Implicit/Explicit Speech and Relationships between Girls/Boys Students in Team Sport Learning (Case of Tunisian Basketball)
- 1 Research Unit, “Sportive Performance and Physical Rehabilitation”, High Institute of Sports and Physical Education, Kef, University of Jendouba, Jendouba, Tunisia
- 2 Research Unit, “Sportive Performance and Physical Rehabilitation”, High Institute of Sports and Physical Education, Kef, University of Jendouba, Jendouba, Tunisia
- 3 Research Unit, “Sportive Performance and Physical Rehabilitation”, High Institute of Sports and Physical Education, Kef, University of Jendouba, Jendouba, Tunisia
- 4 Research Unit, “Sportive Performance and Physical Rehabilitation”, High Institute of Sports and Physical Education, Kef, University of Jendouba, Jendouba, Tunisia
- 5 Research Unit, “Sportive Performance and Physical Rehabilitation”, High Institute of Sports and Physical Education, Kef, University of Jendouba, Jendouba, Tunisia
Abstract
The intervention of the context, which represents the situation where the speech is delivered, upsets the logic so that the semiotic meaning produced by the situation of enunciation takes precedence over that of departure. This difference in meaning between “what is said” and “what is covered” was taken by the “pragmatic discourse” which focuses on the elements of language in context and in co-text. Austin (1970) distinguishes three speech acts: the elocutionary act, the illocutionary act and perlocutionary act that will be studied in the context of school and classroom of EPS basketball. An analysis of various acts of implicit and explicit language will allow studying the reports of site (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 2001) between girls and boys. All statements are of assertive type referred to with the order constituting instructions to remedy the failure. Most are accompanied by a brief argument that explains the cause or the consequence of the performed act. Although girls seem to take part in the discussion, their actions remain less important. If language is a form of action, if any statement is already pragmatically loaded, this charge is its propensity to act on others and to produce effects.
- Austin, J. L. (1970). Quand dire, c’est faire. Paris: Seuil.
- Grice, H. P. (1979). Logique et conversation. Communications, 30, 57-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/comm.1979.1446
- Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2008). Les actes de langage dans le discours. Tome1: Approche interactionnelle et structure des conversations (Nouvelle édition). Paris : Armand Colin.
- Moeschler, J. (1985). Argumentation et conversation. Eléments pour une analyse pragmatique du discours. Berne: Peter lang.
- Moeschler, J., & Reboul, A. (1994). Dictionnaire encyclopédique de pragmatique. Paris : Seuil.
- Roulet, E. (1981). Echanges, interventions et actes de langage dans la structure de la conversation. Etudes de linguistique appliquée, 44, 7-39.
- Searle, J. R. (1982). Sens et expression. Trad. Fr. Paris: Minuit.
- Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1989). La pertinence. Paris : Minuit.
- Wallian, N., Chang, C. W., Nachon, M., Couty, B., & Gréhaigne, J. F. (2004). Student Action Reading and Meaning Attribution: Towards a Model of Interpretation Register in Game Play. In R. Light, & K. Swabey, & Brooker, R. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 2nd Internationale Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education for Understanding. Melbourne (AU): University Press.
- Zghibi, M., Zerai, Z., & Rezig, M. (2009). Verbalization’s Direct Effects on Action’s Strategies and Decision Makings among Pupils at a Football Cycle. Journal of Research about the Intervention on Physical and Sportive Education, 16, 118-140.