A Linguistic Toolbox For Discourse Analysis

Discourse Studies
http://dis.sagepub.com/
A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis: towards a multidimensional handling of verbal interactions
Laurent Rouveyrol, Claire Maury-Rouan, Robert Vion and Marie-Christine Nol-Jorand
Discourse Studies 2005 7: 289
DOI: 10.1177/1461445605052188
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://dis.sagepub.com/content/7/3/289
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Discourse Studies can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://dis.sagepub.com/content/7/3/289.refs.html
Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010
A RT I C L E
289
A linguistic toolbox for discourse

analysis: towards a multidimensional
handling of verbal interactions
L AU R E N T RO U V E Y RO 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 D
MARIE-CHRISTINE NOL-JORAND
U N I V E R S I T D E P RO V E N C E A N D FA C U L T D E M D E C I N E ,
LA TIMONE, MARSEILLE
Discourse Studies
Copyright 2005
SAGE Publications.
(London, Thousand Oaks,
CA and New Delhi)
www.sagepublications.com
Vol 7(3): 289313.
1461-4456
(200508) 7:3;
10.1177/1461445605052188
This article is aimed at introducing a French discourse analysis

model, e.g. the star model, initiated by the LAA team led by Robert Vion in
Aix-en-Provence, to English-speaking researchers. It will be argued that
language activity is multi-dimensional and can be traced at various
heterogeneous levels of speech productions belonging to macro as well as
micro orders. Speakers achieve different varieties of positioning which result in
negotiating an interactional space within a pre-given situation. The model is
precisely designed to offer a unified and comprehensive view of such
heterogeneous phenomena in constant interconnection. In this study, we also
intend to illustrate our approach through the analysis of two different corpora.
Speakers strategies under extreme conditions will be analysed; the various
sequences used were taken from a special corpus which we were asked to study
as part of a national research programme. In order to illustrate interactional
space shifts, we will also use the transcript of a meeting which took place
between a patient and a medical investigator in a hospital in Marseilles.
A B S T R AC T
KEY WORDS:
discourse analysis, enunciation, integrative pragmatics, positioning

strategies, verbal interaction
1. Introduction
Any situation of communication is characterized by multidimensional parameters. Every speech production, whatever it may be, is necessarily related to a
discourse genre or interaction type. In this pre-existing setting, every subject will
initiate, undergo and negotiate an interactive space with his/her partners in
which he/she simultaneously handles various positions, or to be more exact,
various positioning processes. What is needed in order to describe verbal interactions is an overall theory capable of taking into account the general dynamics of
speech production and reception in its full complexity and heterogeneity. An
example of this integrative pragmatics approach has been developed by Vion
(1995, 1999) and constitutes the theoretical basis of the LAA team.
290 Discourse Studies 7(3)
The model initiated by the LAA team originates from Vion (1995) mainly, and
was originally designed to deal with natural conversation; later, the initial model
was adapted to take into account other forms of communication as well, providing analyses oriented towards various goals. While Bertrand et al. on emotional
talk (2000), Priego-Valverde on humour (1998, 2001), Maury-Rouan on coenunciation (1998) and on discourse particles (2001b), Brmond on discourse
structure and particles (2003) all used natural conversations as corpora, the
model has also been successfully applied to literary discourse (Vion et al., 2002),
media discourse in English (Rouveyrol, 1998), and doctorpatient interactions
(Priego-Valverde and Maury-Rouan, 2003). Concepts were developed or introduced 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 consisting
of the verbal productions of members of a scientific team experiencing adaptation to an extreme environment.
The aim of the research group is to carry out discourse analyses bridging the
gap between written and oral communication, monologue and dialogue, thanks
to a model able to deal with the various relevant levels. In our view, speakers
communicate according to social positions and adopt roles. The relation thus
contracted by the different actors and dynamically co-elaborated through discourse activity can be defined in terms of interrelational positioning processes. Such
realities are dissociated into different types which altogether enable the analyst to
map discourse activity bridging the gap between various heterogeneous and
dynamic phenomena. Realities of different calibre have to be handled simultaneously by every speaker. They range from macro to micro, associating social positions 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 the
addressee in the complementary one and validate the process. If you speak as a
teacher, the addressee can assume no other position than that of a student or
pupil. Such positions, linked to power relations but not always, are initiated in
the 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 a
certain number of works closely linked to the levels taken into account by our
multidimensional model close to the perspective of enunciative and integrative
pragmatics such as that of Berthoud (1996), Jeanneret (1999) and Verschueren
(1999).
For that reason, instead of beginning this article with a traditional overview
of general questions, we have opted for a presentation of our theoretical perspective step by step, which will enable us to confront our model at each level with
Rouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 291
our different sources, neighbouring approaches among the various current foreground 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 from
macro to micro realities. The first three positioning processes relate to the interpersonal handling of the interaction. Subjects evolve in a social frame, whose
rules 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 together
form the interactive space. Figure 1 indicates that they are all linked. Careful
independent study in each area of investigation is necessary at the start but the
pursued aim of analysis is to establish such links in their overall dynamics.
Our multidimensional perspective formalizes the complexity of language
from its start. This approach is in sharp contrast to modular attempts in which
language complexity is divided into various components treated relatively
autonomously from each other in a first phase, and connected only in a second
phase.
InstitutionalPositioning
Modular Positioning
Enunciative Positioning
Discursive Positioning
Subjective Positioning
INTERPERSONAL AND SOCIAL

RELATIONS
FIGURE
INTERLOCUTIVE RELATIONS
1. The star model of positioning processes

2 . 1 I N S T I T U T I O NA L
P O S I T I O N I N G P RO C E S S E S
Institutional positioning processes are achieved thanks to realities which are

exterior and prior to the interaction. Some examples could be: doctorpatient,
teacherstudent ... These institutional positions refer to a typology of interactions but by no means can be reduced to social functions or professional activities. Communication situations are retro-actively determined by discourse
activity carried out by speakers. Some variation is to be expected, which in the
end modifies or qualifies the pre-existing frame.
We owe much, here, to the interactional sociolinguistics approach whose
inspiration comes from sociology, social anthropology and ultimately linguistics.
Gumperzs work casts light on how subjects share grammatical knowledge and
contextualize it. Institutional positioning processes of sociological order also
echo Erving Goffmans views. Goffman describes how language is used in particular social situations: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), Behavior in
Public Places (1963), Interactional Rituals (1967), Relations in Public (1971),
Frame Analysis (1974), and Forms of Talk (1981). In the linguistic field, the views
of both authors have been taken up and developed by researchers such as Brown
and Levinson (1987), Schiffrin (1987), Tannen (1989) and more recently Drew
and Heritage (1992). This level of the model is also connected to linguistic genre
theories 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 case
of interactional exchanges enables us to handle the situation and the social
relations at work at the beginning. In written monologal productions, these
institutional processes help us define discourse genres.
2.2 MODULAR
Modular positioning processes have to do with specific interactional phases

handled temporarily by speakers, belonging to a secondary genre subordinated
to the general frame. These phases are called modules in our perspective. To give
an example, in a TV talk show, we could clearly imagine a politician trying to initiate a polemical module with fierce attacks directed at an ideological opponent
within a friendly debate. Another example would be a doctorpatient interaction
in which speakers might initiate conversational modules on children/the
weather. The doctor could even ask the patient for advice on matters such as software, mechanics. The dominant genre is still the medical consultation; conversational modules are local subordinate genres. At this level, we are not far from the
concepts 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 the
perspectives of ESP (English for Specific Purposes) analysis. Anglo-Saxon
research in applied linguistics has produced abundant data in this perspective, in
which a relation between interaction and professional settings is drawn, Business
English 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 Hallidays microlinguistic systems (1973; Halliday and Hasan, 1976) as a basis. French-speaking
researchers such as Ghiglione (1989) have focused on political discourse without
necessarily considering a general set of media discourse social practices. Few
Anglo-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 SUBJECTIVE
Subjective positioning processes are to do with the relation established between

the verbal exchange dynamic and the general objectives which speakers assign
themselves. We here consider images of self in relation to hierarchical positioning processes built in the course of the interaction; such processes are linked to
the more general notion of Ethos derived from ancient rhetorics (Amossy, 1999).
Such built images are also connected to discourse situations, for example in the
media 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. Meads theory of subject (1934) later theorized by
Goffman in his drama-based conception of communication. Moreover, Goffmans
notion of figure is closely connected to LAAs 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: Goffmans FTAs (facethreatening acts), formalized by Brown and Levinson (1987), FFA (face-flattering
acts), along with the notion of taxeme designed by Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1990,
1992, 1994, 1996) are helpful in formalizing phenomena at this level. We deal
with conquered or lost positions in relation to images built by co-speakers:
expert/non-expert, honest/dishonest, strict/lax; and more direct interactional
processes: confident/impulsive.
2.4 DISCURSIVE
Discursive positioning processes mainly concern discourse structuration and

cognitive 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 same
goal or strategy (Gumperz, 1982), sharing an inherent coherence. The way these
different sequences are chained together to form coherent discourse with a
specific 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 structure 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, being

itself part of a persuasive sequence. These processes also enable subjects to construct and deconstruct unstable discourse balances, which produces a dynamic
vision of textual structure (Mosegaard-Hansen, 1998; Vion, 2000). At this level,
cognitive tasks are considered, corresponding to types of discourse and language
functions.
2 . 5 E N U N C I AT I V E
Enunciative positioning processes concern purely enunciative phenomena and

lead the analyst to use the concept of enunciative staging designed by Vion
(1998a) to study how speakers stage themselves in their own speech and mark
their 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? In
order to make this clear, we need to distinguish between two enunciative orders:
speaker and source, in a polyphonic perspective inspired by Bakhtine (1984) and
Ducrot (1984). A given speaker is not necessarily the upstream source of his/her
utterance, he/she may just be a relay-speaker a mere physical speaking body
quoting from other peoples discourse, whether these people are identified, real
or not. The voices staged in speakers discourse will be referred to from now on as
utterers, in order to distinguish them from the physical speaker.
We also have to try to give an account of the different ways through which
speakers stage themselves in their speech to operate a meta-control, together
with the kind of modulation or footing which is achieved. Vions enunciative
staging 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 typology
remains open. Moreover, it would be dangerous to expect a sequence to be composed only of utterances referring to just one mode such as unicity or duality.
Sequences are necessarily heterogeneously composed; therefore discourse activity cannot be reduced to a linear catalogue of successive enunciative staging acts
belonging to the same mode. Accordingly, Vion sees discourse linearity composed
of breaks or waves evoking the movement of breathing and thus speaks of
enunciative breathing. The five modes encompassing enunciative staging can
briefly be presented as follows:
1. Enunciative unicity: speaker builds an enunciative position which gives the
impression he/she is the sole master of his/her words.
2. Enunciative duality: speaker builds two positions. Utterances may thus
appear as ambiguous, implicit or opaque.
3. Enunciative parallelism: speaker stages several utterers and seems to speak
sharing their views.
4. Enunciative opposition: speaker stages several utterers and seems to go
against them.
5. Enunciative self-effacement: speakers voice seems to have deserted his/her
speech 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 several
utterers, diaphonic to speaker and addressee, exophonic to speaker and an
absent utterer.
This set of tools introduced by Vion (1995, 1998a) follows up Goffmans
Forms of Talk (1981). The concept of footing has been set up to evaluate a
speakers involvement strategy in relation to a participation framework. This
notion has been discussed (Levinson, in Drew and Wooton, 1988; Lon, 1999)
and used in many ways. The positions sketched: animator, author, principal and
figure constitute a set which is coherent with the typology of enunciative staging
presented above. We may ask whether the position named figure belongs to the
same order as the other three. Lon (1999) presents Goffmans 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 responsibility which the addressee takes in influencing a speakers choice as to the position
assumed. Thus, discourse is clearly seen as co-constructed; monologal units are
then brought back into the interactional game, which is exactly what the LAA
team attempts to suggest.
Approaches allowing one to cross enunciative and discursive levels, connecting the utterance production axis with pragmatics are extremely rare. Doing so
casts 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 enunciative integrative pragmatics. Likewise, Jeanneret (1999) clearly displays a similar
programme in the title of her book, whereas Verschueren (1999), negating the
existence of such an approach, establishes links between elements belonging
each to argumentative, illocutionary and cognitive orders. Our model enables
analysts to transgress strict interactional borders to deal with monologal texts
(Vion, 1999; Vion et al., 2001). The same goal has been present in the Geneva
School since the beginning (Roulet et al., 1985, 2001); as well as in Linell (1998)
and Nlkes research (1994; Nlke and Adam, 1999) and is one of the main
preoccupations of the LAA.
3. From theory to data

3.1
T H E S A JA M A C O R P U S
As part of a national research programme, we were asked to investigate the way

discourse is used in extreme situations to let speakers subjectivity emerge. A
group of 10 young male and female scientists volunteered for an expedition to an
18,000 ft summit in Bolivia named Sajama.
The expedition programme included 10 biological research protocols targeting human adaptation to the lack of oxygen (hypoxia) in high altitude, a frequent
cause of pulmonary oedema (Richalet et al., 1994). The study of verbal data
was also planned, in order to contribute to the understanding of psychological
adaptation to extreme environment (Nol-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 consisted
in telling the way they felt about the whole experience, the group and their own
reactions to the ordeal they were going through.
3.1.1 The impact of the institutional and modular levels
Even looking casually at the transcripts, it is quite clear that whether the subjects
face the tape-recorder alone or reply to the pre-established questionnaire read by
a 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 for
the 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 illustrating the combined influence of the institutional and subjective levels. The targeted
image (built for themselves and for others at the same time), is that of someone
worthy of the confidence placed in them and in their ability to cope with the
tasks they have been assigned. The situation also contains a paradox in the fact
that subjects are asked to give their feelings away whereas the institutional situation is far from favouring this. These facts point to the notion that the institutional 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 interaction is present in the interviews: that of the questionnaire. The interviewer only
reads out the questions, refraining from giving any audible feedback, rephrasing
or eliciting reactions, which constitutes an additional obstacle for the emergence
of subjectivity. Nevertheless the corpus remains an interaction because discourse
is addressed and an interviewer is present, even if he does not appear to be the
main addressee.
There are interconnections between the setting and the discourse position as
well: when speakers are asked to describe the landscape surrounding them or to
talk about their arrival, we find that description and narrative sequences are
flawed with argumentative markers. Instead of hearing personal stories, we are
faced with self-justification. For instance donc (so) becomes twice as frequent for
one 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 enunciative staging modes. Despite the paralysing format of the situation, the pressure of the hostile conditions the subjects have to cope with entails enunciative
fluctuations in which overflowing subjectivity phases are immediately counterbalanced by the suddenly reappearing awareness of the general context, leading
to 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 demands
of the extreme situation, they must take care of their image as we have already
indicated; (2) as we previously explained (Bertrand et al., 2000), too much
emotion, generally speaking, is an obstacle to the sharing of subjectivity, since it
lies in every communication and undermines it. Communication demands the
synchronization of emotional states, and therefore implies a certain degree of
distanciation.
3.1.2 Discursive and enunciative levels
3.1.2.1 Modalizing lexical choices
Accordingly, the use of puise (exhausted) to characterize a physical state by one
of the members of the expedition will be immediately modified and softened:
je me sens essentiellement puise + mais bon jespre que dans quelques jours + tout
sera rentr dans lordre
(I feel mostly exhausted + but well I hope that within a few days + everything will be
back in order)
The expression of subjectivity conveyed by puise (exhausted) is modalized by the

adverb essentiellement (mostly) and by the choice of je me sens (I feel) instead of je
suis (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 discourse is about to follow; the particle bon (well) introduces a positioning shift
assigning a higher degree of relevance to the following statement. The presence
of mais (but) reminds us of the overall argumentative tonality underlying these
descriptive sequences.
As in the above-mentioned example, strong lexical choices as in: dcourage
(discouraged), inquite (worried) are usually corrected by modalizations: un peu (a
little), un certain (somewhat), un tout petit peu (very little) or followed by rationalizing clauses marked by particles mais (but), bon (well), mais bon ... confirming the
fact that too much exposure of self and feelings is not in good taste.
3.1.2.2 Polyphonic use of negation
In the same way, negative clauses can give rise to two different voices: (1) one
positive voice representing a potential or existing discourse; and (2) speakers
own 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)
3.1.2.3 Enunciative swaying

Some subjects confront two different opinions in their own discourse, directly
staging two different voices: (1) one of the voices expressing their personal opinion; and (2) a second one opposed to it and allocated to the group or to the evaluating authority, or to some doxa. This somewhat basic form of polyphony is
frequent in one of the female subjects who uses it as a means of putting her own
discourse into perspective, so as to avoid excessive assertiveness in her frequent
phases of self-depreciation. Once again alternation of opinions (voices) is based
upon the use of the connective particle mais (but) which includes a spectacular
rise of its frequency:
je sens que++ je suis pas trs utile + que je peux pas vraiment au maximum+
mais je pourrais faire plus
mais de toutes faons y a pas grand-chose faire de plus + donc moralement je me
sens un peu inutile
I feel that ++ Im not being very helpful + Im 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 speakers own voice; statement (2) stages other
voices, possibly referring to those of the group members; in statement (3) the
speakers voice is heard again, rephrasing her original opinion. It is notable that
moves (1) and (3) linked to the speakers opinion are considerably modulated
(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 which
the voice of the group is staged. The same type of enunciative swaying is present
in one of the male subjects:
je me fous absolument.; (2) en fait cest faux (3) je mefforce (..): (1) I really dont give
a damn (2) in fact it is not true (3) but I do my best to (..)
3.1.2.4 About enunciative markers

As the expression of emotion is generally contained by subjects, we have to be
very 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 particles
such as ben, quoi, eh bien, bon, etc. can also reveal changes in the staging
strategies.
Markers such as eh bien (well) or bon (so) tend to point to rationalizing discourse whereas ben or quoi (you know) appearing at the end of utterances tend
to accompany self-centred sequences marked in higher subjectivity and lesser
share. Subjectivity sways would be relatable to enunciative phases shifting
between dramatization and trivialization, self-centredness and lack of focusing.
Practically, rationalization discourse contains modalizers like vraiment (really),

videmment (obviously), en fait (in fact) or meta-enunciative comments such as
lets say that, a sort of and the use of pronouns like nous (we) or on (colloquial
for we in spoken French). Conversely, discourses in which subjectivity emerges
contain lexical choices which are inconsistent with the inter-subjectivity necessary for verbal exchange, and first-person pronouns.
In one given subjects speech, the distanciation of emotions reveals unexpected 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 emotional
aspect is present but the form I is replaced by more impersonal discourse markers such as on (one) and a (that). More precisely, there seems to be a systematic
binary 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 that
one has great difficulty coping.
So negative aspects relate to others, and positive aspects are endorsed by the
speaker 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, the
positive pole only is made explicit through the argumentative confrontation.
Enunciative moves generate and place in the foreground a negative implicit
counter-part. The speaker counter-argues positively facing an unspoken discourse which appears only through his counter-argument, revealed for instance
through the accumulation of quand mme (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 subjects speech, the same enunciative structure appears regularly.

This time, this marker activates a fictive addressee that the speaker tends to minimize or repress, here again producing a co-enunciation phenomenon.
3.1.3 Discussion
By comparing speech productions of subjects, whether in ordinary context or
under extreme conditions, we have been able to identify general tendencies
linked to high altitude and the effect of hypoxia (Vion et al., 2001), but also
personal characteristics such as differences in strategies or personality features.
For instance some subjects will resort to humour, whereas others will make use
of a certain rationalized discourse. Some subjects dramatized or self-centred
reactions result in isolation from the group and its lack of concern; other speakers, although in pain, do everything they can to cope rationally and to set aside
their own unease. Yet, personality features are partially neutralized by belonging
to the group and by the mission itself, so that the expression of emotions is
constantly qualified, softened, broken, resulting in a rationalizing type of discourse or in surpassing oneself, which is more representative of the group than
of individual subjects.
3.2
THE MARSEILLES CORPUS
We are going to study a meeting which took place in a hospital in Marseilles

between a patient suffering from severe headaches (Mylne) and a member of
the medical staff (Sabine) in charge of handling an interview for a multidisciplinary research programme focused on the verbalization of pain.
3.2.1 The interactive frame
At 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 several
types of interactions. In interactional studies carried out after Goffman, interaction types are defined according to the nature of the social relation that actors
settle. This relation expresses itself through positioning processes, interactional
goal, a degree of cooperation, the level of formality in turns and the way they are
handled. The first part of our meeting may then be defined as a medical interview, the goal of which is to build knowledge and not to diagnose or to deliver a
prescription. The complementary positioning process on which it dwells associates a patient giving information and a member of medical staff whose function
consists in collecting information in a way which is coherent with that goal. In
this particular meeting, presented in Appendix 1, the actors build a type of relation which is far more complex than that which is defined by the positioning
process constituting the situation. Besides, the co-construction process adds a
certain unpredictability to the development of discourse. It then appears necessary to make room for dynamic discourse activities shaped by actors endowed
with a certain power of action within a permanent interactive frame defining the
situation. As mentioned above, the interactive frame is defined by an institutional
positioning process whereas the interactive space, that is to say, the complex relation co-constructed by subjects implies a dynamic link between five types of positioning processes (institutional, modular, subjective, discursive and enunciative).
The definition of the communicative situation by the institutional positioning
process allows us to combine different successive interactions within a single
meeting, which more traditional definitions assimilating interaction to meeting
do not make possible. In the meeting which is dealt with here, it is possible to distinguish two successive interactions bringing together the same subjects. If the
first two extracts equate with an interview, what happens from line 91 and
onwards radically modifies the initial positioning process: Sabine (the doctor), on
learning that Mylne (the interviewed patient) works in the field of medical
research, completely modifies her attitude and within a few turns closes the
medical interview and opens a consultation for her own sake, enabling her to
consult the medical knowledge of Mylne (the patient). The initial positioning
process investigator/interviewee gradually yields to expert/non-expert, which
implies a reversal of high and low positions. Considering that Sabine indicates
that it is not at all in our interview when she initiates this new frame, considering also that the two subjects in presence never come back to the first medical
interview, it may be argued that the meeting is composed of two separate successive interactions, bringing together the same subjects, but in different social
relations and different frames (an interview and a consultation). We shall see
that at the level of the complex relation built by subjects (interactive space) the
second interaction develops in a particular climate, which is the natural followup to the interview.
3.2.2 The interactive space
After 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 patient
orients his/her descriptions and narrations according to a thesis corresponding
to his/her personal diagnosis of the possible origins of the pain. Very often, this
personal diagnosis was contrary to the official medical diagnosis. The description of the pain, aimed at in the course of the interview, will be integrated into
an argumentative structure in which the patient will attempt to persuade his/her
partner. 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 positioning process defining the interactive frame remains the same throughout the
interaction, the interactive space constantly modifies itself, even if two distinct
moments are identifiable.
Extract 1 (a module oriented towards discussion by Mylne)
In extract 1, Mylne will set up particular discursive positions, dwelling on the
argumentative component of language. She will then back her thesis (my
headaches 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)
This argumentative sequence is integrated into the interview and compels

Mylne to take up the institutional position of patient. To convince her partner,
the activated interactional module will belong to the conversation order (symmetrical positions with a focus on content). At the enunciative level, Mylne
either endorses her own words using the first person pronoun (I, unicity mode) or
speaks with her doctors (enunciative parallelism):
So I came to consult Doctor B / Weve done /weve spoken a lot to try to see if there
was no problem. (1315)

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)
At the enunciative level, the activated positions alternate between unicity and
enunciative parallelism but also have self-effacement brought into play. This mode
allows the speaker to present discourse as objective and as a general authoritative
opinion:
Because the treatments for Menopause, its always with hormones and it always
favours headaches. (79)
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 deriving
from the use of the effacement mode enhances the impact of the speech that the
patient endorses then more directly. As for subjective positions, Mylne presents
the 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 study
of interrelated positions allows analysts to cast light on subjects activities and
strategies. After the analysis of this first sequence we can make a certain number
of points:
1. Mylne apparently accepts the position of patient-informer, which helps to
define the complementary frame of the interview. Also, she has no choice, if
a subject refuses the positioning process defining a specific frame, communication is completely blocked and nothing would be constructed until some
kind of frame was found and accepted by participants.
2. While accepting the starting frame, Mylne, through her play on other positions, modifies the institutional process: wanting to initiate a conversation
module, taking up the attitude of an expert, setting up arguments and
playing on enunciative positions which endows her with a certain authority
and 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 investigator because of an immodest play would account for Sabines refusal to take
the argued thesis (my headaches are psychosomatic) into account. This refusal is
nonetheless clear-cut:
Why psychosomatic? its not because the CAUSE is not KNOWN (laughter) that necessarily 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 strategy
and 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 the
interview), she pretends not to know medical terms directly concerning herself.
They found something there, which shrinks, I dont know the name (laughter).
(345)
Beside the fact of stating her ignorance which consolidates Sabine in her position
of expert, the peal of laughter seems to have a very complex function: infantilize
at the subjective position level and it is also an attempt at setting up a form of
complicity and proximity (modular level), enunciative distanciation, etc. The
same configuration 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 a
discourse marker. The interview becomes more dialogical with consistently
longer turns from Sabine. This general configuration will then gradually engender a conversation module with enunciative positions linked to duality and
humour. This is what is noticeable when speaking about her weight, Mylne
says:
then may be also by the ... important mass. (56)
The lexical choice of mass (volume) implies an enunciative distanciation and a

play 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 modification of Mylnes positioning. All the more so if one considers that instead of
producing an argumentation, at the subjective positioning level, she will make do
with the setting up of a narration by which she tells herself. The dual enunciative
play identified on mass will carry on with the expression tir group (shooting
party; line 64) to talk about a set of analyses already done and will be found later
on:
I started losing a bit of weight, but well, its not ... that brilliant. (701)
As we have indicated, this sequence is not based on direct argumentation but

rather on a narration-description component which develops into a long monologue (lines 6572). This type of narration functions as an argument in a
discourse which bears a persuasive goal. Its interest lies in the fact of arguing
implicitly, without risking offending the partner, showing a sort of knowledge in
keeping with the position of expert.
In the course of this module oriented towards conversation, one notes that
cooperative complicity gradually invades Sabines speech in such a way that the
two women finally manage to coordinate their laughter (lines 756). Such coordination does not appear anywhere else; Mylne ends the narration with an
utterance bearing argumentative echoes:
and::::::::::::: then I had to have my teeth operated on and the headaches came back
(low) of course (laughter). (745)
The voice volume drop evoking confidential talk, the use of the style of speaking
adverb (of course) and laughter clearly mark a positioning, which, on the subjective side, targets complicity and proximity. After this second sequence, Sabine
agrees to take into account Mylnes own thesis. It is not possible to evaluate
Sabines degree of acceptance but it seems difficult to disassociate this concession
from all the interactive play on various positioning processes.
A few points have been given here and doubtless the analysis must be carried
further. It would also be necessary to take into account the different pauses
which precede marked lexical choices, hesitation structures (and the moments
when they occur in discourse), breaks and incomplete utterances, modalizations
(anchoring of discourse in fictive, real or fantastic worlds), modulations (distanciation strategies bearing on the act of discourse), rephrasing strategies, metadiscursive commentaries, turn overlaps, discourse markers, etc. (all the various
traces of language activity which generally constitute the basis of the analyses
carried out by the LAA team).
Also, a linguist is less concerned with the efficiency of strategies than with
the analysis itself. It is of little interest whether Mylnes strategies allow her to
achieve her goal or not. Strategies are coordinated lines of action that must be
described using linguistic concepts first. Interactive strategies would then depend
on the particular way subjects play this complex game of positioning processes.
The different strategies: intimidation, persuasion, kow-tow, seduction, research
of success, competition, minimal involvement, consensus reaching, etc. could
then 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: Mylne
becomes the expert that Sabine consults. Given the fact that a certain interactional complicity was initiated earlier, Mylne will have to act modestly in the
position of expert, just as Sabine was doing in the preceding interaction. If the
interactive frame is altered, the relational history woven in the course of the first
interaction will continue in the second one. As a result, Mylne who, in the
course of the interview, had partially managed to initiate a conversational
module playing on complicity and proximity will develop her role of expert, by
hesitating in her speech and trying to avoid a structured aspect. These hypercorrection phenomena are probably explainable by the modesty law, according
to which one must not let ones 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 idea
of 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 (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 units

The analysis of this meeting enabled us to discuss different types of phases:
interactions, when distinct interactive frames follow one another; modules when
interaction types are developed locally; and sequences when discourse activity
types 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 simplistic
conception of the overall structure seen as a mechanical construction of homogeneous units. In certain cases it will be possible to identify the beginning and
the end of a conversational module in a specific interactive frame, when the two
subjects cooperate narrowly. However, a difference in availability of subjects for
the setting of a conversational module will inevitably lead to complex situations.
In extract 2, Mylne struggles to initiate a conversational module in the interview (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 directly
affect the institutional positionings defining the interactive frame. However, as
Mylne continues her attempts, Sabines utterances move closer to a conversational involvement. The coordination of peals of laughter, the expression of complicity and accepted togetherness sketch a conversational attitude subordinated
to the position of investigator. It then becomes clear that the question concerning
units is complex: for Mylne, we can identify an attempt to initiate a conversational module, whereas for Sabine, there is an evolution towards a form of
conversational communication but the line is never really crossed. In such conditions, the conversational module which should concern both co-participants is
very difficult: the two subjects tend towards it according to different rhythms but
do not reach a conversational level. However, this orientation towards a conversational order is obvious in extract 2, all the more so by comparison with Sabines
limited interventions in extract 1. Discourse is never constituted of stable and
homogeneous units, which would appear in order, one after the other. In different interventions, the same conversational module can take up various forms,
just as a certain text type such as narration can take very distinct forms depending on the discourse genres in which it is integrated (literary works, narration of
ordinary life, fairy tales). Within a unified theoretical approach we assimilate the
notion 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 the
frame in which it is produced, but also, depending on the activity of subjects at
the level of the interactive space. The units used will then be taken at different
levels of their achievement (it is then possible to draw a link to Glich and
Quasthoff s narrativity degrees (1985) and Adams prototypical logic (1992)).
Beside the complexity deriving from the compositionality of units and the
action of subjects, structuration conflicts between various participants will
constitute a supplementary factor of heterogeneity and instability of units. This
is what we can see with discussion (extract 1) and conversation (extract 2).
Given the constraints linked to the frame, these modules cannot become stable in
the interview. This is obvious in both cases by Sabines reluctance to go too far in
the activation of such modules. However, considering that Mylne struggles to
set them up and that Sabine must show she is cooperative, the orientation
towards these modules remains important, even if neither of them will be fully
activated. We will have to posit that distinct degrees of activation are possible for
discourse units in relation to the configuration of the interactive frame and
structuration conflicts occurring between participants.
4. Conclusion
The star model, by permitting scrutiny of the various levels of verbal communication, makes possible the fact of putting heterogeneous phenomena into a
structuring perspective. It is true that psychological or sociological factors which
influence individuals are complex and numerous, but as such they do not belong
to our scope of investigation. The interest of the linguistic approach we defend
lies rather in the attempt to bring to light the way in which levels as varied as
institutional, modular, subjective, discursive and enunciative positioning
processes must be taken into account to produce an analysis concerned with
social practices as well as micro-linguistic strategies.
The attitude of subjects towards language productions evolves in such a way
that the development of discourse will be characterizable by discourse breaks
and a relative enunciative instability.
The interest of the model presented here lies in the attitude, apparently paradoxical, of presenting concepts analysing discourse from clear-cut categories
while focusing on instability, heterogeneity and the dynamism of discourse
strategies.
A P P E N D I X 1 T H E M Y L E N E / S A B I N E I N T E RV I E W,
15
JUNE
1992
M = Mylne: patient (and a medical researcher at the INSERM, a professional status

Sabine is not aware of during the first part of the interview)
S = Sabine (doctor in charge of the interview)

Excerpt 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
(...)
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
et puis euh:::: depuis dj:: pas mal dannes je souffre de migraines /

cest pour a que je suis venue voir euh le Docteur B. / parce que
(1,59) le dernier trimestre de lanne dernire euh:: (0,98) jtais en
(+) traitement et pour la thyrode et pour un dbut de mnopause
puisque jai 46 ans (+)
hm hm
et je sais pas si ce sont ces mdicaments associs / parce que les
traitements pour la mnopause cest toujours sous forme dhormones
et a favorise toujours (+) les migraines
mm=
euh jai eu des migraines atroces cest--dire que je me retrouvais
par terre euh::: oblige de faire venir le SAMU / euh::: enfin videmment un stade trs trs (1,07) / donc je suis venue consulter M. B.
euh (1,15) on a fait / on a parl pas mal pour essayer de voir si y
avait pas de problmes / Jai fait un examen des yeux (++)
hm oui pour chercher une cause
pour savoir euh:: sil y avait quelque chose / donc cest normal /
comme aussi javais eu des problmes de diabte et que ma mre
est diabtique donc on pourrait / on aurait pu croire a / euh jai
javais dj fait un scanner (+) euh de la tte donc je savais quy avait
rien dimportant / ts hm on a fait des radios pour voir un peu euh au
point de vue euh rhumatisme
si on avait (xxxxxx)
bon (+) l il y a un petit quelque chose / il y a un pincement / enfin on
a trouv des des petites choses qui peuvent euh (1,80) tre une
petite part de (+) de ces douleurs
hm hm
Notamment un effet de torticolis que jai / quelque chose qui ressemblerait a de gne pour euh tous les mouvements (+) mais::::
(soupir) (1,59) je crois aussi que le / la migraine cest:::: (bas)
psychosomatique (rire) et que::::::://
(rapide) pourquoi psychosomatique cest pas parce quon ne
connat pas la cause (rire) que forcment il faut dire quy en a pas
Excerpt 2
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
ils ont trouv quelque chose l qui se rtrcit dont je sais pas le
nom (clat de rire)
oui dans le bras (xxx)
oui=
cause des ctes?
d:::fil::::tracho-brachial
tracho-brachial?
cest a oui (rires) / cest des / ce sont des termes que joublie
gnralement hein
thoraco-brachial: hein
thoraco-brachial
oui parce que la trache elle est loin quand mme hein / Cest l

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
(...)
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
(...)
82
83
84
85
(...)
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
S
M
S
quand vous levez les bras vous avez des (++)

oui::: jai / je
des sensations mm
oui si je porte un poids qui est / qui moblige faire a je peux plus
euh::
hm hm
jai limpression que tout le bras
oui ce sont les artres qui sont un peu coinces par la pre/
voil
mire cte
puis aussi peut-tre par le (+) volume (rire) important
vous pensez que
euh donc euh euh pour continuer ce qui a t fait donc (++) euh::
(1,63) t / je suis alle consulter ch:::::::::ez le Professeur V
oui
aussi pour euh voir //
pour le diabte toujours?
les problmes de diabte de poids de thyrode enfin (+) pour faire
un group euh un tir group
oui javais dj fait un:: traitement mais ctait peut-tre pas assez
quilibr (+) l jai refait les examens et::: (+) et puis euh::: je prends
je reprends des hormones du 13me au 25me jour des rgles (+)
pour essayer aussi de de compenser un peu le / les problmes hormonaux / Pour le diabte cest / a a lair / tout fait quilibr /
bon l jai commenc un peu perdre du poids mais enfin cest
cest pas folichon cest dire cest trois kilos depuis euh / bon enfin
a fait pas longtemps non plus (1,51)
mm
et:::: l je dois me faire oprer des dents et la migraine elle est
revenue (bas) videmment (rire)
(rire)
donc cest pour a que je dis que cest trs //
vous pensez que le
psychosomatique
comment vous lprouvez cette douleur vous pouvez me la dcrire
un petit peu (++) mme la caractriser (+) essayer dimaginer (++)
vous pensez vous quil y a un problme euh
oh oui
psychosomatique important / vous pensez que a correspond a
corresponde des problmes dans votre vie l o (...)
Excerpt 3
86 S
87 M
88
89
90 S
cest vrai quand on est soumis des stress ou des responsabilits on ++

oui oui oui mais bon je crois pas parce que quand mme la profession cest une
habitude / cest pas ds maintenant que je suis ++ / a fait 25 ans que je travaille
+ je veux dire bon
vous travaillez dans quelle +

91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
S
M
je travaille lINSERM la recherche mdicale

oui
sur les rcepteurs / cest fond/ cest de la recherche fondamentale
mais a mintresse / jai + / a fait euh / jai une matrise dhistologie gnrale
et jai fait un peu de
euh sur le
de biochimie / cest pas du tout dans notre entretien
euh sur le euh euh rcepteur euh lantigne / cest--dire euh les fonctions
euh alpha bta et gamma delta euh et les relations avec euh les complexes Cb3,
Cb4, Cb8 / enfin ce genre de problme / enfin si vous voulez
vous tes biologiste au dpart
je suis chim / aide-chimiste au dpart / mais si vous voulez cest plutt euh /
je travaille plutt dans le problme de la structure + de lanalyse germinale
euh de ces gnes qui conduisent
XX
donc cest trs biologie molculaire et structure euh au point de vue
chromosomes euh cartographie des gnes euh / plutt de ce ct de ltude
donc dun point de vue plus biochimique que mdical quand mme
euh ni chimique ne mdical + trs fondamental
trs fondamental
simplement euh pour pouvoir construire des gnes les mettre dans des
cellules eucaryotes et voir euh lexpression si on apporte des mutations
ce genre de choses
daccord non a mintresse beaucoup parce que en mme temps que mes
tudes de mdecine jai fait plusieurs CES dhistologie embryologie parasitologie
APPENDIX
TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS
:
/
//
+
(1,51)
(xx)
=
(laughs)
underscored
CAPITAL LETTERS
APPENDIX
the immediately prior syllable is prolonged. The number of colons is

proportional to the prolongation
self-interruption
interruption or overlapping by an interactant
pause: the number of + increases with the duration of the pause
exact duration of the pause
what has been uttered is uncertain
no time elapses between utterances
description of aspects of paraverbal or nonverbal behaviour
uttered simultaneously
stressed syllables
T R A N S L AT I O N S O F F R E N C H T E R M S
balancement nonciatif
connecteurs
discursive
enonciatif
espace interactif
marqueurs structurels
place (ralisee)
place institutionnelle
alternating voices/enunciative swaying

connective discourse particles
discursive
enunciative
interactive space
pattern markers
position
institutional positioning

place modulaire
positionnement
positions sociales
rapport de place
relation contracte
relation interlocutive
relation interpersonnelle et sociale
rles
subjective
modular positioning
positioning
social positions
(interrelational) positioning process
contracted relation
interlocutive relations
interpersonal and social relations
roles
subjective
AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
This research was funded by the Ministre National de la Recherche et de Technologie,

Programme COG13B, ACI Cognitique. Corpora are the property of the Dpartement de
Biomathmatiques, Statistiques et Informatique, Facult de Mdecine, Marseille: The
Sajama Corpus, and of the LAA team: The Marseilles Corpus.
REFERENCES
Adam, 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) Paroles propos: Approche nonciative et interactive du topic. Gap:
Ophrys.
Bertrand, R. et al. (2000) Lobservation et lanalyse des affects dans linteraction, in
C. Plantin, M. Doury and V. Traverso (eds) Les motions dans les interactions, pp.
16982. Lyon: ARCI.
Blanchet, A., Noel-Jorand, M.C. and Bonaldi, V. (1997) Discursive Strategies of Subjects
with High Altitude Hypoxia: Extreme Environment, Stress Medicine 13: 1518.
Brmond, C. (2003) La porte co-nonciative de bon: Son rle dans la structuration de
lobjet discursif , Revue de Smantique et de Pragmatique 13: 923.
Bronckart, J.-P. (1996) Activit langagire, textes et discours. Lausanne: Delachaux et
Niestl.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clayman, S.E. (1992) Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of NewsInterviews Discourse, in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in
Institutional 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 ditions de Minuit.
Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995) Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.

Fairclough, N. (2000) New Labour, New Language. London: Routledge.
Fernandez-Vest, J. (1994) Les Particules nonciatives. Paris: PUF Linguistique Nouvelle.
Foucault, M. (1984) The Order of Discourse, in M. Shapiro (ed.) Language and Politics,
pp. 10338. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ghiglione, R. (ed.) (1989) Je vous ai compris ou lanalyse des discours politiques. Paris:
Armand Colin.
Ghiglione, R. and Charaudeau, P. (eds) (1999) Paroles en images, images de paroles, trois
talk-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.) Handbook
of 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) La Cononciation en franais: Approches discursive, conversationnelle et
syntaxique. 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) Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical
Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Livingstone, S. and Lunt, P. (1994) Talk on Television, Audience Participation and Public
Debate. London: Routledge.
Maury-Rouan, C. (1998) Le paralllisme co-nonciatif: Construire plusieurs lallocutaire absent: lnonciateur en creux dans le dialogue, Les Registres de la Conversation,
Revue de Smantique et Pragmatique 3: 14558.
Maury-Rouan, C. (2001a) LHypocorrection: Entre sociolinguistique et analyse linguistique des interactions, in Lengua, Discurso, Texto, pp. 162738. Madrid: Visor Libros.
Maury-Rouan, C. (2001b) Le flou des marques discursives est-il un inconvnient? Vers la
notion de leurre discursif , online journal, Marges Linguistiques 2: 16376
(http://www.Marges-linguistiques.com).
Maury-Rouan, C. (2003) Discourse Particles as Interactional Lures, GURT 2002 (IVth
Georgetown Roundtable on Language and Linguistics), Georgetown University,
Washington, DC, 1517 February.
Mead, G.H. (1934) Mind, Self and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Moeschler, J. (1999) Thorie pragmatique et pragmatique conversationnelle. Paris: Armand
Colin.
Mosegaard-Hansen, M.B. (1998) The Function of Discourse Particles: A Study with Special
Reference to Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: Benjamin.
Nol-Jorand, M.-C., Reinert, M., Bonnon, M. and Therme, P. (1995) Discourse Analysis
and Psychological Adaptation to High Altitude Hypoxia, Stress Med 11: 2739.
Nlke, H. (1994) Linguistique modulaire: De la forme au sens. Paris: Bibliothque de linformation grammaticale, ditions Peeters.

Nlke, H. and Adam, J.-M. (eds) (1999) Approches modulaires: De la langue au discours.
Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestl.
Priego-Valverde, B. (1998) Lhumour (noir) dans les conversations: Jeux et enjeux, Les
Registres de la Conversation, Revue de Smantique et Pragmatique 3: 12344.
Priego-Valverde, B. (2001) Cest du lard ou du cochon? Lorsque lhumeur opacifie la conversation familire, online journal, Marges Linguistiques 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.
Colletta and A. Tcherkassof (eds) Perspectives actuelles sur les motions: Cognition,
langage et dveloppement. Brussels: Hayen, Mardaga.
Richalet, J.P., Souberbielle, J.C., Antezana, A.M., et al. (1994) Control of Erythropoiesis in
Humans during Prolonged Exposure to Altitude of 6,542 m, American Journal of
Physiology 266: R556R764.
Roulet, E. et al. (1985) LArticulation du discours en franais contemporain. Berne: Peter Lang.
Roulet, E. et al. (1992) Actes de langage et structure de la conversation, Cahiers de
Linguistique Franaise 13: 76107.
Roulet, E., Filliettaz, L. and Grobet, A. (2001) Un modle et un instrument danalyse de lorganisation du discours. Berne: Peter Lang.
Rouveyrol, L. (1998) Vers une stylistique de linteraction tlvise?, Bulletin de la Socit
de Stylistique Anglaise 19: 944.
Rouveyrol, L. (1999) Pour une stylistique du taxme dans le dbat politique tlvis:
Analyse de quelques rseaux interactionnels signifiants, 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) Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trognon, A. and Brassac, D. (1992) LEnchanement conversationnel, Cahiers de
Linguistique 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) La Gestion pluridimensionnelle du dialogue, in Cahiers de Linguistique
Franaise 17: 179203.
Vion, R. (1998a) La Mise en scne nonciative 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-enProvence: Publications de lUniversit de Provence.
Vion, R. (1998c) De linstabilit des positionnements nonciatifs dans le discours, in
J. Verschueren (ed.) Pragmatics in 1998: Selected Papers from the 6th International
Conference, vol. 2, pp. 57789. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
Vion, R. (1999) Pour une approche relationnelle des interactions verbales et des discours, Langage et Socit 87: 95114.
Vion, R. (2000) Les Activits de recadrage dans le droulement discursif , in E. 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, modalisations et activits langagires, online journal,
Marges Linguistiques 2: 20931 (http://www.Marges-linguistiques.com).

Vion, R. (2001b) Effacement nonciatif,et strategies discursives, in A. Joly and M. de
Mattia (eds) De la syntaxe la narratologie nonciative (Textes recueillis en homage Ren
Rivara), pp. 3314. Paris: Ophrys.
Vion, R. (2003) Modalisations et modalits dans le discours, XVIIme congrs international des linguistes, Prague, juillet 2003, in Actes (CD-ROM). Oxford: Elsevier.
Vion, R., Burle, E. and Rouveyrol, L. (2002) De linteraction au texte littraire, transgression dun modle du genre, in E. Roulet Les Analyses de discours au dfi dun dialogue
romanesque, pp. 46981. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.
Vion, R., Rouveyrol, L., Maury-Rouan, C., et al. (2001) Outils linguistiques pour lanalyse
du discours et des motions, Revue Franaise de Psychiatrie et de Psychologie Mdicale
V(49): 4956.
is a Lecturer in English and Linguistics at the University of Nice

(Sophia Antipolis). His research includes domains such as discourse analysis, verbal interactions, genre analysis and, more particularly, media discourse events such as British
political panel debates, on which he has published widely. His main current interest is to
analyse and compare speakers co-constructed positioning strategies as they emerge by
and through discourse within a mediatized situation of communication. A D D R E S S : AFL
(LAA) Laboratoire Parole et Langage, UMR 6057, CNRS, Universit de Provence, France.
[email: LauRouveyrol@aol.com]
L AU R E N T RO U V E Y RO L
C L A I R E M AU RY - RO UA N is Senior Lecturer at the University of Aix-en Provence where she

teaches linguistics. Her main research domains include the relationship between verbal
and non-verbal aspects in discourse and more particularly the analysis of micro-enunciative 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 journal articles, several book chapters and lectures. A D D R E S S : AFL (LAA) Laboratoire Parole
et Langage, UMR 6057, CNRS, Universit de Provence, France. [email: claire.mauryrouan@lpl.univ-aix.fr]
is Professor of General Linguistics at the University of Aix-en-Provence

(Aix-Marseille), in the Language Sciences Department. His research mainly focuses on
verbal interaction, discourse analysis, pragmatics, enunciation theory and the verbalization of sensory impressions. The general perspective adopted in his research consists of
analysing discourse dynamics, laying emphasis on language activities co-constructed by
speakers 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 leurs
discours (Aix-en-Provence: University of Provence Press, 1998). A D D R E S S : AFL (LAA)
Laboratoire Parole et Langage, UMR 6057, CNRS, Universit de Provence, France. [email:
robert.vion@lpl.univ-aix.fr]
RO B E RT V I O N
MARIE-CHRISTINE NOL-JORAND
is a researcher at the Biomathematics and Statistics

Department of the Timone Medical School in Marseilles. Her research topics include
discourse analysis which she uses as part of a larger research on human adaptation to
high altitude chronic hypoxia, and as a method of investigating schizophrenic patients
speech. A D D R E S S : Dpartement de Biomathmatiques, Statistiques et Informatique,
Facult de Mdecine, La Timone, Marseille, France. [email: maria-christine.noeljorand@medecine.univ-mrs.fr]

A Linguistic Toolbox For Discourse Analysis

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Linguistic Toolbox For Discourse Analysis

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Discourse Studies

Downloaded from dis.sagepub.com by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010