A Contrastive View of Discourse Markers: Discourse Markers of Saying in English and French

237 Pages·2020·2.41 MB·English

by  Laure Lansari

A Contrastive View
of Discourse Markers
Discourse Markers
of Saying in English
and French
Laure Lansari
A Contrastive View of Discourse Markers
Laure Lansari
A Contrastive View
of Discourse Markers
Discourse Markers of Saying in
English and French
Laure Lansari
Department of English Studies
Paris Diderot University
Paris, France
ISBN 978-3-030-24895-6 ISBN 978-3-030-24896-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24896-3
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover credit: Maram_shutterstock.com
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
This book explores four discourse markers (henceforth DMs) contain-
ing a prototypical speech verb (say/dire) in contemporary English and
French: shall we say, on va dire, I was going to say and j’allais dire. The
analysis aims to show that these clausal units, originally based on expo-
nents of futurity, have pragmaticalised and acquired discourse functions
mainly dealing with metalinguistic comment. They are fairly rare, espe-
cially in comparison with better-described DMs such as disons, je veux
dire or you know and I mean. On va dire, j’allais dire and I was going
to say are in fact “emergent” (Siouffi et al. 2016) markers, which have
developed only recently and are still circumscribed to rather informal
registers (Lansari 2010a, b, 2017; Steuckardt 2014, 2016). Shall we say
has been attested since the mid-1800s in British English, but its fre-
quency of use remains low. Despite these common features, the diver-
gences of use between the four markers need to be examined in detail.
Based on comparable web data, the linguistic comparison carried out
here combines several levels of analysis and strives to correlate seman-
tic, pragmatic, syntactic and collocational parameters. The scope of the
study is mainly qualitative, since the discourse uses have to be identi-
fied manually. The data still reveals relevant tendencies in the use of the
v
vi Preface
four DMs under scrutiny. This multidimensional analysis is conducted
within a theoretical framework that might be little known to English-
speaking readers: enunciative theories, which consider DMs to reflect
speaker stance. This theoretical approach sheds light on the specificity
of DMs of saying: they cannot be reduced to mere speech management
tools, as they more fundamentally signal that speaker commitment is at
issue. The goal of this research piece is twofold. On an empirical level, it
seeks to enrich our understanding of the four DMs compared here. On
a more theoretical and methodological level, it aims to set up an orig-
inal framework that does not restrict DMs to pragmatic functions but
instead integrates various parameters to describe the DMs under discus-
sion in terms of speaker commitment.
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the scholarly literature on DMs,
focusing more particularly on the pragmatic tradition dominant in
English linguistics and on the “énonciation” theories that have been
very influential in France and Switzerland in the last forty years. This
overview aims to show that the definition of the class of DMs largely
depends on the theoretical premises adopted.
Chapter 2 presents the theoretical and methodological framework
developed for the four DMs of saying under study, on va dire, shall we
say, j’allais dire, and I was going to say. The analysis builds on an enun-
ciative approach paying special attention to commitment issues. The
main hypothesis is that DMs of saying signal that commitment is some-
how problematic. The analysis specifically relies on samples of tokens
retrieved from comparable web-based corpora of the TenTen family.
The tokens are analysed through an annotation grid combining various
parameters (semantic-pragmatic, syntactic, collocational). The aim is to
provide a unique characterisation (a “discursive profile”) for each DM.
Chapter 3 presents the main corpus findings in relation to the anno-
tation grid. This short chapter successively examines the results obtained
for the different levels of analysis. The overall results show that the
four DMs have one pragmatic function in common: metalinguistic
comment. Despite this common feature, many divergences appear, as
regards both syntactic features and collocations.
Chapter 4 focuses on on va dire and shall we say, while Chapter 5
compares j’allais dire and I was going to say. The main assumption is
Preface vii
that on va dire and shall we say rely on a feigned intersubjective commit-
ment aiming to stabilise discourse, while j’allais dire and I was going to
say are associated with subjective commitment but fail to stabilise dis-
course. Despite these common semantic features, each DM has its own
discursive profile, with specific pragmatic functions and collocational
preferences.
Chapter 6 summarises the main results, with the aim of assessing the
degree of pragmaticalisation for each DM, and opens up future research
paths for the study of DMs, particularly for DMs of saying.
Paris, France Laure Lansari
References
Lansari, L. (2010a). On va dire: vers un emploi modalisant d’aller + inf. In
E. Moliné & C. Vetters (Eds.), Temps, aspect et modalité en français. Cahiers
Chronos (Vol. 21, pp. 119–139). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.
Lansari, L. (2010b). On va dire: modalisation du dire et dénomination. In
P. Frath, L. Lansari, & J. Pauchard (Eds.), Res Per Nomen II - Langue,
référence et anthropologie (pp. 277–295). EPURE: Reims.
Lansari, L. (2017). I was going to say/j’allais dire as discourse markers in con-
temporary English and French. Languages in Contrast, 17(2), 205–228.
Siouffi, G., Steuckardt, A., & Wionet, C. (2016). Les modalisateurs émer-
gents en français contemporain: Présentation théorique et études de cas.
Journal of French Language Studies, 26(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0959269515000472.
Steuckardt, A. (2014). Polyphonie et médiativité dans un marqueur émergent:
on va dire. In J.-Cl. Anscombre, E. Oppermann-Marsaux, & A. Rodriguez
Somolinos (Eds.), Médiativité, polyphonie et modalité en français: études
synchroniques et diachroniques (pp. 67–84). Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne
Nouvelle.
Steuckardt, A. (2016). A la recherche du consensus: on va dire, on va dire ça,
on va dire ça comme ça. In L. Rouanne & J.-Cl. Anscombre (Eds.), Histoires
de dire. Petit glossaire des marqueurs formés sur le verbe dire (pp. 293–313).
Bern: Peter Lang.
Contents
1 Introduction: Discourse Markers Within Different
Linguistic Traditions 1
1.1 Defining DMs in the Pragmatic Tradition 3
1.1.1 Historical Landmarks: The Rise
of a “Non-syntactic” Functional Class 3
1.1.2 A (Multi)Functional Approach Rather
Than a Semantic One 5
1.1.3 Different Types of Functions: Structural
Ones, but Not Only 6
1.1.3.1 From Structural to Attitudinal
Functions 6
1.1.3.2 Focus on “Mitigation” 9
1.1.4 DMs and Language Change:
Pragmaticalisation or Something Else? 10
1.1.5 Summary on Pragmatics and DMs 15
1.2 Defining DMs from an Enunciative Perspective 15
1.2.1 “Enonciation”: A Speaker-Centred Theory 16
1.2.2 Discourse Markers…of Operations 18
ix
x Contents
1.2.3 Methodology: From Operations to the
Definition of a “Schematic Form” 22
1.2.4 Discourse Markers of Saying, Metalinguistic
Reflexivity and “modalisation du dire” 27
1.2.5 Summary and Discussion on “énonciation” and
DMs of Saying 33
References 40
2 Defining a Theoretical and Methodological Framework
for DMs of “Saying” 49
2.1 DMs of Saying: To Say or Not to Say? 50
2.2 An Original Enunciative Framework 54
2.2.1 Semantic Characterisation:
An Operation-Based Characterisation 55
2.2.2 Definition of the “Discursive Profile” 59
2.2.3 “Enonciation” and Pragmaticalisation? 60
2.2.4 Summary of the Theoretical Model 61
2.3 Corpus Data and Methodology 63
2.3.1 A Comparable Web-Based Corpus:
The TenTen Family 63
2.3.2 Methodology: Samples for a Qualitative Analysis 66
2.3.2.1 Identifying DMs: A Semantic-
Pragmatic Approach 68
2.3.2.2 Focus on on va dire and Shall We Say 70
2.3.2.3 Focus on j’allais dire and I Was Going
to Say 73
2.3.2.4 Discourse Uses in the Four Samples:
First Results 78
2.3.3 Presentation of the Annotation Grid 80
References 88
3 Overview of the Corpus Findings 95
3.1 Semantic-Pragmatic Level 96
3.1.1 Origin of Commitment and Relationship p/p′ 96
3.1.1.1 Origin of Commitment 96
3.1.1.2 P/p′ 97
Contents xi
3.1.2 Pragmatic Functions 98
3.2 Syntactic Level 102
3.2.1 Scope 102
3.2.2 Position with Respect to the Host 105
3.2.3 Position at the Sentence Level 106
3.2.4 Position in Turn-Taking 107
3.2.5 Degree of Autonomy 107
3.3 Collocational Level 109
3.4 Summary of the Findings 111
References 112
4 Corpus Findings I: On va dire and Shall We Say 115
4.1 Preliminary Remarks: “Emergent” on va dire vs.
Well-Established Shall We Say 116
4.2 Semantic Characterisation: From Instability
Towards Intersubjective Stabilisation 119
4.3 Metalinguistic Comment, Approximation
and Exemplification 122
4.3.1 Approximation 124
4.3.2 Exemplification 125
4.3.3 Focus on Let’s Say 127
4.4 Different Stabilising Modes 128
4.4.1 Syntactic Divergences: Greater Stabilisation
with on va dire 128
4.4.2 Co-occurrence with Other DMs
and Opposition Markers 135
4.4.3 Different Reformulation Uses 140
4.5 Pragmatic Strategies: Euphemism and Irony 145
4.6 Syntactic Classification 150
4.7 Summary and Discussion: Two Distinct “Discursive
Profiles” and Form-Meaning Motivation 160
4.7.1 Discursive Profiles: Greater Stabilisation
with on va dire 160
4.7.2 On va dire and Form-Meaning Motivation 161
4.7.3 Shall We Say and Form-Meaning Motivation 166
References 169