Utterance Act Theories and Linguistic Polyphony With a

  • Slides: 50
Download presentation
Utterance Act Theories and Linguistic Polyphony With a Special Focus on the Scandinavian Approach:

Utterance Act Theories and Linguistic Polyphony With a Special Focus on the Scandinavian Approach: Sca. Po. Line AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 1 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Linguistic Polyphony 1. Utterance Act Linguistics 2. Linguistic Polyphony 3. Sca. Po. Line 4.

Linguistic Polyphony 1. Utterance Act Linguistics 2. Linguistic Polyphony 3. Sca. Po. Line 4. Linguistic (polyphonic) analyses § Locutionary modalities § Connectors § ”Announcers” 5. Conclusions and perspectives AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 2 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Utterance Act Linguistics (French : la linguistique énonciative) Basic idea: v The linguistic form

Utterance Act Linguistics (French : la linguistique énonciative) Basic idea: v The linguistic form codes both elements of content and of the Utterance Act (l’énonciation) v The linguist examines which instructions the linguistic form yields for the interpretation of the text (which bindings and restrictions it provides). Utterance Act Linguistics deals with the (linguistic) “traces” that the utterance act leaves in the (written or oral) text. 3 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Utterance Act Linguistics As a consequence: Ø Utterance Act Linguistics contributes to an understanding

Utterance Act Linguistics As a consequence: Ø Utterance Act Linguistics contributes to an understanding of details. Ø Hence the linguistic analysis can contribute directly and actively to the text interpretation (reading). 4 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Short history of Utterance Act Linguistics The origins: Ferdinand de Saussure 1. phase: Charles

Short history of Utterance Act Linguistics The origins: Ferdinand de Saussure 1. phase: Charles Bally (1932) who reintroduces the mediaeval pair of notions MODUS-DICTUM: Example: (I think. MODUS) (he will come. DICTUM. ) 2. phase: From Émile Benveniste (1966) who shows that the code gives indications about the utterance act itself. 5 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Definitions Utterance act = The very act of producing a linguistic form (Énonciation) Utterance

Definitions Utterance act = The very act of producing a linguistic form (Énonciation) Utterance (signal) = The linguistic form which is the result of the utterance act (Énoncé) The utterance is a representation (an image) of the utterance act and contains traces of this act. 6 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Polyphony AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 7 Henning NØLKE Bergen,

Polyphony AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 7 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Polyphonic Music Homophony A directing voice Hierarchically organised Polyphony Two or more independent voices

Polyphonic Music Homophony A directing voice Hierarchically organised Polyphony Two or more independent voices join together in the same collective musical piece No hierarchy AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 8 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Literary Polyphony Particular structures or relations of a literary oeuvre Bakhtin distinguished polyphony from

Literary Polyphony Particular structures or relations of a literary oeuvre Bakhtin distinguished polyphony from dialogism: Polyphony: the interaction of two or more voices which are not under the control of a dominant voice. Polyphony designates a particular type of novel. Dialogism: the ‘theatre of confrontations’, where there is a dominant voice (or one presented as such). This voice is normally that of the speaker. In principle, dialogism governs all language. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 9 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Discourse Polyphony Ø The presence of two or more (”real”) voices in the interpretation

Discourse Polyphony Ø The presence of two or more (”real”) voices in the interpretation of the discourse Ø Two or more real or represented speakers Ø Discourse circulation (social sciences) AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 10 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Linguistic Polyphony is an aspect of utterance meaning likely to be encoded in the

Linguistic Polyphony is an aspect of utterance meaning likely to be encoded in the linguistic form (to leave traces at the langue level). There is always a dominant voice (a hierarchy of voices). AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 11 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

History of linguistic polyphony Ducrot (from 1980) § § No genuine theoretical development Many

History of linguistic polyphony Ducrot (from 1980) § § No genuine theoretical development Many linguistic analyses, notably of connectors Nølke: attempt of formalisation (from 1985) Nølke, Fløttum, Norén: Sca. Po. Line (from 2000) Ducrot/Carel: The Argumentative Theory of polyphony Anscombre: Theory of Stereotypes Kronning: The Modal Theory of Polyphony (variant of Sca. Po. Line) Different ”descriptive” versions - diverse analyses of texts AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 12 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Oswald Ducrot Has introduced the notion of polyphony in linguistics (1980). The originality of

Oswald Ducrot Has introduced the notion of polyphony in linguistics (1980). The originality of his approach : § polyphony arises at the utterance level § polyphony is coded in linguistic form (langue) Essentials : The splitting of the concept of speaker introduced at the level of the utterance AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 13 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Sca. Po. Line is in a constant elaboration Ambition: to create a formalised thery

Sca. Po. Line is in a constant elaboration Ambition: to create a formalised thery which can anticipate and specify the linguistic coding of polyphony Hope: make Sca. Po. Line to a heuristic tool permitting operative analyses AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 14 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

The notion of coding in linguistics The (utterance) meaning depends on • both the

The notion of coding in linguistics The (utterance) meaning depends on • both the coding (the instructions coded in the linguistic form) • And the context at large (cotexte, situation, knowledge, …) The challenge: To specify the dependance of linguistic coding The notion of ideal discourse Heuristic tool: the continuation test AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 15 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Sca. Po. Line (1) (1') This wall is not white. POV 1 : ‘this

Sca. Po. Line (1) (1') This wall is not white. POV 1 : ‘this wall is white' POV 2 : POV 1 is false (2) a. — Yes, I can see that. b. (. . . ), which my neighbour regrets. (3) a. — Why should it be (so) ? b. (. . . ), as my neighbour thinks it is. c. (. . . ). On the contrary, the entire wall is black (4) This wall is white. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 16 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Analytical levels in Sca. Po. Line Polyphonic Structure The set of instructions coded in

Analytical levels in Sca. Po. Line Polyphonic Structure The set of instructions coded in the linguistic form. Polyphonic Configuration The polyphonic interpretation of the utterance and thus an aspect of utterance meaning. Goal: Link form to meaning – specify the instructions that the linguistic form yields for the interprétation of the text. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 17 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

The linguistic configuration The speaker as constructor (the LOC) assumes responsibility for the utterance

The linguistic configuration The speaker as constructor (the LOC) assumes responsibility for the utterance act (as shown in the utterance itself). The LOC constructs the elements that compose the polyphonic configuration. The points of view (POVs) are semantic entities carrying a source which is said to hold the POVs. The sources are variables ranging over the discourse entities. (They correspond to the utterers (énonciateurs) as described by Anscombre and Ducrot. ) The discourse entities (DE) are semantic entities which can instantiate the sources, i. e. can be held responsible for the POVs. The utterance links (LINKs) connect the DEs to the POVs. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 18 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Discourse Entities (DE) DEs are defined by their ability to instantiate the sources of

Discourse Entities (DE) DEs are defined by their ability to instantiate the sources of the POVs. The LOC constructs them as representations of the various ‘persons’ who inhabit the discourse. Three persons need to be distinguished. The first and second persons form inherent elements of the discourse. The third persons may be introduced explicitly by various linguistic expressions, particularly by nominal groups, pronouns or proper names. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 19 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Discourse Entities (DE) The LOC constructs representations of the three persons in his own

Discourse Entities (DE) The LOC constructs representations of the three persons in his own manner. He constructs them through the POVs that he associates with them. (5) Tell me what I’ve eaten this morning, since you know everything. LOC is in absolute control of the construction of representations of his interlocutors as well as all the other persons which he brings into his discourse, himself included. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 20 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

First person As a general rule, the speaker constructs representations of himself as a

First person As a general rule, the speaker constructs representations of himself as a DE in every one of his utterances. (1) This wall is not white. POV 1: ‘this wall is white’ (who is source? ) POV 2: POV 1 is false (the speaker is source) The gap in the polyphonic structure activates a search for a source at the interpretation stage. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 21 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

First person The LOC is capable of constructing different types of representations of himself.

First person The LOC is capable of constructing different types of representations of himself. (6) Paul has stopped smoking. POV 1: ‘Paul used to smoke’ (presupposition, for which ONE takes responsibility) POV 2: ‘Paul no longer smokes’ (asserted, the speaker taking responsibility) The speaker is implied in both POVs, but the representations of him (the first person DEs) are different. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 22 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

First person LOC is a representation of the speaker in his activity as the

First person LOC is a representation of the speaker in his activity as the person responsible for the very utterance act. A text speaker, S, who is the source of a POV which the speaker held before his utterance act and which he still holds. S is a representation of a speaker with all the features of a complete person and with an existence outside a given utterance. An utterance speaker, st, who is the source of a POV which the speaker holds at the very moment when he constructs the act of utterance, Ut, but which he does not necessarily hold either before or after Ut. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 23 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Points Of View (POVs) The general form of a POV: (7) POV: [ X

Points Of View (POVs) The general form of a POV: (7) POV: [ X ] ( JUDGE ( p ) ) X is the source. The source holds the POV. The source is the person who is responsible for the judgement about the content. JUDGE denotes the judgement of the content status according to the source of the POV. Default value: TRUE. p is the content of the POV. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 24 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Basic POVs (1) Simple POVs (8) The weather is nice. POV: [ X ]

Basic POVs (1) Simple POVs (8) The weather is nice. POV: [ X ] ( TRUE ( p ) ) p is the proposition Nice(Weather) AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 25 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Basic POVs (2) Complex POVs § hierarchical POVs (1) This wall is not white.

Basic POVs (2) Complex POVs § hierarchical POVs (1) This wall is not white. POV 1: [ X ] ( TRUE ( ‘the wall is white’ ) ) POV 2: [ s 0 ] ( FALSE ( POV 1 ) ) § relational POVs (9) The weather is nice, so Peter has gone out for a walk. POV 1: [ s 0 (? ? ) ] ( TRUE ( p ) ), where p = ‘The weather is nice’ POV 2: [ s 0 ] ( TRUE ( q ) ), where q = ‘Peter has gone out for a walk’ POV 3: [ s 0 ] ( GEN ( POV 1 POV 2 ) ) AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 26 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Utterance act links (LINKs) LINKs build up connections between DEs and POVs. Default RULE:

Utterance act links (LINKs) LINKs build up connections between DEs and POVs. Default RULE: The utterance speaker, s 0, is always linked to all the other POVs. (This is tantamount to saying that the speaker always expresses an attitude to all the POVs that the LOC chooses to construct in his utterance. ) AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 27 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Types of LINKs Responsibility LINK Non-responsibility LINK • Non-rejection LINK • Rejection LINK AARHUS

Types of LINKs Responsibility LINK Non-responsibility LINK • Non-rejection LINK • Rejection LINK AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 28 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Responsibility LINKs By definition, the source of a POVi assumes the responsibility for this

Responsibility LINKs By definition, the source of a POVi assumes the responsibility for this POV and is therefore bound to it with the LINK of responsibility. X is bound to POVi with a responsibility LINK iff: • X considers the propositional content of POVi (if there is such content) to be true • X has had the idea of bringing POVi into the discourse • X answers for all the opinions and value systems that emanate from POVi – including its argumentativity AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 29 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Locutionary modalities Definition Locutionary modalities are linguistic forms and expressions that express a speaker’s

Locutionary modalities Definition Locutionary modalities are linguistic forms and expressions that express a speaker’s attitude (in a broad sense) towards what he is uttering. (often adverbials) AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 30 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Locutionary modalities The general structure of a modalised utterance is M(p) M denotes the

Locutionary modalities The general structure of a modalised utterance is M(p) M denotes the modality p the modalised content AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 31 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Locutionary modalities The general polyphonic analysis of this structure is: (10) M (p) POV

Locutionary modalities The general polyphonic analysis of this structure is: (10) M (p) POV 1: [ X ] ( TRUE [ p ] ) POV 2: [ s 0 ] ( M [ POV 1 ] ) [ X ] indicates that the polyphonic structure gives no instruction as to the instantiation of the source of POV 1. The utterance speaker, s 0, is the source of the modality by default. For a specific modality, the components can be better identified, and M can be subjected to a detailed analysis. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 32 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Peut-être (11) Pierre viendra peut-être demain. ‘Perhaps Pierre will come tomorrow’ (11’) Peut-être (p)

Peut-être (11) Pierre viendra peut-être demain. ‘Perhaps Pierre will come tomorrow’ (11’) Peut-être (p) POV 1: [ X ] ( TRUE [ p ] ) POV 2: [ s 0 ] ( PEUT-ÊTRE [ POV 1 ] ) X = an individual textual DE, S by default. PEUT-ÊTRE signifies: • s 0 has no evidence either for p or for not-p; • s 0 is aware of the fact that X apparently has evidence for p; • s 0 accepts the (argumentative) discursive orientation that S attaches to p. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 33 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Peut-être (continuation test) (11) Pierre viendra peut-être demain. ‘Perhaps Pierre will come tomorrow’ (12)

Peut-être (continuation test) (11) Pierre viendra peut-être demain. ‘Perhaps Pierre will come tomorrow’ (12) a. … il vaut donc mieux mettre une assiette de plus. ‘… so we’d better lay another place’ b. … nous pouvons donc enlever son assiette. ‘…. so we can take away his plate’ • (s 0 is aware of the fact that X apparently has evidence for p; • s 0 accepts the (argumentative) discursive orientation that S attaches to p. ) AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 34 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Connectors Definition Connectors are linguistic forms and expressions that combine semantic units, called connector

Connectors Definition Connectors are linguistic forms and expressions that combine semantic units, called connector arguments, to create new complex meanings from their more basic meanings by combining and specifying these basic meanings. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 35 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Connectors: donc (15) Il fait beau, donc Pierre se promène. ‘The weather is fine,

Connectors: donc (15) Il fait beau, donc Pierre se promène. ‘The weather is fine, so Pierre is out for a walk’ (Reasoning by deduction) (16) Pierre se promène, donc il fait beau. ‘Pierre is out for a walk, so the weather is (/must be) fine’ (Reasoning by abduction) AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 36 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Connectors: donc (17) a donc b POV 1: [ X ] ( TRUE [

Connectors: donc (17) a donc b POV 1: [ X ] ( TRUE [ the proposition, p or q, conveyed by a ] ) POV 2: [ s 0 ] ( TRUE [ the proposition, p or q, conveyed by b ] ) POV 3: [ s 0 ] ( GEN [ if p then q ] ) • S is responsible for POV 1 by default • POV 1 and POV 2 are constructed by veridiction; POV 3 by monstration • GEN signifies ‘it is generally true that’ AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 37 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Inference logic Many connectors involve reasoning and introduce POVs of the form [ X

Inference logic Many connectors involve reasoning and introduce POVs of the form [ X ] ( GEN [ if p then q ] ) constructed by monstration. These POVs correspond to rules in Peirce’s (1932) sense, and they function in discourse as inference rules. The set of inference rules applied in a particular discourse constitutes an inference logic associated with a discourse entity. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 38 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Inference logic The DE associated with the inference logic is called the arguer. The

Inference logic The DE associated with the inference logic is called the arguer. The utterance speaker is the arguer by default. However, it could be any other DE constructed by the LOC, e. g. in represented discourse, where it often is difficult to see who is the arguer. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 39 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Connectors: puisque (18) Dis-moi ce que j’ai mangé ce matin, puisque tu sais tout.

Connectors: puisque (18) Dis-moi ce que j’ai mangé ce matin, puisque tu sais tout. ‘Tell me what I have eaten this morning, since you know everything’ AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 40 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Connectors: puisque (19) Structure: a(q) puisque b(p) POV 1: [ A ] ( TRUE

Connectors: puisque (19) Structure: a(q) puisque b(p) POV 1: [ A ] ( TRUE [ p ] ) POV 2: [ s 0 ] ( JUSTIFIED [ q ]utterance act ) POV 3: [ s 0 ] ( GEN [ if p then q ] ) • POV 1 and POV 2 are constructed by veridiction; POV 3 by monstration AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 41 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Connectors: mais (20) Il fait beau (p), mais je n’ai pas encore terminé mon

Connectors: mais (20) Il fait beau (p), mais je n’ai pas encore terminé mon roman (q). ‘The weather is fine, but I haven’t finished reading my novel’ • • • p r q non r p MAIS q non r ‘ ’ signifies ‘is an argument for’ and r is a conclusion one must draw from the context and/or the situation AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 42 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Connectors: mais (21) Structure: p MAIS q POV 1: [ X ] ( TRUE

Connectors: mais (21) Structure: p MAIS q POV 1: [ X ] ( TRUE [ p ] ) POV 2: [ ONE+S ] ( GEN [ if p then r ] ) POV 3: [ s 0 ] ( TRUE [ q ] ) POV 4: [ s 0 ] ( GEN [ if q then non-r ] ) • s 0 is bound by an ACCEPTANCE LINK to POV 1 and POV 2 • POV 1 and POV 3 are constructed by veridiction; POV 2 and POV 4 by monstration. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 43 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

”Announcers” Definition Announcers are linguistic forms and expressions whose text or discourse function is

”Announcers” Definition Announcers are linguistic forms and expressions whose text or discourse function is to announce the coming of a text structure applying a certain discourse strategy. The announcers are closely related to the connectors, and the same words or phrases can often have either one or the other function, depending on the context. Certes (‘certainly’) and peut-être (‘perhaps’) are examples. AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 44 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

”Announcers” (22) Peut-être que / certes nous prenons des risques, …? ‘Perhaps / certainly

”Announcers” (22) Peut-être que / certes nous prenons des risques, …? ‘Perhaps / certainly we are taking some risks’ (22’) …, mais ils sont calculés. (…, but they are calculated risks. ) AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 45 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Announcers (23) Certes tu es resté chez toi toute la nuit, mais je t’ai

Announcers (23) Certes tu es resté chez toi toute la nuit, mais je t’ai vu au café à minuit. ‘Certainly you were at home all night, but I saw you in the café at midnight’ (24) ? Peut-être que tu es resté chez toi toute la nuit, mais je t’ai vu au café à minuit. ‘Perhaps you were at home all night, but I saw you in the café at midnight’ (the two adverbs introduce different expectations to the continuation) AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 46 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Polyphonic analysis of certes (25) Structure: Certes (p) POV 1: [ X ] (

Polyphonic analysis of certes (25) Structure: Certes (p) POV 1: [ X ] ( TRUE [ p ] ) POV 2: [ s 0 ] ( CERTES [ p ] ) X ≠ s 0 : otherwise no encoded default value LOC constructs POV 2 by monstration CERTES signifies • s 0 knows (as a very strong default value) that X has (apparently) evidence for p • s 0 estimates that X is right (23) Certes tu es resté chez toi toute la nuit, mais je t’ai vu au café à minuit. ‘Certainly you were at home all night, but I saw you in the café at midnight’ AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 47 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Polyphonic analysis of peut-être (11’) Structure: Peut-être (p) POV 1: [ X ] (

Polyphonic analysis of peut-être (11’) Structure: Peut-être (p) POV 1: [ X ] ( TRUE [ p ] ) POV 2: [ s 0 ] ( PEUT-ÊTRE [ POV 1 ] ) X = an individual textual DE, S by default. PEUT-ÊTRE signifies: • s 0 has no evidence either for p or for not-p; • s 0 is aware of the fact that S apparently has evidence for p; • s 0 accepts the (argumentative) discursive orientation that S attaches to p. (24) ? Peut-être que tu es resté chez toi toute la nuit, mais je t’ai vu au café à minuit. ‘Perhaps you were at home all night, but I saw you in the café at midnight’ AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 48 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

Conclusions / Perspectives Ø Cross-linguistic studies Ø Different cognition studies Ø Sociology studies Ø

Conclusions / Perspectives Ø Cross-linguistic studies Ø Different cognition studies Ø Sociology studies Ø ”Compound” disciplines, e. g. translation studies AARHUS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE French Department 49 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017

THANK YOU for your attention ! L’ U N I V E R S

THANK YOU for your attention ! L’ U N I V E R S I T É D’ A A R H U S INSTITUT D’ESTHÉTIQUE ET DE COMMUNICATION Département de français 50 Henning NØLKE Bergen, August 16, 2017