Article published In:
Meaning in InteractionEdited by Arnulf Deppermann and Elwys De Stefani
[Interactional Linguistics 3:1/2] 2023
► pp. 40–66
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Elwys De Stefani
[Interactional Linguistics 3:1/2] 2023
► pp. 40–66
Displaying a negative stance by questioning meaning
The Italian format Che cosa vuol dire X? (‘What does X mean?’)
Speakers of Italian have at their disposal a variety of phrasal and clausal resources for questioning meaning, among which is the format che cosa vuol dire X? (‘what does X mean?’). Likewise, recent studies on English and German about similar resources have shown that speakers use them to identify a meaning problem. This contribution takes a step further, by showing that the ‘what does X mean?’ format allows speakers to accomplish a variety of actions. These may be related to (a) the negotiation of understanding, and (b) the display of a negative stance. In many occurrences, the interactants display clear orientation to either a problem of understanding or a commonly shared negative stance. However, in sensitive environments (such as conflictual discussions), the resource allows speakers to (c) frame their negative stance as a problem of understanding, thereby resisting escalation of the conflict. The ‘what does X mean?’ format may or may not be produced with concomitant embodied behaviour. When the format is used to problematise understanding, no specific embodied conduct is observed. Yet, when it is used to display a negative stance, speakers may be seen to perform the grappolo gesture.
Keywords: meaning-in-interaction, understanding, definition request, negative stance, embodiment,
grappolo gesture
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2. Che cosa vuol dire X?
- 3.Data and method
- 4.Analysis
- 4.1Questioning meaning
- 4.2Displaying a negative stance: Non-turn-final che cosa vuol dire X?
- 4.3 Che cosa vuol dire X? in environments of disagreement
- 5.Discussion and conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References
Bilmes, J.
(2011) Occasioned
semantics: A systematic approach to meaning in talk. Human
Studies,
34
(2), 129–154. 
Calabria, V., & De Stefani, E.
(2020) Per
una grammatica situata: aspetti temporali e multimodali dell’incrementazione sintattica. Studi
Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e
Applicata,
49
(3), 571–601.
De Jorio, A.
(1832) La
mimica degli antichi investigata nel gestire
napoletano. Napoli: Fibreno.
Deppermann, A.
this
issue). An exercise in Interactional Semantics: Definitions and specifications provided in
response to was heißt x? (‘what does X mean?’).
Deppermann, A., & De Stefani, E.
(2019) Defining
in talk-in-interaction: Recipient-design through negative definitional components. Journal of
Pragmatics,
140
1, 140–155.
Deppermann, A., & Spranz-Fogasy, T.
Eds. be-deuten:
Wie Bedeutung im Gespräch
entsteht Tübingen Stauffenburg
De Stefani, E.
(2020) ‘Nel
senso (che)’ in Italian conversation: Turn-taking, turn-maintaining and
turn-yielding. In Y. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström, & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent
syntax for conversation. Clausal patterns and the organization of
action (pp. 25–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2022) On
Gestalts and their analytical corollaries: A commentary to the Special Issue. Social
Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human
Sociality,
5
(1).
De Stefani, E., & Gazin, A.-D.
(2014) Instructional
sequences in driving lessons: Mobile participants and the temporal and sequential organization of
actions. Journal of
Pragmatics,
65
1, 63–79.
De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S.
(2008) Topical
and sequential backlinking in a French radio phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential
placements. Pragmatics,
18
(3), 381–406.
(2018) Mundane
talk at work: Multiactivity in interactions between professionals and their
clientele. Discourse
Studies,
20
(2), 221–245.
Dingemanse, M., Blythe, J., & Dirksmeyer, T.
(2014) Formats
for other-initiation of repair across languages. An exercise in pragmatic typology. Studies in
Language,
38
(1), 5–43.
Drew, P.
(1997) ‘Open’
class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal
of
Pragmatics,
28
1, 69–101.
Dubois, J. W.
(2007) The
stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking
in
discourse (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Glenn, Ph.
(2019) Conflict
interaction. Insights from conversation analysis. In M. Evans, L. Jeffries, & J. O’Driscoll (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of language in
conflict (pp. 215–245). London, UK: Routledge.
Günthner, S.
(2015) Grammatische
Konstruktionen im Kontext sequenzieller Praktiken – was heißt x-Konstruktionen im gesprochenen
Deutsch. In J. Bücker, S. Günthner, & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik
V: Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und
Textsorten (pp. 187–218). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Helmer, H.
(2020) How
do speakers define the meaning of expressions? The case of German x heißt y (‘x means
y’). Discourse
Processes,
57
(3), 278–299.
Heritage, J.
(2012) The
epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and
Social
Interaction,
45
(1), 30–52.
Jefferson, G.
(2004) Glossary
of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation
analysis. Studies from the first
generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kendon, A.
(1995) Gestures
as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics,
23
1, 247–279.
(2004) Gesture:
Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G.
(1973) Hedges:
A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical
Logic,
2
1, 458–508.
Mehan, H.
(1979) ‘What
time is it, Denise?’: asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into
Practice,
28
(4), 285–294.
Mondada, L.
(2014) The
local constitution of multiple resources for social interaction. Journal of
Pragmatics,
65
1, 137–156.
(2018) Multiple
temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing
multimodality. Research on Language and Social
Interaction,
51
(1), 85–106.
Nencioni, G.
(1987) Costanza
dell’antico nel parlato moderno. In Accademia della Crusca (Ed.), Gli
italiani parlati. Sondaggi sopra la lingua di
oggi (pp. 7–25). Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.
Patota, G.
(2006) Grammatica
di riferimento dell’italiano
contemporaneo. Novara: Garzanti Linguistica.
Poggi, I.
(1983) La
mano a borsa: analisi semantica di un gesto emblematico
olofrastico. In G. Attili, & P. E. Ricci-Bitti (Eds.), Comunicare
senza parole: la comunicazione non-verbale nel bambino e nell’interazione sociale tra
adulti (pp. 219–238), Roma: Bulzoni.
Raymond, G., & Sidnell, J.
(2019) Interaction
at the boundaries of a world known in common: Initiating repair with ‘What do you
mean?’. Research on Language and Social
Interaction,
52
(2), 177–192.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A
simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for
conversation. Language,
50
(4), 696–735.
Schegloff, E. A.
(2007) Sequence
organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H.
(1977) The
preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in
conversation. Language,
53
(2), 361–382.
Sinclair, J. McH., & Coulthard, R. M.
(1975) Towards
an analysis of discourse. The English used by teachers and pupils. London, UK: Oxford University Press.