Cover not available
Part of
Discourse Segmentation in Romance Languages
Edited by Salvador Pons Bordería
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 250] 2014
► pp. 243–273

Initiating a discourse unit in spoken French

Prosodic and syntactic features of the left periphery

 | Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium
This chapter presents an empirical study of the left periphery of Basic Discourse Units, viz. the linguistic segments that speakers and hearers use to interpret the discourse they are engaged in. A Basic Discourse Unit is bound by the mapping of a syntactic (dependency) structure and a major intonation unit, giving rise to different types of discourse units (congruent, syntax-bound, intonation-bound, regulatory). Focusing on the discourse units’ Left Peripheral Elements, which are again defined in syntactic and prosodic terms, we show that they fulfil different discourse structuring roles.
Keywords: basic discourse unit, dependency syntax, left periphery, prosody
Published online: 14 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.250.09deg
References (65)
References
Apothéloz, Denis, Bernard Combettes, and Franck Neveu (eds). 2009. Les linguistiques du détachement. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Conrad, Susan. 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate, and Ulrich Detges (2014). In press. Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Brill: Leiden.Google Scholar
Bestgen, Yves and Sophie Piérard. 2009. “Sentence-initial adverbials and text comprehension.” In Adverbials in Use. From Predicative to Discourse Functions, [Corpora and Language in Use - Monographs 1], ed. by Laure Sarda, Shirley Carter-Thomas, Benjamin Fagard, and Michel Charolles, 145–161. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
Bestgen, Yves, and Wietske Vonk. 2000. “Temporal Adverbials as Segmentation Markers in Discourse Comprehension.” Journal of Memory and Language 42: 74–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bilger, Mireille, and Estelle Campione. 2002. “Propositions pour un étiquetage en séquences fonctionnelles.” Recherches sur le Français Parlé 17: 117–136.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2002a. “Macro-syntaxe et micro-syntaxe: les dispositifs de la rection verbale.” In Macro-Syntaxe et Macro-Sémantique, ed. by Hanne L. Andersen, and Hennig Nølke, 95–118. Frankfurt/Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2002b. “Phrase et construction verbale.” Verbum 24(1–2): 7–22.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire, Mireille Bilger, Karel Van Den Eynde, and Piet Mertens. 1990. Le Français Parlé: Etudes Grammaticales. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Berrendonner, Alain. 1990. “Pour une macro-syntaxe.” Travaux de Linguistique 21: 25–36.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Les deux syntaxes.” Verbum XXIV(1-2): 23–35.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Daniel Weenink. 2012. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.32, Retrieved 17 October 2012 from [URL]Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Charolles Michel. 1997. “L’encadrement du discours : univers, champs, domaines et espaces.” Cahier de Recherche Linguistique 6: 1–73 [[URL]].Google Scholar
Charolles, Michel, Anne Le Draoulec, Marie-Paule Pery-Woodley, and Laure Sarda. 2005. “Temporal and Spatial Dimensions of Discourse Organisation.” French Language Studies 15: 115–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Combettes, Bernard. 2005. “Les constructions détachées comme cadre de discours.” Langue Française 148: 31–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela, and Massimo Moneglia (eds). 2005. C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crompton, Peter. 2009. Theme in Text: Weighing the Evidence. Saarbrucken: Verlag VDM.Google Scholar
Danielewicz, Jane M. 1984. “The interaction between Text and Context: A Study of How Adults and Children use Spoken and Written Language in Four Contexts.” In The Development of Oral and Written Language in Social Contexts, ed. by A.D. Pellegrini, and T. D.Yawkey, 243–260. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
De Cat, Cécile. (2007). French Dislocation. Interpretation, Syntax, Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, Laurence J. Martin, and Anne Catherine Simon. 2014. “LOCAS-F : un corpus oral multigenres annoté.’’ In CMLF 2014 - 4 ème Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française. Berlin: EDP Sciences.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, and Anne Catherine Simon. 2005. “Minimal Discourse Units: Can We Define Them, and Why Should We?” In Proceedings of SEM-05. Connectors, Discourse Framing and Discourse Structure: From Corpus-based and Experimental Analyses to Discourse Theories , ed. by Michel Aurnague, Myriam Bras, Anne Le Draoulec, and Laure Vieu, 65–74. Biarritz, 14–15 November 2005.
. 2009a. “Minimal Discourse Units in Spoken French: On the Role of Syntactic and Prosodic Units in Discourse Segmentation.” Discours 4. [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. “Mapping Prosody and Syntax as Discourse Strategies: How Basic Discourse Units vary across Genres.” In Where Prosody meets Pragmatics: Research at the Interface [Studies in Pragmatics], ed. by Anne Wichmann, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, and Nicole Dehé, 79–105. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delais-Roussarie, Elisabeth, and Brechtje Post. 2008. “Unités prosodiques et grammaire de l’intonation : vers une nouvelle approche.” In Actes des Journeés JEP-TALN 2008. Avignon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delattre, Pierre. 1966. “Les dix intonations de base du français.” French Review 40 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Deulofeu, José. 2003. “ L’approche macrosyntaxique en syntaxe: un nouveau modèle de rasoir d’Occam contre les notions inutiles.” Scolia 16: 77–95.Google Scholar
Duez, Danielle. 2001. “Signification des hésitations dans la production et la perception de la parole spontanée.” Revue Parole 17-18-19: 113–137.Google Scholar
Di Cristo, Albert, and Daniel Hirst. 1996. “Vers une typologie des unités intonatives du français.” Actes des XXIèmes Journées d’Etude sur la Parole (Avignon, juin 1996): 219–222.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2005. “Competing Motivations for the Ordering of Main and Adverbial Clauses”. Linguistics 43: 449–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downing, Angela.1991. “An Alternative Approach to Theme: A Systemic-Functional Perspective”. Word 42 (2): 119–43.Google Scholar
Esser, Jürgen. 1998. “Syntactic and Prosodic Closure in On-line Speech Production”. Anglia 116 (4): 479–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fries, Peter H. 1995b. “Themes, Methods of Development, and Texts”. In On Subject and Theme: A Discourse Functional Perspective, ed. by Ruquaia Hasan, and Peter H. Fries, 317–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graesser, Arthur C., Keith K. Millis, and Rolf A. Zwaan. 1997. “Discourse Comprehension”. Annual Review of Psychology 48: 163–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, François, and James P. Gee. 1987. “Prosodic Structure and Spoken Word Recognition”. Cognition 25 (1–2): 135–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halford, Brigitte K. 1996. Talk Units: The Structure of Spoken Canadian English. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian, and Robin Wooffitt. 1998. Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Ho-Dac, Lydia-Mai. 2007. La position initiale dans l’organisation du discours: une exploration en corpus. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of de Toulouse le Mirail, Toulouse.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah, and Cécile Fougeron. 2000. “A Phonological Model of French Intonation”. In Intonation: Analysis, Modelling and Technology, ed. by Antonis Botinis, 185–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kelly, John, and John Local. 1989. Doing Phonology. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Lacheret-Dujour, Anne, and Bernard Victorri. 2002. “La période intonative comme unité d’analyse du français parlé: modélisation prosodique et enjeux linguistiques.” Verbum 24 (1–2): 55–72.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landragin, Frédéric, Thierry Poibeau, and Bernard Victorri. (2012). “ANALEC: a New Tool for the Dynamic Annotation of Textual Data”. International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation , Istanbul. [URL].
Le Draoulec, Anne, and Marie-Paule Pery-Woodley. 2005. “Encadrement temporel et relations de discours.” Langue Française 148: 45–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Laurence J., Liesbeth Degand, and Anne Catherine Simon. in press. “Forme et fonction de la périphérie gauche dans un corpus oral multigenres annoté” Corpus 13.
Marandin, Jean-Marie. 1999. Grammaire de l’incidence. [URL]Google Scholar
Mertens, Piet. 1993. “Intonational Grouping, Boundaries and Syntactic Structure in French.” Proceedings of ESCA Workshop on Prosody , September 27–29, Lund Working Papers 41, 156–159.
. 2012. “Transcription of Tonal Aspects in Speech and a System for Automatic tonal Annotation.” Presented at Advancing Prosodic Transcription Workshop at Laboratory Phonology 2012 , Stuttgart, 29 july 2012.
Mertens, Piet, and Anne Catherine Simon. 2009. “Automatic Detection of Prosodic Boundaries in Spoken French” Ms. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and Université catholique de Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve).Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor. 1979. “Planned and Unplanned Discourse.” In Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givón, 51–80. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Portes, Cristel, and Roxane Bertrand. 2011. “Permanence et variation des unités prosodiques dans le discours et l’interaction.” Journal of French Language Studies 21: 97–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Post, Brechtje. 2000. Tonal and Phrasal Structures in French Intonation. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Prideaux, Gary D., and John T. Hogan. 1993. “Markedness as a Discourse Management Device: The Role of Alternative Adverbial Clause Orders”. Word 44(3): 397–411.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.” In Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Mario. 1999. L’intonation, le système du français. Description et modélisation. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Roulet, Eddy. 1991. “A propos des niveaux de l’analyse linguistique.” In Sprachtheorie und Theorie der Sprachwissenschaft, ed. by Rudolf Engler, Ricarda Liver, Iwar Werlen, and Peter Wunderli, 221–230. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted, and Wilbert Spooren. 2007. “Discourse and Text Structure.” In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuykens, 916–943. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Selting, Margrete. 2000. “The Construction of Units in Conversational Talk.” Language in Society, 29 (4): 477–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, Anne-Catherine, Antoine Auchlin, Mathieu Avanzi, and Jean-Philippe Goldman. 2009. Les phonostyles: une description prosodique des styles de parole en français . In Les voix des Français. En parlant, en écrivant, ed. by M. Abecassi, and G. Ledegen, 71–88. Peter Lang: Berne.Google Scholar
Simon, Anne Catherine, and Liesbeth Degand. 2011. “L’analyse en unités discursives de base: pourquoi et comment?” Langue Française 170: 45–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun. 1997. “Cognitive Context Models and Discourse;” In Language Structure, Discourse and the Access to Consciousness, ed. by Maxim I. Stamenov, 189–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Victorri, Bernard. 2011. “ANALEC: An Open Source Piece of Software Dedicated to Text Annotation”. [URL] Software retrieved in October 2012.
Virtanen, Tuija. 1992. Discourse Functions of Adverbial Placement in English: Clause-Initial Adverbials of Time and Place in Narratives and Procedural Place Descriptions. Abo: Abo Akademi University Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Point of departure: Cognitive Aspects of Sentence-initial Adverbials.” In Approaches to Cognition through Text and Discourse [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 147], ed. by Tuija Virtanen, 79–97. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Lacheret-Dujour, Anne
2024. Marquage de l’intensité émotionnelle en français parlé : quand la syntaxe fait entendre sa voix. Langages N° 234:2 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Degand, Liesbeth & Ludivine Crible
2021. Discourse markers at the peripheries of syntax, intonation and turns. In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325], ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Gabarró-López, Sílvia
2019. When the Meaning of Same Is Not Restricted to Likeness: A Preliminary Study from the Perspective of Discourse Relational Devices in Two Sign Languages. Discours :24 DOI logo
Rhee, Seongha
2016. LP and RP in the development of discourse markers from “what” in Korean. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17:2 ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.