Search

The creation, diffusion and success of television programs generally known as talk shows have made of this type of broadcasts a true speech genre characteristic of societies and cultures where it is produced and/or consumed. These programs may be interpreted as anthropological showcases, firstly, in terms of the topics and participants in the debate, and, secondly, as an example of democratic exchange of ideas. Identities are presented and negotiated through interlocutive behavior as well as through the discourse strategies used by different contributors. The general purpose of this article is to analyze the relationship between socio-cultural identities and communicative strategies in one particular case: One of the programs of La vida en un xip (a top rating talk show produced by the Catalan television network, TV3), where the topic was 'neighborhood watch against drug traffic'. In this analysis, special attention is paid to the discourse behavior of each participant. This behavior is (a pioi) related to socio-cultural identity (role, status, communicative contract), and also contributes to (re)creating and reinforcing identity. Discourse behavior is shown both in the interlocutive dimension (type and number of turns, interruptions and time occupied) and the enwtciative dimension (the presentation and argumentation of each particular verbal product). These two dimensions enable us to (i) build a discursive picture of each participant in the debate which has a very close connection with his/her specific socio-cultural identity, and (ii) compare these pictures in the context of a particular program.

Using Culioli’s Theory of Enunciative Operations and Notional Domains as its starting point, this paper presents a unified characterisation of the French verb voir and its variations. These variations are then related to its enunciative nuances. I argue that voir is used profusely by Céline in his last novel Rigodon and plays a significant role in the book’s discourse system. From the beginning of the narrative, voir appears as the core of a brilliant meta-narrative metaphor setting the tone and tying together the entire story. I conclude that, throughout the novel, different forms of this verb are either attributed to the narrator or to the main character (which are in fact both incarnations of the author himself). This strategy helps to enhance the sense of immediate presence in the narration and results in a permanent dialogue with the reader.

This article presents a comparative analysis of two debates in the French Assemblee nationale and the Spanish Congreso de los Diputados which were held in February 2007 and December 2004, respectively. The common topic was the final debate of a bill for tackling the issue of domestic violence. A comparative discourse analysis is central from a descriptive and communicational theoretical point of view. Methodological tools of enunciational, pragmatic and argumentative approaches are applied in this study. The description of the common aspects of two debates belonging to the same parliamentary genre is meant to contribute to a more nuanced description of the specific discursive strategies used in each of the two countries. While examining a consensual position on the topic, the analysis focuses on varying verbal behaviour patterns and discrepancies, related to differences in socio-cultural contexts and political cultures.

This article is an analysis of two institutional interviews which were shown on 10 March 2003 on the Spanish TELE5 and on the French channel France2. The interviewees were two political leaders, José María Aznar, Prime Minister of the Spanish Government in Spain, and Jacques Chirac, President of France. This was a few days prior to the date that the Coalition Forces attacked Iraq. We study how the function of inquiry and control is done in these interviews by the television media in each country and the verbal behaviour of both statesmen answering the questions. We also study each governor’s discourse of justification. The interviews present a clear parallelism, but the study reveals important differences regarding the rhythm of the exchange and the interlocutive behaviour of the participants. Furthermore, the justifications of the two governors are clearly opposite, as far as their discursive strategies and their conception of politics are concerned.

In this article, we analyse the modal forms sans doute and sin duda. Despite their formal similarity, they do not always represent the same degree of certainty in French and Spanish. After a detailed analysis of their use in both languages, our conclusions show that sans doute is a probability marker, whereas sin duda is an (almost) certainty marker. After examining the relationship of these modal markers with evidentiality, we underscore the epistemic character of both markers; they are related to belief and subjectivity, thus the nature of certainty that they express is indirect and subjective. Sin duda manifests a higher degree of conviction than sans doute. This study was undertaken within the framework of a research project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (FFI2011-25755: Modalidad epistémica, evidencialiad y gramaticalidad: análisis contrastivo inter e intralingüístico en el discurso oral y escrito).

1. De l'inégalité des genres journalistiquesComme le rappelle J.-M. Adam, les classements des unités rédactionnelles de la presse écrite sont affligés « d'une hétérogénéité et d'un flou définitionnel décourageants » (1997 : 4). En effet, dans les manuels de journalisme, la notion de genre est parfois appliquée à des éléments du péritexte (titre, chapeau), elle renvoie à l'origine des messages (dépêche, courrier des lecteurs) ou encore à des techniques d'écriture ou d'organisation des textes (...

à paraître en ligne sur le site du colloque; Article fait d'après un Poster; International audience; L'article se présente comme une introduction à une présentation interactive d'un ensemble de questions-réponses (2500 environ entre 1601 et 1610) extraites du Registre d'Hygiène tenu par J.Héroard, médecin attaché à la personne du Dauphin de France à partir de septembre 1601. Il détaille plus particulièrement les échanges questionnants entre le Dauphin et son médecin, et introduit à une lecture diachronique, pragmatique et psycho-linguistique.