1887
Volume 29, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper discusses the discursive and interpersonal functions conveyed by the Italian negative operator ‘no’, suggesting a possible pathway of functional enrichment that can account for its high degree of polyfunctionality. Drawing on the corpus of contemporary spoken Italian, we chart the values of as a discourse marker, which are all clearly connected to the incremental co-construction of discourse in interaction, either in terms of turn management or of shared knowledge and mutual alignment. We then explore its sociolinguistic distribution, showing that register variation plays a major role in this respect. We argue that conversational uses of as a discourse marker, including its role as a pause-filler, are motivated by cooperative needs in discourse construction, shaping its functional profile at the intersection of mental processes and communicative practices.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21022.fed
2023-04-11
2024-04-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2002English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersen, Gisle
    2001Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.84
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.84 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ariel, Mira & Caterina Mauri
    2018 Why use or?Linguistics561. 939–993. 10.1515/ling‑2018‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0020 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bazzanella, Carla
    1995 I segnali discorsivi. InLorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi & Anna Cardinaletti (eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione (vol.31), 225–257. Bologna: Il Mulino.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Beeching, Kate
    2016Pragmatic markers in British English: Meaning in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139507110
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139507110 [Google Scholar]
  6. Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges
    2014 Introduction. InKate Beeching & Ulrich Detges (eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change, 1–23. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004274822_002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004274822_002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bernini, Giuliano
    1995 Le profrasi. InLorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi & Anna Cardinaletti (eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione (vol.31), 175–222. Bologna: Il Mulino.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  9. Denis, Derek & Sali A. Tagliamonte
    2016 Innovation, right? Change, you know? Utterance-final tags in Canadian English. InHeike Pichler (ed.), Discourse-pragmatic variation and change in English: New methods and insights, 86–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107295476.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107295476.005 [Google Scholar]
  10. Du Bois, John W.
    2014 Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics25(3). 359–410. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fischer, Kerstin
    2006 Frames, constructions, and invariant meanings: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. InKerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 427–447. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780080461588_023
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588_023 [Google Scholar]
  12. Lo Baido, Maria Cristina
    2018 Categorization via exemplification: Evidence from Italian. Folia Linguistica Historica391. 69–95. 10.1515/flih‑2018‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2018-0007 [Google Scholar]
  13. Mauri, Caterina
    2021Ad hoc categorization in linguistic interaction. InCaterina Mauri, Eugenio Goria & Ilaria Fiorentini (eds.), Building categories in interaction: Linguistic resources at work, 9–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.220.02mau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.220.02mau [Google Scholar]
  14. Mauri, Caterina & Andrea Sansò
    2018 Linguistic strategies for ad hoc categorization: Theoretical assessment and cross-linguistic variation. Folia Linguistica Historica39(1). 1–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Mauri, Caterina, Ilaria Fiorentini & Eugenio Goria
    2021 Building categories in interaction: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. InCaterina Mauri, Eugenio Goria & Ilaria Fiorentini (eds.), Building categories in interaction: Linguistic resources at work, 1–8. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.220.01fio
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.220.01fio [Google Scholar]
  16. Mauri, Caterina, Silvia Ballarè, Eugenio Goria, Massimo Cerruti & Francesco Suriano
    2019 KIParla corpus: A new resource for spoken Italian. InRaffaella Bernardi, Roberto Navigli & Giovanni Semeraro (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics (CLiC-it).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Molinelli, Piera
    1988Fenomeni della negazione dal latino all’italiano. Firenze: La Nuova Editrice.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2020 Ma anche no! Trent’anni di un’espressione di successo. Lingua Italiana. [https://www.treccani.it/magazine/lingua_italiana/articoli/scritto_e_parlato/Ma_anche.html]
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Moretti, Bruno
    1993 False partenze e contraddizioni logiche convenzionalizzate: “Sì o no”?Vox Romanica521. 85–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Schwenter, Scott A.
    2000 Viewpoints and polysemy: Linking adversative and causal meanings of discourse markers. InElizabeth Couper-Kuhler & Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 257–282. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043.3.257
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.3.257 [Google Scholar]
  21. Stivers, Tanya
    2013 Sequence organization. InJack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 191–209. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Tottie, Gunnel
    2014 On the use of uh and um in American English. Functions of Language21(1). 6–29. 10.1075/fol.21.1.02tot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.1.02tot [Google Scholar]
  23. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2008 “All that he endeavoured to prove was …”: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual and dialogic contexts. InRobin Cooper & Ruth Kempson (eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution, 143–177. London: King’s College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21022.fed
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.21022.fed
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): alignment; common ground; register variation; spoken Italian; turn-management
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error