Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:20:55.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Personally speaking … or not? The strategic value of on in face-to-face negotiation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Miranda M. Stewart
Miranda M. Stewart
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Languages, University of Strathclyde, 26 Richmond Street, Glasgow G1 1XH, Scotland (U.K.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The fact that the subject clitic on has such a wide range of referential values has been studied extensively, in particular from a variationist perspective. Quantitative methods have been used (e.g. Laberge and Sankoff, 1980) to establish correlations between, on the one hand, on and its paradigmatic ‘equivalents’ tu and vous and, on the other, a number of linguistic, discoursal and social variables. Indeed, pragmatic factors figure increasingly prominently amongst investigated constraints on use and interpretation. It is the aim of this paper to explore, from a broadly qualitative, non-variationist perspective, and within the context of Brown and Levinson's ‘Politeness Theory’ (1978, 1987), how speakers can exploit the indeterminacy of pronominal reference and in particular that of the French indeterminate pronoun on in the interests of face protection.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , September 1995 , pp. 203 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Ashby, W. (1992). The variable use of on versus tulvous for indefinite reference in spoken French. Journal of French Language Studies, 2: 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bell, A. (1984). Language Style as Audience Design. Language in Society, 13: 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Boutet, J. (1986). La référence à la personne en français parlé: le cas de on. Langage et société, 38: 19–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of Power and Solidarity. Repr. In Giglioli, P. P. (ed.) (1972), Language and Social Context. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, N. and Wiemann, M. (1991). Miscommunication and Problematic Talk. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). Ergativity. Language, 55: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enríquez, E. (1984). Elpronombre personal sujeto en la lengua española hablada en Madrid. Madrid: CSIC.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behavior. New York: Garden City.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. (1986). News Interviews: a Pragmalinguistic Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, A. and Healey, F. G. (1985). A Reference Grammar of Modern French, 2nd edn. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Laberge, S. (1977). Etude de la variation des pronoms sujets définis et indéfinis dans le français parlé à Montréal. Unpublishd PhD thesis, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Laberge, S. and Sankoff, G. (1980). Anything you can do. In Sankoff, G. (ed.), The Social Life of Language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, , (1972). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society, 1: 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavandera, B. (1982). Creative variation: shifting between the impersonal and personal in Spanish discourse. Mimeo, unpublished PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). An Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (1987). Observing and Analysing Natural Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mühlhaüsler, P. and Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and People: the Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53: 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schriffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, M. (1992). Personal reference and politeness strategies in French and Spanish: a corpus-based approach. Unpublished PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University.Google Scholar
Walker, A. et al. (1986). Lyon à la Une. Edinburgh: Lyon à la Une Project.Google Scholar