http://dis.sagepub.com/Discourse Studieshttp://dis.sagepub.com/content/7/3/289The online version of this article can be found at:DOI: 10.1177/1461445605052188 2005 7: 289 Discourse StudiesLaurent Rouveyrol, Claire Maury-Rouan, Robert Vion and Marie-Christine Nol-JorandA linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis: towards a multidimensional handling of verbal interactionsPublished by:http://www.sagepublications.com can be found at: Discourse Studies Additional services and information for http://dis.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://dis.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: http://dis.sagepub.com/content/7/3/289.refs.html Citations: by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from ABS TRACT This article is aimed at introducing a French discourse analysismodel, e.g. the star model, initiated by the LAA team led by Robert Vion inAix-en-Provence, to English-speaking researchers. It will be argued thatlanguage activity is multi-dimensional and can be traced at variousheterogeneous levels of speech productions belonging to macro as well asmicro orders. Speakers achieve different varieties of positioning which result innegotiating an interactional space within a pre-given situation. The model isprecisely designed to offer a unied and comprehensive view of suchheterogeneous phenomena in constant interconnection. In this study, we alsointend to illustrate our approach through the analysis of two different corpora.Speakers strategies under extreme conditions will be analysed; the varioussequences used were taken from a special corpus which we were asked to studyas part of a national research programme. In order to illustrate interactionalspace shifts, we will also use the transcript of a meeting which took placebetween a patient and a medical investigator in a hospital in Marseilles.KE Y WORDS : discourse analysis, enunciation, integrative pragmatics, positioningstrategies, verbal interaction1. IntroductionAnysituationof communicationischaracterizedbymultidimensionalparam-eters.Everyspeechproduction,whateveritmaybe,isnecessarilyrelatedtoa discourse genre or interaction type. In this pre-existing setting, every subject willinitiate,undergoandnegotiateaninteractivespacewithhis/herpartnersinwhichhe/shesimultaneouslyhandlesvariouspositions,ortobemoreexact, various positioning processes. What is needed in order to describe verbal interac-tions is an overall theory capable of taking into account the general dynamics ofspeechproductionandreceptioninitsfullcomplexityandheterogeneity.Anexampleof thisintegrativepragmaticsapproachhasbeendevelopedbyVion(1995, 1999) and constitutes the theoretical basis of the LAA team.ARTI CL E 289A linguistic toolbox for discourseanalysis: towards a multidimensionalhandling of verbal interactionsL AURE NTROUVE YROL ,CL AI RE MAURY- ROUAN, ROBE RTVI ONANDMARI E - CHRI S TI NE NO L - J ORANDUNI VE RS I T DE PROVE NCE AND FACULT DE M DE CI NE ,L A TI MONE , MARS E I L L EDiscourse Studies Copyright 2005SAGE Publications.(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)www.sagepublications.comVol 7(3): 289313.1461-4456(200508) 7:3;10.1177/1461445605052188 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from The model initiated by the LAA team originates from Vion (1995) mainly, andwas originally designed to deal with natural conversation; later, the initial modelwas adapted to take into account other forms of communication as well, provid-ing analyses oriented towards various goals. While Bertrand et al. on emotionaltalk(2000),Priego-Valverdeonhumour(1998,2001),Maury-Rouanonco-enunciation(1998)andondiscourseparticles(2001b),Brmondondiscoursestructureandparticles(2003)allusednaturalconversationsascorpora,themodel has also been successfully applied to literary discourse (Vion et al., 2002),mediadiscourseinEnglish(Rouveyrol,1998),anddoctorpatientinteractions(Priego-ValverdeandMaury-Rouan,2003).Conceptsweredevelopedorintro-ducedonthegroundsof thesevariouskindsof corpora:taxemes(Rouveyrol,1999),hypocorrection(Maury-Rouan,2001a),discoursestructurationin general:oneffacementstrategies(Vion,2001b),discourseinstability(Vion,2000), positioning changes (Vion, 2001b), taxemic markers (Rouveyrol, 1999),discourselures(Maury-Rouan,2001b,2003),andmodality(Vion,2001a,2003). This article is intended to apply the model to a specic corpus consistingof theverbalproductionsof membersof ascienticteamexperiencingadapta-tion to an extreme environment.The aim of the research group is to carry out discourse analyses bridging thegap between written and oral communication, monologue and dialogue, thankstoamodelabletodealwiththevariousrelevantlevels.Inourview,speakerscommunicateaccordingtosocialpositionsandadoptroles.Therelationthuscontractedbythedifferentactorsanddynamicallyco-elaboratedthroughdis-course activity can be dened in terms of interrelational positioning processes. Suchrealities are dissociated into different types which altogether enable the analyst tomapdiscourseactivitybridgingthegapbetweenvariousheterogeneousanddynamicphenomena.Realitiesof differentcalibrehavetobehandledsimulta-neously by every speaker. They range from macro to micro, associating social posi-tions to interlocutive, intersubjective and enunciative ones (Vion, 1995: 181).Thesepositioningprocessesarecomplementaryandworkonaone-to-onebasis:itisnotpossibletospeakfromagivenpositionwithoutconjuringuptheaddressee in the complementary one and validate the process. If you speak as ateacher,theaddresseecanassumenootherpositionthanthatof astudentorpupil.Suchpositions,linkedtopowerrelationsbutnotalways,areinitiatedinthe course of interaction and are constantly modied.To situate our research in relation to all other available analytical frames doesnotseemtobearealistictask.However,itremainspossibletotrytotargeta certainnumberof workscloselylinkedtothelevelstakenintoaccountbyourmultidimensionalmodelclosetotheperspectiveof enunciativeandintegrativepragmatics such as that of Berthoud (1996), Jeanneret (1999) and Verschueren(1999).For that reason, instead of beginning this article with a traditional overviewof general questions, we have opted for a presentation of our theoretical perspec-tivestepbystep,whichwillenableustoconfrontourmodelateachlevelwith290 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from our different sources, neighbouring approaches among the various current fore-ground domains in European and international linguistics.2. Analysing discourse and dialogue: introducing the star model the state of the artWe attempt to analyse discourse by using what we call the star model (Figure 1). Ifwestartfromthetop,movingcounter-clockwise,werealizethatweshiftfrommacro to micro realities. The rst three positioning processes relate to the inter-personalhandlingof theinteraction.Subjectsevolveinasocialframe,whoserules and practices they have integrated as members of a specic community.Allvepositioningprocesses:institutional,modular,subjective,discursive,andenunciativeinuenceeachotherinanon-hierarchicalwayandtogetherformtheinteractivespace.Figure1indicatesthattheyarealllinked.Carefulindependent study in each area of investigation is necessary at the start but thepursued aim of analysis is to establish such links in their overall dynamics.Ourmultidimensionalperspectiveformalizesthecomplexityof languagefromitsstart. Thisapproachisinsharpcontrasttomodularattemptsinwhichlanguagecomplexityisdividedintovariouscomponentstreatedrelativelyautonomouslyfromeachotherinarstphase,andconnectedonlyinasecondphase.Rouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 291 Modular Positioning InstitutionalPositioning Enunciative Positioning Discursive Positioning Subjective Positioning INTERPERSONAL AND SOCIAL RELATIONS INTERLOCUTIVE RELATIONS F I GURE 1. The star model of positioning processes by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from 2. 1 I NS TI TUTI ONAL POS I TI ONI NG PROCE S S E SInstitutionalpositioningprocessesareachievedthankstorealitieswhichareexteriorandpriortotheinteraction.Someexamplescouldbe:doctorpatient,teacherstudent...Theseinstitutionalpositionsrefertoatypologyof interac-tionsbutbynomeanscanbereducedtosocialfunctionsorprofessionalactivi-ties.Communicationsituationsareretro-activelydeterminedbydiscourseactivitycarriedoutbyspeakers.Somevariationistobeexpected,whichintheend modies or qualies the pre-existing frame.Weowemuch,here,totheinteractionalsociolinguisticsapproachwhoseinspiration comes from sociology, social anthropology and ultimately linguistics.Gumperzsworkcastslightonhowsubjectssharegrammaticalknowledgeandcontextualizeit.Institutionalpositioningprocessesof sociologicalorderalsoecho Erving Goffmans views. Goffman describes how language is used in partic-ular social situations: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), Behavior inPublicPlaces (1963),InteractionalRituals (1967),RelationsinPublic (1971),Frame Analysis (1974), and Forms of Talk (1981). In the linguistic eld, the viewsof both authors have been taken up and developed by researchers such as Brownand Levinson (1987), Schiffrin (1987), Tannen (1989) and more recently Drewand Heritage (1992). This level of the model is also connected to linguistic genretheories and verbal interaction typologies Vion (1992, 2000), Bronckart (1996),Adam (1992, 1997, 1999), Swales (1990).Theinstitutionalpositioningprocessisthebroadesttype,whichinthecase of interactionalexchangesenablesustohandlethesituationandthesocial relationsatworkatthebeginning.Inwrittenmonologalproductions,these institutional processes help us dene discourse genres.2. 2 MODUL AR POS I TI ONI NG PROCE S S E SModularpositioningprocesseshavetodowithspecicinteractionalphases handledtemporarilybyspeakers,belongingtoasecondarygenresubordinatedto the general frame. These phases are called modules in our perspective. To givean example, in a TV talk show, we could clearly imagine a politician trying to ini-tiate a polemical module with erce attacks directed at an ideological opponentwithin a friendly debate. Another example would be a doctorpatient interactioninwhichspeakersmightinitiateconversationalmodulesonchildren/theweather. The doctor could even ask the patient for advice on matters such as soft-ware, mechanics. The dominant genre is still the medical consultation; conversa-tional modules are local subordinate genres. At this level, we are not far from theconceptsof discoursetypesandordersof discourse,developedbyFairclough(1989, 1995), derived from Foucault (1984).Modular and institutional processes are also conceptually connected to theperspectivesof ESP(EnglishforSpecicPurposes)analysis.Anglo-Saxonresearch in applied linguistics has produced abundant data in this perspective, inwhich a relation between interaction and professional settings is drawn, BusinessEnglish is an example. Scientic discourse was analysed by Swales (1990) among292 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from others.MediadiscoursehasalsobeenthoroughlydiscussedbyBellandGarrett(1998).Thecriticaldiscourseanalysisapproachproducedthegreaterpartofmedia discourse analysis; Fairclough (1989, 1995, 2000) uses Hallidays micro-linguistic systems (1973; Halliday and Hasan, 1976) as a basis. French-speakingresearchers such as Ghiglione (1989) have focused on political discourse withoutnecessarilyconsideringageneralsetof mediadiscoursesocialpractices.FewAnglo-Saxon researchers have worked on debates; Livingstone and Lunt (1994)areamongtheexceptions.Mostresearchersfocusmainlyonthecaseof news,scrutinizingdiscoursepractices(VanDijk,1998),orissuesof neutrality(Clayman, 1992).2. 3 S UBJ E CTI VE POS I TI ONI NG PROCE S S E SSubjective positioning processes are to do with the relation established betweentheverbalexchangedynamicandthegeneralobjectiveswhichspeakersassignthemselves.Wehereconsiderimagesof self inrelationtohierarchicalposition-ingprocessesbuiltinthecourseof theinteraction;suchprocessesarelinkedtothe more general notion of Ethos derived from ancient rhetorics (Amossy, 1999).Suchbuiltimagesarealsoconnectedtodiscoursesituations,forexampleinthemedia and institutional settings, as shown by Ghiglione and Charaudeau (1999),Scannell(1991),Vion(1998c)andAdaminAmossy(1999).Ourconceptofimages of self is based on G.H. Meads theory of subject (1934) later theorized byGoffman in his drama-based conception of communication. Moreover, Goffmansnotionof gure iscloselyconnectedtoLAAssubjectivepositioningprocesses,seenasafragmentof thesubjectactivatedbyandthroughdiscourse.Atthislevel,speakershavetodealwithface-workstrategies:GoffmansFTAs(face-threatening acts), formalized by Brown and Levinson (1987), FFA (face-atteringacts),alongwiththenotionof taxemedesignedbyKerbrat-Orecchioni(1990,1992,1994,1996)arehelpfulinformalizingphenomenaatthislevel.Wedealwithconqueredorlostpositionsinrelationtoimagesbuiltbyco-speakers:expert/non-expert,honest/dishonest,strict/lax;andmoredirectinteractionalprocesses: condent/impulsive.2. 4 DI S CURS I VE POS I TI ONI NG PROCE S S E SDiscursivepositioningprocessesmainlyconcerndiscoursestructurationandcognitive tasks brought into play by speakers, such as narration, argumentation,description,explanation(Adam,1992).Discoursecanthusbesegmentedintovariousmovesorsequences,packagesof utterancesorientedtowardsthesamegoal or strategy (Gumperz, 1982), sharing an inherent coherence. The way thesedifferentsequencesarechainedtogethertoformcoherentdiscoursewitha specic communicative goal constitutes one of our main areas of investigation.FollowingAustin(1962)andSearle(1969),authorssuchasRouletetal.(1992), TrognonandBrassac(1992)orMoeschler(1999)seediscoursestruc-tureasasuccessionof speechacts,andreferthustoanillocutionarylogic.Discursivepositioningprocessesallowustoconceivediscourseasco-activitiesRouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 293 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from organized into a hierarchy. A description can be embedded in a narration, beingitself part of a persuasive sequence. These processes also enable subjects to con-structanddeconstructunstablediscoursebalances,whichproducesadynamicvision of textual structure (Mosegaard-Hansen, 1998; Vion, 2000). At this level,cognitive tasks are considered, corresponding to types of discourse and languagefunctions.2. 5 E NUNCI ATI VE POS I TI ONI NG PROCE S S E SEnunciativepositioningprocessesconcernpurelyenunciativephenomenaandleadtheanalysttousetheconceptof enunciativestagingdesignedbyVion(1998a)tostudyhowspeakersstagethemselvesintheirownspeechandmarktheir degree of involvement. Do they seem to speak alone, to be the only source oftheirdiscourseordotheysummonvirtualspeakers,creatingbuilt-invoices?Inorder to make this clear, we need to distinguish between two enunciative orders:speaker andsource,inapolyphonicperspectiveinspiredbyBakhtine(1984)andDucrot (1984). A given speaker is not necessarily the upstream source of his/herutterance,he/shemayjustbearelay-speakeramerephysicalspeakingbodyquoting from other peoples discourse, whether these people are identied, realor not. The voices staged in speakers discourse will be referred to from now on asutterers, in order to distinguish them from the physical speaker.Wealsohavetotrytogiveanaccountof thedifferentwaysthroughwhichspeakersstagethemselvesintheirspeechtooperateameta-control,togetherwiththekindof modulationorfootingwhichisachieved.Vionsenunciativestagingtypologyoffersagoodstartingpointprovidedthatitisagreedthatanutterance can be linked to different modes at the same time and that the typologyremains open. Moreover, it would be dangerous to expect a sequence to be com-posed only of utterances referring to just one mode such as unicity or duality.Sequencesarenecessarilyheterogeneouslycomposed;thereforediscourseactiv-ity cannot be reduced to a linear catalogue of successive enunciative staging actsbelonging to the same mode. Accordingly, Vion sees discourse linearity composedof breaksorwavesevokingthemovementof breathingandthusspeaksofenunciativebreathing.Thevemodesencompassingenunciativestagingcanbriey be presented as follows:1. Enunciative unicity: speaker builds an enunciative position which gives theimpression he/she is the sole master of his/her words.2. Enunciativeduality:speakerbuildstwopositions.Utterancesmaythusappear as ambiguous, implicit or opaque.3. Enunciative parallelism: speaker stages several utterers and seems to speaksharing their views.4. Enunciativeopposition:speakerstagesseveralutterersandseemstogoagainst them.5. Enunciative self-effacement: speakers voice seems to have deserted his/herspeech production.294 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from Withinthesevemodes,sub-categoriesaremadeavailablebythecollocationofadjectivestoidentifydatamoreclearly:polyphonicisusedtorefertoseveralutterers,diaphonictospeakerandaddressee,exophonictospeakerandanabsent utterer.Thissetof toolsintroducedbyVion(1995,1998a)followsupGoffmansFormsof Talk (1981).Theconceptof footing hasbeensetuptoevaluateaspeakersinvolvementstrategyinrelationtoaparticipationframework.Thisnotionhasbeendiscussed(Levinson,inDrewandWooton,1988;Lon,1999)andusedinmanyways. Thepositions sketched:animator,author,principalandgure constitute a set which is coherent with the typology of enunciative stagingpresentedabove.Wemayaskwhetherthepositionnamedgure belongstothesame order as the other three. Lon (1999) presents Goffmans work, restrictingittothreepositionsinsteadof four,sodoesSchiffrin(1994).Clayman(1992)introduces a new insight into the perspective, pointing to the part of responsibil-ity which the addressee takes in inuencing a speakers choice as to the positionassumed. Thus,discourseisclearlyseenasco-constructed;monologalunitsarethenbroughtbackintotheinteractionalgame,whichisexactlywhattheLAAteam attempts to suggest.Approaches allowing one to cross enunciative and discursive levels, connect-ingtheutteranceproductionaxiswithpragmaticsareextremelyrare.Doingsocastsanewlightoncertainmarkersordiscourseparticles(Schiffrin,1987;Fernandez-Vest,1994;Aijmer,1996;Mosegaard-Hansen,1998).Thestarmodel was designed to combine the two dimensions opening the door to enuncia-tive integrative pragmatics. Likewise, Jeanneret (1999) clearly displays a similarprogrammeinthetitleof herbook,whereasVerschueren(1999),negatingtheexistenceof suchanapproach,establisheslinksbetweenelementsbelongingeachtoargumentative,illocutionaryandcognitiveorders.Ourmodelenablesanalyststotransgressstrictinteractionalborderstodealwithmonologaltexts(Vion,1999;Vionetal.,2001). ThesamegoalhasbeenpresentintheGenevaSchool since the beginning (Roulet et al., 1985, 2001); as well as in Linell (1998)andNlkesresearch(1994;NlkeandAdam,1999)andisoneof themain preoccupations of the LAA.3. From theory to data3. 1THE S AJAMA CORPUSAs part of a national research programme, we were asked to investigate the waydiscourseisusedinextremesituationstoletspeakerssubjectivityemerge.Agroup of 10 young male and female scientists volunteered for an expedition to an18,000 ft summit in Bolivia named Sajama.Theexpeditionprogrammeincluded10biologicalresearchprotocolstarget-ing human adaptation to the lack of oxygen (hypoxia) in high altitude, a frequentcauseof pulmonaryoedema(Richaletetal.,1994).Thestudyof verbaldata wasalsoplanned,inordertocontributetotheunderstandingof psychologicalRouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 295 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from adaptationtoextremeenvironment(Nol-Jorandetal.,1995;Blanchetetal.,1997).So, together with blood tests, subjects had to submit to audio-taped interviewsand self recordings before, during and after ascension. The recordings consistedin telling the way they felt about the whole experience, the group and their ownreactions to the ordeal they were going through.3.1.1 The impact of the institutional and modular levelsEven looking casually at the transcripts, it is quite clear that whether the subjectsface the tape-recorder alone or reply to the pre-established questionnaire read byamemberof theexpedition,theyactuallyarespeakingtoanabsentaddressee.This absent addressee can be identied as the partially fuzzy representation theyhaveof thescienticauthoritythatorganizedtheexpedition. Thisaccountsforthe fact that subjects speech is linked to the image of what one should be and do,according to the image they build of that fantasized authority and its expectancy,rather than the spontaneous expression of their feelings; a discrepancy illustrat-ing the combined inuence of the institutional and subjective levels. The targetedimage(builtforthemselvesandforothersatthesametime),isthatof someoneworthyof thecondenceplacedinthemandintheirabilitytocopewiththetaskstheyhavebeenassigned. Thesituationalsocontainsaparadoxinthefactthat subjects are asked to give their feelings away whereas the institutional situa-tionisfarfromfavouringthis.Thesefactspointtothenotionthattheinstitu-tional setting drastically inuences the way in which speakers express themselves.At the modular level, we are led to consider that only one sub-type of interac-tion is present in the interviews: that of the questionnaire. The interviewer onlyreads out the questions, refraining from giving any audible feedback, rephrasingor eliciting reactions, which constitutes an additional obstacle for the emergenceof subjectivity. Nevertheless the corpus remains an interaction because discourseisaddressedandaninterviewerispresent,evenif hedoesnotappeartobethemain addressee.There are interconnections between the setting and the discourse position aswell: when speakers are asked to describe the landscape surrounding them or totalkabouttheirarrival,wendthatdescriptionandnarrativesequencesareawedwithargumentativemarkers.Insteadof hearingpersonalstories,wearefaced with self-justication. For instance donc (so) becomes twice as frequent forone speaker, and three times as frequent for another speaker at times when theytry to conceal their suffering and pain.Itisalsopossibletoshowthattheimpactof theinstitutionalsettingweighsdeeplyoninvolvementstrategies,resultingintheparticularbalancingof enun-ciativestagingmodes.Despitetheparalysingformatof thesituation,thepres-sureof thehostileconditionsthesubjectshavetocopewithentailsenunciativeuctuationsinwhichoverowingsubjectivityphasesareimmediatelycounter-balanced by the suddenly reappearing awareness of the general context, leadingto phases of rationalizing discourse.296 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from Twodifferentreasonsaccountforsuchatendencytorepresstheoutowofsubjectivity: (1) each member of the expedition having to be up to the demandsof theextremesituation,theymusttakecareof theirimageaswehavealreadyindicated;(2)aswepreviouslyexplained(Bertrandetal.,2000),toomuch emotion, generally speaking, is an obstacle to the sharing of subjectivity, since itliesineverycommunicationandunderminesit.Communicationdemandsthesynchronizationof emotionalstates,andthereforeimpliesacertaindegreeofdistanciation.3.1.2 Discursive and enunciative levels3.1.2.1 Modalizing lexical choicesAccordingly, the use of puise (exhausted) to characterize a physical state by oneof the members of the expedition will be immediately modied and softened:je me sens essentiellement puise + mais bon jespre que dans quelques jours + toutsera rentr dans lordre(I feel mostly exhausted + but well I hope that within a few days + everything will beback in order)The expression of subjectivity conveyed by puise (exhausted) is modalized by theadverb essentiellement (mostly) and by the choice of je me sens (I feel) instead of jesuis (Iam),andbyarationalizingdiscourseintroducedbymaisbon (but,well).Mais (but) indicates that a counter-argument or at least a conicting kind of dis-courseisabouttofollow;theparticlebon (well)introducesapositioningshiftassigning a higher degree of relevance to the following statement. The presenceof mais (but)remindsusof theoverallargumentativetonalityunderlyingthesedescriptive sequences.Asintheabove-mentionedexample,stronglexicalchoicesasin:dcourage(discouraged),inquite (worried)areusuallycorrectedbymodalizations:unpeu (alittle), un certain (somewhat), un tout petit peu (very little) or followed by rationaliz-ing clauses marked by particles mais (but), bon (well), mais bon ... conrming thefact that too much exposure of self and feelings is not in good taste.3.1.2.2 Polyphonic use of negationInthesameway,negativeclausescangiverisetotwodifferentvoices:(1)onepositivevoicerepresentingapotentialorexistingdiscourse;and(2)speakersown voice denying the previous statement. For instance, negation in:(2) Pour moi, a ne se passe pas trs bien(For me, things are not going very well)constitutes a form of moderating as compared with non-negative statement:(1) Pour moi a se passe (trs ) mal(For me, its going (really) bad)Rouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 297 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from 3.1.2.3 Enunciative swayingSomesubjectsconfronttwodifferentopinionsintheirowndiscourse,directlystaging two different voices: (1) one of the voices expressing their personal opin-ion; and (2) a second one opposed to it and allocated to the group or to the evalu-atingauthority,ortosomedoxa.Thissomewhatbasicformof polyphonyisfrequent in one of the female subjects who uses it as a means of putting her owndiscourseintoperspective,soastoavoidexcessiveassertivenessinherfrequentphasesof self-depreciation.Onceagainalternationof opinions(voices)isbasedupontheuseof theconnectiveparticlemais (but)whichincludesaspectacularrise of its frequency:je sens que++ je suis pas trs utile + que je peux pas vraiment au maximum+ mais je pourrais faire plusmaisdetoutesfaonsyapasgrand-chosefairedeplus+doncmoralementjemesens un peu inutileI feel that ++ Im not being very helpful + Im not actually doing my best but I could do betterbutanywaythereisnotmuchmorethatcouldbedone+somorallyIfeelkindofuselessStatement(1)correspondstospeakersownvoice;statement(2)stagesothervoices,possiblyreferringtothoseof thegroupmembers;instatement(3)thespeakers voice is heard again, rephrasing her original opinion. It is notable thatmoves(1)and(3)linkedtothespeakersopinionareconsiderablymodulated(sens que pas trs pas vraiment: feel that not very not actually; de toutes faons pas grand-chose un peu: anyway not much kind of) in contrast to (2) in whichthe voice of the group is staged. The same type of enunciative swaying is presentin one of the male subjects:je me fous absolument.; (2) en fait cest faux (3) je mefforce (..): (1) I really dont givea damn (2) in fact it is not true (3) but I do my best to (..)3.1.2.4 About enunciative markersAstheexpressionof emotionisgenerallycontainedbysubjects,wehavetobeverycarefulininvestigatingverbaldatatobeabletospotthealternationofphasesof subjectivityandcurbingutterances.Alongwiththemodalizingofstronglexicalchoicesandthestagingof alternatevoices,theuseof particlessuchasben,quoi,ehbien,bon,etc.canalsorevealchangesinthestagingstrategies.Markerssuchasehbien (well)orbon (so)tendtopointtorationalizingdis-course whereas ben or quoi (you know) appearing at the end of utterances tendtoaccompanyself-centredsequencesmarkedinhighersubjectivityandlessershare.Subjectivityswayswouldberelatabletoenunciativephasesshiftingbetweendramatizationandtrivialization,self-centrednessandlackof focusing.298 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from Practically,rationalizationdiscoursecontainsmodalizerslikevraiment (really),videmment (obviously),enfait (infact)ormeta-enunciativecommentssuchaslets say that, a sort of and the use of pronouns like nous (we) or on (colloquialforwe inspokenFrench).Conversely,discoursesinwhichsubjectivityemergescontainlexicalchoiceswhichareinconsistentwiththeinter-subjectivityneces-sary for verbal exchange, and rst-person pronouns.Inonegivensubjectsspeech,thedistanciationof emotionsrevealsunex-pected traces in his use of personal marks: in the Paris recordings, his use of je(I) is conventional, and bears no emotional aspect. On the summit, an emotionalaspect is present but the form I is replaced by more impersonal discourse mark-ers such as on (one) and a (that). More precisely, there seems to be a systematicbinarypartition:je isusedforpositiveemotions,whereason islinkedtothenegative ones:(on scenery): within a ve or ten meter distance + I like very much + but beyond thatone has great difculty coping.Sonegativeaspectsrelatetoothers,andpositiveaspectsareendorsedbythespeaker alone.As for enunciative staging modes, explicit unicity corresponds to positiveness,whereas parallelism or exophonic opposition is linked to negativeness.Onthesummit,rathercharacteristically,incertainsubjectsspeech,the positivepoleonlyismadeexplicitthroughtheargumentativeconfrontation.Enunciativemovesgenerateandplaceintheforegroundanegativeimplicitcounter-part.Thespeakercounter-arguespositivelyfacinganunspokendis-course which appears only through his counter-argument, revealed for instancethrough the accumulation of quand mme (all the same):a protective value, all the same, which exists in the groupAltiplano is all the same a very impressive thingInanothersubjectsspeech,thesameenunciativestructureappearsregularly.This time, this marker activates a ctive addressee that the speaker tends to mini-mize or repress, here again producing a co-enunciation phenomenon.3.1.3 DiscussionBycomparingspeechproductionsof subjects,whetherinordinarycontextorunderextremeconditions,wehavebeenabletoidentifygeneraltendencieslinkedtohighaltitudeandtheeffectof hypoxia(Vionetal.,2001),butalso personalcharacteristicssuchasdifferencesinstrategiesorpersonalityfeatures.For instance some subjects will resort to humour, whereas others will make useof acertainrationalizeddiscourse.Somesubjectsdramatizedorself-centredreactions result in isolation from the group and its lack of concern; other speak-ers, although in pain, do everything they can to cope rationally and to set asidetheir own unease. Yet, personality features are partially neutralized by belongingtothegroupandbythemissionitself,sothattheexpressionof emotionsis Rouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 299 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from constantlyqualied,softened,broken,resultinginarationalizingtypeof dis-courseorinsurpassingoneself,whichismorerepresentativeof thegroupthanof individual subjects.3. 2THE MARS E I L L E S CORPUSWearegoingtostudyameetingwhichtookplaceinahospitalinMarseillesbetweenapatientsufferingfromsevereheadaches(Mylne)andamemberofthe medical staff (Sabine) in charge of handling an interview for a multidiscipli-nary research programme focused on the verbalization of pain.3.2.1 The interactive frameAt the most general level, we rst have to dene the situation in which the verbalexchangedevelops,i.e.establishalinkbetweenourcorpusandoneorseveraltypes of interactions. In interactional studies carried out after Goffman, interac-tiontypesaredenedaccordingtothenatureof thesocialrelationthatactorssettle. Thisrelationexpressesitself throughpositioningprocesses,interactionalgoal, a degree of cooperation, the level of formality in turns and the way they arehandled.Therstpartof ourmeetingmaythenbedenedasamedicalinter-view, the goal of which is to build knowledge and not to diagnose or to deliver aprescription. Thecomplementarypositioningprocessonwhichitdwellsassoci-ates a patient giving information and a member of medical staff whose functionconsistsincollectinginformationinawaywhichiscoherentwiththatgoal.Inthis particular meeting, presented in Appendix 1, the actors build a type of rela-tionwhichisfarmorecomplexthanthatwhichisdenedbythepositioningprocessconstitutingthesituation.Besides,theco-constructionprocessaddsacertainunpredictabilitytothedevelopmentof discourse.Itthenappearsneces-sarytomakeroomfordynamicdiscourseactivitiesshapedbyactorsendowedwith a certain power of action within a permanent interactive frame dening thesituation. As mentioned above, the interactive frame is dened by an institutionalpositioning process whereas the interactive space, that is to say, the complex rela-tion co-constructed by subjects implies a dynamic link between ve types of posi-tioning processes (institutional, modular, subjective, discursive and enunciative).The denition of the communicative situation by the institutional positioningprocessallowsustocombinedifferentsuccessiveinteractionswithinasinglemeeting,whichmoretraditionaldenitionsassimilatinginteractiontomeetingdo not make possible. In the meeting which is dealt with here, it is possible to dis-tinguishtwosuccessiveinteractionsbringingtogetherthesamesubjects.If thersttwoextractsequatewithaninterview,whathappensfromline91andonwards radically modies the initial positioning process: Sabine (the doctor), onlearningthatMylne(theinterviewedpatient)worksintheeldof medicalresearch,completelymodiesherattitudeandwithinafewturnsclosesthemedicalinterviewandopensaconsultationforherownsake,enablinghertoconsultthemedicalknowledgeof Mylne(thepatient).Theinitialpositioningprocessinvestigator/intervieweegraduallyyieldstoexpert/non-expert,which300 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from implies a reversal of high and low positions. Considering that Sabine indicatesthat it is not at all in our interview when she initiates this new frame, consider-ingalsothatthetwosubjectsinpresencenevercomebacktotherstmedicalinterview, it may be argued that the meeting is composed of two separate succes-siveinteractions,bringingtogetherthesamesubjects,butindifferentsocial relationsanddifferentframes(aninterviewandaconsultation).Weshallseethatatthelevelof thecomplexrelationbuiltbysubjects(interactivespace)thesecondinteractiondevelopsinaparticularclimate,whichisthenaturalfollow-up to the interview.3.2.2 The interactive spaceAfterstudyingseveralinterviewsbetweenamemberof medicalstaff andapatient asked to verbalize his/her pain, it was possible to conrm that the patientorients his/her descriptions and narrations according to a thesis correspondingtohis/herpersonaldiagnosisof thepossibleoriginsof thepain.Veryoften,thispersonaldiagnosiswascontrarytotheofcialmedicaldiagnosis.Thedescrip-tionof thepain,aimedatinthecourseof theinterview,willbeintegratedintoan argumentative structure in which the patient will attempt to persuade his/herpartner. As the latter belongs to the medical eld, the attempt is a tricky one.The rst interaction, the interview destined to produce knowledge, consists ofextracts 1 and 2, as well as the rst lines of extract 3. If the institutional position-ingprocessdeningtheinteractiveframeremainsthesamethroughouttheinteraction,theinteractivespaceconstantlymodiesitself,evenif twodistinctmoments are identiable.Extract 1 (a module oriented towards discussion by Mylne)Inextract1,Mylnewillsetupparticulardiscursivepositions,dwellingontheargumentativecomponentof language.Shewillthenbackherthesis(myheadaches are psychosomatic) with medical arguments:I had a treatment both for the thyroid and the beginning of menopause. (line 4)I had my eyes checked (. . .) so everything is all right. (1517)I had already done a head scanner. (201)X-rays have been done too to have a look at rhumatism (. . .). (212)ThisargumentativesequenceisintegratedintotheinterviewandcompelsMylne to take up the institutional position of patient. To convince her partner,theactivatedinteractionalmodulewillbelongtotheconversationorder(sym-metricalpositionswithafocusoncontent).Attheenunciativelevel,Mylneeither endorses her own words using the rst person pronoun (I, unicity mode) orspeaks with her doctors (enunciative parallelism):So I came to consult Doctor B / Weve done /weve spoken a lot to try to see if therewas no problem. (1315)Rouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 301 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from one could / could have believed this to be the cause. (19)weve done x-rays to see a little. (21)well we found small things. (24)Attheenunciativelevel,theactivatedpositionsalternatebetweenunicity andenunciativeparallelism butalsohaveself-effacement broughtintoplay. Thismodeallows the speaker to present discourse as objective and as a general authoritativeopinion:BecausethetreatmentsforMenopause,itsalwayswithhormonesanditalwaysfavours headaches. (79)The notion of authority initiated by the enunciative parallelism mode, one voiceof whichispartof themedicalorder;aswellastheuniversaltruthsderivingfrom the use of the effacement mode enhances the impact of the speech that thepatient endorses then more directly. As for subjective positions, Mylne presentsthe image of a rather expert person who possesses a sort of medical knowledge.Not only does she argue, eliminating gradually all the possible organic causes ofher headaches, but, as we have just seen it, she asserts some medical knowledge,notably about the secondary effects of menopause treatments. The overall studyof interrelatedpositionsallowsanalyststocastlightonsubjectsactivitiesandstrategies. After the analysis of this rst sequence we can make a certain numberof points:1. Mylneapparentlyacceptsthepositionof patient-informer,whichhelpstodene the complementary frame of the interview. Also, she has no choice, ifa subject refuses the positioning process dening a specic frame, communi-cationiscompletelyblockedandnothingwouldbeconstructeduntilsomekind of frame was found and accepted by participants.2. While accepting the starting frame, Mylne, through her play on other posi-tions,modiestheinstitutionalprocess:wantingtoinitiateaconversationmodule,takinguptheattitudeof anexpert,settingupargumentsand playing on enunciative positions which endows her with a certain authorityandleadshertoplayhigherthanexpectedontheinstitutionalprocessofinformation giver.We will not go as far as to assert that this lack of consideration towards the inves-tigatorbecauseof animmodestplaywouldaccountforSabinesrefusaltotakethearguedthesis(myheadachesarepsychosomatic)intoaccount.Thisrefusalisnonetheless clear-cut:Why psychosomatic? its not because the CAUSE is not KNOWN (laughter) that nec-essarily there is no cause. (323)Extract 2 (module oriented towards conversation by Mylne)In this second part of the interview, Mylne is radically going to change strategyandthencontinueherpersuasionworkinanothermanner.Althoughsheisa302 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from researcherinthemedicaleld(whichSabinewilllearnonlyattheendof theinterview), she pretends not to know medical terms directly concerning herself.Theyfoundsomethingthere,whichshrinks,Idontknowthename(laughter).(345)Beside the fact of stating her ignorance which consolidates Sabine in her positionof expert, the peal of laughter seems to have a very complex function: infantilizeatthesubjectivepositionlevelanditisalsoanattemptatsettingupaformofcomplicityandproximity(modularlevel),enunciativedistanciation,etc.Thesame conguration appears just after that:thats it (laughter) / its / they are terms that I generally forget, hah. (412)A subtle analysis should also take into account the production of hein (hah) as adiscoursemarker.Theinterviewbecomesmoredialogicalwithconsistentlylonger turns from Sabine. This general conguration will then gradually engen-deraconversationmodulewithenunciativepositionslinkedtodualityandhumour.Thisiswhatisnoticeablewhenspeakingaboutherweight,Mylnesays:then may be also by the ... important mass. (56)The lexical choice of mass (volume) implies an enunciative distanciation and aplay in the act of stating. This self-derisive humour accompanied by a little laugh,which seems to be targeting a feminine complicity, illustrates the radical modi-cationof Mylnespositioning.Allthemoresoif oneconsidersthatinsteadofproducing an argumentation, at the subjective positioning level, she will make dowith the setting up of a narration by which she tells herself. The dual enunciativeplay identied on mass will carry on with the expression tir group (shootingparty; line 64) to talk about a set of analyses already done and will be found lateron:I started losing a bit of weight, but well, its not ... that brilliant. (701)Aswehaveindicated,thissequenceisnotbasedondirectargumentationbutrather on a narration-description component which develops into a long mono-logue(lines6572).Thistypeof narrationfunctionsasanargumentina discoursewhichbearsapersuasivegoal.Itsinterestliesinthefactof arguingimplicitly, without risking offending the partner, showing a sort of knowledge inkeeping with the position of expert.Inthecourseof thismoduleorientedtowardsconversation,onenotesthatcooperative complicity gradually invades Sabines speech in such a way that thetwo women nally manage to coordinate their laughter (lines 756). Such coor-dinationdoesnotappearanywhereelse;Mylneendsthenarrationwithanutterance bearing argumentative echoes:and:::::::::::::thenIhadtohavemyteethoperatedonandtheheadachescameback(low) of course (laughter). (745)Rouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 303 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from The voice volume drop evoking condential talk, the use of the style of speakingadverb (of course) and laughter clearly mark a positioning, which, on the subjec-tiveside,targetscomplicityandproximity.Afterthissecondsequence,SabineagreestotakeintoaccountMylnesownthesis.ItisnotpossibletoevaluateSabines degree of acceptance but it seems difcult to disassociate this concessionfrom all the interactive play on various positioning processes.A few points have been given here and doubtless the analysis must be carriedfurther.Itwouldalsobenecessarytotakeintoaccountthedifferentpauseswhichprecedemarkedlexicalchoices,hesitationstructures(andthemomentswhen they occur in discourse), breaks and incomplete utterances, modalizations(anchoring of discourse in ctive, real or fantastic worlds), modulations (distan-ciationstrategiesbearingontheactof discourse),rephrasingstrategies,meta-discursivecommentaries,turnoverlaps,discoursemarkers,etc.(allthevarioustracesof languageactivitywhichgenerallyconstitutethebasisof theanalysescarried out by the LAA team).Also,alinguistislessconcernedwiththeefciencyof strategiesthanwiththeanalysisitself.Itisof littleinterestwhetherMylnesstrategiesallowhertoachievehergoalornot.Strategiesarecoordinatedlinesof actionthatmustbedescribed using linguistic concepts rst. Interactive strategies would then dependontheparticularwaysubjectsplaythiscomplexgameof positioningprocesses.Thedifferentstrategies:intimidation,persuasion,kow-tow,seduction,researchof success,competition,minimalinvolvement,consensusreaching,etc.couldthen be visualized by specic congurations of plays on those various positions.Extract 3 (consultation)Asmentionedabove,asearlyasline97,asecondinteractionappears:MylnebecomestheexpertthatSabineconsults.Giventhefactthatacertaininterac-tionalcomplicitywasinitiatedearlier,Mylnewillhavetoactmodestlyinthepositionof expert,justasSabinewasdoingintheprecedinginteraction.If theinteractive frame is altered, the relational history woven in the course of the rstinteractionwillcontinueinthesecondone.Asaresult,Mylnewho,inthecourseof theinterview,hadpartiallymanagedtoinitiateaconversationalmoduleplayingoncomplicityandproximitywilldevelopherroleof expert,byhesitatinginherspeechandtryingtoavoidastructuredaspect.Thesehyper-correctionphenomenaareprobablyexplainablebythemodestylaw,accordingtowhichonemustnotletonesfacebeexaltedexcessivelynorafortioriexaltitoneself (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1996).In other situations, they can also reect the difculty that a subject feels whenspeaking about his/her profession to partners who do not have a very clear ideaof it. Here are other examples of the hypocorrection phenomena: hesitation structures: euh (huh) 16 occurrences in ve short monologues. qualiers such as:To put it that way (100, 102),304 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from that kind of thing (113),that kind of problem (100). simplied and ordinary syntactic forms:this is very molecular biology (106)at the chromosome level (1067) numerous modalizers which blur Mylnes positioning:simply (101), rather (102,103,107), quand mme (even so, come on), (108).3.2.3 Discussion: heterogeneity and instability of unitsTheanalysisof thismeetingenabledustodiscussdifferenttypesof phases: interactions,whendistinctinteractiveframesfollowoneanother;modules wheninteractiontypesaredevelopedlocally;andsequences whendiscourseactivitytypesarelinkedtocognitivediscursivetasks.Othersmallerunitsalsoexist:exchanges, interventions, turns, speech acts and utterances.Whatever the type of unit considered, it is necessary not to adopt a simplisticconception of the overall structure seen as a mechanical construction of homo-geneousunits.Incertaincasesitwillbepossibletoidentifythebeginningandthe end of a conversational module in a specic interactive frame, when the twosubjectscooperatenarrowly.However,adifferenceinavailabilityof subjectsforthe setting of a conversational module will inevitably lead to complex situations.Inextract2,Mylnestrugglestoinitiateaconversationalmoduleintheinter-view (constituting the interactive frame of the meeting) through lexical choices,enunciative positionings and the use of narration-description sequences. Sabine,onthecontrary,willresistthisinvitation,restrictingherself toaproductionofdiscursiveformsclosertointerviewthanconversation.Atthisparticularpoint,wehaveastructurationconictwhichcanpersistbecauseitdoesnotdirectlyaffecttheinstitutionalpositioningsdeningtheinteractiveframe.However,asMylnecontinuesherattempts,Sabinesutterancesmoveclosertoaconversa-tional involvement. The coordination of peals of laughter, the expression of com-plicityandacceptedtogethernesssketchaconversationalattitudesubordinatedto the position of investigator. It then becomes clear that the question concerningunitsiscomplex:forMylne,wecanidentifyanattempttoinitiateaconversa-tionalmodule,whereasforSabine,thereisanevolutiontowardsaformofconversational communication but the line is never really crossed. In such condi-tions,theconversationalmodulewhichshouldconcernbothco-participantsisvery difcult: the two subjects tend towards it according to different rhythms butdo not reach a conversational level. However, this orientation towards a conver-sational order is obvious in extract 2, all the more so by comparison with Sabineslimitedinterventionsinextract1.Discourseisneverconstitutedof stableandhomogeneousunits,whichwouldappearinorder,oneaftertheother.Indiffer-entinterventions,thesameconversationalmodulecantakeupvariousforms,just as a certain text type such as narration can take very distinct forms depend-ing on the discourse genres in which it is integrated (literary works, narration ofRouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 305 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from ordinary life, fairy tales). Within a unied theoretical approach we assimilate thenotion of interactive frame to that of verbal interaction genres as well as that ofdiscourse genres.Notonlythesameunitwilltakeupaverydifferentformdependingontheframeinwhichitisproduced,butalso,dependingontheactivityof subjectsatthe level of the interactive space. The units used will then be taken at differentlevelsof theirachievement(itisthenpossibletodrawalinktoGlichandQuasthoff s narrativity degrees (1985) and Adams prototypical logic (1992)).Besidethecomplexityderivingfromthecompositionalityof unitsandtheactionof subjects,structurationconictsbetweenvariousparticipantswill constitute a supplementary factor of heterogeneity and instability of units. Thisiswhatwecanseewithdiscussion(extract1)andconversation(extract2).Given the constraints linked to the frame, these modules cannot become stable inthe interview. This is obvious in both cases by Sabines reluctance to go too far intheactivationof suchmodules.However,consideringthatMylnestrugglestosetthemupandthatSabinemustshowsheiscooperative,theorientationtowardsthesemodulesremainsimportant,evenif neitherof themwillbefullyactivated. We will have to posit that distinct degrees of activation are possible fordiscourseunitsinrelationtothecongurationof theinteractiveframeandstructuration conicts occurring between participants.4. ConclusionThe star model, by permitting scrutiny of the various levels of verbal communi-cation,makespossiblethefactof puttingheterogeneousphenomenaintoastructuring perspective. It is true that psychological or sociological factors whichinuence individuals are complex and numerous, but as such they do not belongtoourscopeof investigation. Theinterestof thelinguisticapproachwedefendliesratherintheattempttobringtolightthewayinwhichlevelsasvariedasinstitutional,modular,subjective,discursiveandenunciativepositioningprocessesmustbetakenintoaccounttoproduceananalysisconcernedwithsocial practices as well as micro-linguistic strategies.The attitude of subjects towards language productions evolves in such a waythatthedevelopmentof discoursewillbecharacterizablebydiscoursebreaksand a relative enunciative instability.The interest of the model presented here lies in the attitude, apparently para-doxical,of presentingconceptsanalysingdiscoursefromclear-cutcategorieswhilefocusingoninstability,heterogeneityandthedynamismof discoursestrategies.APPE NDI X1THE MYL E NE / S ABI NE I NTE RVI E W, 15J UNE 1992M=Mylne:patient(andamedicalresearcherattheINSERM,aprofessionalstatusSabine is not aware of during the rst part of the interview)S = Sabine (doctor in charge of the interview)306 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from Excerpt 11 M et puis euh:::: depuis dj:: pas mal dannes je souffre de migraines /2 cest pour a que je suis venue voir euh le Docteur B. / parce que3 (1,59) le dernier trimestre de lanne dernire euh:: (0,98) jtais en4 (+) traitement et pour la thyrode et pour un dbut de mnopause5 puisque jai 46 ans (+)6 S hm hm7 M et je sais pas si ce sont ces mdicaments associs / parce que les8 traitements pour la mnopause cest toujours sous forme dhormones9 et a favorise toujours (+) les migraines10 S mm=11 M euh jai eu des migraines atroces cest--dire que je me retrouvais12 par terre euh::: oblige de faire venir le SAMU / euh::: enn videm-13 ment un stade trs trs (1,07) / donc je suis venue consulter M. B.14 euh (1,15) on a fait / on a parl pas mal pour essayer de voir si y15 avait pas de problmes / Jai fait un examen des yeux (++)16 S hm oui pour chercher une cause17 M pour savoir euh:: sil y avait quelque chose / donc cest normal /18 comme aussi javais eu des problmes de diabte et que ma mre19 est diabtique donc on pourrait / on aurait pu croire a / euh jai20 javais dj fait un scanner (+) euh de la tte donc je savais quy avait21 rien dimportant / ts hm on a fait des radios pour voir un peu euh au22 point de vue euh rhumatisme23 S si on avait (xxxxxx)24 M bon (+) l il y a un petit quelque chose / il y a un pincement / enn on25 a trouv des des petites choses qui peuvent euh (1,80) tre une26 petite part de (+) de ces douleurs27 S hm hm28 M Notamment un effet de torticolis que jai / quelque chose qui ressem-29 blerait a de gne pour euh tous les mouvements (+) mais::::30 (soupir) (1,59) je crois aussi que le / la migraine cest:::: (bas)31 psychosomatique (rire) et que::::::://32 S (rapide) pourquoi psychosomatique cest pas parce quon ne33 connat pas la cause (rire) que forcment il faut dire quy en a pas(...)Excerpt 234 M ils ont trouv quelque chose l qui se rtrcit dont je sais pas le35 nom (clat de rire)36 S oui dans le bras (xxx)37 M oui=38 S cause des ctes?39 M d:::l::::tracho-brachial40 S tracho-brachial?41 M cest a oui (rires) / cest des / ce sont des termes que joublie42 gnralement hein43 S thoraco-brachial: hein44 M thoraco-brachial45 S oui parce que la trache elle est loin quand mme hein / Cest lRouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 307 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from 46 quand vous levez les bras vous avez des (++)47 M oui::: jai / je48 S des sensations mm49 M oui si je porte un poids qui est / qui moblige faire a je peux plus50 euh::51 S hm hm52 M jai limpression que tout le bras53 S oui ce sont les artres qui sont un peu coinces par la pre/54 M voil55 S mire cte56 Mpuis aussi peut-tre par le (+) volume (rire) important57 S vous pensez que58 M euh donc euh euh pour continuer ce qui a t fait donc (++) euh::59 (1,63) t / je suis alle consulter ch:::::::::ez le Professeur V60 S oui61 M aussi pour euh voir //62 S pour le diabte toujours?63 M les problmes de diabte de poids de thyrode enn (+) pour faire64 un group euh un tir group(...)65 M oui javais dj fait un:: traitement mais ctait peut-tre pas assez66 quilibr (+) l jai refait les examens et::: (+) et puis euh::: je prends67 je reprends des hormones du 13me au 25me jour des rgles (+)68 pour essayer aussi de de compenser un peu le / les problmes hor-69 monaux / Pour le diabte cest / a a lair / tout fait quilibr /70 bon l jai commenc un peu perdre du poids mais enn cest71 cest pas folichon cest dire cest trois kilos depuis euh / bon enn72 a fait pas longtemps non plus (1,51)73 S mm74 M et:::: l je dois me faire oprer des dents et la migraine elle est75 revenue (bas) videmment (rire)76 S (rire)77 M donc cest pour a que je dis que cest trs //78 S vous pensez que le79 M psychosomatique80 S comment vous lprouvez cette douleur vous pouvez me la dcrire81 un petit peu (++) mme la caractriser (+) essayer dimaginer (++)(...)82 S vous pensez vous quil y a un problme euh83 M oh oui84 S psychosomatique important / vous pensez que a correspond a85 corresponde des problmes dans votre vie l o (...)(...)Excerpt 386 S cest vrai quand on est soumis des stress ou des responsabilits on ++87 M oui oui oui mais bon je crois pas parce que quand mme la profession cest une88 habitude / cest pas ds maintenant que je suis ++ / a fait 25 ans que je travaille89 + je veux dire bon90 S vous travaillez dans quelle +308 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from 91 M je travaille lINSERM la recherche mdicale92 S oui93 M sur les rcepteurs / cest fond/ cest de la recherche fondamentale94 S mais a mintresse / jai + / a fait euh / jai une matrise dhistologie gnrale95 et jai fait un peu de96 M euh sur le97 S de biochimie / cest pas du tout dans notre entretien98 M euh sur le euh euh rcepteur euh lantigne / cest--dire euh les fonctions99 euh alpha bta et gamma delta euh et les relations avec euh les complexes Cb3,100 Cb4, Cb8 / enn ce genre de problme / enn si vous voulez101 S vous tes biologiste au dpart102 M je suis chim / aide-chimiste au dpart / mais si vous voulez cest plutt euh /103 je travaille plutt dans le problme de la structure + de lanalyse germinale104 euh de ces gnes qui conduisent 105 S XX106 M donc cest trs biologie molculaire et structure euh au point de vue107 chromosomes euh cartographie des gnes euh / plutt de ce ct de ltude108 S donc dun point de vue plus biochimique que mdical quand mme109 M euh ni chimique ne mdical + trs fondamental110 S trs fondamental111 M simplement euh pour pouvoir construire des gnes les mettre dans des112 cellules eucaryotes et voir euh lexpression si on apporte des mutations113 ce genre de choses114 S daccord non a mintresse beaucoup parce que en mme temps que mes115 tudes de mdecine jai fait plusieurs CES dhistologie embryologie parasitologieAPPE NDI X 2TRANS CRI PTI ON CONVE NTI ONS: the immediately prior syllable is prolonged. The number of colons isproportional to the prolongation/ self-interruption// interruption or overlapping by an interactant+ pause: the number of + increases with the duration of the pause(1,51) exact duration of the pause(xx) what has been uttered is uncertain= no time elapses between utterances(laughs) description of aspects of paraverbal or nonverbal behaviourunderscored uttered simultaneouslyCAPITAL LETTERS stressed syllablesAPPE NDI X 3TRANS L ATI ONS OF F RE NCH TE RMSbalancement nonciatif alternating voices/enunciative swayingconnecteurs connective discourse particlesdiscursive discursiveenonciatif enunciativeespace interactif interactive spacemarqueurs structurels pattern markersplace (ralisee) positionplace institutionnelle institutional positioningRouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 309 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from place modulaire modular positioningpositionnement positioningpositions sociales social positionsrapport de place (interrelational) positioning processrelation contracte contracted relationrelation interlocutive interlocutive relationsrelation interpersonnelle et sociale interpersonal and social relationsrles rolessubjective subjectiveACKNOWL E DGE ME NTSThisresearchwasfundedbytheMinistreNationaldelaRechercheetde Technologie,ProgrammeCOG13B,ACICognitique.Corporaarethepropertyof theDpartementdeBiomathmatiques,StatistiquesetInformatique,FacultdeMdecine,Marseille:TheSajama Corpus, and of the LAA team: The Marseilles Corpus.RE F E RE NCE SAdam, J.-M. (1992) Les Textes: Types et prototypes. Paris: Nathan.Adam, J.-M. (1997) Le Style dans la langue. Paris: Delachaux et Niestl.Adam, J.-M. (1999) Linguistique textuelle. Des genres de discours aux textes. Paris: Nathan.Aijmer, K. (1996) Conversational Routines in English. Harlow: Longman.Amossy, R. (ed.) (1999) Images de soi dans le discours: La construction de lethos. Lausannne:Delachaux et Niestl.Austin, J. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bakhtine, M. (1984[19523]) Esthtique de la cration verbale. Paris: Gallimard, Coll N.R.F.Bell, A. and Garrett, P. (eds) (1998) Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Berthoud,A.C.(1996)Parolespropos:Approchenonciativeetinteractivedutopic.Gap:Ophrys.Bertrand,R.etal.(2000)Lobservationetlanalysedesaffectsdanslinteraction,in C.Plantin,M.DouryandV.Traverso(eds)Lesmotionsdanslesinteractions,pp.16982. Lyon: ARCI.Blanchet,A.,Noel-Jorand,M.C.andBonaldi,V.(1997)DiscursiveStrategiesof Subjectswith High Altitude Hypoxia: Extreme Environment, Stress Medicine 13: 1518.Brmond, C. (2003) La porte co-nonciative de bon: Son rle dans la structuration delobjet discursif , Revue de Smantique et de Pragmatique 13: 923.Bronckart,J.-P.(1996)Activitlangagire,textesetdiscours.Lausanne:DelachauxetNiestl.Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Clayman,S.E.(1992)FootingintheAchievementof Neutrality:TheCaseof News-InterviewsDiscourse,inP.DrewandJ.Heritage(eds)TalkatWork:InteractioninInstitutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Drew,P.andHeritage,J.(eds)(1992)TalkatWork:InteractioninInstitutionalSettings.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Drew,P.andWooton,A.(eds)(1988)ErvingGoffman:ExploringtheInteractionOrder.Cambridge: Polity Press.Ducrot, O. (1984) Le dire et le dit. Paris: Les ditions de Minuit.Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman.Fairclough, N. (1995) Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.310 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from Fairclough, N. (2000) New Labour, New Language. London: Routledge.Fernandez-Vest, J. (1994) Les Particules nonciatives. Paris: PUF Linguistique Nouvelle.Foucault,M.(1984)TheOrderof Discourse,inM.Shapiro(ed.)LanguageandPolitics, pp. 10338. Oxford: Blackwell.Ghiglione,R.(ed.)(1989)Jevousaicomprisoulanalysedesdiscourspolitiques.Paris:Armand Colin.Ghiglione,R.andCharaudeau,P.(eds)(1999)Parolesenimages,imagesdeparoles,troistalk-shows europens. Paris: Didier Erudition.Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.Goffman, E. (1963) Behavior in Public Places. New York: Free Press.Goffman, E. (1967) On Face Work, in Interaction Rituals, p. S46. New York: Anchor Books.Goffman, E. (1971) Relations in Public. New York: Basic Books.Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row.Goffman, E. (1981) Footing, in Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Glich, E. and Quasthoff, U.M. (1985) Narrative Analysis, in T.A. Van Dijk (ed.) Handbookof Discourse Analysis 2: Dimensions of Discourse. New York: Academic Press.Gumperz, J. (1982) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Halliday, M. (1973) Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Jeanneret,T.(1999)LaCononciationenfranais:Approchesdiscursive,conversationnelleetsyntaxique. Berne: Peter Lang, Sciences pour la Communication.Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1990, 1992, 1994) Les Interactions verbales, vols 1, 2 and 3. Paris:Armand Colin.Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1996) La Conversation. Paris: Seuil.Lon, J. (1999) Les Entretiens publics en France: Analyse conversationnelle et prosodique. Paris:CNRS ditions.Linell,P.(1998)ApproachingDialogue:Talk,InteractionandContextsinDialogicalPerspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Livingstone,S.andLunt,P.(1994)TalkonTelevision,AudienceParticipationandPublicDebate. London: Routledge.Maury-Rouan,C.(1998)Leparalllismeco-nonciatif:Construireplusieurslallocu-taire absent: lnonciateur en creux dans le dialogue, Les Registres de la Conversation,Revue de Smantique et Pragmatique 3: 14558.Maury-Rouan,C.(2001a)LHypocorrection:Entresociolinguistiqueetanalyselinguis-tique des interactions, in Lengua, Discurso, Texto, pp. 162738. Madrid: Visor Libros.Maury-Rouan, C. (2001b) Le ou des marques discursives est-il un inconvnient? Vers lanotiondeleurrediscursif ,onlinejournal,MargesLinguistiques 2:16376(http://www.Marges-linguistiques.com).Maury-Rouan, C. (2003) Discourse Particles as Interactional Lures, GURT 2002 (IVthGeorgetownRoundtableonLanguageandLinguistics),GeorgetownUniversity,Washington, DC, 1517 February.Mead, G.H. (1934) Mind, Self and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Moeschler,J.(1999)Thoriepragmatiqueetpragmatiqueconversationnelle.Paris:ArmandColin.Mosegaard-Hansen,M.B.(1998)TheFunctionof DiscourseParticles:AStudywithSpecialReference to Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: Benjamin.Nol-Jorand,M.-C.,Reinert,M.,Bonnon,M.andTherme,P.(1995)DiscourseAnalysisand Psychological Adaptation to High Altitude Hypoxia, Stress Med 11: 2739.Nlke, H. (1994) Linguistique modulaire: De la forme au sens. Paris: Bibliothque de linfor-mation grammaticale, ditions Peeters.Rouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 311 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from Nlke,H.andAdam,J.-M.(eds)(1999)Approchesmodulaires:Delalangueaudiscours.Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestl.Priego-Valverde,B.(1998)Lhumour(noir)danslesconversations:Jeuxetenjeux,LesRegistres de la Conversation, Revue de Smantique et Pragmatique 3: 12344.Priego-Valverde, B. (2001) Cest du lard ou du cochon? Lorsque lhumeur opacie la con-versationfamilire,onlinejournal,MargesLinguistiques 2:195208(http://www.Marges-linguistiques.com).Priego-Valverde, B. and Maury-Rouan, C. (2003) La mise en mots de la douleur, in J.M.CollettaandA.Tcherkassof (eds)Perspectivesactuellessurlesmotions:Cognition, langage et dveloppement. Brussels: Hayen, Mardaga.Richalet, J.P., Souberbielle, J.C., Antezana, A.M., et al. (1994) Control of Erythropoiesis inHumansduringProlongedExposuretoAltitudeof 6,542m,AmericanJournalofPhysiology 266: R556R764.Roulet, E. et al. (1985) LArticulation du discours en franais contemporain. Berne: Peter Lang.Roulet,E.etal.(1992)Actesdelangageetstructuredelaconversation,CahiersdeLinguistique Franaise 13: 76107.Roulet, E., Filliettaz, L. and Grobet, A. (2001) Un modle et un instrument danalyse de lor-ganisation du discours. Berne: Peter Lang.Rouveyrol, L. (1998) Vers une stylistique de linteraction tlvise?, Bulletin de la Socitde Stylistique Anglaise 19: 944.Rouveyrol,L.(1999)Pourunestylistiquedutaxmedansledbatpolitiquetlvis:Analyse de quelques rseaux interactionnels signiants, Asp 23/26: 99120.Scannell, P. (ed.) (1991) Broadcast Talk. London: Sage.Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Schiffrin, D. (1994) Approaches to Discourse. London: Routledge.Searle, J. (1969) Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Tannen,D.(1989)TalkingVoices:Repetition,Dialogue,andImageryinConversationalDiscourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Trognon,A.andBrassac,D.(1992)LEnchanementconversationnel,CahiersdeLinguistique Franaise 13: 76107.van Dijk, T. (1998) News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Verschueren, J. (1999) Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.Vion, R. (1992) La Communication verbale: Analyse des interactions. Paris: Hachette.Vion,R.(1995)LaGestionpluridimensionnelledudialogue,inCahiersdeLinguistiqueFranaise 17: 179203.Vion, R. (1998a) La Mise en scne nonciative du discours, in B. Caron (ed.) Proceedingsof the 16th International Congress of Linguists (CD-ROM). Oxford: Elsevier Sciences.Vion,R.(ed.)(1998b)LesSujetsetleursdiscours:Enonciationetinteraction.Aix-en-Provence: Publications de lUniversit de Provence.Vion,R.(1998c)Delinstabilitdespositionnementsnonciatifsdanslediscours,in J.Verschueren(ed.)Pragmaticsin1998:SelectedPapersfromthe6thInternationalConference, vol. 2, pp. 57789. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Vion,R.(1999)Pouruneapprocherelationnelledesinteractionsverbalesetdesdis-cours, Langage et Socit 87: 95114.Vion,R.(2000)LesActivitsderecadragedansledroulementdiscursif ,inE.Nemeth(ed.) Pragmatics in 2000: Selected Papers from the 7th International Prgamatics Conference,vol. 2, pp. 58397. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Vion,R.(2001a)Modalits,modalisationsetactivitslangagires,onlinejournal,Marges Linguistiques 2: 20931 (http://www.Marges-linguistiques.com).312 Discourse Studies 7(3) by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from Vion,R.(2001b)Effacementnonciatif,etstrategiesdiscursives,inA.JolyandM.deMattia (eds) De la syntaxe la narratologie nonciative (Textes recueillis en homage RenRivara), pp. 3314. Paris: Ophrys.Vion,R.(2003)Modalisationsetmodalitsdanslediscours,XVIImecongrsinterna-tional des linguistes, Prague, juillet 2003, in Actes (CD-ROM). Oxford: Elsevier.Vion, R., Burle, E. and Rouveyrol, L. (2002) De linteraction au texte littraire, transgres-siondunmodledugenre,inE.RouletLesAnalysesdediscoursaud dundialogueromanesque, pp. 46981. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Vion, R., Rouveyrol, L., Maury-Rouan, C., et al. (2001) Outils linguistiques pour lanalysedudiscoursetdesmotions,RevueFranaisedePsychiatrieetdePsychologieMdicaleV(49): 4956.L AURE NT ROUVE YROL isaLecturerinEnglishandLinguisticsattheUniversityof Nice(Sophia Antipolis). His research includes domains such as discourse analysis, verbal inter-actions,genreanalysisand,moreparticularly,mediadiscourseeventssuchasBritishpolitical panel debates, on which he has published widely. His main current interest is toanalyseandcomparespeakersco-constructedpositioningstrategiesastheyemergebyandthroughdiscoursewithinamediatizedsituationof communication.ADDRE S S :AFL(LAA) Laboratoire Parole et Langage, UMR 6057, CNRS, Universit de Provence, France.[email: LauRouveyrol@aol.com]CL AI RE MAURY- ROUAN is Senior Lecturer at the University of Aix-en Provence where sheteacheslinguistics.Hermainresearchdomainsincludetherelationshipbetweenverbaland non-verbal aspects in discourse and more particularly the analysis of micro-enuncia-tivephenomenasuchashypocorrectionanddiscourselures,inrelationtointeractiondynamics and non-verbal components of exchanges. She is the author of around 50 jour-nal articles, several book chapters and lectures.ADDRE S S : AFL (LAA) Laboratoire ParoleetLangage,UMR6057,CNRS,UniversitdeProvence,France.[email:claire.maury-rouan@lpl.univ-aix.fr]ROBE RT VI ON isProfessorof GeneralLinguisticsattheUniversityof Aix-en-Provence(Aix-Marseille),intheLanguageSciencesDepartment.Hisresearchmainlyfocusesonverbalinteraction,discourseanalysis,pragmatics,enunciationtheoryandtheverbaliza-tionof sensoryimpressions.Thegeneralperspectiveadoptedinhisresearchconsistsofanalysingdiscoursedynamics,layingemphasisonlanguageactivitiesco-constructedbyspeakers as well as on discourse heterogeneity. He has published La Communication verbale(Paris: Hachette, 1992) and has co-edited several books, one of which is Les sujets et leursdiscours (Aix-en-Provence:Universityof ProvencePress,1998).ADDRE S S :AFL(LAA)Laboratoire Parole et Langage, UMR 6057, CNRS, Universit de Provence, France. [email:robert.vion@lpl.univ-aix.fr]MARI E - CHRI S TI NE NO L - J ORAND isaresearcherattheBiomathematicsandStatisticsDepartmentof theTimoneMedicalSchoolinMarseilles.Herresearchtopicsinclude discourseanalysiswhichsheusesaspartof alargerresearchonhumanadaptationtohighaltitudechronichypoxia,andasamethodof investigatingschizophrenicpatientsspeech.ADDRE S S :DpartementdeBiomathmatiques,StatistiquesetInformatique,FacultdeMdecine,LaTimone,Marseille,France.[email:maria-christine.noel-jorand@medecine.univ-mrs.fr]Rouveyrol et al.: A linguistic toolbox for discourse analysis 313 by Sara Lima on September 25, 2010 dis.sagepub.com Downloaded from