Cover not available
Article published In:
Revue Romane
Vol. 58:2 (2023) ► pp.317–337
articles linguistiques

« Sarà primavera dai ». L’uso della particella dai in italiano e in dialetto trevigiano

All’incrocio tra diritti epistemici e deontici

ORCID logo | Universidad Complutense de Madrid
ORCID logo | Université d’Orléans
This conversation analytic study aims to describe the actions performed by speakers of Italian and Trevigiano – a northern Italian dialect – by using the particle dai in everyday conversations. Our analyses draw on a corpus of formal and informal phone calls, where dai appears as preface and at the end of turns that initiate new courses of action, at the end of some responsive turns (or Turn-Constructional Units) and in post-expansions (that is, turns in third position). The actions embodied by these turns – requests, proposals and assessments – have in common the momentary deontic imbalance in favor of the speaker, who tells, asks or proposes to the coparticipant to do something. The particle also accompanies assessments of events to which the speaker has no direct experience (thus from an epistemically subordinate position). This study highlights the fuzziness of the boundaries between deontic and epistemic rights in everyday talk.
Keywords: particles, Italian, Trevigiano, talk-in-interaction, epistemics, deontics, phone calls
Article outline
  • 1.Introduzione
  • 2.Dati
  • 3.Teoria e metodo
  • 4.Analisi
    • 4.1La posizione di dai nel turno di parola
    • 4.2Le azioni implementate dal parlante: Dai e il posizionamento epistemico e deontico
      • 4.2.1Azioni in prima posizione: Richieste d’azione
      • 4.2.2Azioni in prima posizione: Annunci
      • 4.2.3Azioni in seconda posizione
      • 4.2.4Azioni in terza posizione (chiusura locale)
      • 4.2.5Prima posizione; verso la chiusura del topic o dell’interazione
  • 5.Discussione
  • Appunti
  • Bibliografia

Article language: Italian

Published online: 20 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rro.21019.pau
References (48)
Bibliografia
Alfonzetti, G. (1992): Il discorso bilingue. Italiano e dialetto a Catania. Franco Angeli, Milano.Google Scholar
Andorno, C. (2003): Linguistica testuale. Un’introduzione. Carocci, Roma.Google Scholar
(1999). Avverbi focalizzanti in italiano. Parametri per un’analisi. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, 28(1), 43–83.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (1988): A conversation analytic approach to code-switching and transfer, in Heller, M. (a c. di): Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 187–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999): From code switching via language mixing to fused lects. Toward a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. International Journal of Bilingualism, 3, 4, pp. 309–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, C. (1985): L’uso dei connettivi nel parlato: alcune proposte, in Franchi De Bellis, A. e L. M. Savoia (a c. di): Sintassi e morfologia della lingua italiana d’uso. Teorie e applicazioni descrittive, Bulzoni, Roma, pp. 83–94.Google Scholar
(1990): Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian. Journal of Pragmatics, 141, pp. 629–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994): Le facce del parlare. Un approccio pragmatico all’italiano parlato. La Nuova Italia, Firenze.Google Scholar
Beeching, K. e Detges, U. (2014): Introduction, in Beeching, K. e U. Detges (a c. di): Discourse functions at the left and right periphery. Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Brill, Leiden, pp. 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M. (1986): Tempo, aspetto e azione nel verbo italiano. Il sistema dell’indicativo. Accademia della Crusca, Firenze.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2016): Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. e Ono, T. (2007): ‘Incrementing’ in conversation. A comparison of practices in English, German and Japanese. Pragmatics, 17, 4, pp. 513–552.Google Scholar
Curl, T. S. (2006): Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 8, pp. 1257–1280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, C., e Ghezzi, C. (2014): The pragmaticalization of verbs of movement and exchange in Latin and Italian: Paths of development from lexicon to pragmatics, in Ilona, B. e M. Popescu (a c. di): Studia Linguistica et Philologica: in Honorem Prof. Univ. Dr. Michaela Liviescu. Editura Universitaria, Craiova, pp. 116–139.Google Scholar
Fedriani, C. e Molinelli, P. (2019). Italian ma ‘but’ in deverbal pragmatic markers: Forms, functions, and productivity of a pragma-dyad. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana, 261, 29–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fele, G. (2007): L’analisi della conversazione. Il Mulino, Bologna.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2006): Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: introduction to the volume, in Fischer, K. (a c. di): Approaches to discourse particles. Elsevier, Oxford – Amsterdam, pp. 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. (2009): An approach to discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics, 11, pp. 293–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1964): Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems, 11 (3), pp. 225–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghezzi, C. e Molinelli, P. (2014): Italian guarda, prego, dai. Pragmatic markers and the left and right periphery, in Beeching, Kate e U. Detges (a c. di): Discourse functions at the left and right periphery. Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Brill, Leiden, pp. 117–150.Google Scholar
Glenn, P. (2003): Laughter in interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959): The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday, New York.Google Scholar
(1967): Interaction ritual. Essays on face-to-face behavior. Anchor Books, New York.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984): Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
(2013): Epistemics in conversation, in Sidnell, J. e T. Stivers (a c. di): The handbook of conversation analysis. Blackwell, West Sussex, pp. 370–394.Google Scholar
Heritage, J., e Sorjonen, M-L. (2018): Introduction: Analyzing turn-initial particles, in Heritage, J. e M-L. Sorjonen (a c. di): Between turn and sequence: Turn-initial particles across languages. John Benjamins, Amsterdam / Philadelphia, pp. 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ISTAT (2017). L’uso della lingua italiana, dei dialetti e di altre lingue in Italia. [URL] (ultimo accesso: 4 luglio 2022).
Jefferson, G. (2004): Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction, in Lerner, G. (a c. di): Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam / Philadelphia, pp. 13–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. H. e Drew, P. (2016): Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 491, pp. 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. e Fanshel, D. (1977): Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2012): Action formation and ascription, in Sidnell, J. e T. Stivers (a c. di): The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 103–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molinelli, P. (2017): Segnali discorsivi e segnali pragmatici: Sensibilità al mutamento e alla variazione sociolinguistica. Linguistica e Filologia, 371, pp. 121–154.Google Scholar
Pauletto, F.,e Fatigante, M. (2015). ‘Dai da’ na mano!’ Tra il dire e il chiedere. L’uso del segnale discorsivo ‘dai’ in conversazioni in famiglia>. Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata, XV(1), 89–94.Google Scholar
Poggi, I. (2009): The language of interjections, in Esposito, A., A. Hussain, M. Marinaro e R. Martone (a c. di): Multimodal signals: Cognitive and algorithmic issues. Springer, Berlin, pp. 170–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poletto, C. (1993): La sintassi del soggetto nei dialetti italiani settentrionali. Unipress, Padova.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. e Heritage, J. (2013): Preference, in Sidnell, J. e T. Stivers (a c. di): The handbook of conversation analysis. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 210–228.Google Scholar
Raymond, J. e Zimmerman, D. H. (2007): Rights and responsibilities in calls for help: The case of the Mountain Glade fire. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40, 1, pp. 33–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992): Lectures on conversation, Vols. 1 & 2, edited by Gail Jefferson. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. e Jefferson, G. (1974): A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 4, pp. 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sansò, A. (2020): I segnali discorsivi. Carocci, Roma.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968): Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 701, pp. 1075–1095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986): The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 91, pp. 111–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007): Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in Conversation Analysis. Volume 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scivoletto, G. (2020): “Arà, che si dice?” Marcatori del discorso in Sicilia. Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, Palermo.Google Scholar
Sterponi, L. (2009): Accountability in family discourse: Socialization into norms and standards and negotiation of responsibility in Italian dinner conversations. Childhood, 16, 4, pp. 441–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. e Peräkylä, A. (2012): Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45, 3, pp. 297–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, T. (2018): (Non-)Canonical reduplication, in Urdze, Aina (a c. di): Non-prototypical reduplication. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 201–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., e Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015): Responses in request-for-action sequences, in Thompson, S. A., B. A. Fox e E. Couper-Kuhlen (a c. di): Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 215–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar