Tours de parole et les concepts interactionnel, ô interlangue ằ et (inter)culturel
REPÈRES CONCEPTUELS DU TOUR DE PAROLE
This chapter explores various definitions of the concept of turn-taking and the functional specifics of turns in verbal interactions, including the dynamics of turn-taking systems, regulators, types of interruptions, and turns within trilogues and co-enunciation perspectives Additionally, we address the complexity of managing speaker turns in interactions, both verbally and non-verbally, while introducing critiques from certain interactionists regarding Sacks et al.'s (1974) turn-taking model to enhance our empirical analysis framework.
1 Qu’est-ce que le tour de parole ?
In 1974, Sacks and his colleagues introduced the turn-taking model in conversation analysis (CA), which remains essential for interactionists today However, at that time, there was no clear definition of the term "turn-taking" or other key concepts in conversation analysis, such as TCUs and adjacency pairs (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 2005a: 82-83) The ongoing work of interactionists in CA emphasizes an empirical approach that avoids pre-defined categories, focusing instead on situationally relevant categories recognized by participants (Gỹlich and Mondada 2001: 205, cited in Kerbrat-Orecchioni 2005a: 83).
The definition of concepts is crucial as it helps researchers position themselves within a disciplinary field, methodological approach, and in relation to the work of other scholars in the same discipline No researcher, regardless of their field, can do without specialized terminology, which is especially true in conversation analysis.
In her work on defining specific descriptive categories relevant to Conversation Analysis (CA), Kerbrat-Orecchioni (2005a) emphasizes the need to redefine seemingly ordinary categories such as "turn" and "interruption" to ensure they are descriptively operational She argues that descriptive categories must be based on clear and explicit definitions, a requirement that is unfortunately not always met in CA literature, where one often finds a lack of clear definitions for fundamental concepts like "turn," "TCU," and "repair."
19 massivement à un certain nombre de termes et de tournures qui fonctionnent comme autant d'emblốmes d'appartenance à ce paradigme ằ (ibid : 82)
Sharing a common vision regarding the significance of terminology in interaction research, we review the definitions of the term "turn-taking" as conceptualized by various interactionists from different methodological approaches beyond conversational analysis, which we find relevant for our thesis work.
Goodwin (1981) introduced the concepts of "turn" and "turn at talk" to explore the dynamics of interaction between speakers and listeners in natural conversations He asserts that a speaker's contribution is defined by the contributions of others, stating, "The talk of one party bounded by the talk of others constitutes a turn." Furthermore, he describes turn-taking as the mechanism that facilitates the transition between speakers, explaining that "turn-taking is the process through which the party doing the talk of the moment is changed."
Goffman (1987) categorizes the term "turn-taking" within interactional contexts, defining it as the opportunity to speak He emphasizes the distinction between a statement and its interactional counterpart, highlighting that a turn involves what an individual expresses while speaking, characterized as a "speech lapse by a single person, after which they remain silent." He refers to the act of speaking during a turn as "speech during a turn," typically reserving the terms "turn" or "turn-taking" for the occasion that allows one to take the floor, rather than the content delivered while holding that floor.
Cosnier (1987) emphasizes the coherent and circumscribed nature of the turn-taking process in conversation He defines it as a coherent textual unit situated between analogous sets proposed by the interlocutor, despite any potential auditory or gestural interactions that do not disrupt the ongoing development of the dialogue.
Bange (1992a), aligning closely with Goffman's definition of "turn-taking," approaches this concept from an interactive perspective He asserts that "turn-taking is not a grammatical unit like a sentence, but an interactive unit, the fundamental element of verbal interaction, constructed and functioning in relation to both the preceding and following turns" (ibid.: 32).
In summary, among the definitions of turn-taking discussed, some specifically focus on the defined and sequential nature of turn-taking Goodwin and Cosnier, both interactionists, also explore the multimodal aspects involved in this process.
Effective turn-taking management involves understanding the speaker's gaze, as highlighted by Goodwin, and the synchronization of speech with co-verbal gestures, as noted by Cosnier Additionally, some approaches emphasize the interactional nature of turn-taking, distinguishing between the turn's form and its content, as discussed by Goffman and Bange.
It is essential to distinguish between the grammatical unit and the interactive unit as proposed by Bange (1992a) in his definition of turn-taking, which Goffman (1987) refers to as the "sentence" and its "interactional cousin." Kerbrat-Orecchioni notes that studying language acts in interaction reveals that utterances possess not only illocutionary value but also conversational value related to sequential organization This includes functions such as initiative, reactive, or evaluative roles within exchanges, as well as opening roles filled by various acts like greetings, health inquiries, or site comments, and closing roles such as farewells or well-wishes From these definitions, we summarize the characteristics of turn-taking as follows:
- Caractère circonscrit: le tour de parole d‟un locuteur est délimité par le(s) tour(s) de(s) ou de l‟autre(s)
- Caractère successif: le tour de parole est successivement transféré dans l‟interaction
- Tour comme unité interactionnelle: en tant qu‟unité interactionnelle, les tours vộhiculent les unitộs fonctionnelles comme ô interventions ằ, ô ộchanges ằ (Kerbrat- Orecchioni 2005a)
L‟exemple suivant pourrait élucider notre propos:
This example is drawn from our DEA corpus (Do 2000) and features a role-playing game involving students from the Francophone petrochemistry program at the University of Danang, Vietnam In this game, students engage in various scenarios that enhance their learning experience.
In a courtroom setting, G1 assumes the role of the judge, while G2 portrays the husband and F1 plays the wife of G2 They are present for a divorce trial, and the sequential analysis of this role-playing scenario draws inspiration from the work of Kerbrat-Orecchioni.
- Caractère circonscrit: le tour 89 de G2 est borné par les tours 88 et 90 de G1, Le tour
90 de G1 est borné par le tour 89 de G2 et le tour 91 de F1
- Caractère successif: on a successivement dans cette séquence les tours (T) suivants: T88 (G1) > T89 (G2) > T90 (G1) > T91 (F1)
- Tour comme unité interactionnelle: pragmatiquement, cette séquence comprend quatre tours de parole et quatre échanges dont le premier contient la première partie du tour
88 de G1 et le tour 89 de G2, cet échange est simplifié comme suit:
In 1988, the initiative intervention involves a questioning act aimed at confirming the action of G2, which is subsequently followed by a reactive intervention manifested through a confirming response in 1989.
Le deuxième échange contient la deuxième partie du tour 88 de G1 et le tour 89 de G2:
L‟intervention initiative de G1 en 88 est l‟acte de langage de question (question de confirmation sur ce que G2 dit) qui est enchaợnộe par l‟intervention rộactive de G2 en
89, acte de langage de réponse (réponse de confirmation)
Le troisième échange comprend le tour 89 de G2 et le tour 90 de G1:
L‟intervention initiative de G2 en 89 est enchaợnộe par l‟intervention rộactive de G1 en 90 sous la forme de l‟acte de langage de question (question de justification adressée à F1)
Le quatrième échange comprend le tour 90 de G1 et le tour 91 de F1:
CONCEPTS RELATIFS A LA COMMUNICATION VERBALE
This chapter focuses on the local organization of turn-taking within interactive units, drawing from two hierarchical models: conversation analysis and interactional discourse analysis We also explore concepts closely related to discursive activities in the exolingual context, examining the functioning and dysfunctioning of turn-taking Key topics include intercomprehension models, metadiscursive activities, reformulation, interactional dysfunction, figurative work, and non-verbal and paralinguistic behaviors.
Conversational text is structured hierarchically, consisting of units of varying ranks (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1996: 35) Different hierarchical models of conversation exist based on various methodological approaches Our research on turn-taking mechanisms falls within the framework of Interactional Discourse Analysis (ADI), which emphasizes Conversation Analysis (CA) Therefore, it is pertinent to examine these two conversational hierarchical models in this context.
The Conversation Analysis (CA) was established by American ethnomethodologists in the 1970s This methodological approach to conversational structure consists of two key units: turn-taking and adjacency pairs.
The analysis of discourse-in-interaction naturally prioritizes forms of discourse with the highest degree of interactivity, particularly conversations, which are often seen as a unique type of verbal interaction and a prototype in this field This preference, reflected in the term "conversation analysis" used to describe the study of all forms of talk-in-interaction, is justified by several reasons: conversations are widely recognized as the "basic" form of linguistic activity and are prevalent across many societies They primarily occur through verbal means, with minimal external constraints, serving their own purpose as conversations are inherently "free" – we engage in conversation simply to converse.
In conversation analysis, "turns-at-talk" are essential units that include "turn-constructional units" (TCUs) and form "adjacent pairs," as highlighted by Kerbrat-Orecchioni (2005a: 58).
In this section, we explore conversational microstructures, including adjacent pairs, conditional dependence, preferential organization, recipient design, and side sequences, building on the concept of turn-taking and local organization of conversation discussed in the first chapter.
An adjacent pair consists of two successive speech turns spoken by different speakers, where the first part imposes a constraint on the second part For example, a question prompts a response, and an offer leads to either acceptance or rejection This structure is defined as comprising two immediately successive speech turns, identifiable as the first pair part and the second pair part The interaction follows a rule whereby the current speaker, upon delivering a recognizable first part of a specific pair, must cease speaking at a point of completion, allowing the next speaker to provide a possible second part of that pair Through this mechanism, the current speaker exerts a constraint on the expected response in the subsequent turn.
The adjacent pair is regarded by American ethnomethodologists as a fundamental type of conversational organization (Bange 1992a: 44) It serves as a methodical means of producing sequential implicativeness (Schegloff and Sacks 1973, cited in Bange 1992a: 44) This concept of sequential implicativeness indicates that an utterance projects the relevance of a specific series of occurrences for the subsequent turns, whether they involve types of statements, activities, or speaker selection Consequently, this has organized sequential implications (Schegloff and Sacks 1973: 296, cited in Bange 1992a: 44).
There is a rule governing the formation of adjacent pairs, known as sequential dependence or the principle of conditional relevance (Bange 1992a: 44) This principle explains the relationship and relevance between elements in a sequence.
19 Les parenthèses sont rajoutées par nous
According to Bange (1992a), building on Schegloff's (1972) ideas, a certain activity is deemed relevant due to the completion of a preceding activity, making it expected and anticipable by the interlocutors This relationship between the two parties in an adjacency pair is characterized as a social cause or condition Effective communication relies on both speakers being aware of this relationship; the first speaker assumes the second understands it and will respond as anticipated Conversely, the second speaker must also recognize this relationship and choose to elicit a specific reaction Regardless of the response, once the second speaker engages, their reaction is interpreted based on this shared understanding.
Selon Bange (1992a : 45), une telle rộaction du second locuteur ô prộsuppose un savoir partagộ et une volontộ de coopộrer ằ
The choice of the second part of an adjacent pair as a response to the first is not typically of equal status; some second turns are preferential while others are non-preferential This leads to the concept of preference organization The table below illustrates the correlation between the two parts of an adjacent pair.
Figure 1 : Tableau de corrélation entre les deux parties d’une paire adjacente (Correlations of content and format in adjacency pair seconds) selon Levinson (1983 : 336)
20 ô given the first, the second is expectable ằ (Schegloff 1972 : 364, citộ dans Bange 1992a : 44)
21 ô alternative second parts to first parts of adjacency pairs are not generally of equal status; rather some seconds turns are preferred and others dispreferred ằ (Levinson 1983 : 332)
22 Nous adoptons la traduction proposée par Bange (1992a : 40)
The choice between preferential and non-preferential second turns significantly influences verbal interaction, as noted by Bange (1992a: 41) Preferential actions help maintain the partner's face, whereas their absence necessitates the use of justification and repair strategies Generally, it can be accepted that preferential replies facilitate smoother cooperation in conversations.
Non-preferred second turns in conversation may create linguistic and interpersonal challenges for non-native speakers in exolingual communication.
In conversation analysis (CA), the principle of recipient design emphasizes that the size and order of conversational turns are managed and controlled interactively According to Sacks et al (1974), this principle refers to the various ways in which a speaker's utterance is constructed to direct attention and sensitivity towards other co-participants in the interaction.
Bange (1992a: 210) clarifies this principle by emphasizing that orientation is tailored to the recipient, meaning that formulations are meticulously adjusted based on the speaker's assumptions about the listener's knowledge, interpretations, and intentions.
COMMUNICATION EXOLINGUE
Ce chapitre porte sur les relations entre la communication exolingue, l‟interlangue et les stratégies de communication
1 Autour de la notion d’exolingue
The term "exolingue," coined by Porquier in the 1970s and 1980s, derives from Greek and Latin roots to represent the translinguistic dimension of communication that occurs without a shared native language It is semantically defined in relation to communication and context, incorporating two paradigms: the suffix "-lingue," which pertains to the concept of linguistic systems, and the prefix "exo-," which highlights the intercultural and interlinguistic aspects of communication between native and non-native speakers.
Le terme ô communication exolingue ằ, faisant partie de la dichotomie exolingue/endolingue, a ộtộ crộộ ô sur mesure ằ, c‟est-à-dire sans emprunter à aucune source thộorique (Porquier
In 1978, Porquier identified a specific dimension of communication strategies in a non-native language, termed "exolingual communication." This type of communication occurs between individuals who do not share a common first language (L1), contrasting with "endolingual communication," which takes place among individuals who speak the same native language.
The initial definition of exolingual communication fails to encompass all exolingual situations outlined in Porquier's (1984) typology, particularly excluding instances where speakers of the same native language communicate in another language, as seen in situations 1 and 4 of our corpus Py (1987) later addressed this terminological shortcoming by proposing a broader definition of exolingual communication, emphasizing that it should be understood through the asymmetry and divergence of the participants' respective codes This perspective extends beyond the simple dichotomy of native versus foreign language, encompassing communication scenarios among native speakers of the same language.
Py's (1987) proposal regarding the redefinition of "exolingual communication" is supported by Porquier (1994), who argues that the original definition, which focuses solely on communication between native and non-native speakers of a given language, is overly restrictive This definition fails to account for situations where native speakers of the same mother tongue communicate with each other in a different language Porquier emphasizes that exolingual communication cannot simply be characterized by the respective native languages of the interlocutors.
D‟aprốs Porquier, la communication exolingue est ô dộterminộe et construite ằ par la situation exolingue selon laquelle :
Participants communicate in a language that is not their native tongue, either because they do not share the same mother language or because they consciously choose to communicate in a different language.
- Les interlocuteurs prennent conscience de cet état de choses ;
- La communication exolingue est organisée pragmatiquement et formellement par cet ộtat de choses et donc par ô la conscience et les reprộsentations qu‟en ont ằ les interlocuteurs ;
- Conscients de cette particularité situationnelle, les interlocuteurs s‟y adaptent, à diffộrents degrộs, au niveau de ô leur comportement ằ et de ô leurs conduites langagiốres ằ (Porquier 1984)
According to Porquier (1984), exolingual communication is defined by five parameters: the languages known by participants, the linguistic environment of the interaction, the situational context, the type of interaction, and the content of the interaction Based on the first two parameters, the author developed a typology of 14 exolingual communication situations, of which four are highlighted here to characterize the exolingual contexts within our corpus.
Participants x and y, both native speakers of idiom I1, are situated in a linguistic environment where they are familiar with a second language, In, which is not their mother tongue This scenario exemplifies an exolingual situation, specifically in Vietnam, where non-native Vietnamese speakers have knowledge of French.
(2) Participant x et y, d‟I1 diffộrents, en milieu x ; x connaợt l‟I1 x (situation exolingue 3 de la typologie) : en France, les natifs franỗais et les non natifs vietnamiens connaissant le franỗais
(3) Participant x et y, en milieu y : y connaợt l‟I1 de x (situation exolingue 7 de la typologie) : Au Vietnam, les natifs franỗais et les non natifs vietnamiens connaissant le franỗais
(4) Participants x et y, en milieu neutre z : x et y connaissent un même In, l‟In est la langue z (situation exolingue 14.1a de la typologie) : En France, les non natifs vietnamiens connaissant le franỗais
Based on this typology, our exolingual corpus is categorized into four types of situations, depending on the native language of the interlocutors and the context of communication These include exolingual communications in French between non-native Vietnamese speakers in Vietnam and France, as well as interactions between native French speakers and non-native Vietnamese speakers in both locations By analyzing these four selected exolingual situations, we aim to qualify their specific characteristics through theoretical concepts and examine how these identified traits may influence turn-taking management among participants in our empirical study.
2 Particularités de la communication exolingue
S‟opposant à la conversation endolingue par les divergences codiques et culturelles entre les interlocuteurs, la conversation exolingue (entre natifs et non natifs, et entre ces derniers) représente des caractérisations suivantes :
In exolingual communication between native and non-native speakers, Alber and Py (1986) highlight that the interaction is marked by discrepancies in the linguistic and cultural repertoires of each participant These differences lead interlocutors to develop and implement tools aimed at overcoming the challenges posed by these divergences.
To reach this conclusion, Alber and Py (1986) conducted research on intercultural conversation based on a traditional communication model that includes the code, which is the language system facilitating message transmission For the code to fulfill its function, it must meet three conditions: a) it must be equally mastered by both interlocutors; b) each interlocutor must be aware of this mutual mastery, knowing that the other is using the same code; and c) the code must fully preexist the communicative instance it enables.
Alber and Py (1986: 79) suggest that in conversations between native and non-native speakers, none of the three conditions are typically met This is primarily due to the non-native speaker's use of their interlanguage, which consists of intermediate knowledge that differs both quantitatively and qualitatively from the target language systems learned Consequently, the interlanguage of the non-native speaker results in the first condition being unmet.
Condition (b) refers to Grice's principle of cooperation, which posits that interaction, whether conversational or not, is only feasible if each participant is willing to cooperate, believing that their partner is using the same code However, in intercultural conversations, this belief may stem from misunderstandings or may be impossible, reducing to a mere assumption that the other party is willing to cooperate Consequently, the absence of condition (b) influences communication between natives and non-natives, leading to an awareness that codes do not align, which results in specific conversational behaviors aimed at addressing the dysfunctions arising from this code divergence and working to bridge their respective codes.
Condition (c) results from condition (a), highlighting that in conversations between native and non-native speakers, the linguistic code of the non-native, expressed through interlanguage, heavily relies on recoding This process is fundamentally underdetermined, as every utterance by the non-native speaker includes the assumption of novel determinations that were not part of their competence prior to producing the utterance.
Py 1986 : 80) Le nộocodage du non natif, ô une menace potentielle pour le partage du code par les interlocuteurs ằ, rend donc la condition (c) insatisfaite
Conversation is fundamentally a collective activity that generates meaning, and interactive processes are not random Alber and Py (1986) emphasize the collaborative nature of communication in exolingual contexts, arguing that successful communication in situations of linguistic asymmetry relies on enhanced intelligibility achieved through the cooperation of interlocutors This involves a functional distribution of tasks between the linguistically stronger partner and the weaker partner.
63 Par ô la rộussite communicativeằ, sur le plan linguistique, Alber et Py (1986 : 83) font cette remarque : ô sur un plan proprement linguistique […] le succốs de la communication s‟ộvalue en terme d‟intercomprộhension ằ
In the intercultural perspective, Py (1990) emphasizes that in exolingual communication, linguistic asymmetry is often accompanied by asymmetries in interaction rules and cultural conventions, particularly in how contextual cues are identified and interpreted.
COMMUNICATION INTERCULTURELLE
This chapter explores cultural variations and misunderstandings in communication between Vietnamese and French speakers within their respective language-cultures It also addresses key issues related to intercultural interactions, particularly focusing on the mechanisms of turn-taking in communication.
According to Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1994: 134), interactional systems vary significantly across cultures Differences in the conventions governing conversational dynamics among speakers of different languages can impact these systems Research by Gumperz (1979, 1982, 1989, etc.) highlights that communication issues often arise from prosodic features, turn-taking systems, thematic progression, informational structuring, speech act formulation, ritual functioning, and interpersonal relationships.
In intercultural communication, variations manifest at two levels: first, through prosodic, rhetorical, or pragmatic calques, where a non-native speaker may transfer conventions from their native language into the language of the native speaker, influenced by their proficiency in the target language-culture Conversely, a non-native speaker might engage in hypercorrection while attempting to communicate effectively in the target language In either case, the communicative behavior of the non-native speaker often diverges from that of the native speaker (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1994: 135).
Variations in communication can lead to significant consequences in interactions between native and non-native speakers Native speakers may either find amusement in these differences or become frustrated when their expectations are not met Regardless of the reaction, deviations from behavioral norms by non-native speakers compared to native speakers will inevitably impact the interaction dynamics.
120 Les parenthèses sont rajoutées par nous
Nonconformity to social norms is often perceived negatively by natives, who may view such behavior as inappropriate, ridiculous, rude, or shocking This evaluation is typically based on their own standards, rather than recognizing that the behavior may reflect different cultural norms.
In intercultural communication, misunderstandings often arise when individuals from a specific culture encounter variations in interactional conventions that they perceive as universal Members of a given culture are typically unaware of these differences, believing that the communication norms they have been taught since childhood are universally applicable.
Dans une conversation entre natif et non natif, ô l‟ộchec communicatif ằ est attribuộ par les locuteurs à ô une maợtrise insuffisante de la langue ằ, mais selon Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1994 :
The issue at hand is not solely a matter of misunderstanding; it is also perceived psychologically as bad faith, hostility, arrogance, or servility Both native and non-native speakers experience mutual misunderstandings, as each struggles to comprehend the other's behavior This reciprocal misunderstanding highlights that the difficulties in interpreting actions are equally shared, with non-native speakers facing challenges in understanding native speakers' behaviors and vice versa Ultimately, this mutual difficulty in grasping what is considered "natural" behavior leads to a complex web of miscommunication.
In the turn-taking system, cultural variations are evident in aspects such as pauses between turns, overlaps, interruptions, turn order, turn length, turn-taking techniques, and the functioning of regulators According to Béal (2010), these cultural differences arise when a behavior considered exceptional in one culture is viewed as normal in another While the rules governing turn-taking share common traits across most cultures, they also exhibit distinct variations that are characteristic of specific cultural contexts.
In her 1994 note, Kerbrat-Orecchioni highlights a concept introduced by Verschueren in 1984, known as "the illusion of the language dependence of communicative success." This illusion arises from the tendency of most speakers to simplify communication to just vocabulary and grammar.
112 soit à ô une logique sous-jacente diffộrente ằ, soit à un style communicatif culturellement particulier (Béal 2010 : 176)
Respecting personal space by avoiding interruptions can be perceived as disinterest or boredom by some, while interruptions, seen as signs of engagement, may be viewed as breaches of conversational rules Additionally, the dynamic nature of French conversations resembles a ping-pong match or a fencing tournament, which can be misinterpreted as aggression or impatience by those unfamiliar with this communication style, resulting in a misunderstanding of its playful essence.
In Vietnamese culture, speaking up is a delicate act that can easily be perceived as impolite or even insolent if not approached with care The Vietnamese language contains numerous expressions that criticize unexpected interruptions, such as "stealing someone's words," "disputing another's speech," or "talking over someone more respected." These phrases highlight the importance of respecting conversational dynamics and the social hierarchy, emphasizing the need for mindfulness in communication.
Gestures and eye contact are significant aspects of cultural variation, with the quantity and meaning of gestures differing widely across societies (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1994) For instance, Vietnamese speakers tend to use fewer co-verbal gestures, and the expression "ô hoa chõn mỳa tay ằ" (to wave one's arms and legs) is a pejorative term for those who gesture excessively while speaking Additionally, the duration and direction of eye contact follow flexible yet relatively precise and unconscious rules (ibid.: 24) According to Nguyen Quang (2008), these non-verbal communication elements are crucial in understanding cultural differences.
In face-to-face communication, Vietnamese individuals tend to maintain less eye contact compared to Americans, particularly in contexts where a woman speaks to a man, a younger person addresses an older individual, or when interacting with strangers Deviations from this norm may be viewed negatively, leading to perceptions of rudeness, disrespect, or skepticism.
The article discusses insights from the author's study on the interactive behaviors of French speakers from the metropolis and English speakers, primarily Australians.
Người Việt thường duy trì nhón giao tiếp một cách truyền thống, thể hiện sự tôn trọng qua cách trò chuyện, đặc biệt là giữa nữ và nam, người trẻ với người già, và giữa những người có địa vị khác nhau Điều này cho thấy sự quan trọng của phép lịch sự trong giao tiếp xã hội tại Việt Nam.
QUELQUES PARTICULARITÉS DE LA LANGUE VIETNAMIENNE
This chapter highlights key features of the Vietnamese language in contrast to French, aiming to better understand how these characteristics influence Vietnamese speakers' turn-taking strategies in both internal and external communication contexts.
Unlike inflectional languages such as French and English, Vietnamese is a tonal isolating language that is phonetically monosyllabic Each syllable can have different meanings depending on its pronunciation across six distinct tones.
- Ton plein ou ộgal (ou ngang en vietnamien) : marquộ par ô l‟absence de tout signe ằ sur la voyelle (exemple : ma = fantôme)
- Ton descendant (huyền) : marquộ par ô un accent grave placộ sur la voyelle accentuộe ằ (mà = mais)
- Ton aigu (sắc) : se marque par ô un accent aigu placộ sur la voyelle accentuộe ằ (mỏ joue)
- Ton interrogatif (hỏi) : se marque par un point d‟interrogation placé sur la voyelle accentuée (mả = tombeau)
- Ton retombant (ngã) : se marque par un tilde placé sur la voyelle accentuée (mã cheval)
- Ton grave (nặng) : marquộ par ô un point placộ sous la voyelle accentuộe ằ (mạ jeune plant de riz) (Cadière 1958 : XXVII) 145
142 ô Les langues dont les mots sont pourvus de morphốmes grammaticaux qui indiquent la fonction des unitộs sont flexionnelles ằ (Dubois et al 1994 : 204)
An isolating language, also known as an analytic language, is characterized by words that tend to be invariant Consequently, it becomes difficult to distinguish between the root and grammatical elements.
It is crucial to differentiate between tonal pitch in tonal languages and the concept of vocal pitch as described by Fontaney (1987) We believe that vocal pitch aligns more closely with variations in intonation contours, which are defined as the melodic characteristics that form the unit of a phrase Each phrase is marked by an intonation contour, consisting of one or more pitch variations and a final contour (Dubois et al 1994: 117).
145 Pour les raisons de simplicité, nous nous référons à la nomination et à la description des tons en vietnamien de Cadière (1958)
Selon Nguyen Lan Trung (2006 : 20), ces tons sont distribués en opposition de registre 146 haut et bas comme suit :
Figure 9: Distribution des tons en vietnamien
Ainsi, l‟exemple 147 sur les tons ci-dessus est phonétiquement présenté de manière suivante :
Mạ /ma 6 / (jeune plant de riz)
The presence of tones in the Vietnamese language leads Vietnamese learners of French to intonate certain syllables or phonetic combinations For instance, the first syllable of the word "nappes" may be pronounced as "nốp" with a high tone by a Northern Vietnamese learner or "nạp" with a low tone by a Southern Vietnamese learner This transfer of Vietnamese tones to French results in incorrect pronunciation and the emergence of an unpleasant foreign accent, potentially causing linguistic misunderstandings in intercultural communication.
The vocal register of a phoneme, syllable, word, or phrase refers to the frequency band in which each element is acoustically situated This variation in register is often accompanied by changes in the direction of intonation, including rising, falling, flat, or broken tones (Dubois et al 1994: 406).
147 Exemples empruntés à Nguyen Lan Trung (2006 : 22)
The Vietnamese language is isolating in nature, relying on syntactic tools such as autonomous grammatical morphemes and particles to express various grammatical relationships (Nguyen Lan Trung 2006: 10) Unlike inflectional languages like French, Vietnamese does not utilize grammatical categories such as gender, number, person, or tense (Nguyen Lan Trung 2006: 10).
Dans les deux syntagmes nominaux suivants : (1) ô một cõy bỳt chỡ ằ (un crayon), (2) ô những cõy bỳt chỡ ằ (des crayons), les noms ô bỳt chỡ ằ dans (1) et (2) restent invariables
The distinction between singular and plural in these noun phrases is marked by the determiners preceding the nouns For example, the determiner "một" (one) combined with the noun "cây" (tree) is used to express singularity, while the determiner "những" (some) with the same noun indicates plurality.
In the verb phrases (3) ô tụi đi bộ ằ (I walk) and (4) ô chỳng ta đi bộ ằ (we walk), there is no inflection for person or tense in the verb ô đi bộ ằ, despite the personal pronouns changing from one sentence to another This means that the two verbs ô đi bộ ằ remain unchanged Additionally, to indicate the past tense of an action expressed by a verb, such as in (3), the past marker ô đó ằ is added before the verb ô đi bộ ằ Consequently, we have the sentence (5) ô tơi đó đi bộ ằ (I walked), where the verb ô đi bộ ằ remains unchanged, just like in (3) and (4).
La syllabe est définie comme :
In Vietnamese, a verbal phrase consists of a premodifier, preverb, core verb, postmodifier, and postverb (Nguyen Lan Trung 2006: 92) The premodifier includes grammatical notions such as conviction, comparison, time, degree, and negation, while the postmodifier encompasses concepts like direction, reciprocity, duration, possibility, degree, completion, definiteness, continuity, insistence on negation, affirmation, order, advice, and wish The preverb and postverb contain full or partially full semantic words (Nguyen Lan Trung 2006: 105) For instance, in the sentence "Nú (SN) /đang rất cần viết ngay thư cho bạn" (he needs to write a letter to his friend right away), the components can be identified as follows: the premodifier is the present marker "đang," the degree marker "rất" serves as another premodifier, the preverb "cần" (to need) is followed by the core verb "viết" (to write), the postmodifier "ngay" (right away), and the postverb elements are "thư" (letter) and "cho bạn" (to his friend) (Nguyen Lan Trung 2006: 92).
The fundamental structure underlying all phoneme groupings in spoken language is based on the contrast between phonemes traditionally known as vowels and consonants The phonemic structure of a syllable is governed by a set of rules that differ from one language to another (Dubois et al 1994: 459).
In general, the following syllabic structures exist: V, CV, VC, and CVC, with CV being the only universal syllable type (Dubois et al 1994: 459) Each language has its own unique syllabic structure; for instance, the syllabic structure of French is represented as (C) + V + (C), where the consonants in parentheses are optional constituents (Rousset 2004, cited in Tran Thi Thuy Hien 2011: 60) This structure can be visually represented as follows:
Figure 10 : Structure syllabique du franỗais (citộ dans Tran Thi Thuy Hien
According to Nguyen Lan Trung (2006: 34), the syllabic structure of Vietnamese is viewed by both Vietnamese and foreign linguists as a sequence of C + V + C, where initial and final consonants may be absent As a tonal and phonetically monosyllabic language, tone plays a crucial role in this structure, affecting the entire syllable (Doan Thien Thuat 1980, cited in Nguyen Lan Trung 2006: 35) The syllabic structure of Vietnamese is thus illustrated in the following schema: initial tone, pre-tonal rhyme, tonal rhyme, and final tone.
Figure 11 : Structure syllabique du vietnamien (cité dans Nguyen Lan Trung (2006 : 35))
In this diagram, the initial vowel 'a' represents the attack position within the syllabic structure of French There are both consonantal initial vowels and null initial vowels, which are vocalic phonemes, as seen in the syllable 'ăn' [ʔăn 1] for the word 'manger' (Nguyen Lan Trung 2006: 38) The only pretonal phoneme in Vietnamese is the semi-vowel /w/, represented as 'u' or 'o' in writing, as illustrated in the words 'thuế' [tʷe 5] for 'tax' and 'toán' [twan 5] for 'mathematics' (Nguyen Lan Trung 2006: 38).
According to Nguyen Lan Trung (2006: 38), vowels play a crucial role in the tonal placement of the Vietnamese language In Vietnamese, a syllable can end with either a vowel or one of the two semi-vowels /w/ or /j/, as seen in the syllable giấu [ʑɤ ̌w 5] meaning "to hide," or ai [aj 1] meaning "who." Additionally, syllables may conclude with one of six final consonants: /p/, /t/, /k/, /m/, /n/, or /ɳ/, exemplified by the syllable Pháp [fap 5], meaning "France." The specific characteristics of these consonants will be discussed in the section on the consonantal system of Vietnamese.
D‟un point de vue contrastif entre le franỗais et le vietnamien, les caractộristiques de la dộlimitation et du mode d‟enchaợnement syllabique sont remarquộes par Tran Thi Thuy Hien