Anje Müller Gjesdal Anders Alvsåker Didriksen

1. On what is not said and who said it:Argumentation in Sarkozy’s speech to the European Parliament, 21th October 2008 Anje Müller Gjesdal Anders AlvsåkerDidriksen

2. 1. Introduction 1.1 Communicational setting 1.2 Constructing a shared discourse space 1.3 Naturalizing connectives 2. Pragmatic connectives 2.1 The connective parce que 3. The use of indexicals: Constructing a common perspective 3.1 The personal pronoun nous 3.2 The demonstrative determinant cette 4. Concluding remarks

3. 1.1 Communicational setting • Sarkozy is presenting a vision of the European project to the European parliament • Sarkozy is presenting some of the results achieved by the French presidency • the conflict between Russia and Georgia • the finance crisis • the climate package.

4. Linguistic features • The causal connective parce que • The personal pronouns nous and je • The demonstrative determinant cette

5. 1.2 Constructing a shared discourse space • Discourse partners create their discourse space together – deciding who the pronouns “I” and “You” refer to, agreeing which objects the demonstratives “This” and “That” refer to, and so on

6. 1.3 Naturalizing connectives • The connective parce que seems to “naturalize” the argumentative movement, since it presents the linking of the arguments as a relation of cause and effect, rather than a relation that needs to be argued and justified.

7. Excerpt from the speech

8. 2. Pragmatic connectives • Connectives are linguistic units that are not an integrated part of any propositions, but assure the connection between two or several propositions and organise their relations, without being anaphors.

9. 2.1 The connective Parce que • Peut-être p parce que q Le prince est peut-être ruiné parce que son père a pris de gros risques financiers (Nazarenko 2000). (The prince is maybe ruined because his father has taken great financial risks) • p, peut-être parce que q Le prince est ruiné, peut-être parce que son père a pris de gros risques financiers. The prince is ruined, maybe it is because his father has taken great financial risks. • *p parce que peut-être q *Le prince est ruiné parce que son père a peut-être pris de gros risques financiers. *The prince is ruined because maybe his father has taken great financial risks.

10. 2.1 The connective Parce que Preliminary logical-semantic instructions of parce que: In the sequence “pparce que q”, the argument of p is presented as an effect which is likely to be caused by a given fact presented as true in the argument of q.

11. 2.1 The connective Parce que • Cette Europe, nous avons voulu d’abord qu’elle soit unie - ce qui n’a pas été simple -, qu’elle ait une pensée indépendante - parce que le monde a besoin de la pensée de l’Europe -, et qu’elle soit volontariste. Si l’Europe a des choses à dire, qu’elle ne se contente pas de les dire, qu’elle les fasse. • This Europe, we have wanted first of all for it to be united – which has not been easy -, that it should have an independent thought – because the world needs the thought of Europe -, and that it should be voluntary. If Europe has things to say, she should not just say them, she should act accordingly.

12. 2.1 The connective Parce que Cette Europe, nous avons voulu d’abord : • qu’elle soit unie - ce qui n’a pas été simple • qu’elle ait une pensée indépendante - parce que le monde a besoin de la pensée de l’Europe • qu’elle soit volontariste Si l’Europe a des choses à dire, qu’elle ne se contente pas de les dire, qu’elle les fasse.

13. 2.1 The connective Parce que  Nous avons voulu que L’Europe ait une pensée indépendante - parce que le monde a besoin de la pensée de l’Europe.  We have wanted Europe to have an independent thought – because the world needs the thought of Europe

14. 2.1 The connective Parce que Derived syllogism Pmaj. Implicit : We would like Europe to do what is best for the whole world Pmin. implicit: If someone (the world) needs the thought of someone; it is because it is an independent thought and because nobody else has the same thought Pmin.:The world needs the thought of Europe Effect: We have wanted Europe to have an independent thought

15. 3. The use of indexicals:Constructing a common perspective Qu’est-ce que nous avons essayé de construire ? [….] On fera avancer l’Europe si le Parlement européen, si la Commission et si le conseil trouvent sur les grands sujets la voie du consensus pour faire entendre la parole de l’Europe. Cette Europe, nous avons voulu d’abord qu’elle soit unie - ce qui n’a pas été simple -, qu’elle ait une pensée indépendante - parce que le monde a besoin de la pensée de l’Europe -, et qu’elle soit volontariste. Si l’Europe a des choses à dire, qu’elle ne se contente pas de les dire, qu’elle les fasse. What have we tried to construct? […] One will make Europe move forward if the european Parliament, the Commission and the Council can find a way of consensus in the matter of the big issues, to make Europe’s voice be heard. This Europe, we have wanted first of all for it to be united – which has not been easy -, that it should have an independent thought – because the world needs the thought of Europe -, and that it should be voluntary. If Europe has things to say, she should not just say them, she should act accordingly.

16. 3.1 The personal pronoun nous The pronoun NOUS functions as a focalizer for the vision presented, and even though its primary reference is the French presidency, its semantic flexibility would seem to allow for the inclusion of other actors in this perspective.

17. 3.2 The demonstrative determinant cette Cette Europe does not merely point out the object “Europe”, it also contributes to the definition of a certain idea of Europe, or in the very least, suggests that such an idea exists.

18. 4. Concluding remarks • “What is not said and who said it”: the use of connectives like parce que generates implicit arguments. Indexicals may help identify the sources of such implicit arguments.

19. Some bibliographical references: Anscombre, J.-C. & O. Ducrot. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Liège-Paris: Mardaga Chilton, P. (2003). “Deixis and distance: President Clinton’s justification of intervention in Kosovo” in. Dedaic, M. N. & D. N. (eds.) At War with Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nazarenko, A. 2000. La cause et son expression en français. Paris : Ophrys. Nølke, H., K. Fløttum, & C. Norén, 2004. ScaPoLine. La théorie scandinave de la polyphonie linguistique. Paris: Kimé. Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-M. & Rioul, R. [1994]/1999. Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France. Schneuwly, B. et al. 1989. « Structuration des textes : connecteurs et démarcations graphiques » in Langue Française 81, 59-98. Zupnik, Y.-J. (1994). « A pragmatic analysis of the use of person deixis in political discourse. » Journal of Pragmatics. 21, 339-383.