that within a few
days + everything will beback in order)The expression of
subjectivity conveyed by puise (exhausted) is modalized by
theadverb essentiellement (mostly) and by the choice of je me sens
(I feel) instead of jesuis
(Iam),andbyarationalizingdiscourseintroducedbymaisbon
(but,well).Mais (but) indicates that a counter-argument or at least
a conicting kind of dis-courseisabouttofollow;theparticlebon
(well)introducesapositioningshiftassigning a higher degree of
relevance to the following statement. The presenceof mais
(but)remindsusof
theoverallargumentativetonalityunderlyingthesedescriptive
sequences.Asintheabove-mentionedexample,stronglexicalchoicesasin:dcourage(discouraged),inquite
(worried)areusuallycorrectedbymodalizations:unpeu (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 ... conrming thefact that too much exposure of self and
feelings is not in good taste.3.1.2.2 Polyphonic use of
negationInthesameway,negativeclausescangiverisetotwodifferentvoices:(1)onepositivevoicerepresentingapotentialorexistingdiscourse;and(2)speakersown
voice denying the previous statement. For instance, negation in:(2)
Pour moi, a ne se passe pas trs bien(For me, things are not going
very well)constitutes a form of moderating as compared with
non-negative statement:(1) Pour moi a se passe (trs ) mal(For me,
its going (really) bad)Rouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for
discourse analysis 297 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010
dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from 3.1.2.3 Enunciative
swayingSomesubjectsconfronttwodifferentopinionsintheirowndiscourse,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-atingauthority,ortosomedoxa.Thissomewhatbasicformof
polyphonyisfrequent in one of the female subjects who uses it as a
means of putting her
owndiscourseintoperspective,soastoavoidexcessiveassertivenessinherfrequentphasesof
self-depreciation.Onceagainalternationof
opinions(voices)isbasedupontheuseof theconnectiveparticlemais
(but)whichincludesaspectacularrise of its frequency:je sens que++
je suis pas trs utile + que je peux pas vraiment au maximum+ mais
je pourrais faire
plusmaisdetoutesfaonsyapasgrand-chosefairedeplus+doncmoralementjemesens
un peu inutileI feel that ++ Im not being very helpful + Im not
actually doing my best but I could do
betterbutanywaythereisnotmuchmorethatcouldbedone+somorallyIfeelkindofuselessStatement(1)correspondstospeakersownvoice;statement(2)stagesothervoices,possiblyreferringtothoseof
thegroupmembers;instatement(3)thespeakers voice is heard again,
rephrasing her original opinion. It is notable
thatmoves(1)and(3)linkedtothespeakersopinionareconsiderablymodulated(sens
que pas trs pas vraiment: feel that not very not actually; de
toutes faons 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 cest faux (3) je
mefforce (..): (1) I really dont givea damn (2) in fact it is not
true (3) but I do my best to (..)3.1.2.4 About enunciative
markersAstheexpressionof
emotionisgenerallycontainedbysubjects,wehavetobeverycarefulininvestigatingverbaldatatobeabletospotthealternationofphasesof
subjectivityandcurbingutterances.Alongwiththemodalizingofstronglexicalchoicesandthestagingof
alternatevoices,theuseof
particlessuchasben,quoi,ehbien,bon,etc.canalsorevealchangesinthestagingstrategies.Markerssuchasehbien
(well)orbon (so)tendtopointtorationalizingdis-course whereas ben or
quoi (you know) appearing at the end of utterances
tendtoaccompanyself-centredsequencesmarkedinhighersubjectivityandlessershare.Subjectivityswayswouldberelatabletoenunciativephasesshiftingbetweendramatizationandtrivialization,self-centrednessandlackof
focusing.298 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25,
2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Practically,rationalizationdiscoursecontainsmodalizerslikevraiment
(really),videmment (obviously),enfait
(infact)ormeta-enunciativecommentssuchaslets say that, a sort of
and the use of pronouns like nous (we) or on (colloquialforwe
inspokenFrench).Conversely,discoursesinwhichsubjectivityemergescontainlexicalchoiceswhichareinconsistentwiththeinter-subjectivityneces-sary
for verbal exchange, and rst-person
pronouns.Inonegivensubjectsspeech,thedistanciationof
emotionsrevealsunex-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 a (that). More precisely, there seems to be a
systematicbinarypartition:je isusedforpositiveemotions,whereason
islinkedtothenegative ones:(on scenery): within a ve or ten meter
distance + I like very much + but beyond thatone has great difculty
coping.Sonegativeaspectsrelatetoothers,andpositiveaspectsareendorsedbythespeaker
alone.As for enunciative staging modes, explicit unicity
corresponds to positiveness,whereas parallelism or exophonic
opposition is linked to
negativeness.Onthesummit,rathercharacteristically,incertainsubjectsspeech,the
positivepoleonlyismadeexplicitthroughtheargumentativeconfrontation.Enunciativemovesgenerateandplaceintheforegroundanegativeimplicitcounter-part.Thespeakercounter-arguespositivelyfacinganunspokendis-course
which appears only through his counter-argument, revealed for
instancethrough the accumulation of quand mme (all the same):a
protective value, all the same, which exists in the groupAltiplano
is all the same a very impressive
thingInanothersubjectsspeech,thesameenunciativestructureappearsregularly.This
time, this marker activates a ctive addressee that the speaker
tends to mini-mize or repress, here again producing a
co-enunciation phenomenon.3.1.3
DiscussionBycomparingspeechproductionsof
subjects,whetherinordinarycontextorunderextremeconditions,wehavebeenabletoidentifygeneraltendencieslinkedtohighaltitudeandtheeffectof
hypoxia(Vionetal.,2001),butalso
personalcharacteristicssuchasdifferencesinstrategiesorpersonalityfeatures.For
instance some subjects will resort to humour, whereas others will
make useof
acertainrationalizeddiscourse.Somesubjectsdramatizedorself-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
belongingtothegroupandbythemissionitself,sothattheexpressionof
emotionsis Rouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse
analysis 299 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com
Downloaded from
constantlyqualied,softened,broken,resultinginarationalizingtypeof
dis-courseorinsurpassingoneself,whichismorerepresentativeof
thegroupthanof individual subjects.3. 2THE MARS E I L L E S
CORPUSWearegoingtostudyameetingwhichtookplaceinahospitalinMarseillesbetweenapatientsufferingfromsevereheadaches(Mylne)andamemberofthe
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
rst have to dene the situation in which the
verbalexchangedevelops,i.e.establishalinkbetweenourcorpusandoneorseveraltypes
of interactions. In interactional studies carried out after
Goffman, interac-tiontypesaredenedaccordingtothenatureof
thesocialrelationthatactorssettle. Thisrelationexpressesitself
throughpositioningprocesses,interactionalgoal, a degree of
cooperation, the level of formality in turns and the way they
arehandled.Therstpartof
ourmeetingmaythenbedenedasamedicalinter-view, the goal of which is
to build knowledge and not to diagnose or to deliver aprescription.
Thecomplementarypositioningprocessonwhichitdwellsassoci-ates a
patient giving information and a member of medical staff whose
functionconsistsincollectinginformationinawaywhichiscoherentwiththatgoal.Inthis
particular meeting, presented in Appendix 1, the actors build a
type of
rela-tionwhichisfarmorecomplexthanthatwhichisdenedbythepositioningprocessconstitutingthesituation.Besides,theco-constructionprocessaddsacertainunpredictabilitytothedevelopmentof
discourse.Itthenappearsneces-sarytomakeroomfordynamicdiscourseactivitiesshapedbyactorsendowedwith
a certain power of action within a permanent interactive frame
dening thesituation. As mentioned above, the interactive frame is
dened by an institutionalpositioning process whereas the
interactive space, that is to say, the complex rela-tion
co-constructed by subjects implies a dynamic link between ve types
of posi-tioning processes (institutional, modular, subjective,
discursive and enunciative).The denition of the communicative
situation by the institutional
positioningprocessallowsustocombinedifferentsuccessiveinteractionswithinasinglemeeting,whichmoretraditionaldenitionsassimilatinginteractiontomeetingdo
not make possible. In the meeting which is dealt with here, it is
possible to
dis-tinguishtwosuccessiveinteractionsbringingtogetherthesamesubjects.If
thersttwoextractsequatewithaninterview,whathappensfromline91andonwards
radically modies the initial positioning process: Sabine (the
doctor), onlearningthatMylne(theinterviewedpatient)worksintheeldof
medicalresearch,completelymodiesherattitudeandwithinafewturnsclosesthemedicalinterviewandopensaconsultationforherownsake,enablinghertoconsultthemedicalknowledgeof
Mylne(thepatient).Theinitialpositioningprocessinvestigator/intervieweegraduallyyieldstoexpert/non-expert,which300
Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010
dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from 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-ingalsothatthetwosubjectsinpresencenevercomebacktotherstmedicalinterview,
it may be argued that the meeting is composed of two separate
succes-siveinteractions,bringingtogetherthesamesubjects,butindifferentsocial
relationsanddifferentframes(aninterviewandaconsultation).Weshallseethatatthelevelof
thecomplexrelationbuiltbysubjects(interactivespace)thesecondinteractiondevelopsinaparticularclimate,whichisthenaturalfollow-up
to the interview.3.2.2 The interactive
spaceAfterstudyingseveralinterviewsbetweenamemberof medicalstaff
andapatient asked to verbalize his/her pain, it was possible to
conrm that the patientorients his/her descriptions and narrations
according to a thesis correspondingtohis/herpersonaldiagnosisof
thepossibleoriginsof
thepain.Veryoften,thispersonaldiagnosiswascontrarytotheofcialmedicaldiagnosis.Thedescrip-tionof
thepain,aimedatinthecourseof theinterview,willbeintegratedintoan
argumentative structure in which the patient will attempt to
persuade his/herpartner. As the latter belongs to the medical eld,
the attempt is a tricky one.The rst interaction, the interview
destined to produce knowledge, consists ofextracts 1 and 2, as well
as the rst lines of extract 3. If the institutional
position-ingprocessdeningtheinteractiveframeremainsthesamethroughouttheinteraction,theinteractivespaceconstantlymodiesitself,evenif
twodistinctmoments are identiable.Extract 1 (a module oriented
towards discussion by
Mylne)Inextract1,Mylnewillsetupparticulardiscursivepositions,dwellingontheargumentativecomponentof
language.Shewillthenbackherthesis(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. (1517)I had already done a head
scanner. (201)X-rays have been done too to have a look at rhumatism
(. . .).
(212)ThisargumentativesequenceisintegratedintotheinterviewandcompelsMylne
to take up the institutional position of patient. To convince her
partner,theactivatedinteractionalmodulewillbelongtotheconversationorder(sym-metricalpositionswithafocusoncontent).Attheenunciativelevel,Mylneeither
endorses her own words using the rst person pronoun (I, unicity
mode) orspeaks with her doctors (enunciative parallelism):So I came
to consult Doctor B / Weve done /weve spoken a lot to try to see if
therewas no problem. (1315)Rouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox
for discourse analysis 301 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010
dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from one could / could have believed
this to be the cause. (19)weve done x-rays to see a little.
(21)well we found small things.
(24)Attheenunciativelevel,theactivatedpositionsalternatebetweenunicity
andenunciativeparallelism butalsohaveself-effacement
broughtintoplay. Thismodeallows the speaker to present discourse as
objective and as a general
authoritativeopinion:BecausethetreatmentsforMenopause,itsalwayswithhormonesanditalwaysfavours
headaches. (79)The notion of authority initiated by the enunciative
parallelism mode, one voiceof whichispartof
themedicalorder;aswellastheuniversaltruthsderivingfrom the use of
the effacement mode enhances the impact of the speech that
thepatient endorses then more directly. As for subjective
positions, Mylne 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 ofher
headaches, but, as we have just seen it, she asserts some medical
knowledge,notably about the secondary effects of menopause
treatments. The overall studyof
interrelatedpositionsallowsanalyststocastlightonsubjectsactivitiesandstrategies.
After the analysis of this rst sequence we can make a certain
numberof points:1. Mylneapparentlyacceptsthepositionof
patient-informer,whichhelpstodene the complementary frame of the
interview. Also, she has no choice, ifa subject refuses the
positioning process dening a specic frame,
communi-cationiscompletelyblockedandnothingwouldbeconstructeduntilsomekind
of frame was found and accepted by participants.2. While accepting
the starting frame, Mylne, through her play on other
posi-tions,modiestheinstitutionalprocess:wantingtoinitiateaconversationmodule,takinguptheattitudeof
anexpert,settingupargumentsand playing on enunciative positions
which endows her with a certain
authorityandleadshertoplayhigherthanexpectedontheinstitutionalprocessofinformation
giver.We will not go as far as to assert that this lack of
consideration towards the inves-tigatorbecauseof
animmodestplaywouldaccountforSabinesrefusaltotakethearguedthesis(myheadachesarepsychosomatic)intoaccount.Thisrefusalisnonetheless
clear-cut:Why psychosomatic? its not because the CAUSE is not KNOWN
(laughter) that nec-essarily there is no cause. (323)Extract 2
(module oriented towards conversation by Mylne)In this second part
of the interview, Mylne is radically going to change
strategyandthencontinueherpersuasionworkinanothermanner.Althoughsheisa302
Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010
dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from
researcherinthemedicaleld(whichSabinewilllearnonlyattheendof
theinterview), she pretends not to know medical terms directly
concerning
herself.Theyfoundsomethingthere,whichshrinks,Idontknowthename(laughter).(345)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:
infantilizeatthesubjectivepositionlevelanditisalsoanattemptatsettingupaformofcomplicityandproximity(modularlevel),enunciativedistanciation,etc.Thesame
conguration appears just after that:thats it (laughter) / its /
they are terms that I generally forget, hah. (412)A subtle analysis
should also take into account the production of hein (hah) as
adiscoursemarker.Theinterviewbecomesmoredialogicalwithconsistentlylonger
turns from Sabine. This general conguration will then gradually
engen-deraconversationmodulewithenunciativepositionslinkedtodualityandhumour.Thisiswhatisnoticeablewhenspeakingaboutherweight,Mylnesays: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 modi-cationof
Mylnespositioning.Allthemoresoif oneconsidersthatinsteadofproducing
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 identied on mass will carry on
with the expression tir group (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, its not ... that
brilliant.
(701)Aswehaveindicated,thissequenceisnotbasedondirectargumentationbutrather
on a narration-description component which develops into a long
mono-logue(lines6572).Thistypeof narrationfunctionsasanargumentina
discoursewhichbearsapersuasivegoal.Itsinterestliesinthefactof
arguingimplicitly, without risking offending the partner, showing a
sort of knowledge inkeeping with the position of
expert.Inthecourseof
thismoduleorientedtowardsconversation,onenotesthatcooperative
complicity gradually invades Sabines speech in such a way that
thetwo women nally manage to coordinate their laughter (lines 756).
Such
coor-dinationdoesnotappearanywhereelse;Mylneendsthenarrationwithanutterance
bearing argumentative
echoes:and:::::::::::::thenIhadtohavemyteethoperatedonandtheheadachescameback(low)
of course (laughter). (745)Rouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox
for discourse analysis 303 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010
dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from The voice volume drop evoking
condential talk, the use of the style of speakingadverb (of course)
and laughter clearly mark a positioning, which, on the
subjec-tiveside,targetscomplicityandproximity.Afterthissecondsequence,SabineagreestotakeintoaccountMylnesownthesis.ItisnotpossibletoevaluateSabines
degree of acceptance but it seems difcult 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.Itwouldalsobenecessarytotakeintoaccountthedifferentpauseswhichprecedemarkedlexicalchoices,hesitationstructures(andthemomentswhen
they occur in discourse), breaks and incomplete utterances,
modalizations(anchoring of discourse in ctive, real or fantastic
worlds), modulations (distan-ciationstrategiesbearingontheactof
discourse),rephrasingstrategies,meta-discursivecommentaries,turnoverlaps,discoursemarkers,etc.(allthevarioustracesof
languageactivitywhichgenerallyconstitutethebasisof
theanalysescarried out by the LAA
team).Also,alinguistislessconcernedwiththeefciencyof
strategiesthanwiththeanalysisitself.Itisof
littleinterestwhetherMylnesstrategiesallowhertoachievehergoalornot.Strategiesarecoordinatedlinesof
actionthatmustbedescribed using linguistic concepts rst.
Interactive strategies would then
dependontheparticularwaysubjectsplaythiscomplexgameof
positioningprocesses.Thedifferentstrategies:intimidation,persuasion,kow-tow,seduction,researchof
success,competition,minimalinvolvement,consensusreaching,etc.couldthen
be visualized by specic congurations of plays on those various
positions.Extract 3
(consultation)Asmentionedabove,asearlyasline97,asecondinteractionappears:MylnebecomestheexpertthatSabineconsults.Giventhefactthatacertaininterac-tionalcomplicitywasinitiatedearlier,Mylnewillhavetoactmodestlyinthepositionof
expert,justasSabinewasdoingintheprecedinginteraction.If
theinteractive frame is altered, the relational history woven in
the course of the
rstinteractionwillcontinueinthesecondone.Asaresult,Mylnewho,inthecourseof
theinterview,hadpartiallymanagedtoinitiateaconversationalmoduleplayingoncomplicityandproximitywilldevelopherroleof
expert,byhesitatinginherspeechandtryingtoavoidastructuredaspect.Thesehyper-correctionphenomenaareprobablyexplainablebythemodestylaw,accordingtowhichonemustnotletonesfacebeexaltedexcessivelynorafortioriexaltitoneself
(Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1996).In other situations, they can also reect
the difculty that a subject feels whenspeaking 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 ve short monologues.
qualiers such as:To put it that way (100, 102),304 Discourse
Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com
Downloaded from that kind of thing (113),that kind of problem
(100). simplied and ordinary syntactic forms:this is very molecular
biology (106)at the chromosome level (1067) numerous modalizers
which blur Mylnes positioning:simply (101), rather (102,103,107),
quand mme (even so, come on), (108).3.2.3 Discussion: heterogeneity
and instability of unitsTheanalysisof
thismeetingenabledustodiscussdifferenttypesof phases:
interactions,whendistinctinteractiveframesfollowoneanother;modules
wheninteractiontypesaredevelopedlocally;andsequences
whendiscourseactivitytypesarelinkedtocognitivediscursivetasks.Othersmallerunitsalsoexist: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-geneousunits.Incertaincasesitwillbepossibletoidentifythebeginningandthe
end of a conversational module in a specic interactive frame, when
the
twosubjectscooperatenarrowly.However,adifferenceinavailabilityof
subjectsforthe setting of a conversational module will inevitably
lead to complex
situations.Inextract2,Mylnestrugglestoinitiateaconversationalmoduleintheinter-view
(constituting the interactive frame of the meeting) through lexical
choices,enunciative positionings and the use of
narration-description sequences.
Sabine,onthecontrary,willresistthisinvitation,restrictingherself
toaproductionofdiscursiveformsclosertointerviewthanconversation.Atthisparticularpoint,wehaveastructurationconictwhichcanpersistbecauseitdoesnotdirectlyaffecttheinstitutionalpositioningsdeningtheinteractiveframe.However,asMylnecontinuesherattempts,Sabinesutterancesmoveclosertoaconversa-tional
involvement. The coordination of peals of laughter, the expression
of
com-plicityandacceptedtogethernesssketchaconversationalattitudesubordinatedto
the position of investigator. It then becomes clear that the
question
concerningunitsiscomplex:forMylne,wecanidentifyanattempttoinitiateaconversa-tionalmodule,whereasforSabine,thereisanevolutiontowardsaformofconversational
communication but the line is never really crossed. In such
condi-tions,theconversationalmodulewhichshouldconcernbothco-participantsisvery
difcult: 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
Sabineslimitedinterventionsinextract1.Discourseisneverconstitutedof
stableandhomogeneousunits,whichwouldappearinorder,oneaftertheother.Indiffer-entinterventions,thesameconversationalmodulecantakeupvariousforms,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 ofRouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox
for discourse analysis 305 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010
dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from ordinary life, fairy tales). Within
a unied theoretical approach we assimilate thenotion of interactive
frame to that of verbal interaction genres as well as that
ofdiscourse
genres.Notonlythesameunitwilltakeupaverydifferentformdependingontheframeinwhichitisproduced,butalso,dependingontheactivityof
subjectsatthe level of the interactive space. The units used will
then be taken at differentlevelsof
theirachievement(itisthenpossibletodrawalinktoGlichandQuasthoff s
narrativity degrees (1985) and Adams prototypical logic
(1992)).Besidethecomplexityderivingfromthecompositionalityof
unitsandtheactionof
subjects,structurationconictsbetweenvariousparticipantswill
constitute a supplementary factor of heterogeneity and instability
of units.
Thisiswhatwecanseewithdiscussion(extract1)andconversation(extract2).Given
the constraints linked to the frame, these modules cannot become
stable inthe interview. This is obvious in both cases by Sabines
reluctance to go too far intheactivationof
suchmodules.However,consideringthatMylnestrugglestosetthemupandthatSabinemustshowsheiscooperative,theorientationtowardsthesemodulesremainsimportant,evenif
neitherof themwillbefullyactivated. We will have to posit that
distinct degrees of activation are possible
fordiscourseunitsinrelationtothecongurationof
theinteractiveframeandstructuration conicts occurring between
participants.4. ConclusionThe star model, by permitting scrutiny of
the various levels of verbal communi-cation,makespossiblethefactof
puttingheterogeneousphenomenaintoastructuring perspective. It is
true that psychological or sociological factors whichinuence
individuals are complex and numerous, but as such they do not
belongtoourscopeof investigation. Theinterestof
thelinguisticapproachwedefendliesratherintheattempttobringtolightthewayinwhichlevelsasvariedasinstitutional,modular,subjective,discursiveandenunciativepositioningprocessesmustbetakenintoaccounttoproduceananalysisconcernedwithsocial
practices as well as micro-linguistic strategies.The attitude of
subjects towards language productions evolves in such a
waythatthedevelopmentof
discoursewillbecharacterizablebydiscoursebreaksand a relative
enunciative instability.The interest of the model presented here
lies in the attitude, apparently para-doxical,of
presentingconceptsanalysingdiscoursefromclear-cutcategorieswhilefocusingoninstability,heterogeneityandthedynamismof
discoursestrategies.APPE NDI X1THE MYL E NE / S ABI NE I NTE RVI E
W, 15J UNE
1992M=Mylne:patient(andamedicalresearcherattheINSERM,aprofessionalstatusSabine
is not aware of during the rst part of the interview)S = Sabine
(doctor in charge of the interview)306 Discourse Studies 7(3) by
Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Excerpt 11 M et puis euh:::: depuis dj:: pas mal dannes je souffre
de migraines /2 cest pour a que je suis venue voir euh le Docteur
B. / parce que3 (1,59) le dernier trimestre de lanne dernire euh::
(0,98) jtais en4 (+) traitement et pour la thyrode et pour un dbut
de mnopause5 puisque jai 46 ans (+)6 S hm hm7 M et je sais pas si
ce sont ces mdicaments associs / parce que les8 traitements pour la
mnopause cest toujours sous forme dhormones9 et a favorise toujours
(+) les migraines10 S mm=11 M euh jai eu des migraines atroces
cest--dire que je me retrouvais12 par terre euh::: oblige de faire
venir le SAMU / euh::: enn videm-13 ment un stade trs trs (1,07) /
donc je suis venue consulter M. B.14 euh (1,15) on a fait / on a
parl pas mal pour essayer de voir si y15 avait pas de problmes /
Jai fait un examen des yeux (++)16 S hm oui pour chercher une
cause17 M pour savoir euh:: sil y avait quelque chose / donc cest
normal /18 comme aussi javais eu des problmes de diabte et que ma
mre19 est diabtique donc on pourrait / on aurait pu croire a / euh
jai20 javais dj fait un scanner (+) euh de la tte donc je savais
quy avait21 rien dimportant / 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 (+) l il y a un petit quelque chose / il y a un
pincement / enn on25 a trouv des des petites choses qui peuvent euh
(1,80) tre une26 petite part de (+) de ces douleurs27 S hm hm28 M
Notamment un effet de torticolis que jai / quelque chose qui
ressem-29 blerait a de gne pour euh tous les mouvements (+)
mais::::30 (soupir) (1,59) je crois aussi que le / la migraine
cest:::: (bas)31 psychosomatique (rire) et que::::::://32 S
(rapide) pourquoi psychosomatique cest pas parce quon ne33 connat
pas la cause (rire) que forcment il faut dire quy en a
pas(...)Excerpt 234 M ils ont trouv quelque chose l qui se rtrcit
dont je sais pas le35 nom (clat de rire)36 S oui dans le bras
(xxx)37 M oui=38 S cause des ctes?39 M d:::l::::tracho-brachial40 S
tracho-brachial?41 M cest a oui (rires) / cest des / ce sont des
termes que joublie42 gnralement hein43 S thoraco-brachial: hein44 M
thoraco-brachial45 S oui parce que la trache elle est loin quand
mme hein / Cest lRouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for
discourse analysis 307 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010
dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from 46 quand vous levez les bras vous
avez des (++)47 M oui::: jai / je48 S des sensations mm49 M oui si
je porte un poids qui est / qui moblige faire a je peux plus50
euh::51 S hm hm52 M jai limpression que tout le bras53 S oui ce
sont les artres qui sont un peu coinces par la pre/54 M voil55 S
mire cte56 Mpuis aussi peut-tre par le (+) volume (rire)
important57 S vous pensez que58 M euh donc euh euh pour continuer
ce qui a t fait donc (++) euh::59 (1,63) t / je suis alle consulter
ch:::::::::ez le Professeur V60 S oui61 M aussi pour euh voir //62
S pour le diabte toujours?63 M les problmes de diabte de poids de
thyrode enn (+) pour faire64 un group euh un tir group(...)65 M oui
javais dj fait un:: traitement mais ctait peut-tre pas assez66
quilibr (+) l jai refait les examens et::: (+) et puis euh::: je
prends67 je reprends des hormones du 13me au 25me jour des rgles
(+)68 pour essayer aussi de de compenser un peu le / les problmes
hor-69 monaux / Pour le diabte cest / a a lair / tout fait quilibr
/70 bon l jai commenc un peu perdre du poids mais enn cest71 cest
pas folichon cest dire cest trois kilos depuis euh / bon enn72 a
fait pas longtemps non plus (1,51)73 S mm74 M et:::: l je dois me
faire oprer des dents et la migraine elle est75 revenue (bas)
videmment (rire)76 S (rire)77 M donc cest pour a que je dis que
cest trs //78 S vous pensez que le79 M psychosomatique80 S comment
vous lprouvez cette douleur vous pouvez me la dcrire81 un petit peu
(++) mme la caractriser (+) essayer dimaginer (++)(...)82 S vous
pensez vous quil y a un problme euh83 M oh oui84 S psychosomatique
important / vous pensez que a correspond a85 corresponde des
problmes dans votre vie l o (...)(...)Excerpt 386 S cest vrai quand
on est soumis des stress ou des responsabilits on ++87 M oui oui
oui mais bon je crois pas parce que quand mme la profession cest
une88 habitude / cest pas ds maintenant que je suis ++ / a fait 25
ans que je travaille89 + je veux dire bon90 S vous travaillez dans
quelle +308 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25,
2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from 91 M je travaille lINSERM la
recherche mdicale92 S oui93 M sur les rcepteurs / cest fond/ cest
de la recherche fondamentale94 S mais a mintresse / jai + / a fait
euh / jai une matrise dhistologie gnrale95 et jai fait un peu de96
M euh sur le97 S de biochimie / cest pas du tout dans notre
entretien98 M euh sur le euh euh rcepteur euh lantigne / cest--dire
euh les fonctions99 euh alpha bta et gamma delta euh et les
relations avec euh les complexes Cb3,100 Cb4, Cb8 / enn ce genre de
problme / enn si vous voulez101 S vous tes biologiste au dpart102 M
je suis chim / aide-chimiste au dpart / mais si vous voulez cest
plutt euh /103 je travaille plutt dans le problme de la structure +
de lanalyse germinale104 euh de ces gnes qui conduisent 105 S XX106
M donc cest trs biologie molculaire et structure euh au point de
vue107 chromosomes euh cartographie des gnes euh / plutt de ce ct
de ltude108 S donc dun point de vue plus biochimique que mdical
quand mme109 M euh ni chimique ne mdical + trs fondamental110 S trs
fondamental111 M simplement euh pour pouvoir construire des gnes
les mettre dans des112 cellules eucaryotes et voir euh lexpression
si on apporte des mutations113 ce genre de choses114 S daccord non
a mintresse beaucoup parce que en mme temps que mes115 tudes de
mdecine jai fait plusieurs CES dhistologie embryologie
parasitologieAPPE NDI X 2TRANS CRI PTI ON CONVE NTI ONS: 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 syllablesAPPE NDI X 3TRANS L ATI ONS OF F RE NCH
TE RMSbalancement nonciatif alternating voices/enunciative
swayingconnecteurs connective discourse particlesdiscursive
discursiveenonciatif enunciativeespace interactif interactive
spacemarqueurs structurels pattern markersplace (ralisee)
positionplace institutionnelle institutional positioningRouveyrol
et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 309 by Sara
Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from place
modulaire modular positioningpositionnement positioningpositions
sociales social positionsrapport de place (interrelational)
positioning processrelation contracte contracted relationrelation
interlocutive interlocutive relationsrelation interpersonnelle et
sociale interpersonal and social relationsrles rolessubjective
subjectiveACKNOWL E DGE ME
NTSThisresearchwasfundedbytheMinistreNationaldelaRechercheetde
Technologie,ProgrammeCOG13B,ACICognitique.Corporaarethepropertyof
theDpartementdeBiomathmatiques,StatistiquesetInformatique,FacultdeMdecine,Marseille:TheSajama
Corpus, and of the LAA team: The Marseilles Corpus.RE F E RE NCE
SAdam, J.-M. (1992) Les Textes: Types et prototypes. Paris:
Nathan.Adam, J.-M. (1997) Le Style dans la langue. Paris: Delachaux
et Niestl.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 lethos.
Lausannne:Delachaux et Niestl.Austin, J. (1962) How to Do Things
with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bakhtine, M.
(1984[19523]) Esthtique de la cration verbale. Paris: Gallimard,
Coll N.R.F.Bell, A. and Garrett, P. (eds) (1998) Approaches to
Media Discourse. Oxford:
Blackwell.Berthoud,A.C.(1996)Parolespropos:Approchenonciativeetinteractivedutopic.Gap:Ophrys.Bertrand,R.etal.(2000)Lobservationetlanalysedesaffectsdanslinteraction,in
C.Plantin,M.DouryandV.Traverso(eds)Lesmotionsdanslesinteractions,pp.16982.
Lyon:
ARCI.Blanchet,A.,Noel-Jorand,M.C.andBonaldi,V.(1997)DiscursiveStrategiesof
Subjectswith High Altitude Hypoxia: Extreme Environment, Stress
Medicine 13: 1518.Brmond, C. (2003) La porte co-nonciative de bon:
Son rle dans la structuration delobjet discursif , Revue de
Smantique et de Pragmatique 13:
923.Bronckart,J.-P.(1996)Activitlangagire,textesetdiscours.Lausanne:DelachauxetNiestl.Brown,
P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.Clayman,S.E.(1992)FootingintheAchievementof
Neutrality:TheCaseof
News-InterviewsDiscourse,inP.DrewandJ.Heritage(eds)TalkatWork:InteractioninInstitutional
Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.Drew,P.andHeritage,J.(eds)(1992)TalkatWork:InteractioninInstitutionalSettings.Cambridge:
Cambridge University
Press.Drew,P.andWooton,A.(eds)(1988)ErvingGoffman:ExploringtheInteractionOrder.Cambridge:
Polity Press.Ducrot, O. (1984) Le dire et le dit. Paris: Les
ditions de Minuit.Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. London:
Longman.Fairclough, N. (1995) Media Discourse. London: Edward
Arnold.310 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25,
2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from Fairclough, N. (2000) New
Labour, New Language. London: Routledge.Fernandez-Vest, J. (1994)
Les Particules nonciatives. Paris: PUF Linguistique
Nouvelle.Foucault,M.(1984)TheOrderof
Discourse,inM.Shapiro(ed.)LanguageandPolitics, pp. 10338. Oxford:
Blackwell.Ghiglione,R.(ed.)(1989)Jevousaicomprisoulanalysedesdiscourspolitiques.Paris:Armand
Colin.Ghiglione,R.andCharaudeau,P.(eds)(1999)Parolesenimages,imagesdeparoles,troistalk-shows
europens. Paris: Didier Erudition.Goffman, E. (1959) The
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor
Books.Goffman, E. (1963) Behavior in Public Places. New York: Free
Press.Goffman, E. (1967) On Face Work, in Interaction Rituals, p.
S46. New York: Anchor Books.Goffman, E. (1971) Relations in Public.
New York: Basic Books.Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis. New York:
Harper and Row.Goffman, E. (1981) Footing, in Forms of Talk.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Glich, E. and
Quasthoff, U.M. (1985) Narrative Analysis, in T.A. Van Dijk (ed.)
Handbookof Discourse Analysis 2: Dimensions of Discourse. New York:
Academic Press.Gumperz, J. (1982) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.Halliday, M. (1973) Explorations in the
Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.Halliday, M. and
Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. London:
Longman.Jeanneret,T.(1999)LaCononciationenfranais:Approchesdiscursive,conversationnelleetsyntaxique.
Berne: Peter Lang, Sciences pour la
Communication.Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1990, 1992, 1994) Les
Interactions verbales, vols 1, 2 and 3. Paris:Armand
Colin.Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1996) La Conversation. Paris:
Seuil.Lon, J. (1999) Les Entretiens publics en France: Analyse
conversationnelle et prosodique. Paris:CNRS
ditions.Linell,P.(1998)ApproachingDialogue:Talk,InteractionandContextsinDialogicalPerspectives.
Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.Livingstone,S.andLunt,P.(1994)TalkonTelevision,AudienceParticipationandPublicDebate.
London:
Routledge.Maury-Rouan,C.(1998)Leparalllismeco-nonciatif:Construireplusieurslallocu-taire
absent: lnonciateur en creux dans le dialogue, Les Registres de la
Conversation,Revue de Smantique et Pragmatique 3:
14558.Maury-Rouan,C.(2001a)LHypocorrection:Entresociolinguistiqueetanalyselinguis-tique
des interactions, in Lengua, Discurso, Texto, pp. 162738. Madrid:
Visor Libros.Maury-Rouan, C. (2001b) Le ou des marques discursives
est-il un inconvnient? Vers lanotiondeleurrediscursif
,onlinejournal,MargesLinguistiques
2:16376(http://www.Marges-linguistiques.com).Maury-Rouan, C. (2003)
Discourse Particles as Interactional Lures, GURT 2002
(IVthGeorgetownRoundtableonLanguageandLinguistics),GeorgetownUniversity,Washington,
DC, 1517 February.Mead, G.H. (1934) Mind, Self and Society.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.Moeschler,J.(1999)Thoriepragmatiqueetpragmatiqueconversationnelle.Paris:ArmandColin.Mosegaard-Hansen,M.B.(1998)TheFunctionof
DiscourseParticles:AStudywithSpecialReference to Spoken Standard
French. Amsterdam:
Benjamin.Nol-Jorand,M.-C.,Reinert,M.,Bonnon,M.andTherme,P.(1995)DiscourseAnalysisand
Psychological Adaptation to High Altitude Hypoxia, Stress Med 11:
2739.Nlke, H. (1994) Linguistique modulaire: De la forme au sens.
Paris: Bibliothque de linfor-mation grammaticale, ditions
Peeters.Rouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse
analysis 311 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com
Downloaded from
Nlke,H.andAdam,J.-M.(eds)(1999)Approchesmodulaires:Delalangueaudiscours.Lausanne:
Delachaux et
Niestl.Priego-Valverde,B.(1998)Lhumour(noir)danslesconversations:Jeuxetenjeux,LesRegistres
de la Conversation, Revue de Smantique et Pragmatique 3:
12344.Priego-Valverde, B. (2001) Cest du lard ou du cochon? Lorsque
lhumeur opacie la
con-versationfamilire,onlinejournal,MargesLinguistiques
2:195208(http://www.Marges-linguistiques.com).Priego-Valverde, B.
and Maury-Rouan, C. (2003) La mise en mots de la douleur, in
J.M.CollettaandA.Tcherkassof
(eds)Perspectivesactuellessurlesmotions:Cognition, langage et
dveloppement. Brussels: Hayen, Mardaga.Richalet, J.P.,
Souberbielle, J.C., Antezana, A.M., et al. (1994) Control of
Erythropoiesis inHumansduringProlongedExposuretoAltitudeof
6,542m,AmericanJournalofPhysiology 266: R556R764.Roulet, E. et al.
(1985) LArticulation du discours en franais contemporain. Berne:
Peter
Lang.Roulet,E.etal.(1992)Actesdelangageetstructuredelaconversation,CahiersdeLinguistique
Franaise 13: 76107.Roulet, E., Filliettaz, L. and Grobet, A. (2001)
Un modle et un instrument danalyse de lor-ganisation du discours.
Berne: Peter Lang.Rouveyrol, L. (1998) Vers une stylistique de
linteraction tlvise?, Bulletin de la Socitde Stylistique Anglaise
19:
944.Rouveyrol,L.(1999)Pourunestylistiquedutaxmedansledbatpolitiquetlvis:Analyse
de quelques rseaux interactionnels signiants, Asp 23/26:
99120.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)TalkingVoices:Repetition,Dialogue,andImageryinConversationalDiscourse.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.Trognon,A.andBrassac,D.(1992)LEnchanementconversationnel,CahiersdeLinguistique
Franaise 13: 76107.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)LaGestionpluridimensionnelledudialogue,inCahiersdeLinguistiqueFranaise
17: 179203.Vion, R. (1998a) La Mise en scne nonciative du discours,
in B. Caron (ed.) Proceedingsof the 16th International Congress of
Linguists (CD-ROM). Oxford: Elsevier
Sciences.Vion,R.(ed.)(1998b)LesSujetsetleursdiscours:Enonciationetinteraction.Aix-en-Provence:
Publications de lUniversit de
Provence.Vion,R.(1998c)Delinstabilitdespositionnementsnonciatifsdanslediscours,in
J.Verschueren(ed.)Pragmaticsin1998:SelectedPapersfromthe6thInternationalConference,
vol. 2, pp. 57789. Antwerp: International Pragmatics
Association.Vion,R.(1999)Pouruneapprocherelationnelledesinteractionsverbalesetdesdis-cours,
Langage et Socit 87:
95114.Vion,R.(2000)LesActivitsderecadragedansledroulementdiscursif
,inE.Nemeth(ed.) Pragmatics in 2000: Selected Papers from the 7th
International Prgamatics Conference,vol. 2, pp. 58397. Antwerp:
International Pragmatics
Association.Vion,R.(2001a)Modalits,modalisationsetactivitslangagires,onlinejournal,Marges
Linguistiques 2: 20931 (http://www.Marges-linguistiques.com).312
Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010
dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Vion,R.(2001b)Effacementnonciatif,etstrategiesdiscursives,inA.JolyandM.deMattia
(eds) De la syntaxe la narratologie nonciative (Textes recueillis
en homage RenRivara), pp. 3314. Paris:
Ophrys.Vion,R.(2003)Modalisationsetmodalitsdanslediscours,XVIImecongrsinterna-tional
des linguistes, Prague, juillet 2003, in Actes (CD-ROM). Oxford:
Elsevier.Vion, R., Burle, E. and Rouveyrol, L. (2002) De
linteraction au texte littraire,
transgres-siondunmodledugenre,inE.RouletLesAnalysesdediscoursaud
dundialogueromanesque, pp. 46981. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de
Nancy.Vion, R., Rouveyrol, L., Maury-Rouan, C., et al. (2001)
Outils linguistiques pour
lanalysedudiscoursetdesmotions,RevueFranaisedePsychiatrieetdePsychologieMdicaleV(49):
4956.L AURE NT ROUVE YROL
isaLecturerinEnglishandLinguisticsattheUniversityof Nice(Sophia
Antipolis). His research includes domains such as discourse
analysis, verbal
inter-actions,genreanalysisand,moreparticularly,mediadiscourseeventssuchasBritishpolitical
panel debates, on which he has published widely. His main current
interest is
toanalyseandcomparespeakersco-constructedpositioningstrategiesastheyemergebyandthroughdiscoursewithinamediatizedsituationof
communication.ADDRE S S :AFL(LAA) Laboratoire Parole et Langage,
UMR 6057, CNRS, Universit de Provence, France.[email:
[email protected]]CL AI RE MAURY- ROUAN is Senior Lecturer at
the University of Aix-en Provence where
sheteacheslinguistics.Hermainresearchdomainsincludetherelationshipbetweenverbaland
non-verbal aspects in discourse and more particularly the analysis
of
micro-enuncia-tivephenomenasuchashypocorrectionanddiscourselures,inrelationtointeractiondynamics
and non-verbal components of exchanges. She is the author of around
50 jour-nal articles, several book chapters and lectures.ADDRE S S
: AFL (LAA) Laboratoire
ParoleetLangage,UMR6057,CNRS,UniversitdeProvence,France.[email:[email protected]]ROBE
RT VI ON isProfessorof GeneralLinguisticsattheUniversityof
Aix-en-Provence(Aix-Marseille),intheLanguageSciencesDepartment.Hisresearchmainlyfocusesonverbalinteraction,discourseanalysis,pragmatics,enunciationtheoryandtheverbaliza-tionof
sensoryimpressions.Thegeneralperspectiveadoptedinhisresearchconsistsofanalysingdiscoursedynamics,layingemphasisonlanguageactivitiesco-constructedbyspeakers
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:Universityof ProvencePress,1998).ADDRE S S
:AFL(LAA)Laboratoire Parole et Langage, UMR 6057, CNRS, Universit
de Provence, France. [email:[email protected]]MARI E -
CHRI S TI NE NO L - J ORAND
isaresearcherattheBiomathematicsandStatisticsDepartmentof
theTimoneMedicalSchoolinMarseilles.Herresearchtopicsinclude
discourseanalysiswhichsheusesaspartof
alargerresearchonhumanadaptationtohighaltitudechronichypoxia,andasamethodof
investigatingschizophrenicpatientsspeech.ADDRE S S
:DpartementdeBiomathmatiques,StatistiquesetInformatique,FacultdeMdecine,LaTimone,Marseille,France.[email:[email protected]]Rouveyrol
et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 313 by Sara
Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from