« Negotiating Coherence in Greek Talk-Shows: the case of metalinguistic Markers »

Coherence in talk shows

Proceedings of the7th International Conference on Greek Linguistics

1

The Negotiation of Coherence in Greek Talk Shows : the case of Metalinguistic Markers

Helen Vassiliadou, University of Marc Bloch, StrasbourgMartha Voyiatzi, University of Marc Bloch, Strasbourg

Abstract

Στο παρόν κείμενο θα προσπαθήσουμε να δείξουμε πώς με τη βοήθεια κάποιων μεταγλωσσικών δεικτών όπως οι δηλαδή, εννοώ, θέλω να πω επιτυγχάνεται η συνάφεια στα Talk Shows. Θα εστιάσουμε το ενδιαφέρον μας σε δύο σημεία : πρώτα θα ορίσουμε τις σχέσεις συνάφειας, τους μεταγλωσσικούς δείκτες καθώς και τα Talk Shows και έπειτα θα προχωρήσουμε στην ανάλυση αυθεντικών παραδειγμάτων. Σκοπός μας δεν είναι η λεπτομερής ανάλυση ούτε των συγκεκριμένων δεικτών ούτε του είδους των Talk Shows γενικότερα. Πρόκειται περισσότερο για μια σύντομη θεωρητική προσέγγιση η οποία θέτει τις βάσεις για ένα μελλοντικό προβληματισμό.

1. Introduction

Coherence relations establish the link between two or more discourse segments. However, a review of existing accounts of coherence relations shows that there is no consensus on the number of relations needed (cf. Sanders et al., 1993 et Sanders, 1997). In the present paper, rather than propose a taxonomy of coherence relations, we shall restrict our attention to two particular areas. On the one hand, we shall focus on how Greek metalinguistic markers such as εννοώ /enoo/ (‘I mean’), θέλω να πω /θelo na po/ (litt. ‘I want to say’), μ’άλλα λόγια /mala loja/ (‘In other words’), δηλαδή (‘that is to say’), etc. contribute to the negotiation of coherence in Greek Talk Shows. On the other hand, we shall concentrate on Talk shows which represent a hybrid category of media discourse. Within this perspective, our communication will be structured on two major axes : we will first give an account of what we mean by coherence relations, metalinguistic markers and talk shows. After what, we will demostrate via authentic examples how coherence is acheived in Talk shows in general and how metalinguistic markers interfere in this process in particular.

2. Theoretical preliminaries

2.1 Coherence relations

We already mentionned above that there are different types of coherence relations and different theoretical frames. A classical approach is to classify them into relational or discourse domains : external vs internal (Halliday & Hasan, 1985), semantic vspragmatic (Van Dijk, 1979), subject matter vs presentational (Mann & Thompson, 1988), ideational vs rhetorical vs textual (Redeker, 1991, Degand, 1996). Even if it is difficult to reach an agreement as far as the number of coherence relations is concerned, we can grossly characterise them as follows :



2

relations that establish a link between discourse units that denote states of affairs (cause, contrast, etc.) ;

relations that establish a link between the illocutionary and the locutionary meaning of discourse units (justification, evidence, conclusion) ;

relations that establish a sequential link between adjacent segments (list, joint, comment, reformulation etc.) (see Degand, 1996).

For the purpose of this article, we take coherence relations as cognitive entities that play an important role in both discourse understanding and production. In similar vein, Gernsbacher and Givón (1995 : vii) treat coherence as a « mental phenomenon » :

« To the extent that the sender’s mental representation was coherent to begin with, and to the extent that the receiver’s mental representation matched that of the sender’s, the text is coherent » (Gernsbacher & Givón, 1995 : vii).

Within this mental model approach, we usually distinguish several means in order to acheive coherence. Examples are : the information content of description given by speakers, the amount of information provided, the use of definite articles and the use of connectives. In the litterature, connectives are generally considered to be prototypical markers of coherence relations. In this text, we will then concentrate on the problems that arise when one tries to relate to each other the discourse domains. This will be exemplified on the hand of metalinguistic constructions. Since we will restrict our investigations here to the coherence relations that are linguistically marked by connectives, we will try to show that there is no one to one mapping between coherence relations and discourse markers. This entails that a coherence relation is not always marked by the same connective, and that a given connective does not always signal the same relation, even if it belongs to one and the same family.

2.2 Metalinguistic Markers

It is known that a metalanguage is a language used to talk about another language. We must however distinguish, in line with Rey-Debove (1978), Kalokerinos (1998) and Trask (1999), between the object language (the language which we are talking about) and the metalanguage (the language we are using to talk about the object language). In this sense, it is often very difficult to say with certainty whether the markers we chose to study are always metalinguistic or not. For instance, an example such as (1) shows that δηλαδή assumes a metalinguistic function. On the contrary, in (2), the marker does not play a metalinguistic role :

(1) Έτρεμε σαν το φύλλο (X). Κρύωνε δηλαδή (Y).(2) Έτρεμε σαν το φύλλο (X). Έπρεπε δηλαδή να μπει κάτω από τη κουβέρτα (Y).

It is quiet evident that, in (1) and (2), δηλαδή operates at two distinct levels : in (1), it establishes a link between two different ways to say the same thing whilst in (2) it is associated at two facts and is not therefore metalinguistic. In other words, the relation between X and Y is a relation between words in (1) and not between facts. We can paraphrase the examples above as follows :



3

(1’) The words X’ (« Έτρεμε σαν το φύλλο ») are synonymous with the words Y’.(2’) The fact X (« Έτρεμε σαν το φύλλο ») led to the fact Y.

These paraphrases show that only (1) is opaque whether (2) establishes a causal relation between the facts X and Y and is therefore transparent (see also Authier-Revuz, 1987 : 58-59).

It is also known in the litterature that prototypical metalinguistic markers contain in their semantic structure the verb « say » (cf. the french c’est-à-dire, the english that is to say, the catalan es decir, etc. vs δηλαδή >δηλα (‘manifestly’) + intensifier δή). But even in this case, the verb « say », which includes in its semantism the seme [language], refers sometimes to the « world » and sometimes to the « language » (cf. Tamba, 1982 : 22-31). To sum up, for the time being, we can say that the denomination of metalinguistic markers can be applied when the markers in question are used to differenciate identical referents differently named. In other words, metalinguistic markers respond to the schemes a) and b) proposed by Leech (1983 : 6) and reused in Kalokerinos (1998 : 250) :

a) What does X mean ?b) What do you mean by X ?

Finally, it is important to mention that connectives do not only participate at a global coherence level, but, and surely more, at a local level of cohesion. They are salient signals that become effective in eliciting active collaboration in order to ensure « mutual knowledge » among the participants. Within this perspective, we should take into account a general framework which can satisfy our analysis that is situated between conversational and classical semantics/pragmatics approach. From this point of view, we will consider on the one hand the semantic interpretation of the words used. On the other hand, within the mental approach of coherence, we will take as starting point that metalinguistic markers participate in a retrieval process in order to find the appropriate antecedent.

2.3 Corpus and Talk Shows

In this part we will discuss corpus issues. The excerpts that will be used to illustrate the ways in which coherence is negotiated are taken from a larger corpus, constituted for the needs of our communication. We have at our disposal approximately 8 hours of television data.

2.3.1 Selection’s criteria

It seems important to us to precise the criteria according to which we have proceeded to the selection of data.

a) Programs : Our corpus is composed of 2 integral talk shows. The panel programs used for this communication respond to specific needs and have been recorded during the elections’ campaign in Greece (2004). We wish to remind here that



4

programs in their entirety give us the opportunity to analyse the script and focus on the macro-structure, thus considering talk shows from a macro-textual aspect1.b) Participants’ Frame: We have chosen programs with more than three participants, since we are interested in the dynamics developed and strategies applied in communicative situations other than dialogues and trilogues.

2.3.2 Definition and characteristic features of talk shows

It is extremely difficult to define such a particular type of media discourse as talk shows2. Talk shows present patterns of communicative and social behaviour which can be associated with more than one discourse type. Judging by the introductory and closing parts, talk shows can be regarded as a sort of entertainment programme designed to be funny and easy-going. Judging by the recurring goal-oriented question-response sequences, we can also consider talk shows as a subcategory of news interviews, since they are expected to provide information concerning current social, political or moral issues, or as debate programmes, since they encourage the exchange and confrontation of opinions. At the same time, when focusing on topics concerning people’s physical and mental health, talk shows seem to have more similarities with a doctor-patient dialogue or even with a therapeutical dialogue. Moreover, casual and spontaneous dialogue occupies considerable time in talk shows, thus the latter could equally fit in the frame of conversation. Whereas each of these types of discourse appears to share certain features with talk shows, it can hardly be said that any of them is more representative than the rest.

Concerning some general characteristic features of this kind of programmes, we may say that talk shows are institutionally-defined, host-controlled, participant-shaped and audience-evaluated. To be more precise, talk shows are ruled by situational and discursive constraints such as particular setting, time and turn-taking restrictions. They are host-controlled, because of the highly authoritative role of the show host and of the asymmetrical distribution of power between the latter and the participants. Moreover, the dynamics developed are due to the composition of the panel, this is why talk showsare described as participant-evaluated programmes. Besides, talk shows address a multiple audience and is also characterised by a high degree of ritualisation, especially in the introductory and closure sequences.

To sum up, we could define talk shows as a particular instance, a hybrid of broadcast discourse, seen both, as a media product and as an ongoing talk-oriented process. At the same time, talk shows constitute a particular type of discourse (semi-institutional discourse), situated between casual conversation on one hand and institutional interaction on the other. The semi-institutional nature of talk shows is reflected in the mixture of characteristics in terms of discursive configuration and goal, participant role assignment and role switching, as well as talk and topic control.

1 As “speech events” or “communicative events”, according to the ethnography of communication. For further details, see also Aston (1988), and Levinson (1992). 2 For a definition of Talk Shows, see Livingstone & Lunt (1994), Fairclough (1995), Charaudeau & Ghiglione (1997), Gregori-Signes (2000) and Ilie (2001).



5

3. Analysis

We will structure our paper round two levels : we shall first examine the macro-structure and global coherence of the text and we will then proceed in the micro analysis of some particular segments. We can be confronted with local consistency but global inconsistency and vice versa, where the text is produced either in a top-down planned manner with fixed perspective and global goals governing the selection of local structures, or in a bottom-up unplanned manner with shifting and negotiated perspectives. In other words we take into account both coherence and cohesion relations or, to put it differently, both intra- and extra- textual processes (cf. also the three generic kind of relations mentioned by Roulet, 2002 : 157 : semantic, textual, praxeological).

3.1. Macro-structure and global analysis

At the outset, we must point out that the main topic of the two talk shows we chose to examine is the debate between more that two political parties’ leaders (in contrast with previous electoral debates). Naturally, during the program, other similar subjects were discussed such as : the importance and the impact of this media event, the image of the leaders, difficult questions that leaders should answer to, and critics on their policy. In evidence, interlocutors seem to have at least at the beginning, clear global goals. The conversation is oriented but not in the same way as in task-oriented dialogues such as telephoning directory encounters (cf. Clark, 1985). The talk shows we deal with follow most of the known conversational models that have been described by, inter alia, Sacks and his collegues, Stubbs (1983), Pomeranz & Fehr (1997), as “locally-managed, party-administered, interactionally-controlled and sensitive to recipient design” (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974: 696). The hierarchical mental text structure of the talk shows in question can be resumed as follows:

Introductory sequence (salutations, presentation of the participants, introduction of the topic)Καλησπέρα σας..., το θέμα της αποψινής συζήτησης είναι..., καλωσορίζω στο στούντιο τους...

questionEpisode 1

Interaction’s body response 1, 2, 3…

Episode 2

Episode 3

….

Pre-closing sequence/negotiation of the structureClosing sequence Α: φτάσαμε στο τέλος...

Β: θα ήθελα όμως να προσθέσω πριν κλείσουμε...

Real closing sequence : aknowledgements, salutations

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243775918_Conversation_Analysis_An_Approach_to_the_Study_of_Social_Action_as_Sense_Making_Practices?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-e221c11d-b153-422b-b1dd-257542cf1892&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI3ODY3MjY4MjtBUzoyNDE2MjE3NjE1MjM3MTJAMTQzNDYxODUyNTUyMw==



6

The macro-structure of our data is a “network of connected nodes” (Givón, 1995 : 63) that obeys to recurrent mechanisms which advantage the continuous thematic development of the different sequences. Among these mechanisms, topic persistence3 as well as inferences’ and presuppositions’ re-using constitute the most powerful coherence factors.

Furthermore, we observe that the use of different terms of introducing a new topic or a new referent such as “do you know”, “do you remember”, “as I told you off the record”, etc. ensure that the participants’ contributions are understandable for their listeners (also see what Schegloff, 1980, calls “ a preliminary device”).

Thus, we may consider coherence as a continuity. In similar vein, Givón (1995 : 61) notes that “coherence is the continuity or recurrence of some element(s) across a span (or spans) of texts”.

The macro-structure of natural occurring conversation often appears incoherent. Yet, insofar as the participants themselves provide no indication that they are discontented with what has been achieved, we have to treat such texts as coherent. In addition to this statement, our data do not display incoherent sequences in asymmetrical talk. Besides, participants seem to cooperate most of the time, even if this cooperation is often superficial. Evidence for active collaboration is the frequent use of salient signals, such as regulators ( χμ… χμ…, ακριβώς, ναι, σωστό, etc.), whose role is to ensure mutual knowledge.

To sum up, the macro-structure of talk shows is more than a random set of sentences, since it coheres or rather because participants make a coherent representation of it :

« in face-to-face interaction, participants in talk will go to almost any lengths todiscover coherence in utterances they hear » (Coates, 1995 :53).

3.2. Micro-structure, local coherence and cohesion

The macro-structural approach has shown that with or without the presence of formal textual markers, participants attempt to interpret what they hear. In other words, discourse competence is the “ability to discover discourse coherence when it is not evident in the (…) propositional cohesion” (Stubbs, 1983 : 179).

Furthermore, what is curious in our case is that metalinguistic markers are normally expected to establish first cohesion and then, in a global frame, coherence and avoid misunderstanding (see the relation of reformulation, explaining, elaboration). However, our analysis will demonstrate that they create disorder and lead speakers or listeners to negotiate coherence.

Δηλαδή is the most frequently used marker in our corpus, followed by θέλω να πω, εννοώ and μ’άλλα λόγια. It is known that each marker vehicles a specific semantic or

3 C.f. Charolles’ (1978) four Meta-rules of coherence (repetition, progression, non-contradiction and relation).



7

pragmatic instruction and does not always commute in the same context4. Yet, we deliberately left aside these differences in order to concentrate on the role they generallyplay in cohesion’s and coherence’s relations.

First of all, we chose to maintain the term of metalinguistic markers because, as we mentioned above, their main feature is to specify the relation between two utterances where normally the latter is a paraphrase of the former. However, we can assign them different functions at different levels, such as argumentation (ex.3), denomination (ex.4), correction (ex.5) :

(3) Στις δημοσκοπήσεις πάντως έρχεται πρώτος ο Κύριος Καραμανλής. Μ’άλλα λόγια, ο κόσμος του έχει εμπιστοσύνη.

(4) Και όπως είδατε δυσκολεύτηκε πολύ να απαντήσει στις ερωτήσεις σας οκύριος ξερόλας. Εννοώ τον κύριο Νικήτα Κακλαμάνη.

(5) Α : σας ικανοποιεί κύριε Κουβέλη/ [γιατί νομίζω ότι] ο:: συνασπισμός ήταν και το κόμμα που φώναξε λίγο πιο δυνατά και:: κίνησε λίγο πιο:: [ζωηρά τη διαδικασία]

Φ.Κ : [ναι με ικανοποιεί] δηλαδή όχι δεν με ικανοποιεί η απάντηση του κυρίου Βερελή

These different uses depend of course on the marker’s pragmaticalisation degree and on its syntactic environment (for a similar discussion see Archakis, 2001 and Dostie, 2004). Alongside with their different semantic instructions, markers confer to the segment they appear an interpretation which can be more or less neutral (in the case of definitions, explanations, restrictions, résumés) or controversial, in which case participants are more inclined to negotiate coherence.

Another particularity is that metalinguistic markers appear in both of the extreme bounds of coherence, that is redundancy and contradiction. On the one hand, paraphrase is considered as a form of repetition and tends to a maximal coherence. Sometimes maximal redundancy can lead to a tautology, as in the example below :

(6) να κλείσουμε αυτόν τον κύκλο της συζήτησης για το ντιμπέιτ για να πάμε και παρακάτω δηλαδή να πάμε και στην επόμενη μέρα του ντιμπέιτ

vs

(6’) ? να κλείσουμε αυτόν τον κύκλο της συζήτησης για το ντιμπέιτ για να πάμε και παρακάτω δηλαδή να πάμε παρακάτω

However, from a semantic point of view, metalinguistic markers must always bring new information and must never lead to a tautology 5 . At the other end of a notional continuum of coherence, we have the case of contradiction :

4 We mostly refer to Kalokairinos (1998), Archakis (2001) and Vassiliadou (2004) works.5 This accounts for the fact that markers are not semantically empty.



8

(7) Α : ναι, το είπα. Δηλαδή όχι, δεν το είπα. Β: τελικά το είπατε ή όχι ;

As Givón comments (1995 : 75), in a text involving this kind of contradiction ‘all nodes in the two clauses seem to cohere maximally – except for the crucial node of truth value’. Such Clauses are logically incompatible. ‘But it is precisely the logical incompatibility of the two clauses (and the conflict between two possible worlds, one true and one false) which makes such texts humorous’ (Coates, 1995 : 50). To sum up, such examples are not incoherent but are part of the way coherence is negotiated.

Another interesting observation is that, even if metalinguistic markers are considered to be cohesion traces, they mostly break cohesion. This cohesion cut occurs mostly in three levels :

a) intonation level : metalinguistic markers are preceded and sometimes followedby a pause ;

b) syntactic level : even if they usually enter a paratactic structure which should advantage cohesion, we see that their presence provokes a break between what precedes the markers and the beginning of a new information. In addition, other elements can separate the marker from his right constituent ;

c) pragmatic and semantic level : the break is generally observed in cases of correction we mentioned above.

Finally, since we consider coherence as a cognitive phenomenon in the mind that produces and comprehends texts and not only as an observable artefact, we have to examine metalinguistic markers in relation with at least two mental traces :

a) ‘working memory buffer’ (i.e. immediate recall)b) ‘episodic memory’ (i.e. longer term recall)

Metalinguistic markers participate to a retrieval process in order to find the appropriate antecedent. They signal the introduction of an entity previously known to the listener or, at least, easily inferable. In other words, their scope is limited to the verbatim text. By verbatim one means not only the vocabulary but also the surface grammatical form of utterances. To put it clearly, the language user retains in his discursive memory only a short piece of text which conserves the lexical and semantic trace of what precedes the metalinguistic markers. So δηλαδή, εννοώ, etc. recall the more immediate trace of text and they are thus responsible for at least some coherence of the mentally represented text. It is also obvious after these few remarks, that metalinguistic markers participate at the working memory buffer because during the short time span of the buffer, whatever portion of the external speech signal that is at all to survive in longer term memory must be translated rapidly. Last but not least, according to Squire (1987), retrieving propositional information from episodic memory together with grammatical clues that were originally attached to it would render the information rather than confusing, since those grammatical clues are incompatible with the proposition’s current communicative context.



9

4. Conclusion

In this paper, we have used naturally occurring data to illustrate the way coherence is negotiated in talk shows interaction. We have focused on examples introduced by metalinguistic markers in order to demonstrate that, where speakers are cooperating in talk as a joined enterprise, there are limits to what can count as coherence. In other words, overt grammatical signal such as connectives or syntactic constructions guide the text comprehender in the construction of a mental representation and this is a vital cognitive boost. We have also shown how repetition, far from being redundant, functions to communicate the active involvement of speakers in on going talk. Moreover, utterances which appear superficially incoherent, because they display no propositional cohesion, are coherent when viewed in the context of the wider text (see macro-structure analysis). Finally, no single approach can account for the wide range of factors (linguistic, pragmatic and social) which contribute to discourse coherence. Therefore, further investigation as well as deeper analysis are needed in order to complete our preliminary approach.

5. References

Archakis, A., (2001), “On discourse markers: Evidence from Modern Greek”, Journal of Pragmatics 33, pp. 1235-1261.

Aston, G., (1988), “What’s a public service encounter anyway ?”, in, Negotiating Service. Studies in the Discourse of Bookshop Encounters, Bologna : CLUEB.

Authier-Revuz, J., (1987), « L’auto-représentation opacifiante de dire dans certaines formes de couplage », DRLAV 36-37, Paris, pp. 55-103.

Charaudeau, P. & Ghiglione, R., (1997), La parole confisquée, un genre télévisuel : le talk show, Paris : Armand Colin.

Charolles, M., (1978), « Introduction aux problèmes de la cohérence textuelle », Langue française 38, pp. 7-42.

Clarc, H.H., (1985), “Language use and language users”, in G. Lindsey and E. Aronson (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, New York: Harper Row, pp. 55-72.

Clarc, H.H., and C.R. Marshall, (1981), “Definite reference and mutual knowledge”, in A.K. Joshi et al. (eds), Elements of Discourse Understanding, Cambridge: CUP, pp. 3-15.

Coates, J., (1995), “The negotiation of coherence in face-to-face interaction: some examples of the extreme bounds”, in M.A. Gernsbacher and T. Givón (eds), Coherence in spontaneous text, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 41-58.

Degand, L., (1996), A Situation-based Approach to Causation in Dutch with some implications for text generation, PhD dissertation, Université catholique de Louvain.

Dostie, G., (2004), Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs, Duculot.Fairclough, N., (1995), Media Discourse, London / New York : E. Arnold.Gernsbacher, M.A and T. Givón (eds), Coherence in spontaneous text, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.

vii-x.Givón, T., (1995), “Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind”, in M.A. Gernsbacher and T. Givón (eds),

Coherence in spontaneous text, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 60-115.Gregori-Signes, C., (2000), “The tabloid talk show as a quasi-conversational type of face-to face

interaction”, Pragmatics 10-2, pp. 195-213.Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R., (1985), Cohesion in English, London : Longman.Ilie, C., (2001), “Semi – institutional discourse: the case of talk shows”, Journal of Pragmatics 33,

pp.209-254.Kalokairinos, A., (1998), “εννοώ, θέλω να πω : παρατηρήσεις στην κοινή μεταγλώσσα”, Studies in Greek

Linguistics, Proceedings of the 18th annual meeting of the department of linguistics, Thessaloniki, Aristotle University.



10

Leech, G., (1983), Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman.Levinson, S.C, (1992), “Activity types and language”, in Drew & Heritage (eds).Livingstone, S. & Lunt, P., (1994), Talk on television, London : Routledge.Mann, W.C. and S.A. Thompson, (1988), “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of

text organization”, Text 8: 3, pp. 243-281.Pomeranz, A. and B.J. Fehr. 1997. “Conversation Analysis: An approach to the study of Social Action as

Sense Making Practices”. In T. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. vol 2. London: Sage, pp. 64-91.

Redeker, G. (1991), « Linguistic markers of discourse structure », Linguistics 29, 1139-1172.Rey-Debove, J., (1978), (1997, deuxième édition revisitée et augmentée), Le métalangage, étude

linguistique du discours sur le langage, coll. L’ordre des mots, Paris : Le Robert. Roulet, E., (2002), “De la nécessité de distinguer des relations de discourse sémantiques, textuelles et

praxéologiques”, in H.L. Andersen & H. Nølke (éds), Macro-syntaxe et macro-sémantique. Actes du colloque d’Århus, Berne: Peter Lang, pp. 141-165.

Sanders, T., (1997), “Semantic and Pragmatic sources of coherence: on the categorisation of coherence relations in context”, Discourse Processes 24, pp. 119-147.

Sanders, T. et al., (1993), “Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation”, Cognitive Linguistics 4/2, pp. 93-133.

Schegloff, E.A., (1980), “ Preliminaries to preliminaries : ‘Can I ask you a question?’”, Sociological Inquiry 50 (3/4), pp. 104-152.

Squire, L., (1987), Memory and Brain, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Stubbs, M., (1983), Discourse Analysis, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Tamba, I., (1982), [Compte rendu de :] Rey-Debove 1978, Le métalangage, Le français moderne 2, pp.

22-31.Trask, R.L., (1999), R.L., Keyconcepts in Language and Linguistics, Oxford : Routledge.Van Dijk, T., (1979), Text and Context. Explorations in the semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse,

Londres, Longman.Vassiliadou, H., (2004), Les connecteurs ‘c’est-à-dire (que)’ en français et ‘δηλαδή’ (ðilaði) en grec.

Analyse syntaxique et sémantico-pragmatique, Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Strasbourg-II.Voyiatzi, M., (2001), Construction des identités dans un débat politique : Le profil interactionnel des

participants dans le débat institutionnel d'Avril 2000 en Grèce, Mémoire de DEA, Université Lyon-II.

Documents

« Negotiating Coherence in Greek Talk-Shows: the case of metalinguistic Markers »