Cover not available
Part of
Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries
Edited by Daniël Van Olmen and Jolanta Šinkūnienė
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 325] 2021
► pp. 171–198

Chapter 6
Interactions between distribution and functional uses in Italian adversative pragmatic markers

A corpus-based and multilevel approach

ORCID logo | University of Salerno

This chapter describes the interaction between distribution and functional uses of the Italian Adversative Pragmatic Markers (APMs) ma and però in spontaneous spoken language. These forms are claimed to be distributionally and functionally asymmetrical, as ma preferentially occurs in the left periphery, performing a turn-taking function, while only però can appear in the right periphery, with a cohesive function. Results from a semasiological (form-to-function), corpus-based and multi-level (prosodic, information and functional) investigation show that APM asymmetry is not clear-cut. Although the multi-level description supports Beeching and Detges’s (2014) function-periphery asymmetry hypothesis as a general tendency, it also argues in favor of a more fine-grained functional analysis.

Keywords: adversative pragmatic markers, Italian, spontaneous spoken language, left and right periphery, function-periphery asymmetry hypothesis, prosodic contours, semasiological and corpus-based approach, multi-level analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus and theoretical framework
    • 2.1DB-IPIC: A multilingual spoken language resource
    • 2.2The Language into Act Theory
    • 2.3Identifying the peripheries within the Language into act theory
  • 3. Ma and però at the peripheries: Distribution and information status
    • 3.1Distribution of ma and però in DB-IPIC
    • 3.2Information status of peripheral ma and però in DB-IPIC
      • 3.2.1Left periphery
      • 3.2.2Right periphery
  • 4.Functions of ma and però in the left and right peripheries
    • 4.1 Ma in the left periphery
    • 4.2 Però in the left periphery
    • 4.3Right periphery
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.325.06cim
References
Acciardi, Daniela
2010 “I focalizzatori in un corpus di italiano parlato (C-ORAL-ROM Italia).” In La comunicazione parlata 3, ed. by Massimo Pettorino, Antonella Giannini, and Francesca M. Dovetto, vol. II., 169–190. Naples: Il Torcoliere.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla
1995 “I segnali discorsivi.” In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, ed. by Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi, and Anna Cardinaletti, vol. III, 225–257. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
2006 “Discourse Markers in Italian: Towards a ‘Compositional’ Meaning.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. by Kerstin Fischer, 449–464. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate
2009 “Procatalepsis and the Etymology of Hedging and Boosting Particles.” In Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. by Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen, and Jacqueline Visconti, 81–106. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate, and Ulrich Detges
2014 “Introduction.” In Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Cross-linguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change, ed. by Kate Beeching, and Ulrich Detges, 1–23. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borreguero Zuloaga, Margarita
2009 “Connettivi avversativi nei testi scritti da apprendenti ispanofoni di italiano per il corpus VALICO.” In VALICO: Studi di linguistica e didattica, ed. by Elisa Corino, and Carla Marello, 179–193. Perugia: Guerra.Google Scholar
2017 “Topic-shift Discourse Markers in L2 Italian: Paths of Acquisition by Spanish Speakers.” Language, Interaction and Acquisition 8 (2): 173–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cavalcante, Frederico Amorim, and Adriana Couto Ramos
2016 “The American English Spontaneous Speech Minicorpus: Architecture and Comparability.” CHIMERA: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies 3 (2): 99–124.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1994 Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela
2000 Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
2017 “The Empirical Foundation of Illocutionary Classification.” In Atti del convegno, la comunicazione parlata, Napoli, SLI – GSCP International Conference Napoli 2016, ed. by Anna De Meo, and Francesca M. Dovetto, 243–264. Naples: Aracne.Google Scholar
2020 “The Pragmatic Analysis of Speech and its Illocutionary Classification according to Language into Act Theory.” In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language: A Corpus-driven Approach, ed. by Shlomo Izre’el, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi, and Tommaso Raso, 181–219. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela, and Massimo Moneglia
(eds) 2005 C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “The Definition of the TOPIC within Language into Act Theory and its Identification in Spontaneous Speech Corpora.” Revue Romane 53 (1): 30–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela, Alessandro Panunzi, and Antonietta Scarano
2005 “The Italian Corpus.” In C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages, ed. by Emanuela Cresti, and Massimo Moneglia, 71–110. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Mauro, Tullio, Federico Mancini, Massimo Vedovelli, and Miriam Voghera
1993 Lessico di frequenza dell’italiano parlato. Milan: Etaslibri.Google Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara, and Andrea Sansò
(eds) 2017 Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrari, Angela
2009 “L’analisi dei connettivi (logici) nella Italienische Umgangssprache di Leo Spitzer.” Lingua e Stile 44: 97–140.Google Scholar
Fiorentini, Ilaria
2017 Segnali di contatto: Italiano e ladino nelle valli del Trentino-Alto Adige. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin
2006 “Frames, Constructions, and Morphemic Meanings: The Functional Polysemy of Discourse Particles.” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. by Kerstin Fischer, 427–448. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna, and Catherine Camugli Gallardo
2011 “L’emploi des connecteurs: però correspond-il toujours à mais?” Revue française de linguistique appliquée 16 (2): 57–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna, and Caterina Mauri
2008 “From Cause to Contrast: A Study in Semantic Change.” In Studies on Grammaticalization, ed. by Elisabeth Verhoeven, Stavros Skopeteas, Yong-Min Shin, Yoko Nishina, and Johannes Helmbrecht, 303–320. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Giuliani, M. Vittoria
1976 “Ma e altre avversative.” Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 1 (2): 25–56.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F.
1958 A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Izre’el, Shlomo, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi, and Tommaso Raso
2020 “In Search of a Basic Unit of Spoken Language: Segmenting Speech.” In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language: A Corpus-driven Approach, ed. by Izre’el, Shlomo, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi, and Tommaso Raso, 1–32. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lang, Ewald
2000 “Adversative Connectors on Distinct Levels of Discourse: A Re-examination of Eve Sweetser’s Three-level Approach.” In Cause-Condition, Concession-Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Bernd Kortmann, 235–256. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian
2000 The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Marconi, Diego, and Pier Marco Bertinetto
1984 “Analisi di ma.” Lingua e Stile 19: 223–258.Google Scholar
Martin, Philippe
2018 Winpitch W10. Pitch Instruments.Google Scholar
Mascherpa, Eugenia
2016 “I segnali discorsivi “allora, quindi, però, ma” in apprendenti di italiano L2”. Cuadernos de Filología italiana, 23, 119–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, Caterina
2008 Coordination Relations in the Languages of Europe and Beyond. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moneglia, Massimo
2005 “The C-ORAL-ROM Resource.” In C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages, ed. by Emanuela Cresti, and Massimo Moneglia, 1–70. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moneglia, Massimo, and Emanuela Cresti
2006 “C-ORAL-ROM Prosodic Boundaries for Spontaneous Speech Analysis.” In Spoken Language Corpus and Linguistics Informatics, ed. by Kawaguchi Yuji, Zaima Susumu, and Takagaki Toshihiro, 89–114. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moneglia, Massimo, and Tommaso Raso
2014 “Notes on the Language into Act Theory.” In Spoken Corpora and Linguistics Studies, ed. by Tommaso Raso, and Heliana Mello, 468–494. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolás, Carlota, and Marina Lombán
2018 “Mini-Corpus del español para DB-IPIC.” Chimera: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies 5 (2): 95–113.Google Scholar
Panunzi, Alessandro, and Lorenzo Gregori
2012 “DB-IPIC: An XML Database for the Representation of Information Structure in Spoken Language.” In Pragmatics and Prosody, Illocution, Modality, Attitude, Information Patterning and Speech Annotation, ed. by Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi, and Tommaso Raso, 133–150. Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
Proietti, Domenico
2015 “Ancora sulla diacronia di “però”.” Cuadernos de Filología italiana, 22: 73–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raso, Tommaso, and Heliana Mello
(eds) 2012 C-ORAL-BRASIL I: Corpus de referência de português brasileiro falado informal. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMA.Google Scholar
Sabatini, Francesco, and Vittorio Coletti
1997 Dizionario Italiano Sabatini Coletti. Firenze: Giunti.Google Scholar
Sabatini, Francesco
1997 “Pause e congiunzioni nel testo: Quel ma a inizio di frase…” In Norma e lingua in Italia: Alcune riflessioni fra passato e presente, ed. by Ilaria Bonomi, 113–146. Milan: Istituto Lombardo-Accademia di Scienze e Lettere.Google Scholar
Scorretti, Mauro
1988 “Le strutture coordinate.” In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, ed. by Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi, and Anna Cardinaletti, vol. I, 227–270. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Silverman, Kim, Mary Beckman, John Pitrelli, Mori Ostendorf, Colin Wightman, Patti Price, Janet Pierrehumbert, and Julia Hirschberg
1992 “ToBI: A Standard for Labeling English Prosody.” In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Spoken Language Processing, ed. by John Ohala, Terry M. Nearey, Bruce L. Derwing, Megan M. Hodge, and Grace E. Wiebe, 867–870. Edmonton: University of Alberta.Google Scholar