Résumé :

L'objectif de notre travail est, d'analyser le discours journalistique et politique des français en matière de l'adhésion de la Turquie à l'Union européenne. L'approche, en effet, part du principe que le discours est un ensemble d'énoncés hétérogènes qui met en jeu l'interdiscursivité du discours. En premier, nous essayerons de mettre en relief les particularités du discours politique défini comme structure polémique provoquant la genèse d'autres discours. Dans un deuxième temps, nous tenterons d'analyser les composants du corpus idéologique, politique, économique, culturel et autres tenus par les Français à l'égard de l'adhésion de la Turquie. Cette démarche nous permet d'analyser la distance ou le syncrétisme du sujet parlant par rapport au sujet de faire. Elle nous permet également de détecter les lieux de compatibilité entre le niveau interprétatif (énonciataire) issu de l'analyse de l'énoncé et du sujet de l'énonciation. Ce faisant, le travail fait appel aux travaux de Dominique Maingeneau et de Greimas.

Mots Clés : Discours, politique, presse, France, Europe, Turquie, énonciation.

Abstract :

The objective of our work is, to analyze the journalistic and political speech of French as regards the accession of Turkey to the European Union. Approach indeed, share of the principle which the speech is a whole of heterogeneous statements which brings into play the interdiscursivity of the speech. In first, we will try to highlight the characteristics of the definite political speech like polemical structure causing the genesis of other speeches. In the second time, we will try to analyze the components of the corpus ideological, political, economic, cultural and different held by the French with regard to the accession of Turkey. This step enables us to analyze the distance or the syncretism between the enunciator to speak and the enunciator to act. It also enables us to detect the places of compatibility between the interpretative level (enunciator) resulting from the analysis of the statement and the enunciator from the stating. By doing this, work calls upon work of Dominique Maingeneau and Greimas.

Keywords : Speech, policy, press, France, Europe, Turkey, enunciation.

Extended Abstract :

As regards adhesion with the European Union, Turkey is by far the country which caused the most movement and passions. Since October 6, 2004, date on which the European Parliament recommended to start the negotiations with the government of Ankara, the media scene is mainly submerged by journalistic products of various nature and quality dealing with the probability of a possible adhesion. As a simple observer, one cannot prevent oneself from wondering why the accession of Turkey is a subject which holds so much the attention of the recipients (the televiewers, the readers….), and that is what revives so much of polemic? Due, in our work, we will try to analyze the speech of the politicians firstly and then that of the journalists as trainers of the public opinion. By doing it, we will base our work on a corpus made up of articles of press published as from January 2003 and the speech of the French politicians.

So firstly we will try to expose the characteristics of the definite political speech like polemical structure causing the genesis of other speeches. Secondary, we will analyze the components of the corpus ideological, political, economic, cultural held by the French press and politicians. Lastly, we will analyze the distance or the syncretism between the enunciator speaking and the enunciator making. This operation will enable us to detect the places of compatibility between the interpretative level (enunciator) resulting from the analysis of the statement and the subject from the stating. This part of our work calls upon the semiotic square of Greimas based on the methods of verifications to be and appear.

About the accession of Turkey at the EU, there is a discursive space where two speeches are opposed: one is opposite there, the other is favourable there. One calls the first speech agent, the speech translator, the other patient speech, that which is translated. For those which are against adhesion, statement that "Turkey does not have place in Europe" is an euphoric statement which will be described as dysphoric also by the enunciators favourable to adhesion. This is why; the accession of Turkey creates a polemic within the French company. For the first group, we can quote politicians such as Valery Giscard d'Estaing (ex president of the French Republic) and Nicolas Sarkozy and for the second group, Jacques Chirac (president of the French Republic) Daniel Cohn Bendit (copresident of appoints green with the European Parliament). Moreover, the journalists are also divided into two: those which are favourable and those which are unfavourable with adhesion. In addition, in the speech of the politicians, it is a question of an incompatibility between the axes of being and centres it to make.

According to Greimas, to convince our interlocutor, we must initially be convinced of what we say. If one calls upon the semiotic square suggested by Greimas, the speech of the French politicians is on appearing it and the non-being in the diagram of verification. In other words, the speech of the politicians is based on the secrecy and hypocrisy in the diagram of verification. The axis to appear indicates the actions of the politicians and the axis indicates being the words. As is a conclusion, to discuss the subject of the accession of Turkey, it necessary to raise the question "That Turkey for the EU means?: a shock of civilizations, or an alliance of civilizations.? External reality nowadays where innumerable books, articles, conferences, seminars discuss the famous thesis of the shock of civilizations proposed by Huntington is that the world would clash in a war of civilizations. In this context there, Turkey is able to transform the shock of civilizations into a historical occasion to sit a dialogue of civilizations.

The possibility of the accession of Turkey at the EU would make of a nation of Moslem confession democracy of a Western type which could thus play the part of catalyst between two civilizations. Obviously, the identity of Turkey is so complex that, even Huntington could not integrate it in a civilisation sphere, nevertheless, it represents a ground privileged to tackle the question of the relations between the Occident and Islam, relations which should refute the theory of the shock of civilizations. To conclude, the debate on possible integration in ten years of Turkey to the European Union misses smoothness, of sincerity and clearness. On the bottom of the shock of civilizations, it causes the anguish of the Western companies with regard to Islam. So it is necessary to keep the hope of a process of negotiations of good intentions and in good faith by leading it on the only basis of the criteria known as of Copenhagen which were imposed on the other countries.