Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:29:17.456Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Salut! Ça va? Vous avez passé un bon weekend?’1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Bert Peeters
Bert Peeters
Affiliation:
School of English & European Languages & Literatures, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252-82, Hobart TAS 7001, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using Wierzbicka's natural semantic metalanguage, this paper sets out to show the pragmatic differences between ‘health enquiries’ and ‘weekend routines’ in French and (Australian) English. In French, except in rare cases, ‘health enquiries’ and ‘weekend routines’ must be introduced by means of a greeting of some sort. In (Australian) English, they may take the place of conventional greeting behaviour. Phaticity in the case of the English phrases is considerably higher than in the case of the French phrases, which, in the context of an intercultural encounter, may result in pragmalinguistic and/or sociopragmatic failure.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , September 1999 , pp. 239 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

André-Larochebouvy, D. (1984) La conversation quotidienne. Introduction à I'analyse sémio-linguistique de la conversation, Paris: Didier-Crédif.Google Scholar
Atkinson, P. et Heath, C. C. (éd.) (1981) Medical Work. Realities and routines, Farnborough: Gower.Google Scholar
Baggioni, D., et Larcher, P. (éd.) (1995) Du Sens. Tours, detours et retours du sens dans les sciences humaines d'aujourd'hui, Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l'Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Béal, C. (1992) ‘Did you have a good weekend? or why there is no such thing as a simple question in cross-cultural encounters’, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 15: 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, C. R. et Bradac, J. J. (1982) Language and Social Knowledge. Uncertainty in interpersonal relations, London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Coupland, J., Coupland, N. et Robinson, J.D. (1992) ‘”How are you?”. Negotiating phatic communion’, Language in Society, 21: 207–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, J., Robinson, J. D., and Coupland, N. (1994) ‘Frame negotiation in doctor – elderly patient consultations’, Discourse & Society, 5: 89–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. et Wierzbicka, A. (éd.) (1994) ‘Semantic and lexical universals in French’, Semantic and Lexical Universals. Tlieory and empirical findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C. (1998) Semantic Analysis. A practical introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971) Relations in Public. Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hartmann, D. (1973) ‘Begrüssungen und Begrüssungsrituale. Überlegungen zu Verwendungsweisen sprachlicher Symbolik in kommunikativen Handlungsmustern’, Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 1: 133–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, C. C. (1981) ‘The opening sequence in doctor – patient interaction’ in: Atkinson/Heath (1981: 71–90).Google Scholar
Kendon, A., Harris, R. M. et Key, M. R. (éd.) (1975) The Organization of Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction, The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1994) Les Interactions verbales, vol. 3, Paris: Colin.Google Scholar
Laver, J. (1975) ‘Communicative functions of phatic communion’, in: Kendon, et al. (1975: 215–38).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, J. et Hutcheson, S. (éd.) (1972) Communication in Face-to-Face Interaction, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1972) ‘Phatic communion’, in Laver/Hutcheson (1972: 146–52). Reprise d'un original d'abord publié en 1923 sous le titre ‘The problem of meaning in primitive languages’.Google Scholar
Mey, J. L. (1994) Pragmatics. An introduction, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Peeters, B. (1994) ‘Semantic and lexical universals in French’, in: Goddard, /Wierzbicka, (1994: 423–442) (ed), Semantic and Lexical Universals. Tlieory and empirical findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pütz, M. (éd.) (1994) Language Contact and Language Conflict, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1975) ‘Everyone has to lie’, in Sanches/Blount (1975: 57–80).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanches, M. et Blount, B. G. (éd.) (1975) Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. R. (1988) Small Talk. Analysing phatic discourse, Marburg: Hitzeroth.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. P., Bull, P. et Roger, D. (1982) ‘Conversational exchange analysis’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1: 141–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983) ‘Cross-cultural pragmatic failure’, Applied Linguistics, 4: 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vion, R. (1995) ‘La construction du sens. Essai de synthèse’, in Baggjoni/Larche (1995: 151–72).Google Scholar
Walker, R. (1996) If I Eat Another Carrot I'II Co Crazy! The Five Point Way to a Healthy Heart, Crows Nest: Kingsclear Books.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1991) Cross-cultural Pragmatics. Tlie semantics of human interaction, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1993a) ‘La quête des primitifs sémantiques: 1965–1992’, Langue francaise, 98: 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1993b) ‘Les universaux de la grammaire’, Langue francaise, 98: 107–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1994) ‘“Cultural scripts“. A new approach to the study of cross-cultural communication’, in Pütz (1994: 69–87).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1996) Semantics, Primes and Universals, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar