Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:09:05.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expressing Disagreement (Exprimer son désaccord)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Fraǹcis Debyser
Fraǹcis Debyser
Affiliation:
Bureau pour l'Enseignement de la Langue et de la Civilisation françaises à l'Etranger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a communicative approach to language learning, the learner soon has to cope with a fundamental aspect of pragmatics: the argumentative and polemic function of language. From a pragmatic perspective, language is a tool we use not so much for describing or representing the world but for changing it, not for exchanging feelings of empathy, but for saying what we like and what we don't like, not just for expressing quiet satisfaction but for saying what is wrong, not for saying what we already know but for asking about what we want to know, not for explaining what we already have but for complaining about what we still lack and want to have: and for getting things done which would not be done if we did not ask for them and if we did not say why and how they have to be done.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , Fall 1980 , pp. 42 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Bally, C. 1951. Traité de stylistique française. 2 vol. 3c éd. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Cadiot, A., Chevalier, J.D., Lelesalle, S. et al. , 1979. “Oui mais, non mais.” ou “ll y a dialogue et dialogue,” Langue Française. La pragmatique. No. 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callamand, M. 1968. L'intonation expressive. Paris: Hachette, B.E.L.C.Google Scholar
Chevalier, J.C., et Delesalle, S.. 1979. “Quelque traits d'analyse pour une exploitation pédagogique,” Le Français dans le Monde. No. 145.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. 1980. “Mais occupe-toi d'Amélie,” in Les Mots du discours. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Gordon, D., et Lakoff, G.. 1971. Conversational Postulates, traduit en 1973 sous le titre “Postulats de conservation,” Langages. No. 30: Logiques et langage. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and Conservation, traduit en 1979 sous le titre “Logique et conservation,” dans la Revue Communications. No. special 30: La Conservation. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Portine, H. 1978. “Apprende a argumenter,” Analyse de discours et didactique des langues. Paris: B.E.L.C.Google Scholar
Richterich, R., et Scherer, N.. 1975. Communication orale et apprentissage des langues. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Searle, J.R. 1972. Les Actes de langages, essai de philosophie du langage. Paris: Hermann. Chapitre: “Structure des actes illocutionnaires.”Google Scholar
Searle, J.R.. 1975. “Indirect Speech Acts.” In Syntax and Semantics. Cole et Morgan, rédacteurs, No. 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academy Press.Google Scholar