Mitigation via exemplification in present-day Italian: A corpus-based study

• Maria Cristina Lo Baido ^[1]
  1. [1] University of Bergamo

     University of Bergamo

     Bérgamo, Italia

     
• Localización: ELUA: Estudios de Lingüística. Universidad de Alicante, ISSN-e 2171-6692, ISSN 0212-7636, Nº Extra 4, 2018 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Estudios de atenuación en el discurso / coord. por Amparo García Ramón, M. Amparo Soler Bonafont ), págs. 11-32
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.14198/elua2018.anexo4.02
• Títulos paralelos:
  • La atenuación a través de la ejemplificación en italiano actual: un estudio basado en corpus
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen
  • español

    El artículo se refiere a las funciones pragmáticas de la ejemplificación en Italia, centrándose en una serie de construcciones como non so (esp. no sé) y tipo (esp. como). Basándonos en el estudio de tres corpus lingüísticos, podemos hipotetizar que tales construcciones son formalmente heterogéneas. Sin embargo, todas se emplean para expresar atenuación. De hecho, estas se podrían concebir como procedimientos para conceptualizar actos pragmáticos con distinta fuerza ilocutiva, o sea como ejemplos de una amplia serie que tiene el fin de no imponer ni debilitar la carga de compromiso del hablante.

  • English

    The paper addresses the pragmatic functions of exemplification in Italian by focusing on a set of exemplifying constructions such as non so (Eng. ‘I don’t know’) and tipo (Eng. ‘like’). Based on a corpus-based study, we may hypothesise that such constructions may be formally heterogeneous but all of them are employed to express mitigation. Indeed, they may be conceived as procedural tools to conceptualise pragmatic acts with different illocutionary force as examples of a wider set in order not to impose or to weaken the burden of speaker’s commitment.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Andorno, C. (2005). Che cos'è la pragmatica linguistica. Roma: Carocci.
  • Barbera, M. (2007). “I NUNC-ES: strumenti nuovi per la linguistica dei corpora in spagnolo”, Cuadernos de filología italiana, 14, pp. 13-32.
  • Bazzanella, C. (2006). “Discourse markers in Italian: Towards a “compositional” meaning”. In Fischer, K. (ed.). Approaches to discourse particles....
  • Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances: An introduction to pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
  • Caffi, C. (2007). Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Channell, J. (1994). Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Conte, M. E. (1988). Condizioni di coerenza. Ricerche di linguistica testuale. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
  • Du Bois, J. (2014). “Towards a dialogic syntax”, Cognitive linguistics, 25, 3, pp. 359-410. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024
  • Erman, B. (2001). “Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk”, Journal of Pragmatics, 33, pp. 1337-1359....
  • Fraser, B. (2010). “Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging”. In Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W. and S. Schneider (eds.). New Approaches to...
  • Freddi, M. (2014). Linguistica dei corpora. Roma: Carocci.
  • Ghezzi, C. (2013). Vagueness markers in contemporary Italian: intergenerational variation and pragmatic change. PhD dissertation, University...
  • Givón, T. (1983). Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3
  • Hare, R.M. (1970). “Meaning and speech acts”, Philosophical Review, 79, 1, pp. 3-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/2184066
  • Hyland, K. (2007). “Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academia discourse”, Applied Linguistics, 28 (2), pp. 266-285. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm011
  • Kaltenböck, G. (2010). “Pragmatic functions of parenthetical I think”. In Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W. and S. Schneider (eds.). New approaches...
  • Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B. and T. Kuteva. (2011). “On thetical grammar”, Studies in Language, 35(4), pp. 852-897. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.4.03kal
  • Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:...
  • König, E. and P. Siemund. (2007). “Speech act distinctions in grammar”. In Shopen, T. (ed.). Language typology and linguistic description....
  • Manzotti, E. (1998). “L'esempio. Natura, definizioni, problemi”, Cuadernos de Filología Italiana, 5, pp. 99-123.
  • Masini, F. and P.G. Pietrandrea (2010). “Magari”, Cognitive Linguistics, 21 (1), pp. 75-121. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.003
  • Mauri, C. (2008). Coordination relations in the languages of Europe and beyond. Berlin/NewYork: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211498
  • Mauri, C. (2014). “What do connectives and plurals have in common? The linguistic expression of ad hoc categories”. In Blochowiak, J., Durrlemann-Tame,...
  • Mauri, C. (2017). “Building and interpreting ad hoc categories: a linguistic analysis”. In Blochowiak J., Grisot, C., Durrleman-Tame, S. and...
  • Mauri, C. and A. Sansò (in press). “Strategie linguistiche per la costruzione online di categorie: uno quadro tipologico”. In Caruana, S....
  • Molinelli, P. (2016). “Cicli di pragmaticalizzazione tra latino e lingue romanze: la formazione di marcatori interazionali”. In Fruyt, M.,...
  • Rossini Favretti, R. (2000). Progettazione e costruzione di un corpus di italiano scritto: CORIS/CODIS. Linguistica e informatica: corpora,...
  • Schneider, S. (2007). Reduced parenthetical clauses as mitigators: A corpus study of spoken French, Italian and Spanish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:...
  • Schneider, S. (2014). “Parenthesis: fundamental features, meanings, discourse functions and ellipsis”. In Kluck, M., Ott, D. and M. de Vries...
  • Traugott, E.C. and R.B. Dasher. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tsui, A.B.M. (1991). “The pragmatic functions of I don’t know”, Text, 11, pp. 607-622. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1991.11.4.607
  • Voghera, M. (2012). “Chitarre, violino, banjo e cose del genere”. In A. M. Thornton and M. Voghera (eds.) Per Tullio De Mauro. Studi offerti...
  • Voghera, M. (2013a). “Tipi di tipo nel parlato e nello scritto”. In I. Tempesta and M. Vedovelli (eds.). Di Linguistica e di Sociolinguistica....
  • Voghera, M. (2013b). “A Case study on the Relationship between Grammatical Change and Synchronic Variation: the Emergence of tipo[-N] in Italian”....
  • Voghera, M., et al. (2014). “VoLIP: a searchable Italian spoken corpus. In Veselovska, L., M. Janebova (eds.), Complex Visibles Out There....
  • Waltereit, R. (2002). “Imperatives, interruption in conversation and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda”, Linguistics,...
  • Wilson, D. and R. Carston (2007). “A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts”. In Burton-Roberts,...
  • Wilson, D. and D. Sperber (1993). “Linguistic form and relevance”, Lingua, 90, pp. 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5