La atenuación a través de la ejemplificación en italiano actual: un estudio basado en corpus

Maria Cristina Lo Baido

Resumen

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.


Palabras clave

Ejemplificación; Atenuación; Categorización; Cortesía; Conversación

Referencias

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. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 449-464.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00066-7

Fraser, B. (2010). “Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging”. In Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W. and S. Schneider (eds.). New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 15-34. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253247_003

Freddi, M. (2014). Linguistica dei corpora. Roma: Carocci.

Ghezzi, C. (2013). Vagueness markers in contemporary Italian: intergenerational variation and pragmatic change. PhD dissertation, University of Bergamo.

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 to hedging. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 237-266. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253247_012

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: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.115

König, E. and P. Siemund. (2007). “Speech act distinctions in grammar”. In Shopen, T. (ed.). Language typology and linguistic description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 276-324. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619427.005

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, S., Grisot, C. and C. Laenzlinger (eds.). Linguistic papers dedicated to Jacques Moeschler. Genève: University of Geneva Publications.

Mauri, C. (2017). “Building and interpreting ad hoc categories: a linguistic analysis”. In Blochowiak J., Grisot, C., Durrleman-Tame, S. and C. Laenzlinger (eds.). Formal models in the study of language. Berlin: Springer, pp. 297-326. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48832-5_16

Mauri, C. and A. Sansò (in press). “Strategie linguistiche per la costruzione online di categorie: uno quadro tipologico”. In Caruana, S. and J. Brincat (eds.). Tipologia e ‘dintorni’. Il metodo tipologico alla intersezione di piani d’analisi. Atti del XLIX Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana. Roma: Bulzoni.

Molinelli, P. (2016). “Cicli di pragmaticalizzazione tra latino e lingue romanze: la formazione di marcatori interazionali”. In Fruyt, M., Gerd, V., Haverling, M. and R. Sornicola (eds.). Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, 15-20 juillet 2013). Section 2: Linguistique latine/linguistique romane. Nancy: ATILF, pp. 151-162.

Rossini Favretti, R. (2000). Progettazione e costruzione di un corpus di italiano scritto: CORIS/CODIS. Linguistica e informatica: corpora, multimedialità e percorsi di apprendimento, pp. 39-56.

Schneider, S. (2007). Reduced parenthetical clauses as mitigators: A corpus study of spoken French, Italian and Spanish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.27

Schneider, S. (2014). “Parenthesis: fundamental features, meanings, discourse functions and ellipsis”. In Kluck, M., Ott, D. and M. de Vries (eds.). Parenthesis and ellipsis: cross-linguistic and theoretical perspectives. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyer, pp. 277-300.

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 dalle allieve in occasione del suo 80° compleanno. Roma: Aracne, pp. 341-364.

Voghera, M. (2013a). “Tipi di tipo nel parlato e nello scritto”. In I. Tempesta and M. Vedovelli (eds.). Di Linguistica e di Sociolinguistica. Studi offerti a Norbert Dittmar. Roma: Bulzoni, pp. 185-195.

Voghera, M. (2013b). “A Case study on the Relationship between Grammatical Change and Synchronic Variation: the Emergence of tipo[-N] in Italian”. In Giacalone Ramat, A., Mauri, C. and P. Molinelli (eds.). Synchrony and diachrony: a Dynamic interface. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 283-312. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.133.12vog

Voghera, M., et al. (2014). “VoLIP: a searchable Italian spoken corpus. In Veselovska, L., M. Janebova (eds.), Complex Visibles Out There. Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium: Language Use and Linguistic Structure. Olomouc: Palacky ́ University, pp. 628-640.

Waltereit, R. (2002). “Imperatives, interruption in conversation and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda”, Linguistics, 40(5), pp. 987-1010. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2002.041

Wilson, D. and R. Carston (2007). “A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts”. In Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.). Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 230-259.

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




DOI: https://doi.org/10.14198/ELUA2018.Anexo4.02





Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional.