Within the conceptual framework of comparative discourse linguistics, this article examines the similarities and the differences between Anglo-American and French Usenet newsgroups and builds hypotheses about the implicit rules which govern the respective ethnolinguistic communities. The comparison is focused on cultural perceptions of questions and explanations occurring in the messages posted in these newsgroups. Both discursive operations have different conversational functions in the Anglo-American and the French messages. Their cross-cultural analysis shows that within the Anglo-American newsgroup, the purpose of the discussion is to get a better comprehension of the complexity of (environmental) issues, whereas the purpose within the French newsgroup is to maintain an ordinary conversation between equals.
Adam, J.-M. ( 1992) Les textes: types et prototypes. Récit, description, argumentation, explication et dialogue. Paris: Nathan.
2.
Adam, J.-M. ( 1999) Linguistique textuelle. Des genres de discours aux textes . Paris: Nathan.
3.
Adam, J.-M. ( 2005) La linguistique textuelle. Introduction à l’analyse textuelle des discours. Paris: Armand Colin.
4.
Atifi, H. and Marcoccia, M. ( 2006) ‘Communication médiatisée par ordinateur et variation culturelle: analyse contrastive de forums de discussion français et marocains’, Les Carnets du Cediscor9: 59-73.
5.
Baker, M.J. ( 2003) ‘Computer-mediated Argumentative Interactions for the Co-elaboration of Scientific Notions’, in J. Andriessen, M.J. Baker and D. Suthers (eds) Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments, pp. 47-78. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, available online at: http://www.vjf.cnrs.fr/umr8606/FichExt/mbaker/publications/ArticlesBakerPDF/2003/2003a.pdf
6.
Bakhtin, M.M. ( 1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
7.
Benveniste, É. ( 1966) Problèmes de linguistique générale . Paris: Gallimard.
8.
Beun, R.J. ( 2000) ‘Context and Form: Declarative or Interrogative, that is the Question’, in H.C. Bunt and W. Black (eds) Abduction, Belief, and Context in Dialogue: Studies in Computational Pragmatics , pp. 311-26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, available online at: http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/ginzburg/papers/book-int.ps
9.
Borel, M.J. ( 1981) ‘Donner des raisons. Un genre de discours, l’explication’ , Revue européenne des sciences socialesXIX(56): 37-68.
10.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. ( 1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Chenault, B.G. ( 1998) ‘Developing Personal and Emotional Relationships via Computer-mediated Communication’, Computer-mediated Communication Magazine5(5), available online at: http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1998/may/chenault.html
Coveney, A. ( 1988) ‘Pragmatic Constraints on Interrogatives in Spoken French’, York Papers in Linguistics13: 89-99, available online at: http://eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/20/78/72.pdf
14.
Crystal, D. ( 2006) Language and the Internet. New York : Cambridge University Press.
15.
Danet, B. and Herring, S.C. ( 2003) ‘Introduction: The Multilingual Internet’ , Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication9(1), available online at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol9/issue1/intro.html
16.
De Gaulmyn, M. ( 1991) ‘La question dans tous ses états. Les cinq types de questions de l’explication conversationnelle’, in C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni (ed.) La question, pp. 295-322. Lyon: Presses universitaires de Lyon.
17.
De Vries, E., Lund, K. and Baker, M. ( 2002) ‘Computer-mediated Epistemic Dialogue: Explanation and Argumentation as Vehicles for Understanding Scientific Notions’ , The Journal of the Learning Sciences11(1): 63-103, available online at: http://www.vjf.cnrs.fr/umr8606/FichExt/mbaker/publications/ArticlesBakerPDF/2002/2002EtAl-c.pdf
18.
Dewaele, J.M. ( 1999) ‘Word Order Variation in Interrogative Structures of Native and Non-native French’, ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics123-4: 161-80.
19.
Elmer-DeWitt, P. ( 1994) ‘Bards Of the Internet’, Time, available online at: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,981013,00.html
20.
Ess, C. and Sudweeks, F. (eds) (2001) Culture, Technology, Communication: Towards an Intercultural Global Village. Albany: State University of New York Press.
21.
Frank, J. ( 1990) ‘You Call that a Rhetorical Question?: Forms and Functions of Rhetorical Questions in Conversation’, Journal of Pragmatics14(5): 723-38.
22.
Ginzburg, J. ( 1996) ‘Interrogatives: Questions, Facts and Dialogue’ , The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory5: 359-423, available online at: http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/ginzburg/finnishhand.pdf
23.
Ginzburg, J. and Sag, I.A. ( 2000) Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
24.
Gruber, H. ( 1998) ‘Computer-mediated Communication and Scholarly Discourse: Forms of Topic-initiation and Thematic Development’, Pragmatics8(1): 21-45.
25.
Han, C. ( 1998) ‘Deriving the Interpretation of Rhetorical Questions’ , in E. Curtis, J. Lyle, G. Webster, Z. Boskovic and H.-W. Choi (eds) Proceedings of West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics, pp. 237-53. Stanford, CA: CSLI .
26.
Han, C. ( 2002) ‘Interpreting Interrogatives as Rhetorical Questions’ , Lingua112(3): 201-29, available online at: http://www.sfu.ca/~chunghye/papers/lingua112-3-2.pdf
27.
Herring, S.C. ( 1993) ‘Gender and Democracy in Computer-mediated Communication’ , The Electronic Journal of Communication3(2), available online at: http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/003/2/00328.HTML
28.
Herring, S.C. ( 1995) ‘Men’s Language on the Internet’, Proceedings of the 2nd Nordic Language and Gender Conference (Nordlyd ) 23: 1-20.
29.
Herring, S.C. ( 1996) ‘Two Variants of an Electronic Message Schema’ , in S.C. Herring (ed.) Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-cultural Perspectives , pp. 81-108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, available online at: <http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/2variants.1996.pdf
30.
Herring, S.C. ( 1999) ‘The Rhetorical Dynamics of Gender Harassment On-line’ , The Information Society15(3): 151-67.
31.
Herring, S.C. ( 2001) ‘Foreword’, in C. Ess and F. Sudweeks (eds) Culture, Technology, Communication: Towards an Intercultural Global Village , pp. vii-vix. Albany: State University of New York Press.
32.
Huddleston, R. ( 1994) ‘The Contrast between Interrogatives and Questions’ , Journal of Linguistics30(2): 411-39.
33.
Jakobson, R. ( 1960) ‘Closing Statements: Linguistics and Poetics’ , in T.A. Sebeok (ed.) Style in Language, pp. 350-77. New York/ London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press and John Wiley.
34.
Jeong, A. and Davidson-Shivers, G.V. ( 2006) ‘The Effects of Gender Interaction Patterns on Student Participation in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation’, Educational Technology Research and Development54(6): 543-68.
35.
Jeong, A.C. ( 2007) ‘The Effects of Intellectual Openness on the Processes of Critical Thinking in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation’ , Journal of Distance Education22(1): 1-18, available online at: http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/4/463
36.
Joyce, E. and Kraut, R.E. ( 2006) ‘Predicting Continued Participation in Newsgroups’ , Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication11(3): 723-47, available online at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue3/joyce.html
37.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. ( 1991a) ‘Introduction’, in C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni (ed.) La question, pp. 5-37. Lyon : Presses universitaires de Lyon.
38.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. ( 1991b) ‘L’acte de question et l’acte d’assertion: opposition discrète ou continuum?’, in C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni (ed.) La question, pp. 87-111. Lyon : Presses universitaires de Lyon.
39.
Langacker, R. ( 1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
40.
Longacre, R.E. ( 1992) ‘The Discourse Strategy of an Appeals Letter’ , in W.C. Mann and S.A. Thompson (eds) Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text, pp. 109-30. Amsterdam : Benjamins.
41.
Lyons, J. ( 1977) Semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
McLaughlin, M.L., Osborne, K.K. and Smith, C.B. ( 1995) ‘Standards of Conduct on Usenet’, in S.G. Jones (ed.) CyberSociety: Computer-mediated Communication and Community, pp. 90-111. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
Mahoney, J.E. and Knupfer, N.N. ( 1997) ‘Language, Gender and Cyberspace: Pulling the Old Stereotypes into New Territory’, in Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1997 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 200-2. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, available online at: http://eric.ed.gov :80
44.
Marcoccia, M. ( 2003) ‘Parler politique dans un forum de discussion’ , Langage & société104: 9-55, available online at: http://www.cairn.info/article.php?ID_REVUE=LS&ID_NUMPUBLIE=LS_104&ID_ARTICLE=LS_104_0009
45.
Münchow, P. von ( 2004) Les journaux télévisés en France et en Allemagne. Plaisir de voir ou désir de s’informer. Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
46.
Münchow, P. von and Rakotonoelina, F. ( 2006a) ‘Avant-propos. Discours, Cultures, Comparaisons’ , Les Carnets du Cediscor9: 9-17.
47.
Münchow, P. von and Rakotonoelina, F. ( 2006b) ‘L’interrogation et le discours rapporté dans les forums de discussion sur l’environnement en français et en anglo-américain’, Les Carnets du Cediscor9: 93-107.
48.
Münchow, P. von and Rakotonoelina, F. ( 2008) ‘Les configurations discursives de l’explication dans les forums de discussion sur Internet. Le cas de l’environnement’ , in C. Hudelot, A. Salazar Orvig and E. Veneziano (eds) L’explication: enjeux cognitifs et interactionnels, pp. 111-22. Leuven : Peeters.
49.
Nussbaum, E.M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G.M., Reynolds, R.E. and Bendixen, L.D. ( 2004) ‘Personality Interactions and Scaffolding in On-line Discussions’, Journal of Educational Computing Research30(1-2): 113-36.
50.
Ohlsson, S. ( 1995) ‘Learning to Do and Learning to Understand: A Lesson and a Challenge for Cognitive Modeling’, in P. Reiman and H. Spada (eds) Learning in Humans and Machines: Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science , pp. 37-62. New York: Pergamon.
51.
Piwek, P. ( 1997) ‘The Construction of Answers. A Deductive Approach to Answerhood’, in A. Benz and G. Jaeger (eds) Proceedings of MunDial: The München Workshop on the Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, pp. 97-106. Munich: University of Munich, CIS-Bericht.
52.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. ( 1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.
53.
Rakotonoelina, F. ( 2002) ‘Écriture numérique et révolution des genres? Anamorphose du genre « débat public »’ , in B. Chapelin (ed.) Actes du colloque « Écritures en ligne: pratiques et communautés », pp. 183-203. Rennes: Université Rennes2, available online at: http://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00126719/fr/
54.
Rakotonoelina, F. ( 2005) ‘L’analyse quantitative, linguistique et discursive de l’interrogation dans le forum de la DUCSAI’, in L. Monnoyer-Smith (ed.) Nouveaux dispositifs de concertation et formes de controverses: le choix d’un troisième aéroport pour Paris, pp. 92-120. Paris: Laboratoire Communication et politique (CNRS), available online at: http://www.lcp.cnrs.fr/pdf/Rap_Ducsai3.pdf
55.
Riegel, M., Pellat, J. and Rioul, R. ( 1994) Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
56.
Robinson, L. ( 2005) ‘Debating the Events of September 11th: Discursive and Interactional Dynamics in Three Online Fora’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication10(4), available online at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/robinson.html
57.
Rohde, H. ( 2006) ‘Rhetorical Questions as Redundant Interrogatives’ , San Diego Linguistics Papers2, available online at: http://repositories.cdlib.org/ucsdling/sdlp2/7/
58.
Savicki, V., Lingenfelter, D. and Kelley, M. ( 1996) ‘Gender Language Style and Group Composition in Internet Discussion Groups’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication2(3), available online at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue3/savicki.html
59.
Schmidt-Radefeldt, J. ( 1977) ‘On So-called ‘‘Rhetorical’’ Questions’, Journal of Pragmatics1(4): 375-92.
60.
Searle, J.R. ( 1979) Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Cambridge University Press.
61.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. ( 1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62.
Traverso, V. ( 2006) ‘Repères pour la comparaison d’interactions dans une perspective interculturelle’, Les Carnets du Cediscor9: 39-55.
63.
Turner, T.C., Smith, M.A., Fisher, D. and Welser, H.T. ( 2005) ‘Picturing Usenet: Mapping Computer-mediated Collective Action’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication10(4), available online at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/turner.html
64.
Walzer, M. ( 1994) Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
65.
Wang, J. ( 2006) ‘Questions and the Exercise of Power’, Discourse & Society17(4): 529-48.
