Cover not available

Article published In: FORUM
Vol. 1:2 (2003) ► pp.103–122

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Discourse Analysis of Speeches Through Pragmatic Perspectives

Understanding Functional Constraints in Communication for Conference Interpretation

 | Hansei University |
Published online: 1 October 2003
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.1.2.05kim
Abstract/Résumé
Cet article a pour but d’analyser des discours oraux à l’aid des outils pragmatiques fonctionnels. Cette étude montre que l’approche communicative et fonctionelle nous permet de mieux comprendre le processus de l’interprétation. Les outils d’analyse proposés par Halliday sont d’une grande utilité pour expliquer l ‘aspect intentionnel de communication. Plusieurs discours oraux ont été analysés selon la taxonomie de Halliday pour montrer que des discours atteignent leur but (ou leur intention) grâce à leurs fonctions pragmatiques. Quelques propositions pour l’application pédagogique sont ajoutées.
References (39)
References
Angelelli, C. (2000). Interpretation as a communicative event: A look through Hymes’ lenses. Meta, 451, 580–592. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Okolo, B. A. (1996). Incongruency in discourse: A violation of the “cooperative principle”? Meta, 411, 378–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dore, J. (1979). Conversational acts and the acquisition of language. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developing pragmatics (pp. 347–360). NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gauker, C. (1998). What is a context of utterance? Philosophical Studies 91, 149–172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1981). Speech act assignment. In Joshi, A. K., Webber, B. L., Sag, I.A. (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding. pp. 64–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentile, A. (1991). The application of the theoretical constructs from a number of disciplines for the development of a methodology of teaching in interpreting and translating. Meta, 361, 344–351. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glassgold, P. (1987). Translation: Culture’s driving wedge. Translation Review, 231, 18–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 31, speech acts. pp. 41–58. NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, J. K. (1995). (Re)creating our worlds with words: A sociohistorical perspective of face-to-face interaction. Applied Linguistics. 21, 206–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. pp. 269–293. UK: Watson & Viney Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kalina, S. (1992). Discourse processing and interpreting strategies-An approach to the teaching of interpreting. In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.), Teaching translation and interpreting-Training, talent and experience. Papers from the first language international conference, Elsinore, Denmark, 31 st May-2 nd June, 1991, Amsterdam, Benjamins (pp. 251–257).
Kohn, K. (1990). Translation as conflict. In P. H. Nelde (Ed.), conflict ABLA papers(Association Belge de linguistique appliquee). No. 14. (pp. 105–113).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kohn, K. & Kalina, S. (1996). The strategic dimension of interpreting. Meta, 411, 118–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, T. H. (2002). Ear voice span in English into Korean simultaneous interpretation. Meta, 471, 596–606. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linell, P. (1997). Interpreting a s communication. In Gambier, Gile & Taylor (Eds.), Conference interpreting: Current trends in research. Proceedings of the international conference on interpreting: What do we know and how? Turku, Finland, August, 25-27, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mey, J. L. (2003) Context and (dis) ambiguity: A pragmatic view. Journal of Pragmatics.351, 331–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nida, E. (1976). A framework for the analysis and evaluation of theories of translation. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation, applications and research (pp. 47–91). NY: Gardner Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Okolo, B. A. (1996). Incongruency in discourse: A violation of the “cooperative principle”? Meta, XLI, 3, 378–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pratt, M. L. (1977). Toward a speech act theory of literary discourse. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rohler, L. E. & Cook, R. (1993). Great speeches for criticism and analysis. Greenwood, IN: Alistair Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roy, C. (1989). A sociolinguistic analysis of the interpreter’s role in the turn exchanges of an interpreted event. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation. Georgetown University, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. MA: Addison WesleyGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sbisa, M. (2002). Speech acts in context. Language & Communication. 221, 421–436. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seleskovitch, D. (1978). Interpreting for international conferences. NY: Pen and Booth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, D. R. & Williamson, L. K. (1977). Interpersonal Communication. Iowa: William C. Brown & Company Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and content. Oxford: Oxford University press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: LongmanGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van EK, J. A. & Alexander, L. G. (1975). Threshold level English. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yule, G. (1998). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue