La fonction pragmatique du "Oui" dans les interactions en arabe
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Publié-e :
déc 25, 2022
Mots-clés :
Oui et ses fonctions - Analyse des conversations - Dialogue arabe téléviséCodes de réponse
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Résumé
La particule "oui" est l'un des signes de réponse largement utilisés dans
notre communication quotidienne. Elle est employée principalement
pour indiquer un accord ou une réaction à la question précédente. Dans
la littérature grammaticale arabe classique, l'interprétation de l'utilisation
du "oui" est liée à ces fonctions spécifiques : une affirmation pour les
déclarations, une réponse à une question, et une promesse après une
demande. Cependant, cette recherche révèle, à travers son analyse des
dialogues télévisés parlés, des indications supplémentaires qui diffèrent
de celles qui sont décrites dans les exemples linguistiques non naturels.
Le Choix de ces dialogues médiatiques au lieu des discours écrit tient à
leur originalité et à leur spontanéité. Dans le discours télévisé, l'interaction
et la production de vocabulaire se font souvent naturellement sans aucun
schéma prédéterminé, et nous pouvons voir une représentation réaliste de
l'utilisation de la langue de la manière la plus authentique possible. En
s'appuyant sur l'approche de l'analyse de la conversation, cette étude a
conclu que la seule phrase "oui" sert de multiples objectifs et ne se limite
pas uniquement à des fonctions de réponse ou d'affirmation. Il révèle
un certain nombre de nouveaux objectifs : Un dispositif d'ouverture du
discours, une demande de répétition, ou même une indication d'attention
et de soutien pour la poursuite de la conversation
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Comment citer
Rosli, H., & Alfahad, A. (2022). La fonction pragmatique du "Oui" dans les interactions en arabe. AL-Lisaniyyat, 28(2), 29-58. https://doi.org/10.61850/allj.v28i2.61
Rubrique
Articles
Références
المقرب .أحمد عبد الستار الجوري وعبد الله الجبوري (محققان). بغداد: مطبعة العاني.
ابن هشام الأنصاري، عبد الله بن يوسف.(1985). معنى اللبيب عن كتب الأعاريب. مازن مبارك ومحمد علي حمد الله(محققام). ط6.بيروت: دار الفكر.
بالتريج، براين. (2018). تحليل الخطاب. ترجمة: عبد الرحمان الفهد. الرياض: دار جامعة الملك سعود للنشر.
البيتوشي، عبد الله الكردي.(2005). الحفاية بتوضيح الكفاية.طه صالح أمين آغا (محقق). بيروت: دار الكتب العلمية.
سيبويه، عمرو بن عثما.(1988). الكتاب. عبد السلام محمد هارون (محقق).ط3. القاهرة: مكتبة الخانجي.
الهيتي، قصي جدوع رضا.(2008). حروف الإيجاب والتصديق في اللغة العربية .مجلة جامعة الأنبار للعلوم الإنسانية.الرمادي : جامعة الأنبار.
- Alfahad, A. (2015). Aggressiveness and deference in Arabic broadcast interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 88. 58-72.
- _________________. Saudi broadcast interviews: Moving towards aggressiveness. Discourse & Communication, 9. 387-406.
- ___________. (2016). Equivocation in Arabic News Interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology; 35. 206-223.
- ___________. Professionalism vs. Popularity: The Shift in Ethics of Interviewing in Arab Media. Global Media Journal-Canadian Edition, 9. 99-113
- Ameka, F. (1992). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of pragmatics, 18. 101-118.
- Benjamin, T. & Mazeland, H. (2013).Conversation analysis and other-initiated repair. In: The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, Carol A. Chapelle (ed). Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 1-8. Retrieved November 9, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279578593_Conversation_ Analysis_and_Other-Initiated_Repair.
- Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Clayman, S., & Heritage, J. (2002). The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Clift, R. (2016). Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Dittman, A. & Lynn, G. (1967). The phonemic clause as a unit of speech decoding. Journal of personality and social psychology, 6. 341-349.
- Drummond, K. & Hopper, R. (1993). Some uses of yeah. Research on language and social interaction, 26(2). 203-212.
- Duncan, S. & Fiske, D. (1977). Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods and theory. New Jersey: Lawrence Eribaum Associates
- Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics. 14, 383-395.
- Fries, C. (1952). The structure of English. New York: Harcourt, Brace
- Fuller, J. (2003). “The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use”. Journal of pragmatics, 35, 23-45.
- Fung, L. and Carter, R., (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogical settings. Applied linguistics, 28(3). 410-439.
- Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. London: John Benjamin.
- Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human studies, 9. 205–217
- Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on the systematic deployment of the acknowlegdement tokens “yeah” and “mm hm. Paper in linguistics, 17(2). 197-216.
Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Research on language and social interaction, 26(1).1-30
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Liddicoat, A. (2007). An introduction to conversation analysis. London: Continuum
- McCarthy, M. (2003). Talking back: “Small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on language and social interaction, 36(1). 33–63
- Muller, F. E. (1996).Affiliating and disaffiliating with continuers: Prosodic aspects of recipiency. In: E. Couper-Kuhlen (ed.). Prosody in conversation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 131–176.
- Norrick, N. (2012). Listening practices in English conversation: The responses responses elicit. Journal of pragmatics, 44(5). 566-576.
Pomerantz, A. & Fehr, B. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices”. In: T. A. van Dijk, (ed.). Discourse as social interaction: Discourse studies 2. London: Sage.64-91.
- Robinson, J. (2006). Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational repair. Communication monographs, 73(2). 137– 161.
- Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4).696-735.
- Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’and other things that come between sentences. Analyzing discourse: Text and talk, 71. 71-93.
- Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977), The preference for selfcorrection in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53. 361- 382
- Schiffrin, D. (2001). Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In: D. Schiffrin, (ed). The handbook of discourse analysis. 54–75.
- Yngve, V. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the sixth regional meeting. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 567-577.
- Zimmerman, D. (1993). Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency revisited. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(2). 179-194.
ابن هشام الأنصاري، عبد الله بن يوسف.(1985). معنى اللبيب عن كتب الأعاريب. مازن مبارك ومحمد علي حمد الله(محققام). ط6.بيروت: دار الفكر.
بالتريج، براين. (2018). تحليل الخطاب. ترجمة: عبد الرحمان الفهد. الرياض: دار جامعة الملك سعود للنشر.
البيتوشي، عبد الله الكردي.(2005). الحفاية بتوضيح الكفاية.طه صالح أمين آغا (محقق). بيروت: دار الكتب العلمية.
سيبويه، عمرو بن عثما.(1988). الكتاب. عبد السلام محمد هارون (محقق).ط3. القاهرة: مكتبة الخانجي.
الهيتي، قصي جدوع رضا.(2008). حروف الإيجاب والتصديق في اللغة العربية .مجلة جامعة الأنبار للعلوم الإنسانية.الرمادي : جامعة الأنبار.
- Alfahad, A. (2015). Aggressiveness and deference in Arabic broadcast interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 88. 58-72.
- _________________. Saudi broadcast interviews: Moving towards aggressiveness. Discourse & Communication, 9. 387-406.
- ___________. (2016). Equivocation in Arabic News Interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology; 35. 206-223.
- ___________. Professionalism vs. Popularity: The Shift in Ethics of Interviewing in Arab Media. Global Media Journal-Canadian Edition, 9. 99-113
- Ameka, F. (1992). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of pragmatics, 18. 101-118.
- Benjamin, T. & Mazeland, H. (2013).Conversation analysis and other-initiated repair. In: The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, Carol A. Chapelle (ed). Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 1-8. Retrieved November 9, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279578593_Conversation_ Analysis_and_Other-Initiated_Repair.
- Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Clayman, S., & Heritage, J. (2002). The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Clift, R. (2016). Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Dittman, A. & Lynn, G. (1967). The phonemic clause as a unit of speech decoding. Journal of personality and social psychology, 6. 341-349.
- Drummond, K. & Hopper, R. (1993). Some uses of yeah. Research on language and social interaction, 26(2). 203-212.
- Duncan, S. & Fiske, D. (1977). Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods and theory. New Jersey: Lawrence Eribaum Associates
- Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics. 14, 383-395.
- Fries, C. (1952). The structure of English. New York: Harcourt, Brace
- Fuller, J. (2003). “The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use”. Journal of pragmatics, 35, 23-45.
- Fung, L. and Carter, R., (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogical settings. Applied linguistics, 28(3). 410-439.
- Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. London: John Benjamin.
- Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human studies, 9. 205–217
- Jefferson, G. (1984). Notes on the systematic deployment of the acknowlegdement tokens “yeah” and “mm hm. Paper in linguistics, 17(2). 197-216.
Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Research on language and social interaction, 26(1).1-30
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Liddicoat, A. (2007). An introduction to conversation analysis. London: Continuum
- McCarthy, M. (2003). Talking back: “Small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on language and social interaction, 36(1). 33–63
- Muller, F. E. (1996).Affiliating and disaffiliating with continuers: Prosodic aspects of recipiency. In: E. Couper-Kuhlen (ed.). Prosody in conversation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 131–176.
- Norrick, N. (2012). Listening practices in English conversation: The responses responses elicit. Journal of pragmatics, 44(5). 566-576.
Pomerantz, A. & Fehr, B. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices”. In: T. A. van Dijk, (ed.). Discourse as social interaction: Discourse studies 2. London: Sage.64-91.
- Robinson, J. (2006). Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational repair. Communication monographs, 73(2). 137– 161.
- Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4).696-735.
- Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’and other things that come between sentences. Analyzing discourse: Text and talk, 71. 71-93.
- Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977), The preference for selfcorrection in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53. 361- 382
- Schiffrin, D. (2001). Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In: D. Schiffrin, (ed). The handbook of discourse analysis. 54–75.
- Yngve, V. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the sixth regional meeting. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 567-577.
- Zimmerman, D. (1993). Acknowledgment tokens and speakership incipiency revisited. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(2). 179-194.