L’interro-négative à l’oral en anglais contemporain : enjeux argumentatifs et pragmatiques
This paper endeavours to open new perspectives on the analysis of negative interrogatives in spoken American English by considering what is at stake pragmatically and as far as argumentation is concerned in “discourse-in-interaction” after the French researcher Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni (2005). I...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Presses Universitaires du Midi
2016-07-01
|
| Series: | Anglophonia |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.openedition.org/anglophonia/742 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832579214768865280 |
|---|---|
| author | Pauline Levillain |
| author_facet | Pauline Levillain |
| author_sort | Pauline Levillain |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This paper endeavours to open new perspectives on the analysis of negative interrogatives in spoken American English by considering what is at stake pragmatically and as far as argumentation is concerned in “discourse-in-interaction” after the French researcher Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni (2005). I argue that negative interrogatives are not the negative counterparts of positive interrogative clauses. Indeed, this study attempts to show how argumentation is inherent in the interlocution relation.To do so, I retrieved the utterances of negative interrogative clauses from the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English and analysed them paying special attention to two dimensions: the utterer’s and the interpreter’s. My analysis first explores the argumentative contribution of such a clause, always enabling the speaker to express their point of view. Then, as these clauses cannot be literally interpreted, a pragmatic reading sheds light on the indirect speech acts that this type of clause enables the speaker to accomplish, taking on John R. Searle’s theory (1979). Finally, the discursive strategies at work in these extracts, namely the point of view negotiation, are considered in the light of the interlocution relation theory developed in Catherine Douay (2000). Because the co-speaker has to interpret such clauses by working out both linguistic and extra-linguistic data, explicit and implicit, paramount to understanding the speaker’s real message, he/she is therefore regarded as a “coauthor” (Douay, 2000) of message. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-0fecb7dc2a484d1c8dc1c97cc5bb1336 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1278-3331 2427-0466 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2016-07-01 |
| publisher | Presses Universitaires du Midi |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Anglophonia |
| spelling | doaj-art-0fecb7dc2a484d1c8dc1c97cc5bb13362025-01-30T12:32:57ZengPresses Universitaires du MidiAnglophonia1278-33312427-04662016-07-012110.4000/anglophonia.742L’interro-négative à l’oral en anglais contemporain : enjeux argumentatifs et pragmatiquesPauline LevillainThis paper endeavours to open new perspectives on the analysis of negative interrogatives in spoken American English by considering what is at stake pragmatically and as far as argumentation is concerned in “discourse-in-interaction” after the French researcher Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni (2005). I argue that negative interrogatives are not the negative counterparts of positive interrogative clauses. Indeed, this study attempts to show how argumentation is inherent in the interlocution relation.To do so, I retrieved the utterances of negative interrogative clauses from the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English and analysed them paying special attention to two dimensions: the utterer’s and the interpreter’s. My analysis first explores the argumentative contribution of such a clause, always enabling the speaker to express their point of view. Then, as these clauses cannot be literally interpreted, a pragmatic reading sheds light on the indirect speech acts that this type of clause enables the speaker to accomplish, taking on John R. Searle’s theory (1979). Finally, the discursive strategies at work in these extracts, namely the point of view negotiation, are considered in the light of the interlocution relation theory developed in Catherine Douay (2000). Because the co-speaker has to interpret such clauses by working out both linguistic and extra-linguistic data, explicit and implicit, paramount to understanding the speaker’s real message, he/she is therefore regarded as a “coauthor” (Douay, 2000) of message.https://journals.openedition.org/anglophonia/742pragmaticsnegative interrogativesargumentationSpeech Act Theory |
| spellingShingle | Pauline Levillain L’interro-négative à l’oral en anglais contemporain : enjeux argumentatifs et pragmatiques Anglophonia pragmatics negative interrogatives argumentation Speech Act Theory |
| title | L’interro-négative à l’oral en anglais contemporain : enjeux argumentatifs et pragmatiques |
| title_full | L’interro-négative à l’oral en anglais contemporain : enjeux argumentatifs et pragmatiques |
| title_fullStr | L’interro-négative à l’oral en anglais contemporain : enjeux argumentatifs et pragmatiques |
| title_full_unstemmed | L’interro-négative à l’oral en anglais contemporain : enjeux argumentatifs et pragmatiques |
| title_short | L’interro-négative à l’oral en anglais contemporain : enjeux argumentatifs et pragmatiques |
| title_sort | l interro negative a l oral en anglais contemporain enjeux argumentatifs et pragmatiques |
| topic | pragmatics negative interrogatives argumentation Speech Act Theory |
| url | https://journals.openedition.org/anglophonia/742 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT paulinelevillain linterronegativealoralenanglaiscontemporainenjeuxargumentatifsetpragmatiques |