Volume 58, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0035-3906
  • E-ISSN: 1600-0811
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This conversation analytic study aims to describe the actions performed by speakers of Italian and Trevigiano – a northern Italian dialect – by using the particle in everyday conversations. Our analyses draw on a corpus of formal and informal phone calls, where appears as preface and at the end of turns that initiate new courses of action, at the end of some responsive turns (or Turn-Constructional Units) and in post-expansions (that is, turns in third position). The actions embodied by these turns – requests, proposals and assessments – have in common the momentary deontic imbalance in favor of the speaker, who tells, asks or proposes to the coparticipant to do something. The particle also accompanies assessments of events to which the speaker has no direct experience (thus from an epistemically subordinate position). This study highlights the fuzziness of the boundaries between deontic and epistemic rights in everyday talk.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alfonzetti, G.
    (1992): Il discorso bilingue. Italiano e dialetto a Catania. Franco Angeli, Milano.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Andorno, C.
    (2003): Linguistica testuale. Un’introduzione. Carocci, Roma.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (1999) Avverbi focalizzanti in italiano. Parametri per un’analisi. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, 28(1), 43–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Auer, P.
    (1988): A conversation analytic approach to code-switching and transfer, inHeller, M. (a c. di): Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 187–213. 10.1515/9783110849615.187
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110849615.187 [Google Scholar]
  5. (1999): From code switching via language mixing to fused lects. Toward a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. International Journal of Bilingualism, 3, 4, pp. 309–332. 10.1177/13670069990030040101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069990030040101 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bazzanella, C.
    (1985): L’uso dei connettivi nel parlato: alcune proposte, inFranchi De Bellis, A. e L. M. Savoia (a c. di): Sintassi e morfologia della lingua italiana d’uso. Teorie e applicazioni descrittive, Bulzoni, Roma, pp. 83–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (1990): Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian. Journal of Pragmatics, 141, pp. 629–647. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90034‑B
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90034-B [Google Scholar]
  8. (1994): Le facce del parlare. Un approccio pragmatico all’italiano parlato. La Nuova Italia, Firenze.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Beeching, K. e Detges, U.
    (2014): Introduction, inBeeching, K. e U. Detges (a c. di): Discourse functions at the left and right periphery. Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Brill, Leiden, pp. 1–23. 10.1163/9789004274822_002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004274822_002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bertinetto, P. M.
    (1986): Tempo, aspetto e azione nel verbo italiano. Il sistema dell’indicativo. Accademia della Crusca, Firenze.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Clift, R.
    (2016): Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Couper-Kuhlen, E. e Ono, T.
    (2007): ‘Incrementing’ in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics, 17, 4, pp. 513–552.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Curl, T. S.
    (2006): Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 8, pp. 1257–1280. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fedriani, C., e Ghezzi, C.
    (2014): The pragmaticalization of verbs of movement and exchange in Latin and Italian: Paths of development from lexicon to pragmatics, inIlona, B. e M. Popescu (a c. di): Studia Linguistica et Philologica: in Honorem Prof. Univ. Dr. Michaela Liviescu. Editura Universitaria, Craiova, pp. 116–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fedriani, C. e Molinelli, P.
    (2019) Italian ma ‘but’ in deverbal pragmatic markers: Forms, functions, and productivity of a pragma-dyad. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana, 261, 29–55. 10.5209/cfit.62864
    https://doi.org/10.5209/cfit.62864 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fele, G.
    (2007): L’analisi della conversazione. Il Mulino, Bologna.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fischer, K.
    (2006): Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: introduction to the volume, inFischer, K. (a c. di): Approaches to discourse particles. Elsevier, Oxford – Amsterdam, pp. 1–20. 10.1163/9780080461588_002
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588_002 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fraser, B.
    (2009): An approach to discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics, 11, pp. 293–320. 10.1163/187730909X12538045489818
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909X12538045489818 [Google Scholar]
  19. Garfinkel, H.
    (1964): Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems, 11 (3), pp. 225–250. 10.2307/798722
    https://doi.org/10.2307/798722 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ghezzi, C. e Molinelli, P.
    (2014): Italian guarda, prego, dai. Pragmatic markers and the left and right periphery, inBeeching, Kate e U. Detges (a c. di): Discourse functions at the left and right periphery. Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Brill, Leiden, pp. 117–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Glenn, P.
    (2003): Laughter in interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511519888
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519888 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goffman, E.
    (1959): The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (1967): Interaction ritual. Essays on face-to-face behavior. Anchor Books, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Heritage, J.
    (1984): Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Polity Press, Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2013): Epistemics in conversation, inSidnell, J. e T. Stivers (a c. di): The handbook of conversation analysis. Blackwell, West Sussex, pp. 370–394.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Heritage, J., e Sorjonen, M-L.
    (2018): Introduction: Analyzing turn-initial particles, inHeritage, J. e M-L. Sorjonen (a c. di): Between turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages. John Benjamins, Amsterdam / Philadelphia, pp. 1–22. 10.1075/slsi.31.01her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.01her [Google Scholar]
  27. ISTAT
    ISTAT (2017) L’uso della lingua italiana, dei dialetti e di altre lingue in Italia. https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/207961 (ultimo accesso: 4 luglio 2022).
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Jefferson, G.
    (2004): Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction, inLerner, G. (a c. di): Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam / Philadelphia, pp. 13–31. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  29. Kendrick, K. H. e Drew, P.
    (2016): Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 491, pp. 1–19. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436 [Google Scholar]
  30. Labov, W. e Fanshel, D.
    (1977): Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. Academic Press, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Levinson, S.
    (2012): Action formation and ascription, inSidnell, J. e T. Stivers (a c. di): The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 103–130. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch6
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch6 [Google Scholar]
  32. Molinelli, P.
    (2017): Segnali discorsivi e segnali pragmatici: Sensibilità al mutamento e alla variazione sociolinguistica. Linguistica e Filologia, 371, pp. 121–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Pauletto, F.,e Fatigante, M.
    (2015) ‘Dai da’ na mano!’ Tra il dire e il chiedere. L’uso del segnale discorsivo ‘dai’ in conversazioni in famiglia>. Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata, XV(1), 89–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Poggi, I.
    (2009): The language of interjections, inEsposito, A., A. Hussain, M. Marinaro e R. Martone (a c. di): Multimodal signals: Cognitive and algorithmic issues. Springer, Berlin, pp. 170–186. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑00525‑1_17
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00525-1_17 [Google Scholar]
  35. Poletto, C.
    (1993): La sintassi del soggetto nei dialetti italiani settentrionali. Unipress, Padova.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pomerantz, A. e Heritage, J.
    (2013): Preference, inSidnell, J. e T. Stivers (a c. di): The handbook of conversation analysis. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 210–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Raymond, J. e Zimmerman, D. H.
    (2007): Rights and responsibilities in calls for help: The case of the Mountain Glade fire. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40, 1, pp. 33–61. 10.1080/08351810701331232
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701331232 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sacks, H.
    (1992): Lectures on conversation, Vols. 1 & 2, edited by Gail Jefferson. Blackwell, Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. e Jefferson, G.
    (1974): A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 4, pp. 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sansò, A.
    (2020): I segnali discorsivi. Carocci, Roma.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1968): Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 701, pp. 1075–1095. 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  42. (1986): The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 91, pp. 111–151. 10.1007/BF00148124
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148124 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2007): Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in Conversation Analysis. Volume 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  44. Scivoletto, G.
    (2020): “Arà, che si dice?” Marcatori del discorso in Sicilia. Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, Palermo.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Sterponi, L.
    (2009): Accountability in family discourse: Socialization into norms and standards and negotiation of responsibility in Italian dinner conversations. Childhood, 16, 4, pp. 441–459. 10.1177/0907568209343269
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568209343269 [Google Scholar]
  46. Stevanovic, M. e Peräkylä, A.
    (2012): Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 3, pp. 297–321. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  47. Stolz, T.
    (2018): (Non-)Canonical reduplication, inUrdze, Aina (a c. di): Non-prototypical reduplication. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 201–277. 10.1515/9783110599329‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110599329-007 [Google Scholar]
  48. Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., e Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2015): Responses in request-for-action sequences, inThompson, S. A., B. A. Fox e E. Couper-Kuhlen (a c. di): Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 215–270. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154.005 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): deontics; epistemics; Italian; particles; phone calls; talk-in-interaction; Trevigiano
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