For a formal and functional characterization of subordinate clarification exchange
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21814/diacritica.5127Keywords:
Subordinate exchange of clarification, Interaction, DiscourseAbstract
The objective of this paper is to obtain a better characterization, both formal and functional, of a structural property of discourse: the subordinate exchange of clarification. Based on theoretical contributions from the Geneva School, we seek to deepen the understanding, pointed out in Cunha (2019a), that the opening of a subordinate exchange of clarification is a resource that one of the speakers uses it to show that, from his point of view, the other adopted an inappropriate behavior when he elaborated his intervention. To achieve this goal, we will initially present formal and functional characteristics of subordinate exchange of clarification. Then, expanding its functional characterization, we will study the interactional implications of opening this type of exchange, focusing, in particular, on the impact of this opening for the co-construction of identity images by the speakers. Based on the proposed characterization, we will analyze the use of this resource in an excerpt from the electoral debate that took place in 2016, in Portugal's presidential campaign. The participants in the debate, promoted by the broadcaster RTP (Rádio e Televisão de Portugal), were the presidential candidates Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa (current President of the Republic) and Maria de Belém Roseira.
References
Amossy, R. (2017). Apologia da polêmica. São Paulo: Contexto.
Bousfield, D. (2007). Beginnings, middles and ends: A biopsy of the dynamics of impolite exchanges. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(12), 2185–2216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.005
Briz, A. (2013). A atenuação e os atenuadores: Estratégias e táticas. Linha d’Água, 26(2), 281–314. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2236-4242.v26i2p281-314 DOI: https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2236-4242.v26i2p281-314
Bronckart, J. P. (2007). Atividade de linguagem textos e discursos. Por um interacionismo sócio-discursivo. São Paulo: EDUC.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness. Using language to cause offense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., & Wichmann, A. (2003). Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10–11), 1545–1579. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2
Cunha, G. X. (2017). O impacto da dimensão situacional do discurso sobre a articulação textual. Calidoscópio, 15, 375–387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4013/cld.2017.152.14
Cunha, G. X. (2019a). Estratégias de impolidez como propriedades definidoras de interações polêmicas. Delta, 35(2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-460x2019350208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-460x2019350208
Cunha, G. X. (2019b). Caracterização e funcionamento da refutação em debate eleitoral. Cadernos de Letras da UFF, 30(59), 147–176. https.//doi.org/10.22409/cadletrasuff.2019n59a696 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22409/cadletrasuff.2019n59a696
Cunha, G. X. (2020). Elementos para uma abordagem interacionista das relações de discurso. Linguística, 36, 107–129. https://doi.org/10.5935/2079-312x.20200017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5935/2079-312X.20200017
Cunha, G. X. (2021). Relações de discurso e completude monológica: o impacto da restrição ritual sobre o estabelecimento das relações interativas. Forma y Función, 34, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.15446/fyf.v34n1.84576 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15446/fyf.v34n1.84576
Cunha, G. X., Braga, P. B., & Brito, D. M. (2019). As funções figurativas do comentário metadiscursivo em debates eleitorais. Cadernos de linguagem e sociedade, 20(2), 168–187. https://doi.org/10.26512/les.v20i2.24445 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26512/les.v20i2.24445
Cunha, G. X., & Tomazi, M. M. (2019). O uso agressivo da linguagem em uma audiência: uma abordagem discursiva e interacionista para o estudo da im/polidez. Calidoscópio, 17, 297–319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4013/cld.2019.172.05
Doury, M., & Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2011). La place de l’accord dans l’argumentation polémique: Les cas du débat Sarkozy/Royal (2007). A contrario, 16(2), 63–87. https://doi.org/10.3917/aco.112.0063 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/aco.112.0063
Du Bois, J. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024
Filliettaz, L. (2000). Actions, activités et discours. (Tese de doutorado em Linguística, Faculdade de Letras, Universidade de Genebra, Genebra).
Filliettaz, L. (2006). La place du contexte dans une approche praxéologique du discours. Le cas de l’argumentation dans les interactions scolaires. Pratiques, 129-130, 71–88. https://doi.org/10.3406/prati.2006.2097 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/prati.2006.2097
Filliettaz, L. (2014). L’interaction langagière: Un object et une méthode d’analyse en formation des adultes. In J. Friedrich & J. Castro (Eds.), Recherches en formation des adultes. Un dialogue entre concepts et réalité (pp. 127–162). Dijon: Éditions Raison et Passions.
Garfinkel, H. (2018). Estudos de etnometodologia. Petrópolis: Vozes. (Obra original publicada em 1967).
Goffman, E. (1956). The nature of deference and demeanor. American Anthropologist, 58(3), 473–502. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1956.58.3.02a00070 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1956.58.3.02a00070
Goffman, E. (1967). On face-work. An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Interaction Ritual. Essays on face-to-face behavior (pp. 5–45). New York: Pantheon Books. (Obra original publicada em 1955). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203788387-2
Goffman, E. (1973). La mise em scène de la vie quotidienne. Les relations em public. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Goffman, E. (1975). Estigma: Notas sobre a manipulação da identidade deteriorada. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar Editores.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Sintax and semantics. Vol. 3, Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003
Holtgraves, T. (1994). Communication in context: effects of speaker status on the comprehension of indirect requests. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20(5), 1205–1218. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.20.5.1205 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.5.1205
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1992). Les interactions verbales II. Paris: Armand Colin.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1995). Introduction. In C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni & C. Plantin (Eds.), Le trilogue (pp. 1–28). Lyon, Presses Universitaires de Lyon. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110935103.1
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1998). L’implicite. Paris: Armand Colin.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2001). Les actes de langage dans le discours. Théorie et fonctionnement. Paris: Nathan.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2017). Les débats de l’entre-deux-tours des élections présidentielles françaises: Constantes et évolutions d’un genre. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
Marques, M. A. (2008). Quando a cortesia é agressiva. Expressão de cortesia e imagem do outro. In F. Oliveira & I. M. Duarte (Eds.), O fascínio da linguagem: Actas do colóquio de homenagem a Fernanda Irene Fonseca (pp. 277–296). Porto: Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto. Disponível em http://ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/6710.pdf
Marques, M. A. (2017). Debate eleitoral português: presidencialização e estratégias de atenuação linguística em situação de confronto político. Linha d’Água, 30(1), 9–33. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2236-4242.v30i1p9-33 DOI: https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2236-4242.v30i1p9-33
Moeschler, J. (1980). La réfutation parmi les fonctions interactives marquant l'accord et le désaccord. Cahiers de linguistique française, 1, 54–78.
Moeschler, J. (1982). Dire et contredire: Pragmatique de la négation et acte de réfutation dans la conversation. Berne: Peter Lang.
Oléron, P. (1995). Sur l'argumentation polémique. Hermès, 16(2), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/15179 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/15179
Rodrigues, I. (2006). Modalidades verbais e não-verbais na interacção face a face: Duas reparações. Veredas, 10(1), 1–19.
Rodrigues, S. (2005). Contributos para o estudo da polémica em Camilo Castelo Branco: A diversidade de formatos discursivos. In G. Rio-Torto, O. Figueiredo, & F. Silva (Eds.), Estudos em Homenagem ao Professor Doutor Mário Vilela (pp. 849–866). Porto: Faculdade de Letras do Porto.
Rodrigues, S. (2008). A estrutura dialogal da polémica: Aspectos configuracionais. Estudos Linguísticos /Linguistic Studies, 1, 273–283.
Rodrigues, S., & Silvano, P. (2015). Algumas propriedades temporais das sequências de retoma em textos de polémica. In S. Azzopardi & S. Sarrazin (Eds.), Langage et dynamiques de sens. Études de linguistique ibéro-romane (pp. 143–161). Bern: Peter Lang.
Roulet, E. (1982). De la structure dialogique du discours monologal. Langues et Linguistique, 8(1), 65-84.
Roulet, E. (1986). Complétude interactive et mouvements discursifs. Cahiers de linguistique française, 7, 189–206.
Roulet, E. (1987). Complétude interactive et connecteurs reformulatifs. Cahiers de linguistique française, 8, 111–140.
Roulet, E. (1989). Une forme peu étudiée d’échange agonal: La controverse. Cahiers de praxématique, 13, 7–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.3434
Roulet, E. (1999). La description de l’organisation du discours. Du dialogue au texte. Paris : Didier.
Roulet, E. (2006). The description of text relation markers in the Geneva model of discourse organization. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 115–131). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588_008
Roulet, E., Auchlin, A., Moeschler, J., Rubattel, C., & Schelling, M. (1985). L'articulation du discours en français contemporain. Berne : Peter Lang.
Roulet, E., Filliettaz, L., & Grobet, A. (2001). Un modèle et un instrument d'analyse de l'organisation du discours. Berne: Peter Lang.
Saraiva, M. (2008). Marcas de subjetividade em enunciados ressoantes em português. Alfa, 52(1), 157-166.
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 205–243. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.2.205 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.2.205
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.2307/413107 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041
Urbano, H. (2006). Marcadores discursivos basicamente interacionais. In C. Jubran & I. Koch (Eds.), Gramática do português culto falado no Brasil. Construção do texto falado (pp. 497–527). Campinas: Editora da UNICAMP.
Vion, R. (1992). La communication verbale. Analyse des interactions. Paris: Hachette.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Gustavo Ximenes Cunha
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
