Cover not available
Part of
Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal patterns and the organization of action
Edited by Yael Maschler, Simona Pekarek Doehler, Jan K. Lindström and Leelo Keevallik
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 32] 2020
► pp. 25–54

Chapter 2
Nel senso (che) in Italian conversation

Turn-taking, turn-maintaining and turn-yielding

This chapter examines nel senso (che) ‘in the sense (that)’ in present-day conversational Italian. Speakers can use the resource to start a turn, to extend a turn-in-progress, or to yield a turn to a next speaker. In TCU-beginnings, it is describable as a projector construction, allowing speakers to display continuation of their turn (with a new clause). When extending a turn with nel senso (che), speakers display orientation towards a potential problem of understanding which they prevent by elaborating on their prior talk. In turn- and TCU-initial positions, both nel senso che and nel senso are observed; in turn-final positions only the latter format occurs. The chapter analyzes the syntactic, prosodic, embodied, and praxeological corollaries of the resource.
Keywords: turn position, projector construction, Italian, syntax
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous studies
  • 3.Data and method
  • 4.Turn-initial nel senso (che) in responsive actions
  • 5.Nel senso (che) and turn-construction
    • 5.1Turn-extensions after other-speaker’s talk
    • 5.2Turns-in-progress
      • 5.2.1Elaborating on a previous action
      • 5.2.2Initiating a new action
    • 5.3Self-repair
  • 6.Turn-yielding
  • 7.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.02ste
References (45)
References
Auer, P. (1996). On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp. 57–100). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, C. (1990). Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 629–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). Le facce del parlare: Un approccio pragmatico all’italiano parlato. Scandicci: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
(2006). Discourse markers in Italian: Towards a ‘compositional’ meaning. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 449–464), Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Turn continuation and clause combinations. Discourse Processes 49, 273–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dal Negro, S., & Fiorentini, I. (2014). Reformulation in bilingual speech: Italian cioè in German and Ladin. Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1069–1093.Google Scholar
Dardano, M., Trifone, P. (1997). La nuova grammatica della lingua italiana. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A., & De Stefani, E. (2019). Defining in talk-in-interaction: Recipient-design through negative definitional components. Journal of Pragmatics 140, 140–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, E. (2016). ‘Niente’ nel parlato conversazionale: Pratiche interazionali e processi di grammaticalizzazione di un segnale discorsivo. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 132(1), 206–231.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. & Horlacher, A.-S. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. Pragmatics 18(3), 381–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiorentini, I. & Sansò, A. (2017). Reformulation markers and their functions: Two case studies from Italian. Journal of Pragmatics 120, 54–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 97–121). New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2011). ‘N be that’-constructions in everyday German conversation: A reanalysis of ‘die Sache ist/das Ding ist’ (‘the thing is’)-clauses as projector phrases. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation (pp. 11–36). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–338). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
(1983). On a failed hypothesis: ‘Conjunctionals’ as overlap-sensitive. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 28, 1–33.Google Scholar
(2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kangasharju, H. (2002). Alignment in disagreement: Forming oppositional alliances in committee meetings. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1447–1471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2003). From interaction to grammar: Estonian finite verb forms in conversation. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Koivisto, A. (2010). Discourse patterns for turn-final conjunctions. Journal of Pragmatics 44, 1254–1272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y.-A. (2006). Respecifying display questions: Interactional resources for language teaching. Tesol Quarterly 40(4), 691–713. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J. (2006). Grammar in the service of interaction: Exploring turn organization in Swedish. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39(1), 81–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, J., & Kelly, J. (1986). Projection and ‘silences’: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies 9(2/3), 185–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, J., & Walker, G. (2004). Abrupt-joins as a resource for the production of multi-unit, multi-action turns. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 1375–1403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, D. W. (2013). Defensive mechanisms: I-mean prefaced utterances in complaint and other conversational sequences. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 198–233). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2016). Conventions for multimodal transcription. [URL] [Link accessed April 24, 2019].
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, R. (2001). Turn transition, creak and glottal stop in Finnish talk-in-interaction. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 31(1), 139–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction. In R. Laury, & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation (pp. 103–148). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). More than an epistemic hedge: French je sais pas ‘I don’t know’ as a resource for the sequential organization of turns and actions. Journal of Pragmatics 106, 148–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68(6), 939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50(4), 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Increments. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (pp. 239–263). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Syntax and prosody as methods for the construction and identification of turn-constructional units in conversation. In A. Hakulinen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 17–44). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2001). Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serianni, L. (1988). Grammatica italiana: Lingua comune e italiano letterario. Torino: UTET.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., & Rossano, G. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1), 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoenica, I. M., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (this volume). Relative-clause increments and the management of reference: A multimodal analysis of French talk-in-interaction.
Thompson, S. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2005). The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7, 481–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, G. (2012). Coordination and interpretation of vocal and visible resources: ‘Trail-off’ conjunctions. Language and Speech 55(1), 141–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zingarelli, N. (2018). Lo Zingarelli 2019: Vocabolario della lingua italiana. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

De Stefani, Elwys
2023. Displaying a negative stance by questioning meaning. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo
Deppermann, Arnulf & Elwys De Stefani
2023. Meaning in interaction. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Helmer, Henrike
2023. Ad-hoc-compounds in spoken German. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Floyd, Simeon
2021. Conversation and Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 50:1 ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.