Cover not available
Part of
Vagueness, Ambiguity, and All the Rest: Linguistic and pragmatic approaches
Edited by Ilaria Fiorentini and Chiara Zanchi
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 347] 2024
► pp. 177–207

Chapter 8
Vagueness explored

The role of comment clauses

 | University of Cagliari
The paper sets out to explore the function of vagueness served by comment clauses in Italian, that is, (de-)verbal parentheticals performing various meta-discursive functions. Meta-discourse reflects the expression of speaker’s comment on discourse to different levels ranging from the communication of epistemic commitment to the encoding of an attitude of mirativity and emphasis. In this paper I address meta-discourse that is expressed by comment clauses that assist the speaker in the communication of informative, relational, and discursive vagueness. Specifically, the strategies here investigated indicate a relation of underspecification between the speaker and the formulation to different degrees pertaining to approximation, expression of epistemic stance, categorisation of reference via exemplification, attenuation of speaker’s force, and on-line planning. I argue that vagueness should be related to the expression of speaker’s subjectivity and indexicality, as the performing of this function helps the speaker contextualising the interpretation of various stretches of discourse.
Keywords: vagueness, comment clauses, Italian, commitment, emergent discourse, spoken discourse, meta-discourse, subjectivity, indexicality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and overview: The linguistic expression of vagueness
  • 2.The linguistic expression of vagueness: Some theoretical premises
    • 2.1Systemic vs intentional vagueness
    • 2.2Means to be vague in discourse: From taxonomic nouns to parentheticals and beyond
    • 2.3Methodology: Object of analysis, corpus, and parameters
  • 3.Vagueness in discourse through the lens of comment clauses
    • 3.1Informative vagueness: Approximation on the content level
    • 3.2Relational vagueness: Between epistemic functions, epistemic exemplification, and attenuation
      • 3.2.1Relational vagueness: Epistemic functions
      • 3.2.2A special case of relational vagueness: Epistemic commitment and categorisation aims
      • 3.2.3Relational vagueness: The case of attenuation
    • 3.3Discursive vagueness: Diluting discourse while planning utterances on-line
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 September 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.347.08bai
References (52)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1984. “‘Sort of’ and ‘kind of’ in English conversation.” Studia Linguistica 38: 118–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barotto, Alessandra. 2021. Exemplification and Categorization: The Case of Japanese. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barotto, Alessandra, and Maria Cristina Lo Baido. 2021. “Exemplification in interaction: From reformulation to the creation of common ground.” In Building Categories in Interaction: Linguistic Resources at Work, ed. by Caterina Mauri, Eugenio Goria, and Ilaria Fiorentini, 239–270. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barotto, Alessandra, and Caterina Mauri. 2018. “Constructing lists to construct categories.” Italian Journal of Linguistics 30 (1): 95–134.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla. 2011. “Indeterminacy in dialogue.” Language and Dialogue 1: 21–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate. 2017. Pragmatic markers in British English: Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2007. Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Channell, Joanna. 1994. Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collu, Laura. 2017. Quantificazione vaga: uno studio contrastivo sul parlato italiano e tedesco. PhD Dissertation, Università degli Studi di Salerno.Google Scholar
Crible, Ludivine. 2018. Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency: Forms and Functions across Languages and Registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cutting, Joan. 2007. Vague Language Explored. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth. 2014. “‘So very fast then’: Discourse markers at left and right periphery in spoken French.” In Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change, ed. by Kate Beeching, and Ulrich Detges, 151–178. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Mauro, Tullio. 1982. Minisemantica dei linguaggi non verbali e delle lingue. Roma/Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dines, Elizabeth R. 1980. “Variation in discourse – ‘and stuff like that’.” Language in society 9: 13–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finegan, Edward. 1995. “Subjectivity and subjectivisation: An introduction.” In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, ed. by Dieter Stein, and Susan Wright, 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiorentini, Ilaria. 2017. Segnali di contatto. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Eccetera eccetera e così via di seguito. I general extenders dell’italiano contemporaneo.” In CLUB Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 2, ed. by Francesca Masini, and Fabio Tamburini, 20–39. Università di Bologna: Circolo Linguistico dell’Università di Bologna.Google Scholar
Fiorentini, Ilaria, and Andrea Sansò. 2017. “Reformulation markers and their functions: two case studies from Italian.” Journal of Pragmatics 120: 54–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2010. “Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging.” In New Approaches to Hedging, ed. by Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch, and Stefan Schneider, 15–34. Bingley: Emerald Group Limited. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara. 2012. Vagueness markers in contemporary Italian: intergenerational variation and pragmatic change. PhD Dissertation, Università degli Studi di Pavia.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2017. Spontaneous Spoken English: An Integrated Approach to the Emergent Grammar of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Gunther Kaltenböck. 2021. “From clause to discourse marker: on the development of comment clauses.” Language Sciences 87: 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hölker, Klaus. 2005. “Diciamo come mitigatore.” In Aspetti dell’italiano parlato, ed. by Klaus Hölker, and Christiane Maass, 53–80. Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. J. 1991. “On some principles of grammaticization.” In Approaches to Grammaticalization, ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott, and Bernd Heine, 17–35, vol. 1. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. (First Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel. 1983. Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine, and Tania Kuteva. 2011. “On thetical grammar.” Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 35 (4): 852–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1973. “Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.” Journal of philosophical logic 2: 458–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lo Baido, Maria Cristina. 2018. “Categorization via exemplification: evidence from Italian.” In Linguistic strategies for the construction of ad hoc categories: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives, ed. by Caterina Mauri and Andrea Sansò. Special issue of Folia Linguistica 52 (s39–1): 69–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2024. Forms and Functions of Meta-Discourse: The Case of Comment Clauses in Present-Day Italian. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Masini, Francesca. 2012. Parole sintagmatiche in italiano. Roma: Caissa Italia.Google Scholar
Masini, Francesca, and Paola Pietrandrea. 2010. “Magari.” Cognitive Linguistics 21: 75–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, Caterina. 2017. “Building and interpreting ad hoc categories: a linguistic analysis.” In Formal Models in the Study of Language, ed. by Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman, and Cristopher Laenzlinger, 297–326. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, Caterina, Silvia Ballarè, Eugenio Goria, Massimo Cerruti, and Francesco Suriano. 2019. “KIParla corpus: a new resource for spoken Italian.” In Proceedings of the 6th Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it, ed. by Raffaella Bernardi, Roberto Navigli, and Giovanni Semeraro (eds). Available at: CEUR-WS.org/Vol-2481 – Sixth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina, and Andrea Sansò. 2018. “Linguistic strategies for ad hoc categorization: Theoretical assessment and cross-linguistic variation.” In Linguistic strategies for the construction of ad hoc categories: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives, ed. by Caterina Mauri and Andrea Sansò. Special issue of Folia Linguistica 52 (s39–1): 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mihatsch, Wiltrud. 2010. “The diachrony of rounders and adaptors: approximation and unidirectional change.” In New Approaches to Hedging, ed. by Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch, and Stefan Schneider, 93–122. Bingley: Emerald Group Limited. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. “Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann. 1999. Whales, Candelight, and Stuff Like That. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F., Joel Frader, and Charles Bosk. 1982. “On Hedging in Physician-Physician Discourse.” In Linguistics and the Professions, ed. by Robert J. Di Pietro, 83–97. Norwood/New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1902. “Vague.” In Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, ed. by James M. Baldwin, 763–764. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Sansò, Andrea. 2020. I segnali discorsivi. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Voghera, Miriam. 2012. “Chitarre, violino, banjo e cose del genere.” In Per Tullio De Mauro. Studi offerti dalle allieve in occasione del suo 80° compleanno, ed. by Anna Maria Thornton, and Miriam Voghera, 341–364. Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
. 2013. “A case study on the relationship between grammatical change and synchronic variation: The emergence of tipo[-N] in Italian.” In Synchrony and Diachrony. A Dynamic Interface. ed. by Anna Giacalone Ramat, Caterina Mauri, and Piera Molinelli, 283–312. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Da nome tassonomico a segnale discorsivo: una mappa delle costruzioni di tipo in italiano contemporaneo.” Studi di grammatica italiana 33: 197–221.Google Scholar
. 2017. Dal parlato alla grammatica. Costruzione e forma dei testi spontanei. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Voghera, Miriam, and Laura Collu. 2017. “Intentional vagueness: a corpus-based analysis of Italian and German.” In Exploring Intensification: Synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives, ed. by Maria Napoli, and Miriam Ravetto, 371–390. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 1994. “Vagueness.” In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Ronald E. Asher, and J. M. Y. Simpson, 4869–4871. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar