grammaire anglaise > déterminants + N

this / that - these / those + N

le sens et la valeur

de ces déterminants

varient en fonction du contexte

et de l'intention

de l'énonciateur / -trice

this -> N

énonciation première,

présentation, désignation,

monstration,

arrêt sur énoncé / sur image,

attirer l'attention sur,

faire remarquer à l'interlocuteur

qu'il se trompe,

que son présupposé est faux,

révélation,

majoration, intensification,

sortie du continuum / brouhaha discursif,

mise en valeur / évidence,

"mettre les ponts sur les i",

"coup de projecteur"

Luann Againn

Greg Evans

GoComics

October 28, 2022

https://www.gocomics.com/luann-againn/2022/10/28

America is going through an oil boom

— and this time it's different

June 9, 2023    NPR

...Police want to question this man...

... Yeah...?

Maybe they'll get this blasted mark for their trouble!

The Phantom

George Olesen and Graham Nolan

Created by Lee Falk        7 December 2004

http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/phantom/about.htm

Chief...this is Grando!

This man is out of his mind!

Mandrake

Fred Fredericks        Created by Lee Falk        1 July 2004

http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/mandrake/about.htm

Henry Payne

The Detroit News, Michigan

Cagle

17 March 2006

http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/payne.asp

The Guardian        p. 2        14 July 2006

The Guardian        p. 10        20 January 2007

The Guardian        p. 34        Wednesday 11.1.2006

The Guardian        Film & Music        p. 5        15 September 2006

that + N            those + N

valeurs énonciatives > connu,

récurrent, familier, habituel,

présupposé

valeur péjorative ou dépréciative

dans certains contextes

... That symbol on the stranger's ring...

The Phantom

George Olesen and Graham Nolan

Created by Lee Falk        30.9.2004

http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/phantom/about.htm

Peter Brookes

The Times

October 20, 2005

character: Saddam Hussein

Those Lazy Jobless

SEPT. 21, 2014

The New York Times

The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Columnist

Paul Krugman

Last week John Boehner, the speaker of the House, explained to an audience at the American Enterprise Institute what’s holding back employment in America: laziness. People, he said, have “this idea” that “I really don’t have to work. I don’t really want to do this. I think I’d rather just sit around.” Holy 47 percent, Batman!

It’s hardly the first time a prominent conservative has said something along these lines. Ever since a financial crisis plunged us into recession it has been a nonstop refrain on the right that the unemployed aren’t trying hard enough, that they are taking it easy thanks to generous unemployment benefits, which are constantly characterized as “paying people not to work.” And the urge to blame the victims of a depressed economy has proved impervious to logic and evidence.

But it’s still amazing — and revealing — to hear this line being repeated now. For the blame-the-victim crowd has gotten everything it wanted: Benefits, especially for the long-term unemployed, have been slashed or eliminated. So now we have rants against the bums on welfare when they aren’t bums — they never were — and there’s no welfare. Why?

First things first: I don’t know how many people realize just how successful the campaign against any kind of relief for those who can’t find jobs has been. But it’s a striking picture. The job market has improved lately, but there are still almost three million Americans who have been out of work for more than six months, the usual maximum duration of unemployment insurance. That’s nearly three times the pre-recession total. Yet extended benefits for the long-term unemployed have been eliminated — and in some states the duration of benefits has been slashed even further.

The result is that most of the unemployed have been cut off. Only 26 percent of jobless Americans are receiving any kind of unemployment benefit, the lowest level in many decades. The total value of unemployment benefits is less than 0.25 percent of G.D.P., half what it was in 2003, when the unemployment rate was roughly the same as it is now. It’s not hyperbole to say that America has abandoned its out-of-work citizens.

Strange to say, this outbreak of anti-compassionate conservatism hasn’t produced a job surge. In fact, the whole proposition that cruelty is the key to prosperity hasn’t been faring too well lately. Last week Nathan Deal, the Republican governor of Georgia, complained that many states with Republican governors have seen a rise in unemployment and suggested that the feds were cooking the books. But maybe the right’s preferred policies don’t work?

That is, however, a topic for another column. My question for today is instead one of psychology and politics: Why is there so much animus against the unemployed, such a strong conviction that they’re getting away with something, at a time when they’re actually being treated with unprecedented harshness?

Now, as anyone who has studied British policy during the Irish famine knows, self-righteous cruelty toward the victims of disaster, especially when the disaster goes on for an extended period, is common in history. Still, Republicans haven’t always been like this. In the 1930s they denounced the New Deal and called for free-market solutions — but when Alf Landon accepted the 1936 presidential nomination, he also emphasized the “plain duty” of “caring for the unemployed until recovery is attained.” Can you imagine hearing anything similar from today’s G.O.P.?

Is it race? That’s always a hypothesis worth considering in American politics. It’s true that most of the unemployed are white, and they make up an even larger share of those receiving unemployment benefits. But conservatives may not know this, treating the unemployed as part of a vaguely defined, dark-skinned crowd of “takers.”

My guess, however, is that it’s mainly about the closed information loop of the modern right. In a nation where the Republican base gets what it thinks are facts from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, where the party’s elite gets what it imagines to be policy analysis from the American Enterprise Institute or the Heritage Foundation, the right lives in its own intellectual universe, aware of neither the reality of unemployment nor what life is like for the jobless. You might think that personal experience — almost everyone has acquaintances or relatives who can’t find work — would still break through, but apparently not.

Whatever the explanation, Mr. Boehner was clearly saying what he and everyone around him really thinks, what they say to each other when they don’t expect others to hear. Some conservatives have been trying to reinvent their image, professing sympathy for the less fortunate. But what their party really believes is that if you’re poor or unemployed, it’s your own fault.
 

Charles M. Blow is off today.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on September 22, 2014, on page A25 of the New York edition
with the headline: Those Lazy Jobless.

Those Lazy Jobless,
NYT,
21.9.2014,
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/
opinion/paul-krugman-those-lazy-jobless.html

autres énoncés

Two-time Oscar nominee Jude Law already can be seen

in "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow"

and "I (Heart) Huckabees." Next comes "Alfie."

And soon he'll be in "Closer" and "The Aviator"

while supplying the title voice in "Lemony Snicket's

A Series of Unfortunate Events."

Jude movies stacking up at cinemas, PA, 29.10.2004,
http://www.pa.press.net/story.php?ID=A21682811099012525A0

One of the most dangerous for Labour is a group almost entirely invisible in the national media, simply wiped off television and most newspaper front pages. I mean the older, socially concerned women - often religious, in a tolerant way; the signers of petitions and buyers of fair-trade products; prone to one-off campaigns; in general, the salt-of-the-earth sagacious ladies all around us. They are not hip. Advertisers aren't keen on them, so papers and magazines aren't moulded to appeal to them. Television executives don't expend sweat and wit wondering how to make them laugh. I suspect they don't fill the front rows of many focus groups either.

Yet, according to the Fawcett Society report tomorrow, the 8.8 million women over 55 are abnormally regular voters (67% voted in the 2001 election) and are drifting away from Labour. We know these women, don't we? They form nearly a fifth of the total electorate. A little more evidence fills the picture in. The Electoral Commission reports that these women are far more likely than men to help organise charity and voluntary work. These are the grey-haired, patient, hard-grafting do-gooders all round us. And they are royally pissed off with Blair.

Why all sorts of women fell out of love with New Labour,
If Blair can't convince female voters, the next election will be a disaster,
G, 6.5.2004,
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/may/06/
women.labour

Make no mistake, plenty of people prefer the world as terror. The world as love is just too hard to take. Do Americans blame themselves for training up Bin Laden and the rest in a futile fight against Russia? Do they reflect on what they did to Afghanistan - a country that was slowly liberalising, before America used it as hard-line resistance to the Soviets?

Do we ask ourselves why we pay security guards so little that they can't be bothered to do their job? Do we wonder if capitalism and imperialism were the real co-pilots on those planes?

Forgive but don't forget:
There are only three possible endings to any story: revenge, tragedy, forgiveness.
We need to forgive,
G, 18.9.2001,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/18/
september11.politicsphilosophyandsociety2

Our destination: a Britain where,

in a world of change,

everyone not just a few gets the chance to succeed.

For me, the large majority we won

was never a reason to do the job quickly;

but to do it properly.

We knew: first base was getting the fundamentals

in place.

We said we would sort the economy out. We have.

The strongest British economy for decades,

delivered by this New Labour government.

Blair's speech, part one:
'It's no wonder the government has taken a knock',
G, 26.9.2000,
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/sep/26/
labourconference.labour8 

adverbes > thisemphatique

pronoms > thisemphatique

pronoms > that / those

présupposition, validation, connu