(2)A: "Are you

coming?"
8: "Yes, I am."
(4) A steps on B's
feet.
A: "I'm so sorry."
B: "It's all right."
(6) A: "Who are you
writing to?"
8: "It's not your
business."
(8) A: "Will you lend
me that book?"
B: "But of course."
A: "Thank you so
muchf"
B:"You're welcome!"
Unitatea de invatare 2
(3) A: "What time is
it?"
B: " It's 12 o'clock."
A: "Thank you!"
(5) A: "What's the
time?"
B: "I don't have a
watch."
(7) A: "Will you join
me to the cinema
tonight?"
8: "No, I have some
work to do at home."
(9) A: "Will you join
me to the cinema?"
B: "To see what
film?"
A: "The Queen."
B: "OK, I will."
What is a Speech Act?
31
We perform speech acts when we offer an apology, greeting, request
complaint, invitation, compliment, or refusal. A speech act is an
utterance that serves a function in communication. A speech act might
contaTn just one word, as in "Sorrv!" to perform an apology, or several
~
words or sentences: "I'm sorry I forgot your birthday. I just let it slip my
mi nd." Speech acts inc1uae real-life interactions and require not only
knowledge of the language but also appropriate use of that language
within a given culture.
Here are some examples of speech acts we use or hear every day:
Greeting: "Hi , Eric. How are things going?"
Request: "Could you pass me the mashed potatoes, please?"
Complaint: "I 've already been waiting three weeks for the computer,
and I was told it would be delivered within a week."
Invitation: 'We're having some people over Saturday evening and
wanted to know if youd like to join us ...
Titfu de curs
(Source: speech act By Richard Nordquist, About.com Guide)
SPEECH ACTS (Types and examples)
33
1) Declaratives/Declarations: acts performed by authorized persons
Examples:
"I hereby pronounce you man and wifel" (priests)
"This court sentences you to ten years' imprisonment." Oudges)
2) Representatives: acts that state what the speaker believ_es. ~ b ~
the case, such as 'describing' , 'claiming' , ' hypothesising', ' tnststtng ,
'predicting', etc.
Examples:
"The fact that girls have been outstripping boys academically has been
acknowledged for the past 12 years or so." (Glasgow Herald: 28
November 2000)
"I came; I saw; I conquered" (Julius Caesar)
3) Commissives: acts in which the words commit the speaker to
future action, such as 'promising' , 'offering', 'threatening', ' refusing',
'vowing', 'volunteering', etc.
Examples:
"Ready when you are."
"I'll make him an offer he can't refuse." (Mario Puzo, The Godfather)
"I'll love you, dear. l'lllove you
Till China and Africa meet. .. "
4) Directives: acts in which the words are aimed at making the
hearer do something, such as 'commanding', 'requesting', 'inviting',
'forbidding', 'suggesting', etc.
Examples:
"Better remain silent and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and
remove all possible doubt." (Ancient Chinese proverb)
5) Expressives: acts in which the words state what the speaker
feels, such as 'apologising', 'praising', 'congratulating', 'deploring',
'regretting', etc.
Titlu de curs
de invatare 2
Examples:
"I've been poor and I've been rich rich is better. (Tucker)
"If I'd known I was gonna live this long, I'd have
myself." (Blake)
(Adaptation from Cutting Joan, 2002, Pragmatics and
Resource Book for Students, RouUedge)
... ~ n ~ ~ " u a , . , . ~ 1e-.......... a ...... \

'

'
'






l
Maintenance of Face
Goffman {1976) states that fac . I " om thing th 1,
emotionally invested and that can be lo t, tn tint Jn d tH
enhanced". .
According to Goffman (1967: 11), a "person t nd
himself during an encounter so as to m lnt lin both hi Wll fra

and the face of the other participants'' .
Owen (1980: is) points out that the fac pr rvlns b h vlour
described by Goffman should be thought of, s " ondltlon of
interaction rather than its objective''.
Negative and Positive Face
Brown and Levinson (1987) Identify face-work as cru I lin flu nc
on the ways in which messages are constructed.
Face consists of two related elements:

Positive face- an individual's "desire to b Ilk d,
approved of, respected and appreciated by oth r ".
Negative face - an Individual's "desire not to be
impeded or put upon, to have the freedom to act
as one chooses''.
Pragma ic Politenes
positive
..
........ "' ................. ......
Use ....... ......,..... ..
s-It
w. .
...........
..
" t .
...... ..,
................................. ......_
........
.... .....,. .....
Ethos at the Crossroads of Disciplines: Rhetoric,
Sociology
Amossy. Ruth.
Poetics Today. 22. Number I, Spring 200 l. pp. 1-23 (Article)
Published hy Duke llnivcrsity Press
For additional information about this article
Ethos at the Crossroads of Disciplines:
Rhetoric. Pragmatics. Sociologv
-
Ruth \rno\s)
r.n.,/ru,/t'()clll\., !f f1n
\ll\11'\t.l
I tht rhetoncal 11011011 ol ethos at the crossroads of diSctphnes,
thh Jr1tclc but Ills up nn mtcgratcd modd auempung to reconcile Bourd1eu's theory
of language und r<mcr \\tlh prag.mauc vtc\\S oftUocuuonary force I m the so..tolo-
gt<;t, the authonty of the orator depends on Ins mstituuonal postuon. for Ducrot or
1\!amguenc.u. dr:mtng on Anstotle,the tmage of the orator ts built by the d1scour'e
ttscl{ 1\nalvmg pohu...al as \\ell as htcral) texts, thts essa} takes mto account the
msututwnlll"'''uon olth.: spcaket,lus "pnor ethos" (the tmage hts audu:ncc has of
hun bdl>rt: he tal..e:. the floo1 ), the dtstribullon of mhercnt m the selected genre
and the stc:rcot) pes attached to these roles. and the verbal strategtes through '' htch
the speaker butlds an 1mage of self tn hts dtscoursc "Argumentallve anulys1s" thus
explores a d) namic pr<lCcs' 111 wh1ch socml, tnslltullonal. and hngutsuc clements arc
dm>cl) connected
\\'hat ts t:tho,;'l
In Aristotlc:'s art of persuasion, the term ethos (in Greek, character) dcsig
nates the image of sci f built by the orator in his speech in order to exert an
influence on his audience.
I
It JS one of tlm:e means of proof, the''' o other!\
being logos. refernng to both discourse and and patlws, meaning the
11m r=arch the lsruel Screne r ound.rllon of lht hr.d uf o;, r
encc:s and 11umJIIIIIC.' A drflti(Ol 'cr<ron Ill rrcnch S<cll\111, rcprodu.-,.1 110111
French were nan,lat<'ll h1 !>c""c l'e,.rh
For an pre5enta1Jon of fl<)hunm iliiCICIII rhehlm. ''c \\ I>St t1S
Ke11ned) C.:: ' An excellent d1scuss10n of Anstotlc's w.c nl etho' can be lound rn [)A:,
/'ocu,. ltJ\Iu1 :Jr (Spong t ( L) Copynght 0 , 'l by tho Poner lnstllule ht PtlCIIC' Jnd
Semroucs
2
Poet..,. T 00.) Z2 I
emotion aroused in the audience. 1 oday, the theory hnkmg the efficac) of
to the authority and credibility of the orator traverses disciplines
at ts to be found at the crossroads of rhetoric, pragmatics, and socioloi)'
Page2
It is thus no wonder that the notion of ethos borrowed from
forgotten tradttion makes a spectacular comeback under various
contemporary theories.
2
It does, nevertheless, give rise to sharp polemic. The idea that a discur-
sive image of self can be influential implies that it ts possible "to do things
with words." Pierre Bourdieu's well-known attack on Austin in Language and
Symbolic Power (Bourdieu uO CL, ) denounces this stand along with any beliefm
the intrinsic power of speech. To the notion of an illocutionary force deriv-
ing from pcrformatives or more generally from speech acts, the sociologist
opposed a power external to the verb, anchored in institutional frameworks
and social ritual s. According to Bourdieu, the power of language and its
ability to "act" are not rooted in its inherent possibilities; instead, they are
determined by social circumstances and po'.-ver relations. In terms of rheto-
ric rather than of analytical philosophy, one could say that the force of dis-
course is not dependent on the image of self the orator produces in speech,
but on hi s or her social position and "the access he [or she] can have to
the language of the instJtutJon, that is. to the official, orthodox and legiti-
mate speech" (Bourdieu DODO: UOO). This proposal clearly goes against all
approac.hc<\ seeking the secret of verbal efficac) m the usage of discourse.
Is the r<)\\ er of speech. bound up with the authority and credibility of the
orat01. an int egral dunens10n of \ erbal exchange? Should ethos be consid-
ered as a purely language-related const ructiOn or as an mstttutional posi-
tion? 1\ rcexammat10n of the contemporary notion of ethos can address
these questions b) remtegratmg sociologtcal and pragmatrc insights into a
rheton cal perspectJ \ e mherited from Aristot le and based on Chaim Perel-
man's new rhetoric
3
1 he nouon of 111 'w' v.h1ch appears m the pragmat1co semanucs of Oswald Ducrot
and 111 the d1scourse anal)' SIS ofDom1mque Mamgueneau . --- .-.--. 1s also mcluded
m Jean MJChel Adam 'J J Jb and m many contemporary theones of argumentabon (see. e g.
\an E-emeren et al ,_ J ) It recently has g1ven b1rth to two collect10ns of essays devoted
enure!\ to the subjeCt Baumhn and Baumltn L and Amoss}
See my chapter on ethos m Amossy 1r:JOCa for a d1scusston ofth1s spec1fic 1ssue m the
frame"orJ.. of classtcal rhetonc There a pre-Anstotehan radmon founded b\ !socrates and
mamh follo\\ed b)' the Romans defmes ethos as the pre' aous :eputatton and soc1af s1arus of
the spcat.;er, thus gomg agamst the predommance conferred b) Anstotle on the diS<;l::;l'e
construction of a self-1mage
lthM at the C'ros!>roads of Otsctphnes
1
fheorett<.;al Framew01 ks
P1erre Bourdteu ( n : nnr; ) provides a reminder of the sociologist's view-
point. accord1 ng to which "the illocutionary force of e\.prt!ssions cannot be
found m the 'et'} words. such as 'performatives.' '' For Bourdieu (ibid.). the
princi pie of the efficacy of speech ts not found in the "specifically linguis.tk
substance of speech"; the artificial character of examples taken out oftheu
concrete si tuation can alone lend credence to the claim that 'symbolic ex-
changes [may be] reduced to relations of pure communication." .In
the power of words derives from the connecti01.1 betv. ecn soc1al. funct1on
of the speaker and his or her discourse. Accordmg to Bourdreu. ?scourse
cannot be authoritative unless it is pronounced by the person leg1tunated
to it in a legitimate situation. hence before legitimate receh er
The same appl it!s to the sermon, to the press conference, to the poem. to
all forms of discourse which circulate in any gi' en socict)
\Vithin this frame\\ ork ethos occupies a determinate place, but 1t no
longer qualities as a discursive construction It merges v, ith theskeplron
out in Homer to the one who is to speak next In other words ethos
posed of the exterior authorit) enjo) ed b) the speaker r he latter appears
as an .. authorized spokesman." He can "act on other agents ... because
his speech concentrates ''it hi n It the accumulated S) mbolic capital or the
group which has delegated him and of which he is the autlwri=etl represema-
tive" (Bourdieu () : U ). The university professor, the priest, the political
leader. and the '' ntcr all a t) pe of discourse "hich draws its efficac)
from the fact that. in the eyes of thetr public, the) arc quali tied to produce
it. .. The symbolic efficacy of words.'' Bourdieu (ibid . r ) notes, "is exer-
cised only in so far as the person subjected to 1t recognaLes the person who
exercise::; it as authorized to do so '' In short, the efficacy of speech does not
depend on what it utters but on who rs uttenng tt and on the po,..,.er "1th
which hl! or she IS endowed b) the public.
Observe that Bourdaeu operates. 111 relation to the phil osophy of lan-
guage. some maJor sh1 fts I or hun. the sa) mg can be a domg on I) ' 'it han the
logac of soc1al 1ntcra<. tton a shift from speech acts to S) mboltc exchanges
between part1c. 1pants "ho arc social agents. An mtcract tonal perspective
IS thus adopted \n institutional perspecll \t IS adopted as \\ell the verbal
exchange cannot be d1ssociated from the posttions occ.up1ed b} the par-
ticipants 111 the fidd (reli gious. political. rntcllectual. lnerat}) "ithin which
the) act
C'ontemporal) pragmattc:s dl\ erges from the sociologtst 's perspective in-
sofar as 11 researches the cffi caq of speedum1de\ erbal exchange. Its 'arious
trends arc c:onccmcd not ' ' 1th soc1al ntuals outs1de of language pract1ce but
"llh cnunc1a\10n frameworks. Oswald Ducrot thus defi nes ethos as a d1scur-
4
Poew:' l oda'
Sl\ e phenomenon not to be confused with the soc1al status of the empmcal
subject Hts theol) of polyphony Illustrates qUtte clearl y the di fference be-
meen the speaker. to whom 1s tmputed the responsib1ht) for the utterance.
and the emp111cal author. who has produced 1t ( L ), respectively
des1gnated as betng of d1scourse and bemg m the \VOrl d (1b1d ) It 1s m
tht s sense that Ducrot ( ) takes up the notion of ethos, with reference to
\ristotle .. In my terminology, I shall say that ethos 1s attached to L, the
speaker [locuteur] as such it 1s Insofar as he IS the source of the utterance
that he sees himself as decked out '' ith certam qualities ' ' h1ch consequent I)
render thts utterance acceptable or repellant On the other hand "hat the
orator can sa) ofhtm. as the object ofthe utterance concerns the bc.>mg
m the world. and 1t IS not the latt er who ts mvoh ed m that part of rhetotr <.
ofwh1ch I speak" (our translation)
Thus understood. the notion of ethos as a d1scursl\ e ent1l y hth been de-
veloped rn France mamly 111 the work of Domlll1quc. 1\lalllgucntau I li s
pragmat iC analys1s proposes a close exammat1on of the elements l.nnstt
tutmg the verbal mteracuon as such. t\lamgueneau fol. uses on thc spl.'RI-..lr
analyzing the wa) m whtch he or she enters rnto tht; 1nterloc:ut1on as an ap-
propriate self-1mage 1s constructed In th1s perspectl\ e. l\la1ngueneau ( )
shows that an) verbal presentation of self IS condtttoned b) "hat he calls
'' Ia scene d' enonciat10n' [the scene of the utterance or enunciation scene].
which includes three complementary dimens1ons fhe global
sponds to the type of discourse.:; chosen b} the speaker ?nd gives uttl.!r
ancc its pragmatic status (hterary, religtous, phtlosoplucal: so forth)
Each field has its own choice and hterarch) of genres. Pollucal thscour:-.c Ill
eludes, among others, the electoral speech. the parliarncntat') debate. and
the press conference. In other lidds there are well-known gcurcs such
sennon or the \\ ar nO\ c1 and le::.s recognized genres such as the mcd1rnl
-
Page 5
and the commercial negotiation. The generic scene. always depending on the
"contract'' attached to a genre as discursive institution, is subordinated to
the global scene. Finally. Maingueneau uses the term scenography in a pecu-
liar sense, designating a preexisting scenario the speaker freely selects for
the text. Thus a sermon, as a genre pertaining to religious discourse, can
be uttered through different scenographies: it can be pedagogic, prophetic,
and so forth. Even if the speaker is not aware of it, the image of self he or
....
she builds in discourse is to a large extent determined by the three levels of
the enunciation scene.
Through these multilevcled discursi\e frameworks, l\laingucncau con-
nects ethos to the rules and constraints of\ erbal interaction in its institu-
tional dimension. l'vloreover. he does not limit ethos to the roles assigned to
the speaker by the genre and the selected scenography He also relates it to
/:tho., a1 1hc: C'rossroads ol l>c;cplme.s
s
a ''voice" and a ''body'' in the metaphorical, if not in the physical. sense of
these h\o terms In the particular exchange 111 which the speaker
in g1ven sociOlustoncal conditi ons. he or she 1s endowed with a of
phystcal and conespondi ng to the character knov.
ingl) or unknowmgl) hcmg pia) cd In the case or many populist speeches.
the sccnograph) is that of a man contemptuous of ordinar) rules and futlle
politeness. U51llg a rudL and direct language that sharply contrasts with the
hypocntu.al ofhis fcllov. politicians
Thus the pragmati sts' ethos, descended from Anstotle. is constructed
w1thm 'erbal mtcractwn and IS pure I) mtemal to d1scourse, the soc..1ol o
gists' ethos, on the other hand, is inscribed in a symbolic exchange governed
b) social mcchalll sms and external mst1tUt10nal posit ions ln a perspective
opened up by rhetonc. ho\\ e\ er. these two approaches can be complemen-
tar) rather than confl1ctual
The New Rhetonc'' Orator Audtence, and the Quesuon of Shared Beliefs
Located v.tthm a frame,-.ork of commumcauon, the' 'new rhetoric" of
C'ha1m Perelman \le\\S argumentatiOn as the \erbal means b) v.h1ch an ora-
tor ''aims at obtammg or reinforcing the adherence of the audience to some
thes1s'' (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca : l ) . In other words, speakers
wtsh to exert an mfluence on the1r addressees withm the framework of a
\erbal e>.change Th1s IS true of actual d1alogues as well as ofs1tuat1ons m
wh1ch the addressee IS absent or unable to '01ce an ansv.er If to Perelman
the stud) of argumentation seems fertile m 1ts soc10log1cal applicatiOns. that
is because, above all. as he sa) s m a article ent1tled "The Social Frame-
works of Argumentation" (Perelman ), the discourse of the orator is
oriented toward the public A..ccordmg to Perelman, 1t is "an essential fact
for the soc10log1st" that '"all argumentatiOn develops in funct1on '' ith the
audience to whom 1t IS addressed and to whom the orator IS obliged to adapt
himself" (ibid.: ). Thus an orator "speaking a language understood by
his audience, can onl) develop his argumentation b} hanging 1t onto theses
accepted by his hearers. fatlmg which he risks committingpetillo principii.
The result is that all argumentation depends. for its premises. as indeed
for all its unfolding, on what is accepted, on what is recogmsed as true, as
normal, as belie\ able, as \alid: through that it becomes anchored Ill \\hat
is social. the characterization of whtch will depend on the nature of the
audience" (ibid.: n; our translation).
The importance accorded to the audience naturally entails an cmphasb
on the values and norms outside of which any dialogue proves to he un-
possible It is by drawing on common knm' ledge and hehcfs that the ora-
-It-
Page 6
Poetacs Today 22 I
tor attempts to make an interlocutor share his or her views. For Perelman,
argumentation must in effect lead the audience to bring to bear on the con-
clusions the agreement given to the premises, and it docs so by dwelling
on the topoi or commonplaces shared by the participants (Perelman and
Olbrechts-Tyteca Llll 0 Cl ; Amossy, 0 0 [] [Ja).
It needs to be reali zed. however. that for Perelman the audi ence is always
a construction of the orator. Clearl y, at either end of the chain of communi-
cati on are to be found real people. on whom ultimately the proper function-
ing or the failure of the operation depends. However. the interaction be-
tween the orator and his audience is necessaril} effected through the image
the} form of each other. It lS not the addresse's c_oncrete person which molds
the undertaking to rather. 1t is the that the utterer
forms of the addressee, of the ideas and reactiOns ascribed to hi m or her.
It is in this sense that Perelman can speak of the audience as a "construc-
tion of the orator'' while at the same time underscoring the importance of
the fit between this "fiction" and reality: the discourse will have no effect if
the audience IS m_isconstructed and bears no resemblance to the emp1rical
addressees.
The proper funct10nmg of the exchange demands that to the 1m age of
the aud1ence, there corresponds an 1magc of the orator In point of fact. the
efficaC) of the dt scourse 1s subject to the authonty enJoyed b} the speaker.
that IS, on the tdea that the addressees form of hts or her person. 1 ust as
an orator rests arguments on the opm1ons and norms ascnbed to the pub-
lic. so he or she builds an ethos on QOllectJve representati2_!ls endowed "ith
p.o.sitive value. An orator adopts the models wh1ch are likely to produce in
the addressees an impression befitting the Circumstances. Developing Perel-
man's thought, and drawing on Jean-Biaize Grize's ( uU ..... ::::: , _.J' ) rhetorical
models,
4
it rna} be satd that the dr scursive constructron of ethos ts realtzed
through a series of mirror reflecttons.The orator bUJlds h1s or her OV\n tmage
as a function of the image he or she forms of the audience, that IS to sa),
of the representations of what a trustworthy and competent orator 15 tn the
eyes of the pub! ic as the orator imagmes tt. He or she has to guess how the
audience conceives of a trustworthy politictan, a reliable administrator. a
genuine artist, or an intefTectual. An orator also has to choose a prescnra-
tion of self as fulfill ing the expectations of the audwnce tfhe or \he \\anh
For Graze, founder of the Neuchatel School well acquamted wtth Perdmun s \\or!.. but
also tnsptred b} Mtchel Pecheu>. s dtscourse analysts, speaker A has no duect accc'' to the
representallons of B (I e the addreSSI!C) that what\\ til ciC tualh he ol
the representations that A. holds of the representatton of B ' (Gn.1c IJO 0( our
To construct an appropnaK representation 111 l11s or her dt,wur,t:, A thus hns to H '
knowledge. values. and level of speech ( CJnre I J )
A mossy l tho\ at the Crossroads of D1sctplmes
7
to be elected president, selected for a good job, or trusted "hen expressing
ideas about literature or politics
If the speaker has to adopt a sel f-prescntation that suits his or her pur-
pose. he or she also must dcte1111i ne the ttnagc the audi ence holds of the
speaker. Sometimes this is a private image li mtted to the t;fthc
fri ends. and coll eague::-; sometimes it is a publi c image" 1dcl) ctrculnted m
-

PageS
the media. The public image of the orator intervenes above all "hen a well-
known personality is involved: such might include pohtical figures such as
de Gaulle, Le Pen, or Clinton; mov1e stars such as Maril)n Monroe and
Bette Davis (Amoss) n D); or writers such as Hugo, Hemingway, and Bar-
busse. The pub I ic knows them through what the press and rumor have to
say about them, what the media sho\\ of them. or by the image associated
with the group or part) of which the) are the spokespersons. This prior ethos
(Haddad lr IJ .. ; Amossy precedes the construction ofthe image in
the discourse (or what taingueneau [ n '] 'J] prefers to call "prediscursive
ethos"). \Vhen they take the floor, orators evaluate the impact of the prior
ethos on the current subject matter and operate to con finn their images.
to rework or transform them so as to produce an impression which is in
keeping \vith the demands of the projected argumentation.
Stcrcot}ping and Construction of an Image of Self
At this point. it is important to d1scuss the notion of !Amoss)
; Amossy and Herschberg P1errot ), which plays a crucial role in
the modeling of ethos. In point of fact. the prior idea '' hich one fonns of
the speaker and the image of self \\ hich the speaker const ructs in discourse
cannot be totall) smgular. 1 o be recognu<;d by the aud1ence. both have to
be bound up v. 1th a dowJ, or linked to shared representations These images
must be referred bad. to <.:ogent. albeit controversial, cultural model s.
Stereotyping cons1sts of percel\ mg and understanding the real through
a preexistent cultural representation, a fi"Xed collective schema A concrete
indi\ idual ts thus percel\ ed and e\aluated as a fUnction of the precon-
structed model d1fTused b} the commumt) of the category m \\hich they
place that mdl\ 1dual If the man or the \\Oman 1s a v. ell-kno\\ n person-
alit}, he or she "111 be percel\ ed through the public 1m age created b) he
medta. Soc10logcal and sem10logcal pract1ces generally define the stereo-
type m terms of attn but ion one attaches to a category-the Scotsman. the
bourgeois. the house\\ lfe-a set ofread)-made predicates
s
_ On the notion of stereotype m the SOCial sc1ences. see Bar Tal et al C:JOO and Le)ens
et al
8
PoetiC\ f oda) 22 I .
]n a cognit1 ve perspectl\e, the stereot)pe allows for generalization and
categorization, thus helpmg the mdt\ 1dual to make sense of the em 1ron-.
ment as v. ell as to make pre\ 1S1ons concerning the future In argumentation
perspecti, e. the stereot) pe allo\\ s the speaker to make h)
the modes of reasomng and the sets of' a lues and beliefs of a
group Speakers cannot p1cture their mter s the\ , altach. 'hem
to a category wh1ch rs soc1al. ethn1c.., political. or the lrkt l he
that a speaker forms of the aud1ence, v .. hcthcr llr CJJ (lllt:nus.' rl:gu-
lates his or her endea' or to adapt to them -\n oratOJ would be unltkcl) to
make the same speech 10 front of Communist Part) or \\calth) e\-
ecuttves, of chador-weanng Muslim v..omen or Amencan .. He or
she would tf) to reach the Socialists or the Comm.umsts b) basmg hun: .or
herself on the ethical and poltticaJ prem1ses to \Vh1ch such groups are.hkel)
to adhere in the first place The constructiOn of the aud1ence necessanJ)
passes through a process of stereotyping. _ .
The same applies to the construction of the image of self whtch confers.
on the discourse a considerable part of its authont) orator .adapts Ius o:
her sci f-prcsentation to collect!\ e schcmas which he or she be he\ es rati-
fied and valued by the target public. This is accomplished not onl) b) "hnt
-
-
PageS
the orator says about his or her own person (it is often not good to talk about
oneself) but through the v.ay he or she says it; through the style ofspeakmg.
In other words, ethos is built on the level of the enunciation process as well
as on that of the utterance. It is then incumbent upon the recei\ er to form
an impression ofthe orator by connecting him or her with a known cate-
gory. The discourse offers the receiver all the clements needed to compose
a portrait of the speaker, but it presents these elements in an indirect form,
dispersed. and often incomplete or implicit (Amossy and Herschberg Pier-
rot 0 C l - C1: 0 n Ci- I [ ). Thus a style punctuated with exclamations allows one
to deduce the temperamental or excitable character of the speaker, \.Vhile a
concise and blunt manner of speaking shO\\S no concern for conven-
tional politeness may indicate a person of mtegrit) does not deviate
from the truth. A person who extols the quallt1es of ad\ersaries presents
him- or herself as someone who IS honest and 1mpartial. one who mun-
dates discourse Vdth learned allusions and with quotations appears to be
erudite (t is from all of the characteristics relating to the orator's person
and the situation 111 \.\hich these tratts manifest themselves that the orator's
imige is constructed Even 1 f the latter remains ultimate!) singular, the re-
constructiOn I S effected with the a1d of cultural models which fadlitate the
mtegratton of data mto a preexistent schema
Takmg mto account the pnor ethos of the speaker as a representation
anchored in famtltar stereot}pes allows for a better understandmg of the
/tho' at the Crossro3ds of
9
strateg1es deployed m the dtscourse to consolidate or 1mprove the orator's
tmage of self. It demonstrates that as a verbal construction ethos has an
intrinsic soc1al dimensiOn Its partl) depends on the presttge of the
social representation tt succeeds in exempltfymg. Thus Marschal Petam.
announcmg France's surrender on the June , C .... , could make this an-
nouncement acceptable. thanks to '"'hat he em bod ted m the C) es of the
natton. namel}, the "hero of\'erdun." the brave and expenenced soldier
who helped "in \\ orld \\r ar I (Adam a) This is not to say that hts status
as chtef of state d1d not have a decisive effect on h1s audience It IS thus
1mportant to see how the pnor ethos, and the d1scurs1ve ethos that mte-
grates and reworks 1t, are related to the authorit) derived from an e\.tenor
institutional status
'The Example of Jean-\Jtane Le Pen
A construction of the tmage ofself\\as demonstrated b) Jcan-\taric l t:
Pen at a press conference reported b) the dall) paper ( August
..... ). On the occasion ofthls construction ( ), Le Pen was
tssumg a senes of proposals mtended to pre\ cnt tht c,ul f \\ ar I he leader
of the Front \;attonal Front) is a double public
members and supporters of the part} but al c;o the pub I ic at Ia ge lit: has.
therefore, to take mto account. m order to correct 1t. the tmage of Ius per!>on
then circulating wtthm a vast part of public opmton for "ho do not
support the Front National (FN). Le Pen's "prediscursl\ e ' or "prior" ethos
consists of the stereotype of the extreme nght-\\ mg leader "ho 1s hosule
to the \alues of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and ofnations. pro-
force. pugnacious, xenophobic, demagogic. and untrustworth) The te\.1 of
the press conference operates to modi f) this stereot) pe in se\ era! ''a) s ..
As a spokesman for the f N. Le Pen tries to erase the image of a leader stig-
matized for his opposition to democratic values and his \.enophobic slands
He presents himsd f as the pres1dent of a mtnorit) pan) that the ad\
tage of not being in an) wa) compromised b) engaging in dubious poltu-
-
-
Page 10
(SUMMAR )
SEMESTER II
1.1 Introduction
In interaction. we are interested to observe the negotiation of mean mg. Ac u I
the process of meaning making. Likewise, we attempt to interpret degrees of
the fact that there is no text without coherence. Rclationally. we will anaJyze th r
shares of consensus and disagreement in the relationships between the partictpant
\Vith Francis Jacque. ( 1988), the dialogue is a comprehensive l) pe of interaction D
charactcri7cd h) the folio\\ ing features:
It i an c'\changc of idcn between the participan
1 he participants have a common goal (dehberati\e
The participants collaborate in sense making
In the . arne theor). dialogue is differentiated fron1 conver ation. \\bile a con' ersation rei e
on an internal phatic function. the dialogue i articulated by the external of the
exchange of ideas.
Important forms of dialogue based on disagncment an the contro' ers) and tb
confrontation.
The latter are goal-oriented. while deliherati\ e of dittlogue. u h d b .. t
semantic function (meaning searching)
In a more recent theory of interaction forms. Kerhrat-Or ( 1996) ,flo'' that th
dialogue and the conversation an the muin strlH'han'" of lingui til' inh'n cti 111.
Unlike Francis .Jacques, Kcrhrai-Onc.c.hioni c.tmsitltrs ron\ 1
comprehensive than the dialogue. The. mnin f) ll'-'' nf c.on\ l'nthon
(semantk function) and tiH' (gunl-ut ic.nhcl).
n tton i n1 n:
' th ' li C.'U I lO
The as a variant uf fluo tlt'IJnh (1Ulplll l mt anll rm tll n tot 1\l ' 1
communication), is suhoatJinahcl tu Utf' diM
1
U,\:iuu, If ll hu' u '' llh 'I ttl \'I uwtlon
N<rrf4:: J he IHmsi:Hion frumlll:llch tnlu lrtph'h u( ''" \lll ' m I d\1
mtcractwn Jo1111s llltr.tl one lnthl onplll d Ill 11\'ll h lh" \,\h.' 'lltll u
Romanian significon{;c uf the tc.rn1 tnt\ hl dlfll'h.'l\\: tn th "'' tt
I .nglish.
1.1.1 Mon.,logal 's. r'(''
The smallest unit of the monologue is the intcnention (French specialized lltE!r . , ......
corresponds to one turn-taking (Anglo-Saxon specialized literature). It contains at
main argumentative act, supported by various subordinate justifying acts.
The intervention/turn-taking is made up of at least one speech act.
The minimal unit of the dialogue is the adjacency pair (two turns taken by two participants
in the linguistic inten'ention).
The most interactive linguistic exchange consists in a question-anslver interaction.
Questions may or rna) be not "satisfied" by the expected answer (Moeschler 1985).
1.1.2 "Monological'' vs. ''dialogical/dialogismal'' discourse
1.2 Definitions
The monological discourse contains/presents only one point of
viell-/universe of beliefs: the speaker expresses her/his individuality,
guarantees the semantic content of the utterance.
The "dialogical" discourse presents more than one points of
vielv/universes of beliefs within one intervention/turn-taking. The
speaker cites (either directly or indirectly) at least one different point of
\ 'ie'' and starts a a more or less explicit dialogue with the latter. The
dialogue may voice agreement or disagreement of the speaker \Yith tbe
cited points of view. It is the expression of accepted or rejected alterity.
Dialogism/dialogicism contributes to the argumentative, rhetorical value
of the text.
"The notion of interaction is omnipresent toda) in the" a rio us work that are attempting to
restore to linguistic exchanges their social or micro- social dinten ion, or to provide a
linguistic dimension for conceptions of the social bond that lack it this notion
inevitably encounters the themes of enunciation, dialogue, language intersubjectivity, and
linguistic sociality, the systemacity of which is problema til'.
Linguistic Interaction and Speech Acts
2.1 INTERACTION AND EXCHANGES
Dialogue: A verbal exchange bct\\ccn l\\O or n1ore pcopk
Conversation: The spoken exchange of idea'-), obsen at opinions. or feelings.
Transactional and Interactional Functions of Conversation
"[T]wo different kinds of conversational interaction can be Jistinguishcd--thosc in '' hich tht'
prin1ary focus is on the exchange of infom1ation (the transactional function of con\ crsati(.'n). and
those in which the primary purpose is to establish and rnaintain social relation {the interal:tlon I
function of conversation) (Brown and Yule, 1983 ). In transactional nf con\ ersatton th
-q -
---
focus is on the message, whereas interactional uses of conversation focus pn
social needs of the participants ....
"Conversation also reflects the rules and procedures that govern face-to-face encounters, as well
as the constraints that deri' e from the use of spoken language. This is seen in the nature of turns
the role of topics. how speakers repair trouble spots. as well as the S) ntax and rcwstcr of
con' ersational discourse."
(Jack C. Richards. The Language Teaching J\tlatrix. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990)
Turn-taking: a term for the manner in which orderly conversation normally takes place.
The underlying principles of tum-taking were first described by sociologists Harvey Sacks.
Emanuel A. Schegloff. and Gail Jefferson in "A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of
Turn-Taking for Con\ er ation." in the journal La11guuge. December 1974.
"Once a topic is chosen and a conversation initiated. then matters of conversational 'turn-
taking' arise. Knowing when it is acceptable or obligatory to take a tum in conversation is
essential to the cooperative de\ elopment of discourse. This knowledge invoh es such factors as
kilO\\ ing ho\\ to recogm;:e appropriate tum-exchange points and knowing how long the pauses
between turns should be. It is also important to kno\\ how (and if) one may talk while someone
else is talking--that is. 1f con\ ersational overlap is allo\o\-ed. Since not all conversations follo\V all
the rules for turn-takmg. tt is also necessary to know ho\\ to 'repair' a conversatiOn that has been
thrown off course by undesired overlap or a misunderstood comment.
Adjacency pair: a t'Ao-part exchange in \\'hich the second utterance IS dependent on
the first. as exhibited in con' entional greetings. tn\ ttations. and requests.
An adjacenc) pair is at) pe of turn-taking. It 1s the smallest unit of corl\ er ....... ; iomli e'\.d1ange.
When one participant in the 'erbal interchange holds a cluster of the latter is
designated as an Extended Turn (ET)
Monologue: A speech or conlp051lion presenting the or \)fa (!.llirach. .. [.
"A monologue ts a predominant!} \erbal gl\ en a single pe1son katuring a
collection of ideas. often loosely assembled around one or more thcnl(;.'s.
(Adaptation from Richard Nordquist 1\ hout com < Uidl')
What is a Speech Act?
\\ e perform speech acts ''hen '' e offer an grcl!ting. requtst. complaint. in' it .. nwn.
compliment. or refusal. A speech act is an utterance that cs a function in lOillnHmH.\Hh.lll \
act maght contain just one '' ord. as in "SoH)!" to pe1 fonn an o1 "L'' '-'' .d \\\)h.is'
'Tm "101'1) ll()}got )OUJ birthda' I juslll'l it "lip !H) mmd" S(k'l'Ch l l. de