Discourse Markers in Spoken Italian

UNIVERSITT BIELEFELD
Fakultt fr Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft
Discourse markers in spoken Italian

The functions of senti and guarda
Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwrde
vorgelegt von
Laura Fuschi
Oktober 2013
Erstgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Barbara Job

Zweitgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Bettina Kluge
Gedruckt auf alterungsbestndigem Papier ISO 9706
CONTENTS
Contents
1.Introduction.................................................................................................................................................3
2.Definitionofdiscoursemarkers...............................................................................................................7
2.1.Discoursemarkersandotherlabels..............................................................................................7
2.2.Definitionsofthecategory...............................................................................................................10
2.2.1.DeborahSchiffrin:acoherencebasedviewondiscoursemarkers.....................................10
2.2.2.GiselaRedeker:arevisedmodelofdiscoursecoherence.....................................................12
2.2.3.BruceFraser:agrammaticalpragmaticperspective.............................................................14
2.2.4.CarlaBazzanella:aninteractionalpragmaticperspective...................................................16
2.3.Commonlyrecognizedfeaturesofdiscoursemarkers.................................................................18
2.3.1.Morphosyntacticheterogeneity,functionallydeterminedcategorization.........................19
2.3.2.Syntacticnonintegration,scopevariability...........................................................................20
2.3.3.Externalitytopropositional,truthconditionalcontent........................................................21
2.3.4.Functioningonapragmaticlevel............................................................................................23
2.4.Theconceptofdiscoursemarkersinthepresentwork...............................................................24
3.Overviewofexistingapproaches...........................................................................................................31
3.1.ApproachesinItaliandiscoursemarkersresearch.......................................................................31
3.2.Deverbaldiscoursemarkersinotherlanguages...........................................................................34
4.Sentiandguarda:astateoftheart...........................................................................................................37
5.Aimsofthepresentstudy.......................................................................................................................46
6.Dataandmethod......................................................................................................................................50
6.1.Data.....................................................................................................................................................50
6.2.Method................................................................................................................................................52
7.Analysis......................................................................................................................................................64
7.1.Senti.....................................................................................................................................................64
7.1.1.Openingaturn,gainingattention...........................................................................................64
7.1.2.Interruptingthecurrentspeaker.............................................................................................67
7.1.3.Managingformulationtroubles...............................................................................................69
7.1.4.Introducinganewactivity:topics,sequences,andpartsofconversation.........................70
7.1.5.Expressingaspeakersattitude................................................................................................76
7.1.6.Markingquotedspeech.............................................................................................................81
7.1.7.Aunifiedaccount:abasicfunctionofsenti............................................................................82
7.2.Guarda................................................................................................................................................88
CONTENTS
7.2.1.Openingaturn............................................................................................................................88
7.2.2.Interruptingthecurrentspeaker,gainingattention..............................................................89
7.2.3.Managingformulationtroubles...............................................................................................90
7.2.4.Expressingaspeakersattitude................................................................................................91
7.2.5.Markingquotedspeech.............................................................................................................96
7.2.6.Aunifiedaccount:abasicfunctionofguarda.........................................................................97
7.3.Theuseofsentiandguarda:acomparison..................................................................................105
7.3.1.Relationtotheorganizationofturnsandthescope............................................................106
7.3.2.Relationtospeakersactions...................................................................................................108
7.3.3.Relationtosequenceorganization,globalconversationstructure,andtopics................117
7.3.4.Sentivsguardainquotedspeech............................................................................................123
7.3.5.Conclusions...............................................................................................................................125
8.ExcursusNativespeakersinterpretationsofsentiandguarda:anempiricalinvestigation......126
8.1.Method..............................................................................................................................................126
8.1.1.Deletionandsubstitutiontests...............................................................................................127
8.1.2.Questionnaires..........................................................................................................................129
8.1.3.Testdialogues...........................................................................................................................129
8.1.4.Respondents..............................................................................................................................132
8.2.Results...............................................................................................................................................133
8.2.1.Somepreliminaryremarksontherespondentsanswers...................................................133
8.2.2.Dosentiandguardaaffectutteranceinterpretation?............................................................134
8.2.3.Whateffectsdosentiandguardahave?..................................................................................134
8.3.Discussion.........................................................................................................................................136
8.3.1.Speakersinterpretationsandtheproposeddescriptionofsentiandguarda...................136
8.3.2.Suitabilityofthemethod.........................................................................................................140
9.Summaryandprospects.........................................................................................................................141
References....................................................................................................................................................144
Appendix1:Transcriptionconventions...................................................................................................155
Appendix2:Testdialogues.......................................................................................................................157
Appendix3:Questionnaires......................................................................................................................160
INTRODUCTION
1. Introduction
This work presents a functional analysis of the Italian discourse markers senti
(listen/hear) and guarda (look). Based on two corpora of natural data, the study
intendstoofferadetaileddescriptionofthepragmatictasksaccomplishedbythesetwo
linguistic items in presentday spoken Italian, and to point out differences in their
functioningbycomparingfeaturesoftheircontextsofuse.
It has often been emphasized that discourse markers were for a long time
neglected by linguists; they were disdained as a sort of linguistic detritus (Schourup

1999:228)ordiscountedasmarginalelementswhoseonlypurposeistokeepthecontact
with the interlocutor and fill the silence (Dostie 2004: 12), a view that has radically
changedoverthepastfewdecades.Abroadrangeofstudieshaveamplydemonstrated
that these elements fulfil a spectrum of tasks that are essential for the organization of
discourseandthemanagementofinterpersonalrelationships.
It is certainly a fact and it has been a reason for their neglect that discourse
markersdonotcontributetotheconstructionofaspeakersmessageasotherwordsdo;
indeed,oneoftheirdefiningfeaturesispreciselythattheydonotaddtothepropositional
contentexpressedbyutterances,butfunctiononapragmaticlevel,situatingutterancesin
the ongoing discourse and in an interpersonal dimension. Their use is mostly
unconscious1 and their meanings are difficult to grasp and explain. Exactly because of
this, if one wants to describe the workings of a language, it is indespensable to
understand what these elements do. Understanding discourse markers can, moreover,
helpusshedlightonaspectsofverbalcommunicationsuchasthestructuringofdiscourse
andspeakerscognitiveprocesses.
Itisnotsurprisingthateversincetheroleofdiscoursemarkersincommunication
was brought to attention in the 1970s, starting with the pioneering work of Elisabeth
Glich(1970)onGliederungssignale(structuringsignals)inspokenFrench,thistopic
hasacquiredincreasingspaceinresearch.Discoursemarkershaveenteredareasasvaried
as text linguistics (e.g. van Dijk 1977), Conversation Analysis (e.g. Heritage 1984),
grammaticalization and pragmaticalization studies (e.g. Brinton 2001, Dostie 2004)2, and
they have been discussed within general theories of communication such as
Argumentation Theory (e.g. Anscombre/Ducrot 1988) and Relevance Theory (e.g.
Blakemore1987).Thereby,asSalvadorPonsBordera(2006:94)putsit,discoursemarkers
havebecomeameltingpotofproblemsandperspectives.Thesubjecthasindeedbeen
approached from a great variety of angles. While some studies focus on the question of
the definition, delimitation, and systematization of the whole category, more often than
not taking quite different views (Pons Bordera 2006, Fraser 2006), others analyze the
Atleastbythenativespeakersofalanguage.
Whilesomescholarsspeakofgrammaticalization(e.g.Brinton2001,MarnJord2005),otherspreferthe
conceptofpragmaticalizationwithrespecttodiscoursemarkers(e.g.Dostie2004,FrankJob2006).
1
2
INTRODUCTION
functionsandmeaningsofsingleitems(Travis2005)ortheirdistributioninlanguageuse
(RomeroTrillo1997),comparemarkersfromdifferentlanguages(Bazzanellaetal.2007a,
Hasund2001),orexaminethemintranslation(Aijmer/Foolen/SimonVandenbergen2006,
Bazzanella1999).Inthelastdecade,theriseofdiscoursemarkersfromwordsbelonging
to other partofspeech classes has received growing attention (Waltereit/Detges 2007,
Brinton2009,Diewald2008).Severalstudieshavealsopursuedthequestionofdiscourse
markersacquisitionbynonnativespeakersandoftheirteaching(Mllering2004,Pellet
2005,Mller2005).
The present work intends to add a small but wellfounded and hopefully useful
contribution to this broad field of studies by proposing an indepth analysis of the

functionsofthemarkerssentiandguardaincontemporaryspokenItalian.
Themarkerssentiandguardaformallycorrespondwith,andcanbetracedbackto,
thesecondpersonimperativeoftheverbssentire(tohear,tolisten)andguardare
(to look). With regard to the English translation, it has to be specified that guardare
indicates intentional visual perception, while sentire indicates both unintentional and
intentional auditive perception.3 The forms senti and guarda are not invariable, but are
inflected for person and number according to the interlocutor: along with the second
person singular senti, we have the form senta, used when the interlocutor is addressed
formally,andcorrespondingwiththethirdpersonsingular;whenthereismorethanone
addressee, the second person plural sentite is used. In the same vein, the form guarda
becomes guardi (polite form, third person singular) and guardate (second person plural).
Senti and guarda thus belong to the crosslinguistically widespread type of discourse
markers that can be called deverbal, i.e. originating in verb forms. Some further
examplesaretheEnglishmarkersyouknow,listen,look,andyousee,Germanweite(you
know) and verstehste (you understand), French coute (listen) and disons (lets say),
and,againlookingatItalian,sai(youknow),diciamo(letssay),and(hai)capito((have
you)understood),tomentionjustafew.Thesepragmaticelementsarecharacterizedby
the fact that they refer to the participants in the conversation, to the activities of
perceptionandproductionaccomplishedbythespeakers,andtotheircognitiveprocesses
and states (understanding, knowing). This makes these markers especially interesting
from an interactional point of view, as devices whose functions are directly connected
withtheinterpersonalaspectofverbalcommunication.
The markers senti and guarda occur very frequently in spoken Italian and are
currently mentioned in to my knowledge all works presenting inventories of Italian

discourse markers. However, few studies have been specifically devoted to them and it
seemsthatwearestilllackinginsightintowideareasoftheirfunctioning.Theiruseisnot
restricted to informal speech, although this is often regarded as the most typical
Wecansay,forexample,sentireunaconferenza,meaningtolistentoaconference(examplefromIl
dizionariodellalinguaitaliana(DeMauro2000:2409)).Theverbascoltare,conversely,onlyindicates
intentionalauditiveperception.Thereexistsadiscoursemarkerascolta,butitisnotasfrequentassenti:inmy
corpora,Icouldonlyfind25instancesofascoltawhichIwasthereforenotabletoanalyzeincontrastto170
instancesofsenti.
3
INTRODUCTION
environment for discourse markers: senti and guarda are found in contexts as varied as
familiar conversation, talkshows, and courtroom trials. Their wide use makes it all the
moreinterestingtocloselyinvestigatehowtheywork.Thiswillbethegoalofthepresent
thesis.
The analysis will be strictly corpusdriven, as the pragmatic role of the markers
will be worked out directly and exclusively from the data. Thereby, the analytical
procedure can be defined as bottomup, as it starts from the examination of the single
tokens found in the corpora and their role in context in order to work out general
functions that subsume the contextual uses. As a result, the study will present for each
marker a set of main functions that account for its bearing on different levels of
interaction, and finally, one basic function by which all its uses shall be explained in a
unified way. Besides describing senti and guarda individually, I will also carry out a
comparison of the markers use in the corpora, in order to highlight some specific
propertiesofeachandtolettheirdifferencesemerge.Thestudythusintends,ontheone
hand,tocontributetoadeeperunderstandingofthetwoitems,butalsotocreateabasis
forcomparativeanalysesofdiscoursemarkers,whichcouldbeextendedtootheritemsas
well. The study will be enriched, in a final excursus, by a smallsize empirical
investigation of the interpretation of senti and guarda by native speakers. Employing
deletion and substitution tests, this investigation will endeavour to give some insight in
themarkersbearingontheinterpretationofutterancesbynonlinguists,andthusallow
us to evaluate the adequacy of the functional descriptions resulting from the corpus
analysisasarepresentationofthemarkersvalues.
Theworkisstructuredasfollows:Iwillbeginbydiscussingthedefinitionofthe
object discourse markers (chapter 2). The linguistic elements I have been referring to
thus far could, in fact, also be called pragmatic markers, discourse particles, or
discourse connectives, among others. It is wellknown that countless terms have been
andareappliedtothesemorphosyntacticallyheterogeneouspragmaticitems.Thescope
of the category is not agreed upon, either: scholars have different concepts of what
features should be considered as characteristic of the class. Consequently, I will start by
givinganoverviewofthemostfrequentlabelsandofsomeinfluentialandbynomeans
equal definitions; I will then discuss a number of properties that are commonly
recognized as typical of the class and state how the concept of discourse markers is
meant in this work. In chapter 3, my goal will be to give a survey of the interests and
goalsthathaveinformedthestudyofdiscoursemarkers.Acompletereviewofthewhole
fieldisofcoursenotpossiblewithinthetimeandspacelimitsofthisstudy;Iwillinstead
discussinsomedetailtheareasthatarerelevantformywork:Iwillstartwiththeareaof
Italian discourse marker research and then extend the focus to research on deverbal
markers in other languages. Chapter 4 will then offer a state of the art about senti and
guardaspecifically:asurveyoftheanalysesanddescriptionsfoundintheliteraturewill
show what we already know about our object; this will be a point of departure for a
concrete statement of the studys aims in chapter 5. Chapter 6 will be devoted to the
descriptionofthedataandthemethodusedinthecorpusanalysis.Chapter7willdisplay
5
INTRODUCTION
theresults:sections7.1and7.2willpresentthefunctionsofsentiandguarda,respectively;
section 7.3. will compare features of their contexts of use. Finally, in chapter 8, I will
provide an excursus detailing an empirical investigation into the interpretation of senti
and guarda by native speakers. Conclusions and perspectives will close the work in
chapter9.
DEFINITIONOFDISCOURSEMARKERS
2. Definitionofdiscoursemarkers
Itisanotoriousprobleminthestudyofdiscoursemarkersthattheobjectofstudyisnot
univocally defined. Discourse markers constitute a relatively new research field; neither
theexactcategorizationofthelinguisticelementsmeantandthusthescopeofthewhole
categorynortheterminologyemployedtotalkaboutthemareuniversallysharedinthe
community.Onthecontrary,eachscholartendstodefinetheminaslightlyorsometimes
verydifferentway.
The problem of definition is thus twofold: on the one hand, distinct names are
usedtomakereferencetowhatismoreorlessthesamegroupoflinguisticelements;on
the other hand, the same name is sometimes applied to different or only partially
overlappinggroupsofitems.Suchvariationdependsonmanyfactors:theapproachtaken
and the aims pursued by a given study, the research tradition in which a scholar
participates,thetheoreticalframeworksheorheisworkingin,andnotleastthelanguage
considered.
As in any study of discourse markers, therefore, the first thing to be done is to
orientourselvesinthisvariegatedlandscapeandtoclarifywhatismeantunderthelabel
discourse markers in the present work. Thereby, I do not strive to make a proposal
about how discourse markers should be defined as a whole class such an endeavour
would of course be far beyond thescope of awork that focuses on two items only. The
goalwillratherbetoclarifywhatusesoftheformssentiandguardaIwillbetalkingabout,
i.e. what properties these uses manifest which distinguish them from other possible
readings.
In what follows, I will give a brief overview of the different ways in which the
elementsthatIcalldiscoursemarkershavebeenlabelledanddefinedintheliterature.
2.1. Discoursemarkersandotherlabels
Letusconsidertheterminologicalproblemfirst.Manytermshavebeenusedtonamethe
formally heterogeneous pragmatic elements we are interested in; distinct terms often
implicateacertaincharacterizationoftheirfunctions.
Thefirstlabelthattomybestknowledgehasbeenusedwithreferencetothese
kindofelementsisGliederungssignale(structuringsignals),asintroducedbyGlich
(1970)forelementsofspokenFrenchsuchasah,ben(derivedfrombienwell),4donc(so,
thus), alors (then, so), puis (then, next), mais (but), and tu sais (you know). The
label puts emphasis on the organizing value of these items and corresponds to Glichs
AlldiscoursemarkersfromlanguagesotherthanEnglishareprovidedwithtranslationsinbrackets.The
readershouldbearinmindthatthetranslationscannotbebutliteraltranslationsofthelexicalitemsin
questionandcannotaccountforthediversepragmaticmeaningsofamarker.Notethatagivenmarkerwill
notbetranslatedeverytimeitappears,butonlywhenmetionedforthefirsttime.
4
textlinguistic perspective, which focuses on their structuring role on a macrosyntactic

level.ThetermGliederungssignalewasalsoadoptedbyLichem(1981)withreferenceto
items of spoken Italian like ah, bene (well), ma (but), allora (then), senti, or direi (I
wouldsay),andhasitsequivalentintheexpressionelementidiarticolazione,asused
byStammerjohann(1977).
Awidespreadlabelisthatofconnectives,whichgenerallystressestheproperty
ofsomelinguisticelementstomarklogicalconnectionsbetweenutterances.Thistermis
employed, for instance, by Blakemore (1987), who considers items like so, after all,
moreover,andhowever,intheframeworkofSperberandWilsons(1986)RelevanceTheory,
as devices that constrain the retrieval of contextual assumptions in the process of
interpreting utterances, thus indicating how a given utterance is to be interpreted as
relevant5(Blakemore1987:122,butseealso1992:137).Itisnotuncommon,however,to
find the term connectives referring to pragmatic elements in general, independently
from their having a principally connective function or not. For example, Manili (1986)
characterizes conettivi as elements that appeal to the interlocutor and control and
maintain the communication contact, including the items vedi (you see), sai, senti, and
guarda. A rather broad use of the terms connectives and connettivi is also found in
earlyworksbyBazzanella(1985,1990)andinStati(1986).BrizGmez(1993)employsthe
label conectores pragmticos for elements like porque (because), and sin embargo
(nevertheless), which, besides having a connective function at a clause level as
conjunctions and adverbials, step to a pragmatic level when they are used not to link
clauses,butspeechacts,orturns.Atthesametime,thelabelcomprisesitemswithaless
pronouncedconnectivevalue,likebueno(good)andbien(well).Therelationoftheterm
connectives (or in this case conectores) with a specific type of function becomes a
centralissueintheworkofPonsBordera(1998a)onpragmaticelementsofSpanish.The
author distinguishes between elements that are more prototypically connective
accordingtoformalandfunctionalfeaturesthatarecommonlyattributedtoconnectives
intheliteratureasforexampley(and),o(or),andpero(but),andelementsthatare
only peripherally connective, like oye (hear), mira (look), bueno (good), and claro
(clear, of course). In his opinion, even though the latter can assume connective
AccordingtoRelevanceTheory,ahearerwhoispresentedwithanewutterancetriestoestablisha
connectionbetweenthenewinformationandherrepresentationoftheworldi.e.beliefsandassumptions
shealreadyhassotoimprovethisrepresentation;inotherwords,sheestablishesthepropositionsrelevance
(Blakemore1987:49).Thehearerhasalargeamountofinformationstoredinmemory,butonlyapartofthis
constitutesthecontextthatisimmediatelyavailabletoprocessanewproposition;extendingthiscontexti.e.
accessingmoreinformationinordertoprocessthepropositioninvolvesacost.Therelevanceofa
propositiondependsbothonthecontextualeffectsitbringsabout,causinganimprovementinthe
representationoftheworld,andonthecostsinvolvedinitsprocessing:thegreaterthecontextualeffects,the
greatertherelevance,butthehighertheprocessingcosts,thelesstherelevance(Blakemore1987:54).Inthis
framework,discourseconnectivesaredevicesthatconstrainthechoiceofassumptionsahearerbringsto
bearintheinterpretationprocess:theymakethehearerretrievecontextualassumptionsthatareinaccordance
withtheirmeainings,andtherebyconstrainutteranceinterpretation(Blakemore1987:122,1992:137).For
example,afterallindicatesthatthepropositionitintroducesisevidenceforanassumptionwhichhasjust
beenmadeaccessible;so,whenwesayYouhaveanotherdrink.Afterallitisyourbirthdaythesecond
utteranceisrelevantasajustificationforthefirst(Blakemore1992:140).
5
functionsrelatedtoformulationandtopicstructure,theyhavetheirprimaryfunctionsin
modalization(buenoandclaro)andaddressing(oyeandmira)(PonsBordera1998a:204ff.).
It should be noticed that, in recent years, this distinction seems to have become less
problematicasothertermshavecomeintouse(particularlythetermdiscoursemarkers
anditstranslations,asweshallseebelow).
Otherlabelsthatarecurrentlyusedinresearchtonametheelementsinwhichwe
are interested include pragmatic markers (Fraser 2006, Aijmer/Foolen/Simon

Vandenbergen 2006, Andersen 1998), discourse operators (Redeker 1991),
Gesprchswrter(conversationwords)(Koch/Oesterreicher2011),motsdudiscours
(discourse words) (Paillard 2000), and segnali discorsivi (discourse signals) (Mara
1986,Bazzanella2006b,Khachaturyan2001).
At the present state, the two most widespread terms appear to be discourse
particles(e.g.Aijmer1988,Hansen1998,Fischer2006b,Nemo2006;seealsopartculas
discursivas in Briz Gmez et al. (2008)) and discourse markers (e.g. Schiffrin 1987,
Travis 2006), with its equivalents Diskursmarker (Auer/Gnthner 2005), marqueurs
discursifs (Dostie 2004, Glich 2006), marcadores del discurso (Borreguero
Zuloaga/LpezSerena2011),andmarcatoridiscorsivi(Contento1994).
Already one and a half decades ago Jucker and Ziv (1998: 2) observed that
discoursemarkerwas,amongmanyterms,theonewiththewidestcurrency,suitable
for a broad range of items. Schourup (1999: 229f.) observes a prevalence of the term
discourse marker over discourse particle, which he attributes to a number of
problemsinherentinthewordparticle:itistraditionallyasyntacticterm,whereasthe
pragmatic items in question are usually identified on a functional basis; even as a
syntactic term, it is not used univocally (for example, conjunctions and prepositions are
sometimes called particles); finally, there is a tendency for this word to be used more
specifically for scalar and modal particles. Schourup finds that the term discourse
particle is used in a more pretheoretical fashion and with a broader reference than
discourse marker. His focus lies in particular on definitions of discourse markers
centredontheconnectivevalue,whichexcludeitemssuchasallright,like,ouch,ormhm;
suchitemshave,conversely,beenreferredtoasdiscourseparticles.Althoughitistrue
that many scholars understand discourse markers as primarily connective, and some
indeed restrict the label to items such as so, but, or after all, it seems that, at present, an
equally large number of scholars do use the term discourse markers for more
comprehensivegroupsofpragmaticitems,includingforexampleohandlike(seeFoxTree
2007), French tiens (hold) and regarde (look) (see Dostie 2004), Italian diciamo (see
Waltereit2006a),andSpanishbueno(seeTravis2005).
Oncetheterminologicalvarietyhasbeenoutlined,wecangoastepforwardand
ask what exactly is meant by the above labels, i.e. how discourse markers (or discourse
particles,connectivesetc.)havebeendefined.
2.2. Definitionsofthecategory
Aswasanticipated,nouniversallyaccepteddefinitionofdiscoursemarkersexists;afew
featuresareusuallyagreeduponbymostscholars,butdifferencesintheapproach,inthe
sets of elements under study, as well as in the type of functions focussed on, inevitably
leadtogreatdiscrepancies.
Inthissection,Iwouldliketoreviewinsomedetailafewinfluentialdefinitions,
soastogiveanoverviewofsomeofthedifferentwaysinwhichdiscoursemarkerscanbe
understood. In forty years of research, myriads of definitions have been given, so the
reviewhasofcoursenopretensiontobeexhaustive.6Rather,itisintendedtoprovide a
pictureofthevarietyofexistingdefinitionsand,thus,thecomplexityofthefield.7
2.2.1. DeborahSchiffrin:acoherencebasedviewondiscourse
markers
Averyinfluentialdefinitionwasgivenintheearlyyearsofdiscoursemarkerresearchby
Deborah Schiffrin (1987) in her seminal book Discourse Markers. In regard to the type of
elementsmeantbythelabel,thebookfocusesinparticularonwell,oh,but,or,and,because,
so, then, now, yknow, and I mean, but other items are mentioned as belonging to the
category as well, for example look, here, why, gosh, boy, anyway, and this is the point
(Schiffrin 1987: 327). Two definitions of the category are given: first an operational
defintion,thenatheoreticalone,whichconstitutestheoutcomeofthestudy.Accordingto
the operational definition, discourse markers are sequentially dependent elements
which bracket units of talk (Schiffrin 1987: 31, emphasis in the original). The units of
talk can be sentences, propositions, speech acts, as well as tone units; sequentially
dependentmeansthatdiscoursemarkersarenotdependentonsyntacticstructureslike
clausesandsentences,butaresequentiallydependentonthestructureofthediscourse
(Schiffrin1987:40).
The theoretical definition that results from Schiffrins study is framed in a more
comprehensive model of discourse and discourse coherence. The model describes five
planes or structures of discourse (later called domains by Schiffrin (2006)). The
exchangestructureismadeupofturnsandalloftheactivitiesrelatedtothesequential
ordering of turns; it also comprises those activities that concern the mechanical
requirementsoftalk,suchascontactsignalsandturnoversignals(Schiffrin1987:24).The
action structure consists of speech acts and their linear ordering in patterns; this
Forinstance,Iwillnotbeabletoreviewheretheworkthathasbeendoneondiscoursemarkersinthe
frameworkofRelevanceTheorybyBlakemore(1987),withinArgumentationTheorybyAnscombreand
Ducrot(1988),orbyRouletetal.(1987)fromtheGenevaSchool.Sincetimeandspacelimitsofthepresent
thesisdonotallowmetodojusticetoseveralinfluentialapproaches,Iwillrestrictmyselftodiscussingthose
thathavebeenparticularlyrelevantformyownwork.
7 The reader is referred to Pons Bordera (1998) for a systematization of 70 definitions. Moreover, the
challengingtaskofgivinganoverviewofapproachestodiscoursemarkershasbeentakenupbyvolumeslike
those edited by Jucker and Ziv (eds.) (1998), by Drescher and FrankJob (eds.) (2006), and by Fischer (ed.)
(2006);inthelatter,everypaperexplicitlydiscussesthedefinitionproblem.
6
10
ordering is viewed as the result of the decision procedures of the speakers which
characterize the acts as situated (Schiffrin 1987: 25). The ideational structure is
constituted by propositions or ideas. Ideas are linked by cohesive relations (given by
semantic relationships for which an element in a clause is interpretable by means of
information from a prior clause), topic relations (between topics and subtopics) and
functional relations (given by the role of one idea with respect to another; e.g. one idea
canactasareasonforanother)(Schiffrin1987:26).Afurtherplaneistheparticipation
framework, which regards the relationship between speaker and hearer and the
relationshipofspeakersandhearerstoutterances(thelattercomprisese.g.howspeakers
evaluateideas,thedegreeofcommitmenttheyshow,theirstanceinperformingactions,
and how they manage the turns) (Schiffrin 1987: 27). Finally, there is an information
state, which pertains to the organization and the management of speakers knowledge
(i.e. the information available to them), and metaknowledge (i.e. the knowledge about
theirownstateofknowledgeandthatoftheothers)(Schiffrin1987:28).
Schiffrindefineslocalcoherenceindiscourseastheresultofspeakersandhearers
effortstointegratepartsofoneplanewitheachother(anideawithanotheridea,anaction
with another action), to integrate different planes with each other (e.g. action structures
with exchange structures), and to integrate parts of one plane with parts of another
(Schiffrin1987:29).
Withinthismodel,discoursemarkersarecharacterizedascontextualcoordinates
of talk, that is to say that they propose the contextual coordinates within which an
utterance is produced and designed to be interpreted (Schiffrin 1987: 315). Discourse
markersplaceutteranceswithrespecttothefiveplanesofdiscourseandindicatethata
given utterance is realized and has to be interpreted in relation to them. Every marker
possesses one core meaning (e.g. but is related to contrast) and fundamentally refers to
one single plane. However, its use at places in the discourse at which activities from
differentplanesarecarriedout(forexampleachangeofspeakerandsimultaneouslyan
updateintheinformationstate)causesittofunctiononseveralplanesatonce(Schiffrin
1987: 317f., 325).8 Discourse markers also have an indexical value in the sense that they
indexutterancestotheparticipantsandthetextbysignallingafocusonthespeakerorthe
hearer, as well as making reference to the previous or the following unit of discourse
(Schiffrin 1987: 326). Bacause they anchor utterances on different discourse planes,
markerscontributetotheintegrationbetweenplanesand,hence,todiscoursecoherence
(Schiffrin1987:330).
Aswassaidabove,thecategoryofdiscoursemarkersasconceivedofbySchiffrin
includes morphologically heterogeneous elements which go back to conjunctions,

adverbs,verbforms,interjections,andsentences,likewell,oh,but,and,so,now,andImean.
These elements share features which allow for their use as discourse markers: they are
syntacticallyindependent,appearatthebeginningofutterances,havedifferentprosodic
SeealsoSchiffrin(2006:322):thisfunctionalrangeestablishingcoordinatesindifferentdomainsof
discoursehelpstointegratethemanydifferentsimultaneousprocessesunderlyingtheconstructionof
discourseandthushelpstocreatecoherence.
8
11
contours, affect the discourse at a local and a global level and on different planes, and
have either no meaning, or a vague meaning, or are reflexive of the language and the
speaker(Schiffrin1987:328).
Themodelandthedefinitionofdiscoursemarkersjustsummarizedareessentially
confirmed by Schiffrin (2006) in a paper that focuses more specifically on the

characterization of discourse markers as indexicals. Schiffrin argues that viewing
discourse markers as indexicals offers a means to account for many, often problematic
featuresoftheseelements.Justastraditionaldeicticexpressionslikehereandnowpointto
different aspects of context (space, time) and are able to expand their reach (spatial
deictics can be used as temporal), discourse markers point to certain domains of
discourse,butcanalsoworkonothers,andtherebyacquiremultiplefunctions(Schiffrin
2006:335).Bothdeicticsanddiscoursemarkersmakereferencetopointswhoselocation
varies along a scale of proximity and distance from a symbolic centre (Schiffrin 2006:
335);thisscalereferstothesituationofspeakinginthecaseofdeicticsandtotextinthe
caseofdiscoursemarkers,whichmaythushavealocalscope(adjacentutterances),ora
global one (distant utterances) (Schiffrin 2006: 336). Also, both classes are open, have
members whose status varies between a categorial core and a periphery, and in both
classesthemeaningsandusesofsingleitemsarecontextdependent(Schiffrin2006:336).
Schiffrin also addresses the distinction between discourse markers and particles.
Thisdistinctionreliesinpartontheideathatparticlescreatemeanings,addingthemto
the discourse, while markers display already existing meanings; furthermore, there is
the question as to whether markers (or particles) portray speaker stance and attitude
(Schiffrin 2006: 336). As for the distinction between creating and displaying meaning,
viewing markers as indexicals leads Schiffrin to an alternative interpretation: because
markers select contextual coordinates and the domains to which such coordinates refer,
they select from a range of possible meanings; so they can appear to add a new
meaning to the discourse (Schiffrin 2006: 337). With regard to the second question, it is
takenthatmarkersareconnectedtosequentialunitsofdiscourse;however,inSchiffrins
view,itisnotonlydiscourseunitslikeacts,turns,andpropositionsthatdisplayrelations
to each other, but also aspects of text and context. There are relationships between the
self and the other (e.g. solidarity, distance), as well as between the self and the
content of talk (commitment to, detachment from a belief). The marking of
speaker/hearer alignment and of stance, which is generally attributed to particles, can
thus be understood as the marking of relationships between parts of the discourse
(Schiffrin2006:337).
2.2.2. GiselaRedeker:arevisedmodelofdiscoursecoherence
The model elaborated by Schiffrin was reviewed by Gisela Redeker (1991), whose
contributionresultedinadifferentmodelofdiscoursecoherenceandanewdefinitionof
discoursemarkers.
12
RedekerstartsbypointingoutsomeshortcomingsinSchiffrinsmodelandinthe
definition and classification of markers. In her view, Schiffrins inclusion of some of the
usesoftheelementsunderstudyintheclassofdiscoursemarkers,andtheexclusionof
others, is not always in accordance with the definition given (Redeker 1991: 1165).
Redeker also argues that most of the markers in question can work on more discourse
planes thanis claimed by Schiffrin (Redeker 1991: 1151); furthermore, she finds that the
attribution of the markers to certain discourse planes, the core meanings proposed, and
theindexicaldimensionsarenotsufficienttodrawadistinctionbetweensingleelements
(Redeker 1991: 1159). Concerning the model itself, Redeker reasons that the planes of
informationstructureandparticipationframeworkcannotberegardedasbeingonapar
with the others because the cognitions and attitudes of which they consist pertain to
individual utterances, while the units of the other planes are relational (Redeker 1991:
1162).
Redeker proposes a revised model of discourse coherence and an operational
definitionofdiscourseoperators.Hermodel(alsodescribedinRedeker2006)hasthree
components: an ideational structure, a rhetorical structure, and a sequential
structure. The ideational structure concerns propositional relations (e.g. cause, reason,
and consequence): two discourse units are ideationally related if their utterance in the
given context entails the speakers commitment to the existence of that relation in the
worldthediscoursedescribes(Redeker1991:1168).Therhetoricalstructureisaboutthe
relationsthatexistbetweenunitsbecauseoftheillocutionaryintentionsthattheyconvey;
finally,thesequentialstructureconcernsparatacticrelationsbetweenunits,i.e.transitions
fromoneissueortopictothenext,andhypotacticrelations,i.e.transitionsintoandback
outofasides,digressions,commentaries,corrections,etc.(Redeker1991:1168,butseealso
2006:354).Anydiscourseunitmanifestsrelationstoitscontextwithrespecttoallofthe
three component structures, but usually one type of relation, i.e. one of the three
components,ismostrelevant(1991:1168and2006:354).
A discourse operator is defined as a word or phrase for instance, a
conjunction, adverbial, comment clause, interjection that is uttered with the primary
functionofbringingtothelistenersattentionaparticularkindoflinkageoftheupcoming
utterancce[sic]withtheimmediatediscoursecontext(Redeker1991:1168).9Anutterance
is an intonationally and structurally bounded, usually clausal unit (an idea unit as
definedinChafe[1980:14])(Redeker1991:1168).Withreferencetosequentialrelations,
discourse operators can indicate that the issues currently being focussed on have to be
closed or suspended by the insertion of a subordinate segment; with respect to the
rhetoricalrelations,operatorsexpressorcreateillocutionaryrelationsandcontributeto
the listeners or readers conception of the discourse purpose; as for the ideational
component,theiruseisrelatedtothespeakersconceptionofwhattheaddresseeknows
andmightinfer(Redeker1991:1169).
Redeker(2006:341)specifiesthatdiscoursecontextdoesnothavetobealinguisticcontext.Operatorscan
alsomarkrelationswithsituationallyavailableeventsorstatesofaffairs.
9
13
Following the above definition, the range of items or uses of items that are
includedinthecategoryofdiscourseoperatorsispartiallydifferentfromthatincludedin
Schiffrinsdiscoursemarkers:forexample,Redekerexcludeselementsthatactonlyona
part of an utterance, such as intrasentential oh, which has scope over single words or
phraseswithinutterances.Incontrast,sheincludesanaphoricusesoftheadverbsnowand
then, as far as they have scope over a whole clause or utterance; these are considered
operatorusesontheideationallevel(Redeker1991:1165ff.).
InRedeker(2006),discourseoperatorsarefurthermorepositionedwithrespectto
othertypesofpragmaticelements.Thearticleactuallyfocusesonasubtypeofdiscourse
operators and it reports on an empirical study of these items effect on listeners
attentional processing, ultimately presenting the model of discourse coherence as a
conceptual framework for the development and testing of theories about operators
functions.
Discourse operators are described here as asubgroup within a broader category,
that of discourse markers. Discourse operators are those discourse markers that fulfil
discoursestructuringfunctions,whilethosewhichservetomodulatetheinterpretation
ofutterancesformthesubgroupofdiscourseparticles(althoughitisnotedthatmany
itemscanplayeitherrole)(Redeker2006:340).10Restingontheproposedmodel,Redeker
furthermore distinguishes, within the class of discourse operators, ideational and
rhetorical connectives from segment transition markers (Redeker 2006: 342). The author
pointsourthat,accordingtothedefinitiongiven,discourseoperatorsarenotnecessarily
optional, nor syntactically or intonationally independent, and they may be truth
conditional(Redeker2006:342).Thecategoryincludesallintersententialconnectivesand
clausecombining uses of coordinating and subordinating conjunctions (simple
subordinatorsaswellassemanticallyrichitemslikebecauseandalthough),contrastiveuses
of indexicals (e.g. now and here), and other adverbial expressions such as the next day
(Redeker2006:342).
2.2.3. BruceFraser:agrammaticalpragmaticperspective
AnotherinfluentialdefinitionofdiscoursemarkershasbeengivenbyBruceFraser(2006,
butseealso1999forapreviousversion),accordingtowhattheauthorhimselfhastermed
agrammaticalpragmaticperspective(Fraser1999:936).
Fraseridentifiesaclassofelementswhichdonotformapartofthepropositional
content of the discourse segments in which they occur and do not contribute to
propositional meaning; this class he calls pragmatic markers. As for their typical
features, these elements are free morphemes, are discoursesegment initial, signal a
specific message, and are classified not syntactically but in terms of their
semantic/pragmaticfunctions(Fraser2006:189).Pragmaticmarkersaredividedintofour
types:
Asweunderstand,elementsthatworkatanintrautterancelevel,suchashedging,focusing,editing
elements,andhesitationphenomenadonotbelongtodiscourseoperators(Redeker2006:340).
10
14
basicpragmaticmarkersindicatetheillocutionaryforceofadiscoursesegment
(e.g.Ipromise,please)
commentarypragmaticmarkerssignalamessagethatisseparatefromthebasic
oneandrepresentsacommentonit;theyaredividedintoassessmentmarkers
(fortunately, sadly), mannerofspeaking markers (frankly, bluntly speaking),
evidential markers (certainly, conceivably), and hearsay markers (reportedly,
allegedly).
parallelpragmaticmarkersconveyamessagethatisseparatefromthebasicone;
they include deference markers (Sir, your honor), and conversational
managementmarkers(now,well,ok)
discourse markers indicate a relation between the discourse segment in which

they occur and the preceding one (so, and, but, anyway, although, however) (Fraser
2006:189f.)
Focussingonthelattersubclass,theauthordefinesdiscoursemarkersasfollows:
ForasequenceofdiscoursesegmentsS1S2,eachofwhichencodesacompletemessage,a
lexicalexpressionLEfunctionsasadiscoursemarkerif,whenitoccursinS2initialposition
(S1LE+S2),LEsignalsthatasemanticrelationshipholdsbetweenS2andS1whichisone
of:
a. elaboration;
b. contrast;
c. inference;or
d. temporality.(Fraser2006:191)
Correspondingtothesefoursemanticrelationships,fourclassesofdiscoursemarkersare
identified:contrastivemarkers(e.g.but,alternatively),elaborativemarkers(and,above
all),inferentialmarkers(so,afterall),andtemporalmarkers(then,after)(Fraser2006:
196197).11
InFrasersdefinition,hence,thepresenceofacompletemessageinsegmentS2isa
conditionforagivenitemtobeconsideredadiscoursemarker(Fraser2006:192,butsee
also1999:940).12Asforthefunctionoflinkingdiscoursesegments,somespecificationsare
added.EvenifS1andS2areusuallycontiguous,detachedsegmentscanberelated,too;a
segment can consist of one single utterance or of several; a marker can occur before S1
instead of before S2: for example, John didnt take the letter. Instead, he left it can
become Instead of taking the letter, John left it (Fraser 2006: 192). Moreover, markers
may occur without any S1 and relate S2 to the nonlinguistic context (Fraser 2006: 197,
also 1999: 938). With respect to the relating function of discourse markers, Fraser
ThecategorizationisslightlydifferentinFraser(1999):therewefinddiscoursemarkerswhicha)relate
messagesandb)relatetopics.Groupa)includescontrastivemarkers(indicatingthattheexplicit
interpretationofS2isincontrastwithaninterpretationofS1,e.g.incomparison,nevertheless,but);collateral
markers(connectingaspectsofbothmessages,e.g.furthermore,aboveall,also);inferentialmarkers(indicating
thatS2isaconclusiondrawnfromS1,e.g.thus,so);andadditionalsubclasseswithasmallernumberof
members(e.g.afterall,since,because),whichpresentthecontentofS2asareasonforthatofS1.Groupb)
includesitemslikeincidentally,ortoreturntomypoint,whichindicateadigressionandareintroductionofa
topic(Fraser1999:946ff.).
12Fraseronlyconsiderslexicalexpressions.Gestures,syntacticstructures,andprosodicfeaturesdonotbelong
todiscoursemarkers(Fraser2006:191).
11
15
considers that these elements only show relations holding between discourse segments,
but do not create any: a relation between S1 and S2 is already present (e.g. contrast,
temporality)andthemarkerjustmakesitclearforthehearer.Thisbeingtheirfunction,
discoursemarkersdonotaddtothepropositionalmeaningofthesegmentsandarenot
truthconditional(Fraser2006:193).
The author also characterizes the behaviour of discourse markers on different
linguistic levels. Discourse markers do not exhibit any uniform tendencies as for the
phonologicrealization(theyarenormallystressed,butmightbeunstressed;undersome
conditions they are followed by a pause), and they are morphologically varied
(monosyllabic,polysyllabic,orconsistingofentirephrases).Syntactically,theybelongto
thecategoriesofcoordinateandsubordinateconjunctions(and,but,although),prepositions
(despite,inspiteof),adverbials(anyway,besides),andprepositionalphrases(aboveall,after
all). Their respective syntactic category determines their placement in S2; for example,
conjunctionsarealwayssegmentinitial(Fraser2006:193f.).
Looking back to the definitions summarized in the previous sections,we can see
that Frasers pragmatic markers roughly correspond to Schiffrins and to Redekers

discourse markers, whereas his discourse markers are rather comparable though
not coextensive with Redekers discourse operators. Besides the divergences in
terminology, the differences in the definitions lead to a broad variation in the range of
items considered: a number of elements that are regarded as discourse markers by
SchiffrinaswellasbyRedeker,suchaswell,now,oryouknow,cannotbeincludedinthis
classaccordingtoFrasersview(seealsoFraser1999:942).
2.2.4. CarlaBazzanella:aninteractionalpragmaticperspective
I will conclude this inevitably limited overview with the definition given by Carla
Bazzanella(2006a),whichistheonetowardswhichmyownconceptofdiscoursemarkers
is most closely oriented. With this definition we move to the area of Italian discourse
markerresearch.Bazzanelladefinesdiscoursemarkersasfollows:
Discoursemarkersareitemsexternaltopropositionalcontentwhichareusefulinlocating
the utterance in an interpersonal and interactive dimension, in connecting and structuring
phrasal, interphrasal and extraphrasal elements in discourse, and in marking some on
goingcognitiveprocessesandattitudes.(Bazzanella2006a:456)
The author considers it as a defining and generally accepted characteristic of discourse

markersthattheydonotaffectthetruthconditionsofutterancesanddonotcontributeto
thepropositionalmeaning;instead,theyaffectthepragmaticmeaning(Bazzanella2006a:
454). Their contribution draws on their core meanings (for example, there is a contrast
featureinthemarkerma),whichcanassumedistinctvaluesdependingonthelinguistic
andextralinguisticcontext(Bazzanella2006a:454).13
Bazzanella argues that the specific meaning of a marker in a given occurrence is
determined by a number of cotextual and contextual parameters. Cotextual parameters
Theexternalitytopropositionalcontentallowsforapartialreplaceability(Bazzanella2006a:454).
13
16
include textual components (syntagmatic position, anaphoric and cataphoric relations,

coherence devices), paralinguistic components (prosody, pitch variations, phonetic
correlates of emotional states, variations in volume), and gestural components (gestures
thataccompanyamarkersproduction).Contextualparametersencompasssociolinguistic
componentsrelatedtospace,time,socialidentity,style,register,andchannel;pragmatic
components like speech acts, presuppositions, implicatures, or mutual and shared
knowledge, as well as emotive components which have a bearing on the linguistic
production (Bazzanella 2006a: 458f.). Accordingly, the author regards the meaning of
discourse markers as compositional. She points out, though, that context and cotext
dependence is not specific of discourse marker meaning only, but also holds for non
literalmeaningingeneralandevenforliteralmeaning(Bazzanella2006a:461).
In regard to formal properties, Bazzanella observes that discourse markers come
with a variety of prosodic contours; they are generally described as intonationally

independent,butotherrealizationsarepossible.Theirpositionintheutterancecanvary:
the initial position is often considered typical, but this varies from one language to
another (Bazzanella 2006a: 454f.). Bazzanella also remarks that items functioning as
discourse markers come from different word classes; therefore, she speaks of a
transversenessofthiscategorywithrespecttoothers,inthesensethattheidentification
ofdiscoursemarkersisbasedontheircontextualuse,notonmorphosyntacticproperties
(Bazzanella2006a:451,seealso2001b:42).Notethattheauthorincludesinthecategory
as can be seen from her examples items as varied as ma, diciamo, allora, voglio dire (I
mean),vero?(true/really),no?(tagquestion),andpraticamente(practically/Imean).14
Bazzanella (2006a: 456f.) proposes a taxonomy of the functions that discourse
markerscanfulfil,15basedonItalianmarkers.Sheidentifiesthreemacrofunctions,which
arefurtherdividedintomicrofunctions.Onetypeofmacrofunctionisthatofcognitive
functions,whichencompass:
proceduralmarkers(relatedtocognitiveprocessessuchasinference)
epistemicmarkers(relatedtospeakerssubjectivityandcommitment)
modulationdevices(relatedtopropositionalcontentandillocutionaryforce)
A second type of macrofunction is that of interactional functions, which are

distinguishedbetweenthosepertainingtothespeakerandthosepertainingtothehearer:
onthespeakerssidewehavethefollowingmicrofunctions:turntakingdevices;
fillers; attentiongetting devices; phatic devices; hedges and boosters; checking
comprehension;requestingagreementandconfirmation;yieldingtheturn
on the hearers side: interrupting devices; backchannels; attention confirmed;

phatic devices; comprehension confirmed and requests for clarification;
agreement,confirmation,support;partialorcompletedisagreement
Thethirdmacrofunctionisthatofmetatextualfunctions,whichinclude:
Thetranslationsaregivenintheoriginal.
Itispointedoutthatdiscoursemarkerscanactonseverallevelssimultaneously(Bazzanella2006a:456).
14
15
17
textual markers: markers structuring the parts (introduction, transition, list,

digression,ending);quotationandindirectspeechmarkers
focusingdevices:local;global
reformulation markers: paraphrase markers; correction markers; exemplification

markers
WecanobservethattheclassofdiscoursemarkersasdefinedbyBazzanellaismuchmore
inclusive than that of Fraser, and rather similar to Schiffrins. However, because the
characterization of the items and the overall approach are obviously different in
BazzanellasandinSchiffrinswork,itisactuallydifficulttocomparethetwoviews.Also,
Bazzanellas definition is not centred on connectivity, but delimits the class based on
functionsthatconcerntheinterpersonalrelationshipandtheorganizationofpartsofthe
discourse.
It is also interesting to note that Bazzanella includes modalization among
discoursemarking functions. Her taxonomy (see above) comprises functions related to

speakers subjectivity and commitment, as well as to propositional content and
illocutionary force, which represent cognitive functions of modalizers; it also includes
hedges and boosters, which constitute interactional functions of modalizers
(Bazzanella 2006a: 463). Bazzanella explains that [m]odalizers, such as German
Modalpartikeln, should be considered as hyponyms of DMs [discourse markers]
(Bazzanella 2006a: 463, emphasis in the original). Note that these items are explicitly
separatedfromdiscoursemarkersbyFraser(1999:942).16
Concluding,onecanseewellthatthereisonlyapartialoverlapbetweentheways
inwhichdiscoursemarkersaredefinedandintheterminologyusedtomakereferenceto
them.Regardingtheterminologicalside,thelabeldiscoursemarkeriswidespread,but
itsreferenceisbynomeansunivocalandotherlabelsareinuseaswell.Terminological
divergences are interwoven with differences in the characterization and delimitation of
the class, which reflect different approaches and foci. The formal heterogeneity and
functional variety of the items in question of course contributes to the variety of
perspectivestakenintheirstudy.
In spite of the broad variation just sketched, some common points between
definitionscanbefound.InthenextsectionIwouldlike,then,tooutlinesomefeatures
that are most often regarded as typical of discourse markers by different scholars. This
shouldhelpusfindapaththroughthemultiplicityofcharacterizationsand,atthesame
time,allowustofurtherdetailthepropertiesoftheseitems.
2.3. Commonlyrecognizedfeaturesofdiscoursemarkers
I will try to outline the main features that are usually viewed as typical of discourse
markers based on 15 definitions which mirror different approaches to the object. The
TheyareexplicitlydistinguishedalsobyWaltereitandDetges(2007),Fischer(2000),andHansen(2006),
amongothers.
16
18
definitions are those given by: Andersen (1998), Bazzanella (2006a), Blakemore (1987,
1992), Dostie (2004), Fischer (2000, 2006b), Fraser (1999, 2006), Glich (1970), Hansen
(1998, 2006), Nemo (2006), Pons Bordera (2006), Redeker (1991, 2006), Schiffrin (1987,
2006),Schourup(1999),Travis(2006),andWaltereit(2006a).
2.3.1. Morphosyntactic heterogeneity, functionally determined

categorization
Afeaturethatseemstobegenerallyrecognizedascharacteristicofdiscoursemarkersis
their morphosyntactic heterogeneity. By this, I mean that the forms that are attributed
discoursemarking functions pertain to different morphosyntactically definable partof
speech classes: adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, adjectives, nouns, verbs, and
interjections,uptosyntacticallyquitecomplexstructuressuchaspercosdire(literallyso
to say) (see among others Dostie 2004: 43, Fraser 2006: 194, Glich 1970: 297, Hansen
1998:65,Nemo2006:383,Schiffrin1987:328).
Discoursemarkersstatusasaclasscantherebybeconceivedofindifferentways.
AsnoticedbySchourup(1999:234),thefocusonthediachronicdevelopmentofmarkers
from the corresponding nouns, adjectives, etc. is associated with a view of discourse
markersasaclassofitsown;inothercases,theseitemsareseenasmembersofdifferent
morphosyntactic classes which do extra duty by assuming discoursemarking
functions.Discoursemarkingfunctionsarethenseen,usingHansens(2006:37)term,as
orthogonaltopartofspeechclassmembership.
In general, there is agreement on the fact that discourse markers should be best
defined functionally, and not on the basis of formal properties, in contrast to more
traditional parts of speech. Some delimitation can nevertheless be drawn on formal
grounds,too:Nemo(2006:385)specifiesthatdiscourseparticleshavetobeunderstood
aslexicalitems,rangingfromgrammaticalisedlexicalunits(e.g.evidentials)torather
free particles. This excludes metalinguistic comments that are not lexicalized, or
constructionsliketheFrenchconnectivepatternencore+verb+il(Nemo2006:402).
Duetothemorphosyntacticheterogeneityofdiscoursemarkers,theborderswith
otherclassesparticularlyadverbs,conjunctions,interjections,andmodalparticlestake
adifferentshapeaccordingtothedefinitionproposed.Elementslikenowandhere,which
have traditionally been accounted for as adverbials, are treated as discourse markers by
somescholars(seeRedeker2006:342),butnotbyothers(seeHansen1998:75).Similarly,
noagreementexistsontheinclusionofconjunctions;forexample,anitemlikebecauseis
straightforwardly included in the class of discourse markers by Redeker (2006: 340) by
virtueofitsclausecombiningfunction,whileHansen(1998:75)onlyadmitsinstancesthat
operateonanepistemicorspeechactlevel,notonpropositions.17
Thefollowingexamplesshowbecauseoperatingon:
propositions:JohnmarriedSuebecauseshewasrich
theepistemiclevel:CecilycouldnthavekilledAlgernon,becauseshewasoutoftownonthenight
ithappened
17
19
Lookingatinterjections,onecanobserveasimilarsituation.Itisoftensaidinthe
literature that interjections can work as discourse markers (see Bazzanella 2006a, Glich
1970, Schiffrin 1987); elements such as ah and oh have frequently been assigned a
discoursemarking role. However, some scholars exclude interjections from the class of
discoursemarkers:inFrasers(2006:203)view,interjectionsarepragmaticidiomsand
thereforenotpragmaticmarkers.Fischer(2000:275,2006b:432)admitsinterjectionsinto
the class of discourse particles, but distinguishes them functionally from other types,
namely hesitation markers and segmentation markers. According to Fischer, all
discourse particles have underspecified meanings that are specified by the context and
refer to speakers mental states, but the kind of state displayed is different. Hesitation
markersindicateacurrentprocess:Iamthinking;segmentationmarkersaredivided
intotwotypes:thosewhosemeaninginvolvestheinterlocutor(Germanja(yes),English
yes),andthosedisplayingtheresultsofcognitiveprocesses(Germangut(good,well),
English well); interjections, in contrast, display the sudden recognition of some kind of
information.
Therelationbetweendiscoursemarkersandmodalparticlesistreatedindifferent
ways, too. First of all, modal particles are problematic in that they are typical of some
languages only, in particular of German, which has a long tradition of studies on the
subject (e.g. Weydt 1969, Helbig/Ktz 1981, Helbig 1991, Diewald 2006 and 2008); this
peculiarity makes it difficult to draw a principled distinction from other pragmatic
elements as soon as one looks at different languages. Moreover, while formal attributes
apparently allow for quite a straightforward distinction, functional attributes do not.
Modal particles are morphologically invariable, monomorphemic, and syntactically
integrated into the host sentence, which is not true of discourse markers. Nevertheless,
manyitemsthataregenerallyconsideredasdiscoursemarkerscanassumefunctionsthat
are comparable to those of modal particles, namely when they act on an interpersonal
level and convey attitudes of the speakers towards the interlocutors or the utterances
produced.Thisleads,oncemore,todifferentdelimitationsoftheclassesinquestion:some
scholarsseparatetheclassofmodalparticlesfromthatofdiscoursemarkers(Fischer2000,
Hansen 1998), while some others view modal particles as a type of discourse marker
(Bazzanella2006a,PonsBordera2006).18
2.3.2. Syntacticnonintegration,scopevariability
The lack of syntactic integration in the host utterance is largely agreed upon as a
constitutive property of discourse markers (see Dostie 2004: 44, Fischer 2000: 26, Glich
1970:16,PonsBordera2006:80,Travis2006:229,Waltereit2006a:65).Ofcourse,thisdoes
notapplytothetotalityoftheitemsthatmaybeconsideredasdiscoursemarkers:itdoes
thespeechactlevel:Haveyougotaminute?becausetheressomethingIwantedtodiscusswith
you(Hansen1998:55,emphasisintheoriginal)
18Forcomprehensivesurveysofthedefinitionsoftheseborderingclasses,seeHansen(1998)andPons
Bordera(1998).
20
not hold for adverbials such as now and here (which are discourse markers for Redeker
2006),ortoconjunctionslikealthough(seeagainRedeker2006:342,Fraser2006:195),and
itisnottrueofmodalparticleseither(assignedtodiscoursemarkersbyBazzanella2006a:
463).
The nonintegration of discourse markers in the syntactic structure of their host
utterances has been related to the syntactic independence of the items from which they
derive(seeWaltereit2006a:75;Schiffrin1987:328).Waltereit(2006a:75)notesthatmany
discourse markers arise from items that can build independent utterances, and whose
immediateenvironmentis,therefore,notgivenbysyntacticstructures,butbydiscourse
structures.Asheargues,evenifintheirdiscoursemarkingreadingstheseitemslosetheir
statusasautonomousutterances,theyretaintheirsyntacticindependence.
Syntactic independence is also related to the scope variability, i.e. the ability of
discoursemarkerstorefertoandactondiscourseunitsofalmostanysize.Hansen(1998:
73)pointsouthowthescopeofamarkermayvaryfromsequencesofseveralutterances
to subsentential units or even single intonational patterns associated with certain
illocutionaryfunctions;thelatteristhecaseofanutterancelikeehbien?.19Asremarked
byWaltereit(2006a:64)scopevariabilityisnotexclusiveofdiscoursemarkers,butholds
for conjunctions, too. For example, and can have scope over a single noun phrase, as in
EdandDorislovedeachother,oroverafullsentence,asinEdworkedatthebarbers,
and Doris worked in a department store. But while a conjunctions scope can be
determinedingrammaticalterms,thescopeofadiscoursemarkercannot,foritdoesnot
makereferencetogrammarbuttodiscourse.
2.3.3. Externalitytopropositional,truthconditionalcontent
The externality to the propositional, truthconditional content of utterances is a further
feature on which the great majority of definitions agree (see Andersen 1998: 147, Dostie
2004: 44, Fischer 2000: 16, Fraser 2006: 193, Hansen 1998: 74, Schourup 1999: 232). This
means that one can freely add a marker to or delete it from an utterance, and that
utterancewillcontinuetobetrueorfalseunderthesameconditions.
Notethatthisqualityisstillnotuniversallyshared.Itdoesnothold,forinstance,
for Redekers discourse operators, which can also be truthconditional, according to the
authors definition (Redeker 2006: 342). Pons Bordera (2006: 80) considers as discourse
markers some expressions with propositional meaning like as a result, and Nemo (2006:
387) includes truthconditional elements such as the French et encore (even then). The
qualityofnontruthconditionalitycansometimesposeproblemsevenforitemsthatseem
Hansenarguesthattheremightbealowerlimittotheextensionofmarkersscope,whichsheidentifies
withfunctionalunitsnameddiscourseacts(Hansen1998:74).Theseunitsarecharacterizedfollowing
Roulet(1991:65)assubsententialunitswhichdonotpossesanyillocutionaryforce,buthavearhetorical
functioninsupporting,preparing,arguingagainst,orelaboratingonthemainpointofthecommunicative
actofwhichtheyformapart(Hansen1998:126).Forexample,inmonvoisin,lepauvrehommeaperdu
toussesbiens,thetopicalizedunitmonvoisinisfunctionallyautonomousinasmuchasitpreparesthe
followingact(Roulet1991:64f.).
19
21
uncontroversially pragmatic in nature. Andersen (1998: 161f.) points out that nontruth
conditionalityseemstobechallengedbysomeusesoflike.Forexample,intheutterance
we were having baths together when we were like two years old as opposed to we
were having baths together when we were two years old, the presence/absence of like
does indeed make a difference. Andersen reasons that in both cases, two years old is
notmeantasanexactindication,butwhereasinthelattercasethenonexactnesswould
have to be inferred by the hearer, like underlines this in the first case and supports the
inferenceprocess.Thisroleistypicalofapragmaticmarker.Atthesametime,becauselike
issimilarinmeaningtoadverbslikeroughlyorapproximatelyhere,itcouldbeassumedto
be truthconditional after all.20 Even though nontruthconditionality is, then, not
universally taken as a defining property or is not always clearly determinable, most
definitionsdomentionitasafundamentalfeatureofdiscoursemarkers.
Besides the opposition between truthconditional and nontruthconditional
meaning,afurtherdistinctionhasbeenpointedout:thatwhichexistsbetweenconceptual
andproceduralmeaning(seeBlakemore1992:150).Itseemsthatelementsunderstoodas
discourse markers are more often procedural, but some of them also have a conceptual
meaning.Awordlikefrankly,forexample,isnottruthconditionalinFrankly,thisparty
isboring,butitisstillpossibletoreply:Thatsnottrue.Yourenotbeingfrank.Ivejust
seen you dancing with the blond beauty in blue (Schourup 1998: 246). There is a
conceptual representation related to the word frankly which does not act on the truth
conditions of the whole utterance, but can nevertheless be true or false in itself; so the
meaning conveyed is nontruthconditional, but conceptual. This does not hold,
conversely,forthewordsoinTomcanopenBillssafe.Soheknowsthecombination:
themessageofsocouldnotbedenied.Hence,sodoesnothaveanyconceptualmeaning
here, but is merely procedural (Schourup 1998: 246). Similarly, there is a procedural
meaning, but not a conceptual meaning in the marker like (Andersen 1998): to the
utterance You were sort of drunk last night werent you? one can reply by saying I
wasnt SORT OF drunk I was DRUNK; in contrast, one cannot react to the utterance
You were like drunk last night werent you? by saying *I wasnt LIKE drunk I was
DRUNK (Andersen 1998: 164, emphasis in the original). The fact that sort of can be
metalinguistically negated, but like cannot, is taken to reveal that like does not encode a
concept,butaprocedure,helpingthehearerinarrivingattheintendedinterpretationof
anutterance(Andersen1998:163).
Finally, the meaning of discourse markers is often qualified as reduced or
underspecified(seeGlich1970:297,Fischer2000:284).Atypicaltraitofthismeaningis
tobecontextuallydetermined:theprecisemessagethatadiscoursemarkerexpressesina
given situation depends on several contextual parameters which contribute to its
interpretation(seeBazzanella2006a:454,Fischer2000:274).
NotethatAndersenconsiderslikeasagenuinepragmaticmarker.Hepointsoutthatitdiffersfromthose
adverbsinthatitcanindicateapproximationbothatacontentandaformlevel,i.e.thelevelofthe
propositionconveyedandthatofthelinguisticexpressionused.Theadverbs,incontrast,canonlyrefertothe
content.
20
22
2.3.4. Functioningonapragmaticlevel
Being external to the proposition, discourse markers work on the pragmatic level of
discourse. The range of pragmatic functions that are regarded as typical of the class,
however, can vary. A function that is most often considered as fundamental is
connectivity. Despite different views, connectivity can be identified as a common
denominatorinmanydefintions(seeFischer2000:283,Fraser2006:191,Hansen1998:171,
Redeker1991:1168,Schiffrin1987:326,Schourup1999:230).Forexample,wehaveseenin
section 2.2 that according to Fraser (2006: 191), discourse markers connect discourse
segmentsbydisplayingsemanticrelations,andRedekers(1991:1168)discourseoperators
display connections between the utterance they refer to and the immediate discourse
context. In Fischers (2000: 284) view, discourse particles have the role to mark a
contribution by the speaker as noninitial; this means that they present the speakers
mental states and processes as being in accordance with the situation, and thus present
thespeakersutterancesasintegratedintoandnaturallyfollowingfromtheinteraction.
Togetherwiththeconnectivepower,discoursemarkersaregenerallyattributeda
role in creating or maintaining discourse coherence (see Blakemore 1987: 122ff., Hansen
1998:75and2006:25,Schiffrin1987:330,Schourup1999:230).Needlesstosay,thewayin
whichtheeffectofdiscoursemarkersoncoherenceisunderstoodvariesaccordingtothe
approachtaken.InSchiffrins(1987)model,forinstance,discoursemarkerscontributeto
coherence by supporting the integration between different discourse planes. In the
framework of Relevance Theory, Blakemore considers the notion of coherence as being
embedded in that of relevance: coherence arises from the fact that the interpretation of
one segment relies on information made available by the interpretation of another
(Blakemore 1987: 112). So, in coherent discourse, utterances display dependent
relevance, which means that the relevance of one utterance depends on the
interpretation of another.21 Elements like so, moreover, and you see assume the role of
indicatingrelationsofdependentrelevancebetweenutterances(Blakemore1987:122).
Discourse markers are also assigned a wide range of functions related to the
organizationandstructuringofdiscourse,forexamplefromtheviewpointofturntaking,
topicstructure,ortheconstructionofargumentation(seeAndersen1998:147,Bazzanella
2006a: 456, Dostie 2004: 45, Glich 1970: 297, Waltereit 2006a: 64). They are furthermore
assigned functions associated with the display of cognitive processes and attitudes (see
Andersen1998:147,Bazzanella2006a:456,Travis2006:224f.).Notallofthesefunctions,
however,areconsideredasdiscoursemarkingfunctionsbyeveryscholar.
On a more general level, a common view is that discourse markers work as
instructions,asasortofroadsignswhichhelphearersinprocessingandspeakersin
Inacoherentdiscoursetwoutterancesmaybeconnectedeitherinvirtueofthefactthattheinterpretation
ofthefirstmayincludepropositionsusedinestablishingtherelevanceofthesecond,orinvirtueofthefact
thatapropositionconveyedbyoneisaffectedbytheinterpretationoftheother.Ineithercasewemightsay
thattherelevanceofoneissomehowdependentontheinterpretationoftheother(Blakemore1987:122)
21
23
producing the unfolding discourse (see Andersen 1998: 151, Blakemore 1987: 103ff.,
Hansen1998:75,Schiffrin1987:315,Travis2006:224).22
Itshouldberemarkedthateveniffunctionalandformalfeaturescanbeidentified
thataregenerallyconsideredtypicalofdiscoursemarkers,thedecisionastowhatitems
shouldbeincludedintheclassandwhatitemsshouldbeexcludedisnostraightforward
matter.Notallitemsthatonemaywanttocalldiscoursemarkersmanifestallfeatures;on
the contrary, many items possess some features, but not others. Thats why it has been
suggestedfrommanysidesthattheclassshouldbetreatedinprototypicalterms,rather
than in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions (see Bazzanella 2006a: 450, Hansen
1998:62,PonsBordera1998:82).Correspondingly,someelementswillberankedasmore
central and some others as more peripheral members of the category, a conception that
seemstorespondwelltothecomplexityofthephenomenon.
2.4. Theconceptofdiscoursemarkersinthepresentwork
After having examined some of the ways in which discourse markers are defined, and
havingseenwhatfeaturesaremostoftenregardedastypicalofthem,itshouldnow be
statedhowthiscategoryisunderstoodinthepresentwork.Inwhatfollows,Iwillstate
whatfeaturesItaketobeconstitutiveofdiscoursemarkers,soastoclarifywhatismeant
by this label and, with reference to the object of my analysis, what kind of uses of the
formssentiandguardaIwillbeconcernedwith.
Firstofall,theadoptionofthelabeldiscoursemarkersneedssomeexplanation.
Ichoosethislabelbecause,firstly,itisprobablythemostwidelyusedtermatpresent(see
PonsBordera2006:79andabovesection2.1);moreover,Ipreferittootherwidespread
termslikeconnectiveanddiscourseparticlebecauseitdoesnotimplyanyparticular
functionormorphologicalform(apartfromtheverygeneralandobviouscharacteristicof
working at discourse level). The term connective would be inappropriate because
neither senti nor guarda can be said to fulfil genuinely connective functions, but instead
they convey other types of messages. As will become clear in chapter 7, senti can
contributetomaintaincoherence,butitisnotcomparabletoopenlyconnectiveelements
like allora (then). The term particle would be problematic, too, because it generally
indicates monomorphemic, noninflectable elements (see Hansen 2006: 27). In contrast,
bothsentiandguardaareclearlyanalyzableinalexicalandaninflectionalmorpheme,and
they are inflected for number and person to senta/sentite and guardi/guardate. The label
discoursemarkerthusseemsbestsuitedtorefertothesetwoitems.
With regard to the reference of this label, my concept of discourse markers is
orientedtowardsthatofBazzanella(2006a,seeabove),inthatitrestsonasimilarsetof
main defining features and pays attention not only to discourse structuring aspects, but
alsotointerpersonalones.BydiscoursemarkersImeanlinguisticelements(orusesof
Similarlytotheotherfeaturesmentioned,theinstructionalcharacterofcoursetakesdifferentshapes
dependingontheapproach.
22
24
linguistic elements) that are produced to accompany discourse segments of different

sizes, without thereby contributing to the propositional content that such segments
express and without being syntactically bound to them, and that encode messages
which indicate to the interlocutors how to receive and interpret the accompanied
discoursesegmentswithrespecttodifferentaspectsoftheongoinginteraction.
Theexternalitytopropositionalcontentisafundamentalandlargelyagreedupon
featureofdiscoursemarkers(seesection2.3.3above).Fortheformssentiandguarda,this
means that a distinction has to be made between uses in which the two forms express
actual requests to look at or listen to something or somebody, and uses in which they
express no such request, but convey messages situated on a metadiscursive level. The
distinction can be appreciated in (1) vs (2), and in (3) vs (4) (the latter is taken from an
onlinechat).23,24
(1)
Dasottovienesuunfragoredimestoli(...)Emiliano:Senti,senti.Fannosulserioanche
quellilaggi.
Acrashofladlesisheardfrombelow(...)Emiliano:Listen,listen.Thepeopledowntheremean
business,too.
(Manili1983:66,emphasisadded)
(2)
Senti,parla!Nonmivaquestogeneredischerzi.
Listen,speak!Idontlikethesekindofjokes.
(3)
Laragazza:Guardaquello!guardaquello!
Thegirl:Lookatthatone!Lookatthatone!
Cosma:Chivuoichevedaconquestocasino?
Cosma:HowamIsupposedtoseeanybodyinthismess?
AlmostalltranslationsoftheexamplesthatIquotefromtheliteraturearemine.Whenatranslationis
providedintheoriginal,Ikeepitandspecifyitsprovenanceinbrackets.
24Thetranslationsoftheexamplesareintendedtorenderascloseaspossiblethesemanticpragmaticmeaning
oftheItalianoriginal.Ibelievethatthisisessentialforthecomprehensionofthepragmaticaspectofthe
reportedinteractionsand,thus,oftheroleofourmarkers.Forthisreason,discoursemarkersoccurringinthe
exampleswillbe,asageneralrule,translatedby(roughly)equivalentitemsofEnglish.Itisobviousthat
discoursemarkershardlyhaveanydirectequivalentsindifferentlanguages,soagivenitemmayhave
differenttranslationsornotranslationatallindistinctexamples.Asforsentiandguarda,Itreatthemas
follows:inthepresentchapterandinthechapterconcerningtheanalyticalmethods(chapter5),Itranslatethe
formssentiandguardainalltheiruses:literal,discoursemarking,andinterjectional.Theaimistomakethe
semanticpragmaticvalueofthedistinctusesasclearaspossible.Inthechaptersthatpresenttheresultsofthe
analysis(chapters6and7),inwhichonlythediscoursemarkingusesarediscussed,Iwillopt,instead,to
leavesentiandguardauntranslated,soasnottoconfusethereaderabouttheirfunctionsinItalian.
23
25
(4)
Ale.Guarda...inchathoincontratolamoredellamiavita...
Ale.Look...Imettheloveofmylifeinachat...
(Bazzanella2001a:91,emphasisadded)
Variability in the size and form of the discourse segment referred to, and syntactic
independence from it, are further features of discourse markers on which researchers
largely agree. Positing this feature implies that I do not consider as discourse markers
usessuchasthosein(5)(7),wheretheformssentiandguardatakeanobject:in(5)and(6),
thetwoformsgovernthephrasesthatfollowthem(formedbythepronounche(here:
whata)andanoun);in(7),guardaisboundthroughtheconjunctionche(that)toa
complementclause:
(5)
Masentichebaccano!
Literally:Butlisten(to)whatanoise!(meaning,roughly,whatanoise!)
(6)
Maguardachecaso!
Literally:Butlook(at)whatacoincidence!(meaning,roughly,whatacoincidence!)
(7)
[...]
B:<?>lhannoammazzatoeraricchissimoqualcunolavrfattofuori
Theykilledhim.hewasveryrichsomebodymurderedhim
A:guardachesoffrivadicuore_eh?25
GuardahehadabadheartDM?(meaning:takeintoaccountthathehadabadheart)
(Waltereit2002:990,originaltranslation,emphasisadded)
These uses have sometimes been included in analyses of guarda and senti as discourse
markersManili(1983)includes thetypesin(5)(7),andWaltereit(2002)andSchwarze
(1988)includethetypein(7).Theyarecertainlynotstraightforwardinvitationstolistento
ortolookatsomething,butratherroutinizedusesinwhichthetwoformsareassociated
with certain nonliteral meanings. However, I believe that due to their formal and
functionalcharacteristics,theseusescannotbetreatedasbeingonaparwiththosein(2)
and(4);instead,theyhavetobeagivenadistinctstatusonthescalebetweenverbforms
anddiscoursemarkersproper.
I have stated above that I conceive of discourse markers as encoding indications
abouthowtoreceiveandinterpretacertainstretchoftalkwithrespecttodifferentaspects
AccordingtothetranscriptionconventionsofthecorpususedbyWaltereit(Lessicodifrequenzadellitaliano
parlato(DeMauroetal.1993)),thesymbol_indicatesalengthenedsound.
25
26
of the interaction. We have already seen (section 2.3.4) that the instructional character
represents a most commonly recognized feature of discourse markers, but also that
scholars have different views on what type of instructions should be considered as
instances of discoursemarking functions. I consider as discourse markers uses that
refertoi.e.givinginstructionsabouttheformalorganizationofdiscourse,theprocess
ofitsformulation,theinteractionbetweenspeakers,theirinterpersonalrelationship,and
therelationofthespeakertowhatisbeingsaid.ThismeansthatIdonotrestrictmyfocus
to discourse structuring, or purely connective uses. Discoursemarking functions are
understood here as ranging from indicating how a portion of discourse is intended to
relate to others in terms of an ongoing argumentation or ofthe topics talked about (e.g.
markinganexemplification,atopicshift),tohelpingallocatespeakership(e.g.signaling
thataspeakerisgoingtotakeortoyieldtheturn),displayingtheactivityofformulation
(marking hesitation, reformulation), preparing the interlocutors to listen to a stretch of
talk (calling for attention), displaying interlocutors participation (backchannels),
indicatingtheattitudeofthespeakertowardstheinterlocutor(modalizationthroughthe
expressionofagreementordisagreement,appealtosharedknowledge),orexpressingthe
speakers stance towards what is said (modalization through the expression of high or
lowcommitment).
I would like to specify that, for some discourse markers, the instructions just
mentionedcannotonlybedirectedtowardsaninterlocutorwhoisactuallypresent,but
alsotoapotentialinterlocutor.Infact,wecanwellusesomediscoursemarkerswhenwe
have no hearer: for example, we may use allora or dunque (so, thus) to bridge a
formulation problem when rehearsing a talk on our own. In such cases, speaking about
giving instructions to the hearer is not appropriate; it should be specified that the
presenceofahearercanbejustprojected.Forsentiandguarda,however,itseemsthatthe
use of the markers is indeed always bound to the appeal to an interlocutor, as is also
demonstrated by their morphological variation of number and person (senti/senta/sentite
andguarda/guardi/guardate).
TakingtheinstructionalvalueasadefiningcharacteristicentailsthatIrestrictmy
viewtousesofsentiandguardawhichfunctionexclusivelyasinstructionsregardingsome
segment of the ongoing discourse, that is to say: elements whose use is tied to the
presenceofanotherstretchoftalk,towhichtheyrefer.Forthisreason,Idonotconsider
asdiscoursemarkersusessuchasthosein(8)and(9):
(8)
Masenti...eioeroalloscuroditutto.
Butlisten...andIdidntknowanything(meaning:Canyouimagine?AndIdidntknow
anything!)
27
(9)
Guardaguarda!ecosdovreifareioilprimopasso!
Looklook!Soitsmewhoshouldmakethefirststep!(meaning:Gofigure!Soitsmewho
shouldtakethefirststep!)
Usesofsentiliketheonein(8)aredescribedbyManili(1983:60ff.)ascallingattentionto
someinterestingcircumstance,indicatingthataneventcontradictsourexpectations,and
expressing astonishment, annoyance, and real or simulated admiration and surprise,
sometimeswithanironicvalue.Theuseofguardaasin(9)guardaisrepeated,butdoes
nothavetoberepresents,accordingtoManili(1983:79ff.),awaytoindicatethatsome
event is at odds with our expectations, and to manifest astonishment, indignation, or
annoyance; it can also be meant ironically to display simulated surprise, or encode
criticism; in Manili (1986: 172) this use is regarded as an interjection. Bazzanella (1990:
639) mentions this same use of guarda as a phatic connective which when produced
with a risingfalling intonation indicates surprise and partial disappointment.
Waltereit (2002: 992) describes it as a phatic marker expressing admiration. Both senti
andguardaare,moreover,paraphrasedbyManili(1986:172)asmadavvero!(really?),
nonlavreimaiimmaginato!(Iwouldneverhavethoughtit).
Thesedescriptionsclearlyshowthatinthissortofuse,theformssentiandguarda
encode pragmatically autonomous content and actually constitute utterances26 in

themselves. They could be uttered in complete isolation and convey a perfectly
independent message. This is indeed the case in the following example from Waltereit
(2002:992),whereguardaexpressesadmiration:
(10)
A:proporreilantipastinodimarebellino
Iwouldrecommendtheseafoodstartersweetheart
B:ah_ah
ahah
A:concozze
withmussels
B:ah_ah
ahah
A:ehecceteraeccetera
DMetceteraetcetera
B:guarda
guarda
WhenIusethetermutterance,IfollowthedefinitionadoptedbytheCORALROM(seeMoneglia2005:
15f.).Byutterance,Imeanastringoftalkwhichaccomplishesanactioninitself;itsautonomouspragmatic
functioncantherebyberecognizedbycompetentspeakersbymeansofprosodicclues.Inwhatfollows,when
itisnotrelevanttopointoutwhetherwearetalkingaboutsingleutterancesorsequencesofthem,Iwilluse
forsimplictythetermutteranceinthesingular.
26
28
A:unbellantipastinodimare
theniceseafoodstarter
In cases like these, senti and guarda are functioning as interjections. According to
Wierzbicka(1992:164),aninterjectionis
[...]alinguisticsignexpressingthespeakerscurrentmentalstate(1)whichcanbeusedon
its own, (2) which expresses a specifiable meaning, (3) which does not include other signs
(with a specifiable meaning),(4) whichis not homophonous withanother lexicalitem that
wouldbeperceivedassemanticallyrelatedtoit,and(5)whichreferstothespeakerscurrent
mentalstateormentalact(forexampleIfeel...,Iwant...,Ithink...,Iknow...).
Theauthorfurtherclarifiespoint(4)asfollows:whichisnothomophonouswithanother
lexical item whose meaning would be included in its own meaning (that is, in the
meaningoftheputativeinterjection)(Wierzbicka1992:165).Thisclarificationismeantto
account for interjections such as hell or christ; for example, the meaning of hell does not
includethemeaningofthenounhell,sothisformcanbeconsideredasaninterjection.
Moreprecisely,itisasecondaryinterjection,asopposedtoprimaryinterjectionslike
wow(Wierzbicka1992:165).Theusesofsentiandguardain(8)(10)wouldthenconstitute
secondary interjections: they have specifiable meanings concerning the speakers mental
state,theycanbeutteredalone,andthoughbeinghomophonouswithotherlexicalitems,
theyhaveameaningthatisindependentfromthatofthoseitems.
Iamwellawarethatsomescholarsincludeinterjectionsamongdiscoursemarkers
(e.g.Bazzanella2006a,Schiffrin1987)andthatinterjectionscanassumetypicaldiscourse
markingfunctions:forexample,theEnglishohcanbeusedtomarkselfrepair(Schiffrin
1987:75),thusfulfillingacleardiscourserelatedrole.Nevertheless,thisuseofohdraws
ontheitemsabilitytoindicatetherecognitionofinformation,amessagewhichitcanin
principle convey as an independent utterance. There is a noticeable difference between
elements such as like, so, or the Italian diciamo, and elements like ah and ops: while the
formercanneverbeutteredalone,butonlyascommentsonsomeotherportionoftalk,
the latter can be uttered on their own and convey autonomous messages (though of
coursehighlycontextdependentones).27Notealsothat,whilediscoursemarkersareoften
InunderliningthisdifferenceIaminfluencedbytheworkofFiehleretal.(2004)onfundamentalunitsof
spokenlanguage.Theauthorsaddressthequestionofhowtosubsegmentturnsattalkandsuggestan
analysisinfunktionaleEinheiten(functionalunits),i.e.partsoftalktowhichparticipantsinaconversation
canassignafunctionfortheongoinginteractioninanonlinecomprehensionprocess(Fiehleretal.2004:203).
Forexample,inPeter,sagmal,kannstdumirzehnEuroleihen(Peter,say,canyoulendmetenEuros?)
therearethreeminimalunits:anaddressterm,aninterpretationinstruction,andaquestion(Fiehleretal.
2004:212).Theauthorsdistinguishthreetypesofelementaryfunctionalunits:potentiallyautonomousunits,
whichcanbuildaturnalone(suchasthequestionabove);associatedunits,whichrequireahostunitandcan
onlyformaturntogetherwithit;andprojectingunits,whichmakeafurtherunitexpectableanddependonit
tobuildaturn(Fiehleretal.2004:213).Interjections,suchasach,areincludedinthefirsttype.Incontrast,
elementssuchasGliederungssignale(structuringsignals)andModalisierungen(modalizations),e.g.
sozusagen(sotospeak),belongtothesecondtype.UnitscalledOperatoren(operators),i.e.short,
formulaicinstructionsfortheunderstandingoffollowingunits,likeallerdings(nevertheless)orkurzum
(brief),areassignedtothethirdtype(Fiehleretal.2004:216ff.).Thistaxonomyunderlinesthatthereisa
27
29
describedashavingscopeoverdiscourseunitsofvarioussizeandshape,theseelements
donothaveanyscopeatall.
The difference between these two types of function is all the more visible in the
caseofsentiandguarda,asthesetwoformscannotbeconjugatedfornumberandperson
when they work as interjections, while they are normally conjugated as discourse
markers. One could not say, for instance, Ma senta... e io ero alloscuro di tutto or
Guardate guardate! e cos dovrei fare io il primo passo!. The formal invariability
characterizesthemasfixedformulasencodingapreciseandautonomousmessage,andit
seems to point to an evolution path different from that of the discoursemarking uses
proper. Therefore, when I speak about senti and guarda as discourse markers, I do not
include uses like those just seen, in which the two elements do not comment on some
other portion of discourse, but instead encode pragmatically autonomous messages and
canbeusedalone.
To sum up the content of this section, what I understand under the label
discoursemarkersinthepresentworkareusesthat1)accompanydiscoursesegments
of different sizes, though 2) without being syntactically bound to them and 3) without
adding to propositional content, and 4) whose content represents an instruction about
how to receive and interprete a certain stretch of discourse with respect to different
aspects of the ongoing interaction. This concept informs the delimitation of the studys
scope: we will be concerned with those readings of senti and guarda that represent
instancesoftheirdiscoursemarkinguse.
functionalandperceptualdifferencebetweenelementsthatcanappearalone,likeinterjections,andelements
thatmustrefertootherunitsinordertobeinterpretableandfulfilacommunicativefunction.
30
OVERVIEWOFEXISTINGAPPROACHES
3. Overviewofexistingapproaches
After having discussed how the object discourse markers has been defined in the
literature,andwhatismeantbythislabelinthepresentwork,weshouldnowturnour
attentiontothewaysinwhichthisobjecthasbeenapproached.Moreprecisely,wewillbe
concernedwiththoseareasofdiscoursemarkerresearchthatareparticularlyrelevantfor
the present work: section 3.1 will give an overview of research that has been done on
Italian discourse markers, outlining the different perspectives adopted; section 3.2 will
extend the view to studies which analyze deverbal discourse markers in different
languages,andoutlinethemaininterestsandgoalsthathavebeenpursuedwithregard
tothesetypeofmarkers.Thereisofcourseanoverlapbetweenthesetwoareas,whichis
constitutedbycrosslinguisticworksthatstudydeverbaldiscoursemarkersofItalianand
ofotherlanguagestogether.Toavoidrepetitions,Ihaveoptedtomentiontheseworksin
thefirstsectiononly.
Among the studies named in the present chapter, those which include senti and
guarda will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 4, which provides a state of the art
concerningthesetwoitems.
3.1. ApproachesinItaliandiscoursemarkersresearch
ResearchonItaliandiscoursemarkershasproduced,sincethelate1970s,aconsiderable
amountofstudiestakingamultiplicityofperspectivesonthesubject.Alargepartofthe
available literature consists of works that offer an oveview and systematization of the
categoryasawhole.Startingfromtheearlyyearsofdiscoursemarkerresearch,wefind
theoverviewproposedbyStammerjohann(1977),whoappliesthetaxonomydeveloped
for French markers by Glich (1970) to Italian discourse markers in a corpus of natural
spoken data; we furthermore have the work of Lichem (1981), who presents a further
elaborationonthesystematicsinspiredbyStammerjohannandGlich,andthestudyof
Mara (1986), who takes an interactional rather than textoriented perspective and first
introducesthetermsegnalidiscorsivi,whichisnowcommoninItalianresearch.Stati
(1986) suggests a classification of connettivi interfrasali (intersentential connectives)
which,however,mainlyconsiderswrittentexts.Furtherfunctionalsystematizationshave
been given in Bazzanellas papers on connettivi (Bazzanella 1985) and phatic
connectives(Bazzanella1990),andinbookchaptersonsegnalidiscorsivi(Bazzanella
1994aand1995).Theclassificationsproposedintheseworksmirroradevelopmentfroma
textlinguisticsapproach(Bazzanella1985)toaninteractionorientedone,centeredonthe
active roles of both the speaker and the addressee (Bazzanella 1990), and finally to one
thatputsemphasisoninteractionalaswellasmetatextualfunctions.Bazzanellas(2006a)
paperonthesemanticsofdiscoursemarkersistoalargeextentdevotedtotheirdefinition
and classification as well (see section 2.2.4). Furthermore, a similar work has been done
31
for discourse markers of Old Italian (Bazzanella 2010), in a dedicated part of the
Grammaticadellitalianoantico.
With a somewhat different intent, Khachaturyan (2011) proposes a functional
taxonomyofdiscoursemarkersthatwasoriginallydevelopedthroughstudiesonFrench
and Russian (see also Paillard 2010), illustrating it with Italian discourse markers.
Khachaturyandescribes,forthispurpose,theclassificationofdavvero(really),veramente
(in reality, really), daltronde (in the end), dico (I say),diciamo, and per cos dire, with
theadditionoftheFrenchdisonsandtuvois.
FrankJob (2006), then, presents an analytical view on discourse markers which
underlines the interactional origin of their pragmaticalization and regards their

multifunctionality as a result of the multilayered mechanisms of discourse processing,
illustrating these characteristics with Italian discourse markers such as va bene (okay),
dimmi(tellme),anddi(say,tellme).
Anumberofstudieshave,moreover,beendevotedtotheuseofdiscoursemarkers
inparticulartypesofinteraction.ThisisthecaseinContentos(1994)studyondiscourse
markersinpsychologicalconsulting,andinBazzanellaspapersondiscoursemarkersin
classroominteraction(Bazzanella1994b),inspokencommunicationasopposedtowriting
(Bazzanella2001a),andintheconversationalmovesoftaskorienteddialogue(namelyin
adifferencesgame)(Bazzanella2006b).
Besidesworksthatembracethecategoryofdiscoursemarkersasawhole,alarge
numberofstudieshavebeendevotedtotheanalysisofsinglemarkers,orsmallsubsetsof
them. Most frequently, the interest lies on the interactional and structuring functions
accomplished by markers in synchrony, either in general usage or in specific types of
interaction.Startingfromtheearly1980s,wefindManilis(1983)briefmonographonvedi,
senti, and guarda, which illustrates various readings of these forms rangeing from
discoursemarkinguses,tomoreorlessroutinizeduses,andtoliteralones(moredetails
inchapter4),basedonacorpusofwrittenItalian.Alateressay(Manili1986),summing
uppartsofthepreviouswork,presentsreadingsofvedi,sai,senti,andguarda.Inafurther
paper, Manili (1988) gives an overview of discoursemarking as well as syntactically
integrated uses of the forms sai/sa (second and third person singular of sapere (to
know)),drawingagainondatafromwrittensources.28
Inmorerecentyears,Stame(1994)hasanalyzedthediscoursemarkinguseofno
(no)basedonacorpusofspontaneousspokenlanguagefrompsychologicalconsulting.
Maniliusesdatafromfictionalwritingcomparedwithcollectionsofspokendialogues.Unfortunately,itis
notclearhowthecomparisoniscarriedout.Maniliwrites:[...]misonobasatasullospogliodialcuneopere
dinarrativacontemporanea(Bassani,Pratolini,Morante),esoprattuttosunumeroseopereteatralidiautori
diversi.Hopermessoaconfrontotalecorpusconaltritestidialogiciparlatidicaratterepopolare(comequelli
raccoltidaRovere1977)econtestiregistrati(comequellodellaPoggiSalani1977edellaSornicola1981),in
considerazionedelfattochesai,sacompaionoconlamassimafrequenzaneldialogoenellaconversazione
libera(Manili1988:179,emphasisintheoriginal).[...]Ihavereliedonthesearchofcontemporarynarrative
works(Bassani,Pratolini,Morante),and,aboveall,onnumerousplaysbydifferentauthors.Ihave,however,
comparedthatcorpuswithothercolloquialspokendialogicaltexts(likethosecollectedbyRovere1977)and
withrecordedtexts(likethatofPoggiSalani1977andofSornicola1981),inconsiderationofthefactthatsai
andsamostfrequentlyappearinfreedialogueandconversation.
28
32
Focussingonparticularatypeofcontext,then,Bazzanellaetal.(2007b)haveconsidered
theuseofalloraindifferentkindsofspokenandwrittencommunication;Ziccolella(2007)
has studied discourse markers, and especially senta, in courtroom interaction (more
details in chapter 4). Some attention has also been paid to the phonetic aspect by
Ericsdotter and Abete (2007), who examine functions and phonetic realizations of hai
capitoinPozzuoliItalian.
WethenhaveanumberofstudiesbyKhachaturyan(2001,2002,2009,2010)that
approach Italian discourse markers in the framework elaborated by the Laboratoire de

linguistique thorique of the University Paris7 (see Paillard 1998), which provides a
formalism for the description of discourse markers meaning. Within this framework,
Khachaturyan describes the meaning of the marker senti (Khachaturyan 2001, details in
chapter 4), of diciamo (Khachaturyan 2002), and, in a crosslinguistic perspective, the
meaningofdiciamocomparedtothatofitsFrenchcounterpartdisons(Khachaturyan2009),
and to that of the Russian tak skazat (literally so to say) (Khachaturyan 2010). The two
latter articles incorporate a comparison of the uses of the corresponding verbs, i.e. the
Italianverbdire,Frenchdire,andRussianskazat.
Crosslinguistic comparison between parallel forms is also the main interest of
studieslikethatofBazzanellaetal.(2007a)ontheItalianalloraandtheFrenchalors,and
that of Borreguero Zuloaga and Lpez Serena (2011) on allora and Spanish entonces. We
alsohavethearticleofWaltereit(2006b,detailsinchapter4)ontheItalianguarda,Spanish
mira, French regarde, and Portuguese olha (look), which combines the crosslinguistic
perspective with a diachronic interest in the markers development., and the paper of
Fagard (2010, details in chapter 4) on mira, olha, guarda, regarde, and the Romanian uite
(look),againwithaprimaryinterestintheirdiachronicrise.
Furtherworkslaytheirmainfocusonthedevelopmentofdiscoursemarkers.For
example, Bazzanella and Cristofoli (1998) havestudied thecurrent evolution of piuttosto

che(ratherthan)intoadiscoursemarkerwithadisjunctivefunction,observableinsome
Northern varieties of Italian. Waltereit has worked on the development of guarda
(Waltereit 2002, details in chapter 4) and diciamo (Waltereit 2006a) out of the
correspondingverbforms.Startingfromaninventoryofthemarkerspresentfunctionsas
theyemergefromcorporaofspokenItalian,Waltereitformulateshypothesesabouttheir
evolution and proposes a model to describe it. In addition, Waltereit argues against the
tenetthattheriseofdiscoursemarkersrepresentsaninstanceofgrammaticalization.
Finally,someworkhasbeendoneondiscoursemarkersusebysecondlanguage
learners, notably by Bini and Pernas (2007) and by Guil et al. (2008), both concerning
SpanishspeakinglearnersofItalian.
33
3.2. Deverbaldiscoursemarkersinotherlanguages
Letusnowmoveontothosestudiesthatfocusondeverbaldiscoursemarkersindifferent
languages.29Ingeneralterms,onecanrecognizetwomaintypesofinterestwithrespectto
these kind of markers: on the one hand, there is an interest in their present pragmatic
uses,oftentimeswithacomparativeintent;ontheotherhand,andpredominantly,thereis
aninterestinthepathwaysoftheirdevelopmentoutofthecorrespondingverbforms.It
appears that discourse markers deriving from verbs of perception have attracted
particular attention, presumably due to their frequency of use and their crosslinguistic
presence,ascomparedtoformsoriginatingfromverbsrelatedtoothercognitiveactivities
(e.g.think,know,understand)andtospeaking(say).
Asynchronicstudyofdeverbaldiscoursemarkerswithacrosslingusticinterestis
thatofRomeroTrillo(1997),whichcarriesoutacomparisonofthedistributionofSpanish
andEnglishmarkersintwospokencorpora.TheSpanishoye,mira,escucha(listen),and
fjate(notice,payattention),andtheEnglishlookandlistenarecomparedwithrespectto
theirgeneralfrequencyandtheirdistributionindistincttypesofinteraction(interviewsvs
spontaneousconversations).
Inaqualitativeperspective,thestudyofPonsBordera(1998b)ontheSpanishoye
andmiradescribesdifferentfunctionsofthesetwoforms,withtheaimofdistinguishing
between those which have a connective value and those which do not. Pons Bordera
arrivesattheconclusionthatmiraandoye,thoughexhibitingconnectivefunctions,havea
primarily phatic value; considering the category of connectives in prototypical terms,
then, oye and mira would be included as peripheral members. These observations are
inserted in a broader framework in the monograph on Conexin y conectores (Pons
Bordera1998a);here,alargersetofmarkersareassessedfortheirdegreeofconnectivity
based on a careful examination of formal and functional properties that are commonly
recognizedintheliteratureastypicaloftheclassofconnectives.
Amongthestrictlysynchronicstudies,thatofRodrguezSomolinos(2003)builds
on the previous work of Dostie (1998, see below) to analyze the meaning of the French
marker coute; the study shows two main types of uses of coute sharing a central
meaning.
The works of Dostie (1993, 1998, 2004), then, represent a particular perspective.
They carry out semantic analyses of French deverbal markers aiming at their
representationindictionaries.InDostie(1993),theelementsjecomprends!(Iunderstand!)
andpensestu!(youthink!)areanalyzed;alaterpaper(Dostie1998)focusesontheitems
regarde and coute (listen). The monograph Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs.
Asthereaderwillhavenoticed,severalworksamongthosementionedintheprevioussectionconcern
deverbaldiscoursemarkers:Manili(1983,1986,1988),Khachaturyan(2001,2002),Ziccolella(2007),Waltereit
(2002,2006a),EricsdotterandAbete(2007),and,fromacrosslinguisticperspective,Khachaturyan(2009,
2010),Waltereit(2006b),andFagard(2010).Inthissection,IwillturntothoseworksthatarenotpartofItalian
research,butinsteadrefertodeverbalmarkersofotherlanguages.Iremindthereaderthatworksconcerning
specificallysentiandguardawillbediscussedindetailinchapter4.
29
34
Analysesmantiqueettraitementlexicographique(Dostie2004),then,combinesasynchronic
and a diachronic view. A large number of markers of Qubecois French are studied:
disons, tiens, regarde, coute, dis donc (literally so say),30 voyons (lets see), mettons (lets
put), admettons (lets admit), and coudon, deriving from coute donc. According to a
polysemy approach, several meanings are identified for each of them; every marker is
analyzed in itself and in comparison with others. At the same time, the markers
relationshipwith,anddevelopmentoutof,theirsourceitemsareinvestigatedusingdata
from previous periods of Qubecois French and franais hexagonal. The markers are
subsequentlydescribedasdictionaryentries,accordingtoaschemewhichdistinguishes
betweeninformationabouttheheadwordandaboutthesinglemeanings,andcomprisesa
set of descriptive parameters concerning formal properties such as phonology,
morphology, and syntax, and semanticpragmatic properties such as meaning, function,
andrealizedspeechacts.
Wethenhavealargenumberofstudiesthatconcentrateespeciallyonthequestion
of deverbal discourse markers development (i.e. their grammaticalization, or

pragmaticalization process). Some are essentially synchronic as for the data employed,
whileothersreconstructtheriseofthemarkersbymeansofdiachroniccorpora.
MarnJord(2005)studiestheCatalanmarkersmiri(look),escolti(listen),aveure
(deriving from anem a veure, literally lets go and see), and aviam (deriving from a
veiam/vejam,letssee),inacorpusofpoliticaldebatesfromelectioncampaigns.Besides
describingtheirpragmaticfunctionsinthattypeofinteraction,theauthorunderlinesthe
semantic, morphosyntactic, and phonetic differences between the markers and their
verbal sources, and relates the formal and functional features of the markers with their
degreeofgrammaticalization.
VanOlmen(2010a),inapaperwhichIunfortunatelyonlyhappenedtoreadafter
having completed my own analysis, examines the present functions and the rise of the
EnglishlookandlistenandtheirDutchcounterpartskijkandluister.VanOlmencompares
thefouritemswithrespecttotheiroverallfrequencyofdistributionindifferenttypesof
interaction, based on two corpora of spoken English and Dutch; he also compares the
different readings they display, from more literal to pragmatic ones. He then offers an
explanation of the differences in frequency, distribution, and available readings of the
items as following from the different potential of the verbs look/kijken and
listen/luisteren as attentiongetters. He also explains some differences in the use of
look/kijk and listen/luister by the type of perception (visual vs auditory) indicated by the
verbs.InvanOlmen(2010b),themarkerslookandkijkareanalyzedagainwithrespectto
theirfrequency,distribution,andreadings,andtheirfunctionsarecomparedwiththose
of the French regarde, Italian guarda, and Spanish mira, as described by other scholars.31
Theaimistoinvestigatetheriseofthesemarkersoutoftheverbforms,andaproposalis
RecallthatIconsciouslyoptforliteraltranslations.Providingpragmaticequivalentsisvirtuallyimpossible
outofcontext,andwouldrequirecomplexexplanations.
31Ihavementionedthispaperhere,andnotintheprevioussection,becauseitisonlymarginallyconcerned
withtheItalianform.Infact,vanOlmenuses,forguarda,datafromWaltereit(2002).
30
35
made to explain the process. Van Olmen also expresses his position with respect to the
question whether discourse markers recruitment is a case of grammaticalization: in his
view,bothpositiveandnegativepositionsareessentiallyideologicalandnotinformative
aboutthemarkersevolution.
Wethenfindsomeworksthatarestrictlybasedondiachronicdata.Thisisthecase
of Brintons (2001) study of lookforms, namely of (now) look (here), look you, lookee,
lookahere, and lookit. Based on corpora from Middle to Modern English, Brinton
reconstructsthepathwayofmorphosyntacticdevelopmentfromthefreecollocationlook
that/how+subordinateclause,tothemorphologicallyfixed,univerbated,extrasentential
forms (now) look (here), look you, lookee, lookahere, and, similarly, from look to + NP,
throughtheformulalooktoit/that,tothemarkerlookit.Brintonalsocomparestheprocess
observed for the lookforms with the one undergone by other sensory verbs that have
given rise to discourse markers (see, listen, hear, and hark). Finally, she turns to the
questionofgrammaticalizationtoarguethatlookformsindeedmanifestmostfeaturesof
grammaticalizedelements,thoughnotallofthem.
CompanyCompany(2006)addressesthequestionofthediachronicdevelopment
with reference to a set of Mexican Spanish deverbal markers: sepa!, dizque, dale! ndale!,
andtate!.32Theauthorisinterestedinthesyntacticaspectsoftheirsubjectificationprocess,
i.e.theprocessbywhichthespeakersappraisals,pointsofviewandattitudesaboutthe
event (subjective meaning) and his/her interaction, social or affective distanceproximity
with regard to the hearer (intersubjective meaning) may find explicit codification in
grammar(CompanyCompany2006:98).Usingevidencefromadiachronic corpus,the
author outlines a change from an initial stage of syntactic integration as verb forms to
syntacticisolationasmarkers.
Thetranslationoftheseitemsisespeciallycomplexduetotheirhighdegreeofpragmaticalization.Fora
verybriefexplanation:sepa!correspondstothethirdpersonsingularofthesubjunctiveofsaber(toknow)
andisdescribedasamarkerofunknowingandunivolvement;dizquederivesfromdizque(thirdperson
singularoftheindicativeofdecir(say)andtheconjunctionque(that)),anditisamarkerof
evidentiality;dale!derivesfromdar(togive)andthepronounle(thirdpersonsingular,dative),anditis
amarkerofannoyance;ndale!originatesfromandar(togo,towalk)andthesamepronounle,anditis
amarkerofexhortationandconfirmation;tate!comesfromestate,i.e.thesecondpersonsingularofthe
imperativeofestar(tobe)withthesecondpersonreflexivepronounte,anditmarksunexpectedness(see
CompanyCompany2006:104ff.).
32
36
SENTIANDGUARDA:ASTATEOFTHEART
4. Sentiandguarda:astateoftheart
InthissectionIwouldliketogiveasomewhatextendedsurveyofthementionsofsenti
and guarda found in the existing literature, in order to provide as complete a picture as
possibleofwhatwealreadyknowaboutthesetwoitems.
Sentiandguardaarecurrentlymentionedinworksconcerningthewholeinventory
ofItaliandiscoursemarkersasexamplesforcertaincategoriesorforcertainfunctionsand
properties. Only a few studies are specifically devoted to them: the articles of
Khachaturyan(2002)andZiccolella(2007)onsenti,thatofWaltereit(2002)onguarda,and,
thoughnotconcerningthesetwoitemsexclusively,Manilis(1983)studyofvedi,sentiand
guarda,Waltereits(2006b)paperonguarda,mira,regarde,and olha,andFagards(2010)on
mira,olha,guarda,regarde,anduite.Iwillstartwiththementionsthatappearinworkson
Italian discourse markers in general, and then come to the studies that concern more
specificallysentiandguarda.
InStammerjohannsarticleElementidiarticolazionedellitalianoparlato(1977)thereis
anearlymentionofthemarkersenti.Stammerjohannclassifiesdiscoursemarkersfroma
corpus of spoken Florence Italian, following the taxonomy of Glich (1970). He orders
theminthecategoriesofopeningsignals(dividedbetweenthoseusedindialoguesandin
those used in tales), correction signals, and closing signals (divided between statements
andquestions).Furthermore,headdsahierarchicalorderingofopeningsignalsbasedon
thetypeofunitstheyintroduce:hedistinguishesbetweenthosewhichopenupawhole
conversationortale,andthosewhichopenonlyapartofit.Sentiismentionedamongthe
opening signals used in dialogues and it is assigned the highest hierarchical position in
thiscategorybecauseitmostoftenopensawholecontribution.Theauthorobservesthat
signalsofthistypeareoftenfollowedbyapause,whichhastheeffectofdetachingthem
from the cotext and thereby expanding their scope over a larger unit of talk
(Stammerjohann1977:114f.).Furthermore,asisthecaseformostopeningsignals,sentiis
usedatthebeginningofreportedspeech(Stammerjohann1977:116).
Lichem (1981) mentions both senti and guarda in an article that presents an
overview of Italian discourse markers based on a corpus of radio interviews. Though

inspiredbyGlich(1970)andStammerjohann(1977),Lichemdevelopsaslightlydifferent
taxonomy, featuring opening signals (in tales and in dialogues), resumption signals,
closing signals, hearers signals, and hesitation phenomena. Senti, guarda, and the
compound signal ma guarda are found among the opening signals introducing the
speakers talk (Lichem 1981: 71); moreover, senti, ma guarda, and e senti (and listen)
appear in the subcategory of opening signals introducing a topic change (Lichem 1981:
72).Guardaisalsoclassifiedasahesitationphenomenon(Lichem1981:78).
The two markers are also mentioned in Maras (1986) taxonomy of Italian
discourse markers. Mara posits three overarching categories, namely speakers signals,
hearers signals, and turntaking signals. The first contains the subcategory of dialogic
37
strategicsignals,characterizedbyinteractivefunctions.Sentiandguardaareplacedinthis
subcategory,moreexactlyinthesubgroupofpreposeddialogicelements,whichareused
to create the conditions for the reception of a communicative act and to attract the
interlocutors attention and expectations (Mara 1986: 186). Mara furthermore notes,
unfortunately only in a brief footnote, that guarda can only be found in reactive moves
(Mara1986:189).
InSchwarzes(1988)ItaliangrammarbookGrammatikderitalienischenSpracheboth
senti and guarda are listed among the phatische Routineformeln (phatic routine
formulas),i.e.fixedpragmaticexpressionswhichcontrolthecommunicativecontact,and
they are provided with brief explanations. According to these, senti indicates that the
speaker wants to say something, whereas guarda announces an argumentatively
importantstatementandinvitestheaddresseetotakeitseriously.Schwarzeaddsthatthe
statement to be introduced with guarda can also form a subordinate clause and be
introducedbytheconjunctionche.Theauthorthusseemstoconsiderthestructureguarda
che followed by a subordinate clause as pragmatically equivalent to the syntactically
independentguarda(Schwarze1988:356).
The two markers are also mentioned by Koch and Oesterreicher (2011) in their
monograph on spoken romance languages, as examples of Gesprchswrter

(conversation words). In particular, they appear in the group of Gliederungssignale
(structuringsignals),asopeningelementsusedindialogicdiscourses,aswellasinthe
groupofKontaktsignale(contactsignals),asdevicesemployedbyspeakerstocreate
and keep the contact with the interlocutors (Koch/Oesterreicher 2011, 46ff.). Beyond the
classification given, the authors repeatedly stress that one element can fulfil different
functions; for instance, structuring signals can also function as turntaking and contact
devices,hesitationphenomena,andevenasmodalizers(Koch/Oesterreicher2011:46ff.).
Several statements about the two markers are found in the works of Bazzanella.
Themainfunctionthattheauthorgenerallyattributestothemisthatofattentiongetting;
in addition, further aspects are pointed out in the different studies. According to
Bazzanellasarticleonphaticconnectives(1990),sentiismostlyusedatthebeginningof
an utterance with the function of an attentiongetter, and sometimes as an interrupting
device; it can also occur in the middle of the utterance as a signal for topic change
(Bazzanella1990:634).Thefunctionofcallingforandkeepingattentionistakentobethe
main function of senti; its frequent use in phone calls, where the participants have no
visualcontact,istakenasaproofofthis(Bazzanella1990:637).Guardaisalsoclassifiedas
an attentiongetter when it is produced by the current speaker in utteranceinitial or
medial position; in contrast, when it is uttered by the interlocutor with risingfalling
intonation, often after the marker ma, it is said to express surprise and partial
disappointment (Bazzanella 1990: 639), a description which probably refers to the
interjectionaluseoftheformguarda.Inastudyofinterruptions,theauthorfurthermore
mentions guarda as a device used to weaken the aggressive character of an interruption
(Bazzanella 1991: 288). The the attentiongetting function of senti is described again in
Bazzanellas study of discourse markers in classroom interaction (1994b), where this
38
element is found to occur particularly often before the teachers questions (Bazzanella
1994b: 241). The use of senti before questions is also observed in Bazzanellas (1994a)
monograph Le facce del parlare, together with a turntaking and an attentiongetting
function. Here we also find the variant senti un po (literally listen a bit), which is
consideredtobemorecolloquialandlessselfasserting(Bazzanella1994a:153).
In the chapter about discourse markers of the Grande grammatica italiana di
consultazione(Renzietal.1995),inwhichBazzanellagivesadefinitionofthecategoryand
suggests a classification system, the marker senti is mentioned among the attention
getting devices, which can also be used to interrupt the current speakerand toshiftthe
attentiontoanewtopic;italsoappearsamongthemetatextualmarkers,whichmarkthe
relations between topics and the organisation of discourse in an opening, a continuing,
and a closing part, and can signal a change in topic or a digression (Bazzanella 1995:
246f.). The form senti un po is described here as highlighting the solidarity between the
participants (Bazzanella 1995: 235f.). Guarda is also considered to be an attentiongetter
(Bazzanella 1995: 235f.); in addition, the author states as an example of the role of
positionandprosodyfortheinterpretationofdiscoursemarkersthatinutteranceinitial
position with rising intonation guarda primarily calls attention, thereby establishing
shared understanding, while in final position with falling intonation it strengthens the
utteranceandunderlinesthespeakersconviction(Bazzanella1995:230).
Both guarda and senti (un po) are again described as attentiongetters in a study
thatanalyzestheuseofdiscoursemarkersinspokenandwrittentexts(Bazzanella2001a).
More precisely, senti and guarda call the addressees attention both in spoken and in
writtendiscourseonsomeaspectofthesituationthatisspecific,neglected,unknown,or
thatcanbesurprising(Bazzanella2001a:90f.).Bazzanella(2006b:149)alsopointsoutthat
guardacanadditionallyfunctionasaturntakingdeviceandamodalizer.33
GuardaisoneoftheobjectsofFagards(2010)studyondiscoursemarkersderived
from imperatives in Romance, together with the Spanish and Catalan mira, Portuguese
olha, French regarde, and Romanian uite. On the basis of information available in the
literature,comparedwithandcompletedbydatafromacorpusstudy(forguarda,Fagard
uses the corpus Lessico di frequenza dellItaliano parlato by De Mauro et al. (1993)), the
author describes the pragmatic functions of these forms; he then checks their
characteristicsagainstthephonological,morphological,syntactic,andsemanticcriteriaof
grammaticalization, to conclude that their rise is indeed a case of grammaticalization,
though an atypical one. Fagard also notices that the French regarde has fewer pragmatic
functions than its counterparts, and discusses possible causes for its lesser degree of
grammaticalization. Then, based on diachronic data about regarde, mira, and guarda,
Fagardarguesthattheseitemshavefollowedaclinegoingfrompropositionalreadings,
throughtextualandexpressive,to intersubjectiveones.Thefunctions therebyattributed
tothepresentdaydiscoursemarkerguardaare:introductionofatopicorsubtopic,turn
takingandinterruption,hesitation,introductionofreportedspeech,andwhatiscalledthe
Unfortunately,theauthordoesnotfurtherexplainwhatexactlyguardadoesasamodalizer.
33
39
evaluative use. Regarding the latter, Fagard explains that the markers under
consideration convey attitudes such as surprise, disapproval, and admiration, or
emphasizewhat the speaker says.This use seems more complex thanthe othersand its
definitionisactuallynotcompletelycleartome.Theexpressionofsurprise,disapproval,
andadmirationistypicaloftheinterjectionalreadingofguarda,inwhichthisformbuilds
apragmaticallyautonomousutterance.FagardmakesreferencetoWaltereits(2002:992)
statementthatguardaconveysadmiration,astatementwhichrefers,inWaltereitspaper,
preciselytotheinterjectionalreading(forWaltereits(2002)analysisseebelow).However,
the example given by Fagard to illustrate the evaluative use is, in my view, not an
instanceoftheinterjectionalreading,butinsteadaninstanceofthediscoursemarkinguse
strictosensu:Claudianonpotreimaiguardafaredelsessoconte(ClaudiaIcouldnever
lookhavesexwithyou)(Fagard2010:251,originaltranslation).AccordingtoFagard,this
guardaconveysemphasis,withwhichIcertainlyagree;however,thisuseisnotonapar
with the interjectional one expressing surprise, admiration, or disapproval. So, the
evaluativeuseseemstocomprisedifferentpragmaticfunctionsinFagardssystematics.
Let me now move to Manilis (1983) study on vedi, senti, and guarda. The study
containsalistofdiscoursemarking,butalsoliteralandmoreorlessroutinizedusesofthe
formsinquestion34,basedonacorpusofnovelsanddramasfromthe1910stothe1970s,
and newspapers from 1980. Different readings are ordered according to morphological
and syntagmatic features. I will restrict myself here to the discoursemarking readings,
whicharerelevantforthepresentwork.Forsenti,thefollowingfunctionsaredescribed:
senti is employed to get the interlocutors attention and to reinforce the speakerhearer
contact,toopenaturn(thusmarkingspeakerchange),introduceanewtopic,gaintime
for formulation, and interrupt the partner. When it is followed by an imperative, it also
invites the interlocutor to accomplish an action. The chain dunque senti can also create
expectation and involve the partner emotionally, or express an invitation to state an
opinion;masentiandbesenti(wherebecomes frombene,well)canindicatehesitation
before expressing a doubt. Finally, senti un po is described as softening the impact of a
question or a request and signalizing reticence before an unpleasant question (Manili
1983: 51ff.). With respect to the marker guarda, Manili lists several functions: attention
getting,emphasizingtheutterance,expressingdisagreement,gainingtimeandindicating
reticence,mitigatinganunpleasantorembarrassingmessage,markingthereopeningof
anexplanation,andexpressingthespeakersinvolvement(Manili1983:75ff.).
Manyofthesefunctionsarefoundagaininthelaterarticleonvedi,sai,senti,and
guarda(Manili1986),withafewadditions:guardaisattributedthefunctionsofopening,
signaling a change in the topic or a shift to a completely new one, and closing an
Theseincludetheinterjectionalusesofsentiandguarda(alsoinchainslikeohsenti!andguardaunpo),
syntacticallyintegrated,routinizeduseslikeguardacheprenderaiunraffreddore!(becareful,youwillget
acold!)(Manili1983:77),aswellastheformssentilo/sentitelo(listentohim/it).Finally,someusesare
mentionedwhichareclearlyliteral,forinstanceNonsenti?Piove(Dontyouhear?Itsraining)(Manili
1983:62)andGuardate:unacoccinella.Edibuonaugurio(Look,aladybug.Itbringsluck)(Manili1983:
74).
34
40
utterance. Moreover, both senti and guarda are said to be pragmatically necessary when
the speaker radically disagrees with the interlocutor (Manili 1986: 169). The role of the
markersinthiskindofcontextisnotfurtherexplained,butonecanassumeamitigating
effect.
We now come to the studies that are specifically devoted to senti and guarda.
StefaniaZiccolella(2007)studiesdiscoursemarkersincourtroominteraction,focussingin
particular on senta (the polite form senta is obviously more common than senti in
courtroom interaction). The paper contains some remarks on the items e, va bene, allora,
ma,per(however,but),andquindi(so,hence),butitisalmostentirelydedicatedto
senta.Ziccolellaobservessenta initssequential position,thatis,withrespectbothtothe
followingturnandtotheprecedingones.Heranalysisrevealsthatsentaisusedtocallfor
attention,underlineachangeofaddressee,changethetopic,andtoaccomplishanumber
oftasksconcerningtheshiftbetweendifferentaspectsofonetopic:thereferentshift(to
anewaspectofatopic),theshiftfromaspecifictoamoregeneralaspect,theshiftfroma
subject/agent to another, and the shift from an object/patient to another.35 Ziccolella
underlines that turninitial discourse markers are able to indicate the connection of a
questionwiththeanswerjustprecedingitaswellaswiththepreviousquestion;senta,in
particular, shows the speakers control over topics and referents. The relations between
questions and answers, and between one question and another, reveal the line of
questioningfollowedbythejudge.
Elizaveta Khachaturyan (2001) presents an analysis of senti based on a corpus of
novelsandthespokencorpusLessicodifrequenzadellitalianoparlato(DeMauroetal.1993).
The study starts from the assumption that the meaning of discourse markers is derived
from constant semantic components which undergo different realisations in context
(Khachaturyan 2001: 128). According to the approach of the Laboratoire de linguistique
thoriqueoftheUniversityParis7(Paillard1998),allmarkersaredescribedbytheformula
X R Y, where R represents the marker, called motrelateur (relating word), and X
andYaretheelementsconnected;moreprecisely,Yisthemarkersscope.Inthecaseof
senti,theformulatakestheformZsentip,inwhichZrepresentsastateofaffairs,andp
an utterance describing Z (Khachaturyan 2001: 129f.). Utterance p contains new
informationthatcannotbededucedfromthecontext;thisdeterminesthefrequentuseof
sentiatthebeginningofadiscourseoratatopicchange.Insuchcontexts,sentipreserves
discourse coherence; without it, p would be too sudden. It is observed that senti differs
fromguardainthisrespect:thelatteralwaysintroducesinformationwhichisconnectedto
the preceding context (Khachaturyan 2001: 130f.). The interlocutor to whom senti is
directedreactstopandtakesthenewinformationintoconsideration.Forthisreason,senti
alwaysreferstoutterancesthatimplyareactionfromtheinterlocutor,suchasdemands,
questions, and subjective judgements. With senti, the speaker assigns the interlocutor a
certainrole:
Forexample:inonequestion,thejudgeaskstheaccusedwhatpartofthevictimsbodysheaimedat(the
object/patientoftheactionistheheadofthevictim).Inthenextquestion,thejudgeaskswheretheaccused
threwthegunafterwards(theobject/patientisnowthegun).
35
41
The interlocutor is sympathetic and the speaker wants to establish a friendly

relationship with her.36 As a consequence, senti often introduces utterances
containing some negative element and signals that the speaker is forced to utter
them;itcannotintroduceanypositivecontents
Theinterlocutorhasthecompetencetoperformtherequestedaction
Thespeakerthinksthattheinterlocutorneedstheinformationconveyedbyp
Thespeakerwishesforapositivereactiontop(Khachaturyan2001:131ff.).
Since senti is described by the formula Z senti p, the features of Z and the type of
relation holding between Z and p define the meaning of the marker, called scenario
generale(generalsetting).Thegeneralsettingisdescribedasfollows:37
Sentipsignificacheillocutoreintroduceunasequenzapperdescrivereunostatodi
cose Z. Il locutore sicuro che la sequenza p sar accettata dallinterlocutore.
Laccettazione di p predefinitadallesistenzadi unaltra sequenza q che descrivelo
stesso stato di cose Z e adduce motivi alla realizzazione di p. (Khachaturyan 2001:
134)
Sentipmeansthatthespeakerintroducesasequenceptodescribethestateofaffairs
Z. The speaker is sure that sequence p will be accepted by the interlocutor. The
acceptanceofpisdeterminedbytheexistenceofanothersequence,q,whichdescribes
thesamestateofaffairsZandprovidesreasonsfortherealisationofp.
Depending on the realisation of p and q, this meaning is subject to three contextual

variations.Inthefirstcase,thepresenceofppresupposestheexistenceofq.Forexample:
(11)
ProntoLudmilla...Pronto.//Latuavocesifacalda,suadente,incalzante:Senta,
Ludmilla,iodevovederla,dobbiamoparlarediquestacosa,diquestecircostanze,
coincidenze,discordanze.
Hello,Ludmilla...Hello?//Yourvoicebecomeswarm,persuasive,insistent:Senta,Ludmilla,I
havetoseeyou,wemustspeakaboutthisthing,aboutthesecircumstances,coincidences,
discordances.
(Khachaturyan2001:135,emphasisintheoriginal)
Here,sequencep(underlined),whichdescribesthesituationZ,presupposestheexistence
ofq,anelementwhichisrelatedtoZandencouragesthespeakertosayp.Sentirecallsthe
elementq.Inthesecondcase,qispresentinthecontextandjustifiestheintroductionand
acceptanceofp.Sentireinforcestherelationbetweenpandq:
Whentalkingingeneraltermsaboutindividualswhomightbefemaleormale,Iwillfollowthecurrently
widespreadpracticeofusingthefemalepronounonly,astoavoidspecifyingthealternativehimorher.
37Foradiscussionofthepositionofmyownstudywithrespecttotheseresults,thereaderisreferredto
chapter7,subsection7.1.7.
36
42
(12)
Nonmalattiadicorpo,Tanin,madanimo.Senti,mivadoacorcarechmeglio
Itsnotaphysicaldisease,Tanin,itsadiseaseofthemind.Senti,Iwillgoandliedown,thats
better
Here,q(underlined)isthedescriptionofthedisease,andthesequencep,whichfollows
senti, is a continuation of q. In the third case, p continues q, but it contains unexpected
information:
(13)
Iorespiroforteesparodibotto:JeanClaude,iohounamante,partoconlui./.../Luidice:
vabbe,hocapito,vuoiandarcidasola.Senti,perquestaserahoinvitatounpaiodi
personeacena,eh,sperochetuabbiafattolaspesaalmercatobiologicostamattina...
Ibreatheindeeplyandburstout:JeanClaude,Ihavealover,Imleavingwithhim./.../Hesays:
okay,Isee,youwanttogotherealone.Senti,Ihaveinvitedsomepeoplefordinnertonight,Ihope
youwentshoppingattheorganicmarketthismorning...
Thesequenceq(underlined)isareactiontothenews.Sentipindicatesthatp,whichisa
reaction to the same news, is expected as a continuation of q, but the information it
containsisnewandsudden.
Let us now turn to the analyses of the marker guarda. Richard Waltereit (2002)
studiesguardawithparticularregardtotherecruitmentofthecorrespondingverbformas
adiscoursemarkerandtheevolutionofitsvariouspragmaticfunctions.Beforediscussing
thediachronicdevelopment,Waltereitgivesanoverview ofthepresentfunctionsofthe
marker,basedon336tokensoftheformguardafromthecorpusofDeMauroetal.(1993).
Thefunctionsarelistedtogetherwiththerespectivecontextsofoccurrenceasfollows:38
-
Turnfinal:guardahighlightsthecontribution
Turninitial at a nontransitionrelevance place: guarda serves to interrupt and to

calltheothersattentiontoonesownidea
Turnmedial,attopicshift:introducinganewtopic
Introducing reported speech: guarda is a part of the quote. Since quotations

introduceanewpointofview,theyfrequentlyalsoconstituteatopicshift;guarda
isusedtounderlinethis.
Turnmedialasahesitationphenomenon
Turninitial after a transitionrelevance place: guarda introduces a new aspect of

thetopicandcallsfortheinterlocutorsattention.Thisfunctionisillustratedbyan
exampleinwhichtheformguardaispartofthestructureguardache+subordinate
clause.
Thepositionofmyownworkwithrespecttotheseresultswillbeexpressedinchapter7,section7.2..
38
43
As a turn itself: guarda is a phatic marker expressing admiration and surprise

towards something that is presented to the speaker. According to the concept of
discourse markers I adopt, this use of guarda is interjectional (Waltereit 2002:
990ff.).
Itisthenarguedthatthemarkeroriginatedfromtheuseoftheimperativeguardainorder
tointerruptthecurrentspeaker,andfurtherfunctionssubsequentlydevelopedoutofthis.
Guardaindicatesthatthespeakerhasseensomethingthattheotherparticipantshavenot
noticed, and thus allows her to take the floor before the other has stopped talking. This
hasledtotheuseoftheformguardaforfloorseeking,independentlyfromwhetherornot
one has anything to show, and, ultimately, to the reanalysis of the verb form into a
discourse marker for selfselection (Waltereit 2002: 998ff.). The imperative use
furthermore yields a range of conversational sideeffects (speaker change, floortaking,
gaining of time, topic shift, and the highlighting of the ensuing part of the discourse as
particularly important), which thus gave rise to its other pragmatic functions (Waltereit
2002: 1001f.). Waltereit concludes the study with theoretical considerations on the
questionofwhethertheriseofdiscoursemarkerscanbeseenasgrammaticalization.He
arguesthat,accordingtothefeaturesofgrammaticalizationstatedbyLehmann(1985),the
processundergonebydiscoursemarkersisnotaninstanceofgrammaticalization.
PartsofthisanalysisareresumedinWaltereits(2006b)paperontheItalianguarda,
Frenchregarde,Spanishmira,andPortugueseolha.Thepurposeofthepaperistosupport
the view of these discourse markers as polysemous as opposed to monosemous
drawing on a comparison between them. Waltereit compares the functions of the four
items as described in his previous work on guarda and in studies from other scholars.
Guarda is attributed the roles of an attentiongetter (both preposed and postposed), a
deviceforfocusshift,andahesitationphenomenon;inaddition,abackchannelfunction
is mentioned (Waltereit 2006b: 143f.). The latter function isnot illustrated by any Italian
example,39 but it could correspond to the interjectional guarda mentioned in Waltereit
(2002).Overandabovethedescriptionofthefunctions,Waltereitsaimistopointoutthat
thefunctionalspectraofthefourmarkersdonotcoincide,whichinhisviewcontradicts
theassumptionofasinglecoremeaning.Infact,onewouldexpectsuchameaningtobe
thesameinalllanguages,duetothecommonlexicalsource.Consequently,hearguesthat
theitemspossessmorethanonemeaningeach,whichhavedevelopedthroughtime;that
is,theitemsarepolysemous.Hefinallyproposestoexplainthissemanticchangeinterms
of a conventionalization of the implicatures attached to the verb form, which have
crystallizedintodifferentmeanings(seealsoWaltereit2002above).
To conclude this chapter, let me briefly sum up what functions have been
attributed to our two discourse markers up to now. For senti, the various descriptions
availablecanbesystematizedasfollows:
-
gettingorkeepingattention,creatingorkeepingcontact
turntaking,turnopening,indicatingthebeginningofacontribution
ThefunctionisillustratedbyaSpanishexamplecontainingmira.
39
44
interrupting
changingtheaddressee
hesitation
changingtoadifferenttopicoraspectofatopic
openingreportedspeech
markingtheorganizationofdiscourse
preservingdiscoursecoherence
creatingexpectationandemotionallyinvolvingtheaddressee
whenfollowedbyanimperative,invitingtheaddresseetoaccomplishanaction
indicating certainty about the acceptance of the utterance as being motivated by

someothersequence(verbalizedornot)
softeningtheimpactofunpleasantutterances
softeningtheimpactofaquestionorrequest
usedincasesofdisagreement
Asfarasguardaisconcerned,thefollowingfunctionsarefound:
-
gettingorkeepingattention,creatingorkeepingcontact
turntaking,turnopening
closinganutterance
interrupting
hesitation
changingtoadifferenttopicoraspectofatopic
openingreportedspeech
announcinganargumentativelyimportantstatementandinvitingtheaddresseeto
takeitseriously
strengtheninganutteranceandunderliningthespeakersconviction
emphasizinganutterance
modaliziation
weakeningtheaggressivecharacterofaninterruption
softeningtheimpactofunpleasantutterances
usedincasesofdisagreement
expressingdisagreement
expressing surprise, disappointment, disapproval, or admiration (probably

referringtotheinterjectionaluse)
45
AIMSOFTHEPRESENTSTUDY
5. Aimsofthepresentstudy
The present work intends to carry out a parallel analysis of the discourse markers senti
and guarda with the aim to give an indepth, synchronic functional description of these
twoitemsandallowforacomparisonbetweenthem.Byparallelanalysis,Imeanthat
theitemswillbesubjecttothesameanalyticalprocedure,basedonafixedsetofclearly
defined criteria. This work is thus meant to contribute, on the one hand, to that area of
studieswithinItaliandiscoursemarkersresearchwhichareconcernedwiththeindepth
analysis of single items. On the other hand, it aims to provide a basis for comparative
analysesofdifferentelements.
InspiteoftheirfrequentmentioninworksonItalianmarkersandtheirpervasive
useinspokenlanguage,onlyveryfewstudieshavebeenspecificallyconcernedwithsenti
and guarda up to now, as was shown in the previous chapter. At the same time, the
variousmentionsdescribearangeofmostdisparatefunctions,fromattentiongettingto
the expression of disagreement, and they show that the two markers have
correspondinglyabearingonmultiplelevelsoftheinteraction,suchastheallocationof
turns,theorganizationoftopics,andthemanagementoftheparticipantsattention.While
this is well compatible with the notorious multifunctionality of discourse markers, the
question arises of whether such heterogeneous functions can be given some unified
account, and how they may be connected to each other. Collecting a wide spectrum of
possible contextual functions, though mirroring the variety of effects a marker can
produce, does not really contribute to understanding the workings of the element itself
andthewaysinwhichitsmanifoldeffectsarise.
Whatcanhelpindisentanglingthismultifunctionalityissearchingforapossibly
limited number of basic functions, or even a single core function that can subsume the
differentcontextualeffects.Theanalysistobeconductedinthepresentthesiswillstriveto
dothis:todetectabasicfunctionforeachmarker,whichshouldenableustomakesense
ofitsvariouscontextualfunctionsinaunifiedway.Thiswillbedonebyexamining,inthe
corpusdata,howthetokensofthemarkersaffectdifferentaspectsoftheconversationsin
which they occur. I will systematically analyze the relation of each token with different
aspects or components of the conversation (such as the turnsattalk, sequence
organization,andtopicstructure;seechapter6),accordingtoarigorouslydefinedlistof
criteria.
Thisanalysiswillatthesametimemakeitpossibletocomparesentiandguardaby
contrasting their behaviour with respect to the different aspects of conversation

considered.WhilethereareseveralworksthatcomparethefunctionsofItaliandiscourse
markerswiththoseofequivalentformsinotherlanguages,oftenwiththegoaloftracinga
common line of development, there has been a surprising lack of interest in contrasting
twoItalianmarkerswitheachother.Thisdoesnotseemuninteresting,though,especially
for two items like senti and guarda which display formal similarity, but no functional
46
equivalence.Accordingtothedescriptionsfoundintheliterature,sentiandguardaappear
to have several functions in common: both are classified as hesitation phenomena,
attentiongetters, turnopening signals, interrupting devices, and as markers of topic
change. However, they are certainly not equivalent, as is also noticed by Khachaturyan
(2001:127)inherarticleonsenti.Thisiswellvisibleifonecompares,forexample,(14a)
and(14b):
(14a)
A:SonoMauroBianchi.VorreiparlareconlasignoraRossi.
ThisisMauroBianchispeaking.IwouldliketospeaktoMrsRossi.
B:Guardi,lasignoranonincasa.Sevuolechiamarepitardi.
Guardi,MrsRossiisnothere.Wouldyoupleasecalllater?
(Bazzanella1995:236,emphasisadded)
(14b)
B:Senta,lasignoranonincasa.Sevuolechiamarepitardi.
Senta,MrsRossiisnothere.Wouldyoupleasecalllater?
SpeakerBisshowingtwodifferentattitudesinthetwoversionsoftheexchange:in(14a)
she is more kind than in (14b), where she sounds somewhat irritated. Both senti and
guarda open the turn, but they have further consequences on the understanding of the
utterance.Whileapparentlyplayingsimilarroles,sentiandguardamanifestdiscrepancies
thatcannotbeexplainedbymeansofthefunctionswealreadyknow.Itis,then,necessary
toanalyzethemingreaterdetail,bothindividuallyandincomparisonwithoneanother.
The intent of reducing the multiple functions of markers to general subjacent
meanings, the idea of applying a unified analytical procedure to distinct items, and the
interestincomparingthemgetfundamentalimpulsefromanumberofstudiesthathave
beendoneondiscoursemarkersofdifferentlanguages.Importantinspirationcomesfrom
the work of Fischer (2000) on English and German discourse markers (discourse
particles,inherterminology),andonthemarkerokayinFischer(2006b).Fischersuggests
that every marker encodes one core meaning, which interacts with contextual factors to
yield different functional interpretations. She elaborates a model of markers
multifunctionality,
consisting
of
three
components:
the
invariant
meaning,
communicative background frames, and constructions. The meaning of a marker is

interpretedbyreferencetocommunicativedomains,i.e.aspectsofthecommunicative
process and situation which are relevant for the speakers, such as perception,
understanding,speechmanagement,andtopicstructure.Thedomainsthatarerelevantin
a given situation are described in communicative background frames (Fischer 2006b:
442). The functional interpretation of a particle is also connected with its structural
position;thisconnectionisrepresentedinconstructions,i.e.formmeaningpairswhich
describe, on the formal side, the structural context in which a particle can occur (its
47
positionintheturnandtheutterance,itsintonationcontour),and,onthefunctionalside,
their reference to certain communicative domains and the corresponding functions
fulfilled(Fischer2006b:443).
An essential impulse also comes from the work of Travis (2005) on Colombian
Spanishdiscoursemarkers(bueno,entonces(then),pues(since,then),andosea(literally
or be it)). Travis detects different discursive functions of these markers in a corpus of
spoken data; then, she formulates for each of them a small number of mutuallyrelated
meanings which share a semantic core. This core meaning is, in turn, examined for its
relationshipwiththemeaningofthesourceitemfromwhichthemarkerhasoriginated.
Thereby, it is stressed that the multiple functions of a marker do not necessarily
correspondtomultiplemeanings,butmultifunctionalitycanbefoundtorelyonacentral
meaning component. The markers meanings, constituting the source of their various
pragmatic functions, are given a unified representation in the framework of Natural
SemanticMetalanguage(seeWierzbicka1996).
I am substantially influenced, moreover, by Hansens (1998) analysis of French
discoursemarkers(bon(good),ben,ehbien,donc,andalors).Asananalyticalprocedure,
Hansen defines a set of contextual factors to be considered in the examination of the
corpusdata.Thesecontextualfactorsincludeglobalfactors(thekindofdiscourseandthe
goals of the interaction), local factors (the sequential environment of the relevant
utterancesandthepresenceofmetadiscursiveutterances),andmicrolevelfactorssuchas
theinformationstructureofhostunits,thepresenceofcertainsyntacticstructures(e.g.left
dislocations),pauses,andstress.
I am furthermore influenced by the work of Dostie (2004) on Qubecois French
deverbal markers (see chapter 3, section 3.2). In Dosties study, every item is not only
analyzed individually both synchronically and diachronically to find out what
meanings it carries, but also compared with one to four other items which display
functional vicinity, what the author terms the mise en parallle the drawing of a
parallel between markers. The comparison helps in defining and highlighting specific
propertiesofeachoftheitemsunderstudy.
Turningnowagaintothepresentwork,concretegoalstobepursuedherewillbe:
-
to analyze senti and guarda according to a coherent procedure, following clearly

definedcriteriathataccountforseveralaspectsofconversation
toarrive,bymeansofsuchanalysis,ataunifiedaccountofthevariousfunctions
ofeachmarker,and
to carry out, drawing on the same analysis, a comparison between the two
markersbehaviourwithrespecttodifferentaspectsofconversation
Overandabovethecontributiontotheunderstandingofsentiandguardainparticular,by
developing a parallel analysis of the two markers, this thesis will elaborate analytical
proceduresandcategorieswhichareapttobeappliedtodifferentitemsandcantherefore
become useful for the indepth investigation of further markers and for crosslinguistic
studies.Incontrasttoamajortrendinresearchondeverbalmarkers,Iwillnotstriveto
trace back the rise of senti and guarda out of the verb forms. I believe that it might be
48
useful to first provide a detailed description of the markers presentday functioning,

which can in turn form a solid basis for the formulation of hypotheses about their
development,tobetestedondiachronicdata.Themethodologicaltoolspresentedcan,in
this sense, also be employed to study previous stages of discourse markers usage and
facilitatethecomparisonwiththepresentuse.
49
DATAANDMETHOD
6. Dataandmethod
6.1. Data
The present study is based on two corpora: the Italian subcorpus of the CORALROM
(Cresti/Moneglia2005)andacorpuscollectedbymyself.40
The CORALROM is constituted by four parallel corpora of spoken French,
Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, and it was created with the goal of providing
comparable corpora for the main Romance languages. The Italian subcorpus is taken
fromtheLABLITAcorpus,whichhasbeencollectedstartingfromthe1970sandiskept
bytheLinguisticsLaboratoryoftheItalianDepartmentattheUniversityofFlorence(see
Cresti/Panunzi/Scarano2005:75).
The data are divided into formal and informal
speech. Formal speech data consists of conversations from the media (e.g. talkshows),
from natural contexts (e.g. courtroom interaction), as well as telephone conversations,
which include private conversations and humanmachine interactions. Informal speech
includes interactions from private environments, for example from gettogethers among
friends,andfrompublicsettingslikeshopsandbars.Boththedataforprivateinformal
speech and for public informal speech are subdivided into monologues, dialogues, and
multiparty conversations. The whole Italian subcorpus has a total duration of ca. 36.5
hours.
ThetranscriptionsoftheCORALROMareorthographicandbasedontheCHAT
transcriptionsystem(MacWhinney2000),buttheyintegrateaprosodicannotationintone
units. Speech is segmented into utterances, which are defined as the linguistic
counterpart of speech acts (Moneglia 2005: 15) and identified by means of prosodic
breaks.Terminalbreaks(representedinthetranscriptsbythesymbol//)marktheend
ofanutterance,i.e.ofatoneunitthatcorrespondsfromapragmaticpointofviewtoan
autonomousspeechact;nonterminalbreaks(symbol/)marktheendoftoneunitsthat
do not build speech acts in themselves and are therefore not independent utterances
(Moneglia2005:15ff.).
My own corpus consists of recordings of private, informal conversations and
interviewsfromtelevisiontalkshows,foratotaldurationof5hoursand45minutes.The
corpus was first collected as a pilot corpus, but due to the amount of interesting data
contained in it, it has also been employed in the main analysis. Notwithstanding the
limited size of the corpus, which did not allow for representativity, I strived to include
differenttypesofinteractioninordertofavourtheoccurrenceofasmanydifferentusesof
therelevantdiscoursemarkersaspossible.
Inwhatfollows,theexamplesquotedfromtheCORALROMcorpuswillbemarkedwiththenameC
ORALROMandthenameofthefilefromwhichtheyaretaken(e.g.CORALROM,ifamdl01);thosefrom
myowncorpuswillbemarkedwiththenameoftherespectivealignmentfile(e.g.PC1).
40
50
DATAANDMETHOD
Thethreeprivateconversationscontainedinthiscorpushaveatotaldurationof3
hr 7 min, and they took place at Bielefeld University among Italian undergraduate and
graduate students who were in Germany for a study stay. Some of the speakers had
alreadyknowneachotherforsomeweeksormonthsatthetimeoftherecording,whereas
others met for the first or second time. Consequently, the data include both familiar
conversations between friends, and informal, but not intimate conversations between
fellow students who do not know each other well. For ethical reasons, I decided not to
hide the digital recorders, so it was necessary to take into account that their presence
couldinfluencethespeakers.Inordertohelpthespeakersovercomepossibledifficulties
related to the recording, I decided to open each of the recording meetings by a short
game,namelytheorganizationofafictionaltrip,forwhichinformationmaterials(about
flights, hotels, and leisure activities) were provided. Although this inevitably
characterized the first part of the recordings as nonspontaneous, in the sense that the
topicandaimoftheinteractionwerearranged,itindeedhelpedthespeakersbreakthe
iceandallowedfortheconversationtocontinuespontaneouslyandtouchonadiversity
oftopics.Dependingonthedegreeofmutualacquaintance,speakersengagedininformal
but not familiar, up to very intimate conversations, with topics ranging from the
participants subject of study to very personal issues like current problems in a
relationship.Theoccurrenceofsuchpersonaltopicsshowsthattheparticipantsattention
to the recorders did as was hoped decrease and let spontaneous conversation take
place.
Thesecondgroupofrecordingsconsistsofinterviewsfromtelevisiontalkshows,
withatotaldurationof2hr38min.TheinterviewstookplaceintheshowsLeInvasioni
Barbariche and Parla con me and are available on the websites of the respective channels
La7 and Rai 3.41 Actors, singers, and journalists are interviewed by the respective talk
show hosts about their professional and private lives. I intentionally chose talkshows
characterized by an informal atmosphere, where the hosts do not restrict their
contributionstoquestions,butengageindiscussionswiththeinterviewees,andtheturn
taking is not strictly ruled by the interviewer, but relatively free. The markers senti and
guardaarealwaysdirectedtoaninterlocutor(seetheconsiderationsontheirinflectionin
chapter2,section2.4),soitseemedadvisabletochooseinterviewswithahighdegreeof
interactivitybetweenspeakers,wherethemarkersaremorelikelytobeused.
Allinteractionsbothprivateconversationsandtalkshowinterviewshavetwo
to three participants each. The whole corpus features a total of 18 speakers, all native
speakers of Italian, aged between 21 and 56, and coming from seven Italian regions:
EmiliaRomagna,Friuli,Lazio,Lombardy,Marche,Piedmont,andApulia.42
Webaddresses(lastaccessedon31stJanuary2011):
www.la7.it/invasionibarbariche/video.php?page=3&cat=0and
www.rai.tv/dl/RaiTV/programmi/media/ContentItem55f7c8ba04d44c0098bf334d42d7d0a5.html#p=0.
42Ageandhomeregionofthespeakersinthetalkshowinterviewsarefoundinpubliclyavailablesources.
41
51
DATAANDMETHOD
The parts of the recordings relevant for the analysis have been transcribed43
according to the conventions of GAT 2 (Selting et al. 2009). This transcription system
appears well suited for the present study as it provides for a clear representation of
phenomenathatareofgreatrelevanceforthepurposesoftheanalysis.Overlapbetween
speakers can be rendered precisely, which is fundamental for the study of such
interactional elements as are discourse markers. Several prosodic factors e.g. the
prosodicsegmentationofthetalk,theintonationcontourofsegments,thepositionoffocal
accent,andthedurationofpausescanbetranscribedindetailandallowforanobjective
representation of the recorded talk. The transcription conventions of the CORALROM
andofGAT2aredisplayedinAppendix1.
6.2. Method
The present study can be defined as strictly corpusdriven, in the sense that it does not
start with previously established functional categories in which to arrange the corpus
data, but instead aims to discover what functions senti and guarda fulfil as a result of
corpus analysis.44 In view of the numerous and heterogeneous functions that have been
attributed to senti and guarda in research, establishing categories at the outset would
hinder, rather than help in drawing a unified picture of their workings. It appears
preferabletostartfromscratchandworkoutthemarkersfunctionsdirectlyfromthe
data. The analysis is primarily qualitative, as are the results, which take the shape of
functionaldescriptionsofthetwomarkers.However,informationofaquantitativenature
is incorporated into the analysis to support the identification of the markers functions
andtheircomparison(detailsfollow).
As a preliminary step, I have searched the corpora for all instances of the verbs
sentireand guardare that can be recognized as being used as discourse markers.

Concretely, this means that I have checked every instance found in the data against the
criteria which define the concept of discourse markers I have adopted. As detailed in
chapter 2, section 2.4, I consider as discourse markers items which accompany other
discoursesegmentswithoutbeingsyntacticallyboundtothem,andwhichdonotaddto
the propositional content, but instead convey instructions about how to receive and
interpreteagivenstretchoftalk.Accordingly,Ihaveexcludedthosetokensthatare,for
instance,actualrequeststolookatorlistentosomething(whichcouldberecognizedby
meansofcontextualinformation),otherlessliteral,butstillsemanticallyfulluses(e.g.tu
TherecordingshavebeentranscribedwiththesoftwareFolker(Schmidt/Schtte2010a),whichallowsforthe
alignmentoftextandsoundfiles(forapresentationofthesoftwareseeSchmidtandSchtte(2010b)).
44FollowingVirtanen(2009)Iunderstandcorpusdrivenasopposedtocorpusbasedstudies,whichare
concernedwithtopicsandproblemspredictedfromadvanceinotherfieldsoflanguagestudy(Virtanen
2009:1047).Asimilardistinction,butwithadifferentterminology,ismadebyLemnitzerandZinsmeister
(2006:18f.)betweenkorpusgesttzt(corpussupported)andkorpusbasiert(corpusbased);theformer
referstostudieswhichusecorporatotestandcorrecttheoreticalstatements,thelattertostudiesinwhich
corpusdatarepresenttheprimarysourceofinsight.Thepresentstudywouldthusbekorpusbasiert.
43
52
DATAANDMETHOD
guarda/quellochestannofacendo/[...]aCivitavecchia/presempio lookatwhatthey
aredoing[...]inCivitavecchia,forexample,whereguardaconveysarequesttoconsider
an event, i.e. to mentally observeit, and is syntactically bound to a personal pronoun
and a subordinate clause), as well as interjectional uses. Through this first selection
process,Itracedatotalamountof170tokensofthemarkersenti(intheformssenti,senta,
sentite)and169tokensofguarda(intheformsguarda,guardi,guardate45).
Afterafurtherinspection,30tokensofsentiand27ofguardahavebeenexcluded
because the utterances in which they occurred were interrupted or not fully intelligible,
and, as a consequence, fundamental information for the analysis was missing. In some
cases,functionalpropertiescanstillbepointedout:forexample,inthefollowingexcerpt,
one can quite straightforwardly hypothesize a role of guarda as a turnopening device.
However,theearlyinterruptionofBsturnpreventsusfromdetectinganyotherfunction
that may possibly concern, for instance, the content of the envisaged turn or its
formulation(thesymbolyyyinthetranscriptionsubstitutesforthenameofspeakerB):
(15)
01
A:
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
10
11
12
13
andyou
hai il VIdeo, (-)
B:
A:
B:
A:
B:
08
e TU. (-)
haveavideo...
s;=
Yes
=ai caRAIbi, (-)
intheCaribbean...
[(con i)
[col costu]mino brasiLIAno
inaBrazilianbikini.
(-) hm;
Hm.
[s;
A:
B:
A:
B:
A:
Withth
Yes.
[ma non ti] ci VEdo per yyy.
ButIcantimaginethat,yyy.
h guarda (-) tu=
Guarda,you
=tu devi essere un po' una MATta eh?
Youmustbeabitnuts,arentyou?
hm: b[e'. (--)]
Hm...well...
[((ride))]
(laughs)
OnoneoccasionIhavefoundtheformguardino(imperative,thirdpersonplural)usedasadiscourse
marker.Itoccursinaspeechheldinacourtroom.Thisformisveryrare:apartfromshowinguponlyoncein
thecorpora,itishardlyeverheardinusageandnomentionismadeofittheliterature.Thisisnotsurprising,
sincethethirdpersonpluralasapoliteform(e.g.cosadesiderano?(whatdoyouwish?,literallywhatdo
theywish?))isnotusualinpresentdayItalianandthesecondpersonpluralisnormallyusedinstead(cosa
desiderate?).Theoccurrenceofguardinointhedataislikelytobeduetotheveryformalsituation.
45
53
DATAANDMETHOD
14
B:
15
sicuraMENte::.
forsure...
((ride)) ci sono aspetti cuRIOsi insomma.
(laughs)therearesomecuriousaspects.46
(IB3/1)
Five more tokens (fourof senti andone ofguarda) present the problem that they appear
exactly at the beginning of the respective recordings, so important information for
sequentialanalysisismissing.Thesetokensaretakenintoconsiderationinasmuchasthey
can help in shaping hypotheses about the markers functions, but cannot be fully
analyzed.Thesubtractionofproblematiccasesgivesatotalamountof136tokensofsenti
and141tokensofguardaasadatabasefortheanalysis.
The analysis then proceeds as follows: every token is examined qualitatively in
and with respect to the segment of conversation in which it is embedded, in order to

detectitsfunctionalvalueincontext.Thesinglecontextualfunctionsfurnishthebasisfor
theidentificationofmoregeneralfunctions,andeventuallyofonebasicfunctionforeach
marker(thewholeprocedurewillbedetailedbelow).
For the qualitative analysis of the individual tokens, I draw on methods from
conversationanalysis(henceforth:CA).CAmethodshaveprovenusefulalsooutsidethe
genuineobjectsandgoalsofCAasameanstoanalyzetalkininteraction,andtheyhave
beenfruitfullyemployedtoaddressarangeoflinguisticquestions,includingthestudyof
discoursemarkers(e.g.inFischer(2000)andHansen(1998)).
AsobservedbyFischer(2000:36),thefunctionsofdiscoursemarkerscanonlybe
uncovered with interpretative methods, which imply a component of subjectivity. In

order to carry out interpretative analysis reliably, the datadriven, yet methodologically
constrained approach of CA offers itself as a suitable means (Fischer 2000: 45). Well
establishedanalyticalcategoriescanbeadoptedforasystematicinvestigationofrelevant
stretches of conversation (see also Deppermann/Elstermann 2008: 110). In addition, CA
statesaclearanalyticalprocedurewhichcanbeusedtointerprettheroleandimportof
whatspeakersdoandsayinagiveninteraction,namelythatofanalyzingonespeakers
turns talk based on the other participants understanding of it, as it is displayed in
subsequentturns(seeSacks/Schegloff/Jefferson1974:729).Thus,themethodologicaltools
ofCAseemwellsuitedtoanalyzeinareliable,consistent,anddetailedwaywhatisbeing
doneintherelevantsegmentsofconversation,soastounderstandunderwhatconditions
our discourse markers are produced; this should in turn provide the basis upon which
theirworkingscanbeunderstood.
Howisthisanalysiscarriedoutconcretely?Becausesentiandguardaaretakento
fulfilamultiplicityoffunctions,rangingfromturntaking,totopicshift,totheexpression
of disagreement, it is essential for the analysis of the individual tokens to consider
Recall that I translate all discourse markers appearing in the examples, with the exception of senti and
guarda.ThetranslationsaremeanttorenderthesemanticpragmaticmeaningoftheItalianoriginalasclosely
as possible. Senti and guardaare left untranslated in order to avoidconfusing the reader through the use of
differentequivalents;instead,Iletthedifferentfunctionsofthetwomarkersemergefromthespecificcontext.
46
54
DATAANDMETHOD
different aspects of the conversation on which the markers could have a bearing.
Moreover,thismustbedoneaccordingtoafixedsetofcriteriaforalltokens,inorderto
ensurecomparabilitybothbetweenthedifferentinstancesofamarker,andbetweenthe
twomarkers.
To determine what aspects of interaction to look at, I have first drawn on the
literaturetodefineasetofaspectswhichcouldbetakentoberelevant;Ihavethentested
this first set via two pilot analyses conducted on my own corpus.47 During this pilot
phase, important aspects emerged which had not been taken into account based on the
literatureatfirst,butwhichturnedouttobefundamentalinordertograspthefunctionof
themarkers(e.g.thesequentialstructureoftheconversation,asdescribedunderpoint6
below). This process yielded a set of analytical criteria encompassing several aspects or
componentsoftheconversation.Letmedetailtheminwhatfollows.
(1) As a first criterion, I consider the position of the token to be analyzed with
respecttoitsscope,i.e.thestretchoftalkitrefersto.Weknowthatsentiandguardacanbe
placedbothbeforeandaftertheirscopes.Thepositionoccupiedcanbeconnectedwitha
particularinteractionalvalue:adiscoursemarkerproducedbeforetheunituponwhichit
acts has by virtue of its very position a projecting and preparing effect on that unit,
and it will affect its interpretation in a different way than one that is postposed to its
scope.Inthelattercase,noprojectingorpreparingvaluewillbeatplay,buttheelement
will rather have to be understood as an expost comment on what has been said. As we
shall see later from the results (chapter 7), this feature is not at all trivial, and senti and
guardaturnouttobeusedquitedifferentlywithrespecttoit.
Tounderstandwhetheratokenisrelatedtowhathasprecededitortowhatisto
follow, the degree of prosodic integration in the preceding and following speech is
observed.AshasbeenshownbyElordietaandRomera(2002)inastudyoftheSpanish
entonces(then),thereisarelationbetweenamarkersprosodicintegrationinasegment
ofspeechanditsfunctionalconnectiontoit.Inordertodeterminewithwhichsegmentof
speechinthesurroundingtalkatokenofamarkerismoststronglyintegrated,Ilookata
numberofprosodicphenomena:pausesandmicropausesbeforeandafterit,pitchresets
atitsonset(whichshowseparationfromtheprecedingsegment)orafterit(whichshow
separationfromthefollowingsegment),lengtheningofsoundsbeforeitoratitsend,and
increasing/decreasingspeed.ThesephenomenaareindicatedbySeltingetal.(2009:370)
assignalsofbordersbetweenprosodicsegments.48Theprosodicintegrationofthetokens
Thepilotanalysesincluded,besidessentiandguarda,thediscoursemarkersscusa,(hai)capito,diciamo,and
sai,andtheinterjectionsdaiandvedi,foratotalamountof120tokens.Theideawastoworkoutananalytical
toolsuitableforthestudyofdifferentpragmaticelements,althoughthescopeofthestudywaseventually
restrictedtotwoofthem,duetothedegreeofdetailenvisaged.
48Withrespecttoprosodicfeatures,Ihaveconsciouslydecidednottoanalyzetheintonationcontourofthe
markersalone.Thisfeaturehasprovednottocontributesignificantlytotheidentificationofamarkers
function.Forexample,Fischers(2000)studyoftheGermanparticleja(yes),hasshownthateachofits
functionsisassociatedwithseveralintonationcontours,andthesamecontourmaybefoundindifferent
functions.Intheautomaticassignmentoftokenstofunctionalcategoriesbymeansofaneuralnetwork
simulator,theuseofprosodiccontoursinadditiontopositionalfeatures(e.g.thepositionintheturnand
theutterance)didnotincreasethecorrectfunctionalassignmentsignificantly.Itisinterestingtopointout
47
55
DATAANDMETHOD
in the surrounding speech is first measured perceptively, but in complex cases

instrumentalvisualisationandmeasurementareadded.
(2) A second criterion concerns the position of the token in the turn: I consider
whether it occurs turninitially, turnmedially (i.e. internally), or turnfinally. The unit

turnismeasuredasthetalkproducedbetweentwospeakerchanges,orinotherwords,
the talk produced by one participant from the point at which she starts speaking to the
pointatwhichanotherparticipanttakesover.49Backchannelssuchasmhors(mh,yes)
arenotregardedasturnsbecausetheyarenotaimedataspeakerchange;onthecontrary:
participants who produce them confirm themselves as current nonspeakers. In fact,
because of this role with respect to the turn, such elements can also be termed
continuers(Schegloff2000:5).50
The tokens of senti and guarda are recorded as turninitial when they occupy the
very first position in a speakers turnattalk, and when they are produced at the
beginningofaturntogetherwithotherdiscoursemarkers,buildingchainssuchasallora
senti or ma guarda. In the latter case, the relevant marker obviously occupies the second
position,butitisregardedasbelongingtotheinitialpartoftheturnbecausetheactual
semanticpragmatic content still follows it. Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974: 719)
describe elements like well, but, and so as turnentry devices and prestarts because
they enable the speaker to begin a turn without having a clear plan for the envisaged
sentence(orbetter:fortheenvisagedturnconstructionalunit,whichcanbeasentence).
These items make it possible to avoid that overlap at turnbeginning might impair
analyzabilityandthefirstsentencesconstructionaldevelopment.Hence,adistinctioncan
bemadebetweenthemomentinwhichaspeakerstartstalkingandthebeginningofturn
content proper. The whole area that precedes the production of the actual message is
consideredasturninitialintheanalysis,andanytokenofsentiandguardaappearingin
thisareaisclassifiedasturninitial,regardlessofwhetheritistheveryfirstworduttered
bythespeakerinherturnornot.
Similar considerations are valid for a small number of cases in which, before
utteringthemarker,speakersaddresstheinterlocutorsbytheirname.Thenameisnota
part of turn content, but has the only function of attracting the interlocutors attention,
similarlytodiscoursemarkersthemselves(infact,addresstermslikeSirareconsidered
pragmaticmarkersbyFraser(2006)).51
that,conversely,theadditionofinformationabouttheutterancespragmaticfunctiondidproducea
significantincreaseintheaccuracyofcategoryassignment(Fischer2000:117ff.).
49SeealsothedefinitionofturnsinFischer(2000:18).
50Continuersareelementsbywhichrecipientsofanotherstalkcanshowpreciselythattheyunderstandthat
thespeakerisinthecourseofanextendedturnattalkwhichisnotyetcomplete(Schegloff2000:5).
51Therearefewborderlinecases(fourinallcorpusdata)inwhichtherelevantmarkerisutteredbetweena
leftdislocatedpersonalpronounioandtherestoftheutterance,asinthefollowingexample:
*PAO:[<]<maate>daquantchetigarban/insomma/chetuascolti/iDepecheMode?
ButhowlonghaveyoulikuhhaveyoubeenlisteningtoDepecheMode?
*SAB:ma/io/senti/perchcerailmifratello/chegliascoltavaquanderagiovane//
Well,asforme,senti,becausemybrotherusedtolistentothemwhenhewasyoung.
(CORALROM,ifamdl09)
56
DATAANDMETHOD
Tokensproducedafterthebeginningofturncontentproperareclassifiedasturn
medial. The amount of material preceding the marker in this case can vary from one
single utterance to several, but this is not relevant for this part of the analysis. The
purpose of the distinction between turninitial and turnmedial position is to detect
functionsrelatedtoturnopeningandturnallocation,andwhilethesekindsoffunctions
canbepresentintokensproducedintheturninitialarea,theycannotbeatplayintokens
appearingwhenturncontenthasalreadystartedtobeconstructed,nomatterhowlong.
Regardingtheturnfinalposition,ithastobepointedoutthatIdonotexpectsenti
and guarda to function as turnclosing and turnyielding devices. In fact, one could
disregard this position altogether: for example, Travis (2005: 86) classifies tokens of the
markerbuenoappearingattheendofturnsasturnmedial,becausetheirfunctionisnot
connectedtoflooryielding,butisequivalenttothatofturnmedialtokens.However,for
reasons of symmetry, I opt for keeping the turnfinal position as a category on its own,
also to allow for comparability with other markers such as sai or (hai) capito in future
studies.
(3) Again with regard to the system of turntaking, I am interested in detecting
possible uses of senti and guarda to interrupt the current speaker. Therefore, I observe
whetherthetokensareproducedinoverlapwithotherspeakerstalk,andifyes,whether
the
current
turn
had
reached
transitionrelevance
place
(TRP)
(see
Sacks/Schegloff/Jefferson1974:721)atthemomentoftheoverlap.
(4) In order to discern potential functions related to the management of
formulation problems, I look at the presence of phenomena that may evidence such
troublesnexttotheanalyzedtokens(ortothechain,ifthetokenappearsinachainwith
othermarkers).Moreexactly,Iobservesilentpauses,filledpausessuchasmhoreh,and
lengthened sounds. In the data from the CORALROM, I analyze these phenomena
perceptively, but instrumental measurement is added in complex cases. As for the data
from my own corpus, all silent and filled pauses and lengthened sounds have already
beenmeasuredinstrumentallyduringtheprocessoftranscription.
Withrespecttothedetectionofformulationproblems,Ialsoconsiderthepresence
ofreformulations,asforexampleperch/facendolo/o meglio/annunciandodivoler
[...] (because in doing this, better: in announcing that he wants to [...]); I also look at
repetitionsofwordsandphrases,suchastimostro=timostrounaCOsa;(Illshowyou
Ill show you something). Expressions that introduce reformulations, like o meglio
above,orthatindicatedifficultiesinfindingappropriatewordsorcontents,suchasnon
loso(Idontknow)orcomedire(howcanIsay),aretakenintoaccountaswell.
(5)Ifurthermoreobservewhatactionsthespeakerscarryoutintheinteractionby
meansoftheutterancesinwhichsentiandguardaoccur.Byactions,Imeanforexample
ThepronounioisnotneededfromasyntacticpointofviewItalianbeingaprodroplanguageand
cannotbeintegratedinthefollowingsentence(perchcerailmifratello).Itsfunctionisratherpragmatic
innature:itunderlinesthatthefactstoberecountedconcernthespeakerpersonally,anditisprobablyalsoa
waytobegintheexpectedanswerwithouthavingplannedwhattosay,soastogaintimeforformulation.In
viewofthesefacts,Iconsiderthewholesequencema/io/sentiasaturninitialarea.
57
DATAANDMETHOD
thatspeakersexpressanopinion,makeanoffertotheirinterlocutors,oraskaquestion.
Thisisafundamentalaspectoftheinteractionwhichisoftenoverlookedinthestudyof
discourse markers, and of senti and guarda in particular, or is confined to sporadic
observations but not systematically investigated. However, we know that discourse
markers do act on this level: Schiffrin (1987) has shown that discourse markers interact
with what is called, in her discourse model, the action structure, i.e. the level of
discoursethatconcernsthespeechactsrealizedbythespeakersandthepatternsinwhich
they are ordered (Schiffrin 1987: 25). In Dostie (2004), the relation of discourse markers
with the actionrelated aspect of talk is reflected by the fact that her descriptions of
markerssystematicallycompriselistsofspeechacttypesthatareaccompaniedorrealized
bythem.Therelevanceofthisrelationisalsomirroredintheclassificationofasubsetof
markersasmarqueursillocutoires(Dostie2004:47),definedbythefunctionsofguiding
the interpretation of illocutionary acts or realizing illocutionary acts in themselves. Also
Bazzanella (2006a: 463) affirms that discourse markers that fulfil modalizing functions
relative to speakers cognitive states concern propositional content, speakers
commitment, and illocutionary force. So, it seems important to ask what actions the
participants in a conversation are accomplishing when they use senti and guarda, and
whatactionsthetwomarkersrelateto.
Tobeprecise,adistinctionshouldbemadebetweentheconceptofspeechactsand
illocutionary force on one hand, as defined within Speech Act Theory by Austin (1962)
andfurtherbySearle(1969,1975,1979),andthebroaderconceptofactionontheother
hand.Inthepresentwork,IdonotrefertoSpeechActTheoryfortheanalysisofmydata,
so I prefernot to use the termspeech act. Of course, Speech Act Theory has played a
central role in the emergence of the very idea that speech should be looked at as the
performanceofactions,andthedescriptionofwhataspeakerisdoingwithanutterance
cannotbeseparatedfromtherecognitionthatutteranceshaveapoint,correspondingto
certainintentionsofthespeaker.52
However,theapplicationofthetraditionalspeechactcategoriestotheanalysisof
natural data has proven problematic. The concept of speech acts and the types of acts
consideredbySearledonotoriginatefromanempiricalprocedure;besides,asnotedby
Fiehleretal.(2004:182),thetheoryregardsalimitednumberofprototypicalactsonly.For
thesereasons,thecomplexityofrealutterances,whichderivesfromtheirproductionand
interpretation in context, poses several problems for treatment in terms of speech acts.
Therefore,forterminologicalandmethodologicalclarity,andevenifIrefertostudiesthat
dotalkaboutspeechacts,Iwillnotusethisterm,butrathersticktothemoreneutral
termaction.
Turning to the concrete way in which speakers actions are identified and
described, I rely on evidence that is present in the conversation. According to Sidnell

(2010: 61ff.), there are three kinds of evidence we can use in addition to our own
Notonlytheillocutionarypoint,butalsotheother11typesofdifferenceswhichaccordingtoSearle(1979:
2f.and1975:1f.)defineanillocutionaryactareinevitablyinvolvedinthedescriptionoftheactionsthat
speakersaccomplishbymeansoftheirtalk.
52
58
DATAANDMETHOD
intuition to ascertain the action accomplished by a speaker in a certain stretch of

conversation. First, we can exploit formal (e.g. syntactic, but also prosodic) features: we
cancomparetherelevantutterancewithotherutterancesthathavesimilarfeatures,and
ask if they accomplish similar tasks. Secondly, we can consider the interlocutors
responses, as these reveal how the other participants in the conversation actually
understood the utterance (the socalled nextturn proof procedure). Thirdly, we can
lookattheprecedingturn,towhichtheutteranceinquestionwasmeanttorespond.
Asweshallseelater,lookingatwhatspeakersaredoingatthemomentinwhich
theyuseamarkerprovidesinsightfulinformationaboutitsfunction,andbothsentiand
guardawillturnouttobestronglyrelatedwithspecifictypesofactions.
(6)Onahigherlevelofdescription,speakersactionsareknowntobefunctionally
tied together in sequences. For example, they can be organised as question and answer,
request and granting, or offer and acceptance, to start with most basic adjacency pairs,
and they can build complex sequences extending over several turns (see Schegloff 2007:
22ff., Liddicoat 2007: 125ff.). As it reflects the speakers accomplishment of joint
activities,53thisisacentralaspectorcomponentoftheinteractionanditisessentialtosee
whether and how senti and guarda relate to it. I therefore observe whether the tokens
appear at points in the conversation that are relevant for sequential organisation; more
precisely,Iexaminewhethertheyareproducedinplaceswherespeakersstartasequence,
carry on a sequence that has already been started, or resume the construction of a
sequence that has previously been started and then suspended (for example, by the
insertionofanembeddedone).
(7)Movingontoastillhigherlevel,Iconsidertherelationofthetokenstowhatis
called the conversations macrostructure (Makrostruktur, Spiegel/SpranzFogasy

2001:1242),superstructure(FrankJob2006),globalstructure(FrankJob2006,seealso
globale Organisationsstruktur (global organization structure) in Glich/Mondada
(2008: 86)), or overall structural organization (Schegloff/Sacks 1973: 289, Sidnell 2010:
150); that is, the conversations organization in an opening, a core, and a closing part. I
observe whether the tokens to be analyzed appear at points that are relevant for the
transitionfromoneparttoanother,andifyes,whichofthetransitionsisconcerned.As
thisconstitutesanimportantaspectorcomponentoftheconversationtowhichspeakers
orient,andwhichtheycooperatetoconstruct,itisinterestingtoseewhetherandhowour
discoursemarkersrelatetoitandpossiblyactonitsdevelopment.
Out of the different labels used for this level of conversation structuring, I will
adopt, in what follows, that of global structure, which appears general enough to be
theoreticallyunambiguousandatthesametimeclearinitsreference.
(8) A further criterion relates to the topic structure of the conversation. As both
senti and guarda have been assigned to those categories of markers that signal topic
change,itisinterestingtoseewhatroletheyplayexactlyinthestructuringoftopics.To
this end, I observe whether the tokens occur at places that are relevant for topic
Sequencesarethevehicleforgettingsomeactivityaccomplished(Schegloff2007:2).
53
59
DATAANDMETHOD
organizationornot.Moreconcretely,Iaskwhethertheyoccuratashiftfromatopic or
subtopic to a new one,54 or inside a stretch of conversation in which the topic remains
constant.
It is wellknown that identifying the topic of a given stretch of talk and
determiningwheretopicshiftsoccurcanbearathercomplicatedissue,especiallybecause
speakersoftenmovefromonetopictoanothergradually.Still,it ispossibletoorientto
formalfeaturesoftalkinordertounderstandwhattopicspeakersattendtoandwherea
differenttopicisbroughtup.
Sacks (1995 vol. 1: 752) observed that there are phenomena in conversation that
manifestthatspeakersareengagingintopicaltalk.Thewayapersonoraplaceisreferred
to, for instance, can display that a speaker is orienting to a certain topic: referring to a
personasthewomanwholivestherenowdisplaysorientationtoatopic:ahousefor
rent;referringtothesamepersonasawidowdisplaysorientationtoadifferenttopic:
the reason why she is moving. Sidnell (2010: 224) points out how speakers uses of
referring expressions can be taken as evidence for attendance to a given object as the
current topic. The use of nouns, pronouns, anddeictic expressions pointing to the same
thing,fact,orsituation,displaythecontinuingattentionofspeakerstothesametopic.
Inadditiontothiskindofevidence,speakersoftentimesexplicitlyannouncetheir
intentiontoleavethecurrenttopicandtalkaboutsomethingelsewithexpressionsliketi
volevo dire (I wanted to tell you), or they state the next topic by means of utterances
withametadiscursivevalue,suchasarriviamoallepolitiche(letsturntothepolitics)
ortorniamoaquellaragazza(letsgobacktothatgirl).Orientationtoatopiccanalso
bedisplayedbyaskingforinformationaboutacertainsubject(e.g.tuomarito?(what
about your husband?)), or by the use of socalled left dislocations (e.g. la tua
preparazione / com? (your preparation, how is it?)), which bring a subject to the
participants attention (see Glich/Mondada 2008: 85ff.). Traces of this organizational
work can be used to reconstruct the development of topics in the conversations and,
thereby,allowustoobservewhetherandhowsentiandguardarelatetotopicstructure.
(9) Finally, I register whenever the tokens occur in quoted speech. By quoted
speechImeanallinstancesofreporteddirectspeechthatspeakersembedintheirturns,
regardless of whether they actually reproduce what somebody has said before, or not.
Consequently, besides actual quotations of utterances previously produced by another
person or by the speaker herself, I include embedded direct speech constructed by
speakers in order to illustrate what somebody could say or have said in a certain
situation,forexample:jedevedi/guardi/successoquesto...55(youmustsaytohim:
BysubtopicsImeantopicsthatcanberecognizedasaspectsofamoreglobal,overarchingtopictalked
aboutinthesameconversation;inStenstrms(1994:150)words:particularaspectsofthemaintopic.
55TheformjeisadiatopicallymarkedformfortheStandardItalianpronoungli(tohim).Theformdi
standsfordire(tosay).Themetadataofthetranscriptfromwhichthisexampleistaken(CORALROM,
itelpv13)statethatthespeakercomesfromTerni,inMiddleItaly.Thereadershouldbearinmindthatmany
examplescontaindiatopicallymarkedfeatures.Asthisisnotrelevantforthepresentwork,Iwillnotexplain
everysinglecase,butonlythosethatmightbeparticularlydifficultforreaderswhohavenoadvanced
knowledgeofItalian.
54
60
DATAANDMETHOD
guardi, this has happened). I also include direct speech embedded in fictional tales,
suchas:eilre/glidice/senti/setuvuoirestare/iohoqualcosa/dafartifare//(and
thekingsays:senti,ifyouwanttostay,Ihaveataskforyou).
In sum, a systematic analysis of each token of senti and guarda is carried out
according to the following criteria, corresponding to different aspects or components of

theconversation:56
1) position with respect to the scope (identified by prosodic features that mark
borders between prosodic segments: pauses, pitch resets, sound lengthening,
speed)
2) positionintheturn
3) occurrencewithphenomenapointingtointerruption:overlaps,turnbeginbefore
TRPs
4) occurrencewithphenomenapointingtoformulationproblems:silentpauses,filled
pauses,andlengthenedsounds;reformulationsandrepetitions
5) actionscarriedoutbythespeakersbymeansoftheutterancesinwhichthetokens
appear
6) positionwithrespecttotheconversationssequentialorganization
7) positionwithrespecttotheconversationsglobalstructure
8) positionwithrespecttotopicstructure
9) occurrenceinquotedspeech
Thequalitativeanalysisoftheindividualtokensaccordingtothesecriteriaconstitutesthe
firststepofthewholeanalysis,whicheventuallyleadsthroughabottomupprocedure
totheidentificationofbasicfunctions.Letusseehowthisprocedureisshaped.
Theanalysisstartsoutfromtheexaminationofsentiandguardaseparately.Every
token is first analyzed according to the criteria exposed above in order to identify the
functionsitaccomplishesincontextforexample,itmayservetosignalthatthespeaker
is going to close the conversation, or to resume a previous topic, and so on. Then, all
tokensofamarkerwiththeirrespectivecontextualfunctionsarecomparedwitheach
other so as to detect common functional features. On this basis, hypotheses are
formulated about more general functions of the marker, which should enable us to
accountforseveralinstancesofitsuse.
Iamawarethatmoreglobalaspectsofconversation,suchasthesituationinwhichtheconversationis
held,thegoalsoftheinteraction,andtherolesofthespeakers,couldbetakenintoaccountaswell,asisdone
forexampleintheanalysesconductedbyFischer(2000)andHansen(1998).EventhoughIdokeepsuch
globalaspectsinmindwhenIanalyzethecorpusdata,IdonotregisterthemsystematicallyandIdonot
includetheminquantitativeanalyses,becauseitseemstomethatsuchaspectsarenotfundamentalforthe
aimofdiscoveringthemarkersfunctions.Letmeexplainthisbetter.Globalfeaturessuchasthetypeof
interactionandtherolesoftheparticipantsdetermine,andareconsequentlyreflectedin,morelocalfeatures;
so,theconsiderationoftheformerisentailedintheconsiderationofthelatter.Forexample,aninterviewwill
certainlycontainmanyusesofamarkerasatopicshiftdevice,buttheusefortopicshiftisnotdirectly
determinedbythegenreinterview,butratherbytherecurrenceoftopicshiftswhichisentailedinthisgenre.
Theuseofamarkertosignaltopicshiftcanbebestdetectedonalocallevelbyconsideringthetopicstructure
oftherelevantstretchoftalk,ratherthanbyobservingthetypeofinteraction.Whileglobalaspectsare
certainlyinterestinginordertolearnaboutamarkersoveralldistributioninlanguageuse,itseemstomethat
theyarenotindispensableindiscoveringitsconcretefunctions.
56
61
DATAANDMETHOD
Atthisstage,somebasicquantitativedataareincorporatedintotheanalysis.The
informationabouttherelationofthetokenswiththedifferentaspectsorcomponentsof
conversationasobtainedfromthefirststepoftheanalysisisapttobequantified:itis
possible, for instance, to observe how often a marker appears in turninitial position, or
beforeatopicshift,etc.Thisrevealstendenciesinthemarkersusewhichcanbeexploited
toformhypothesesaboutitsworkings.
In addition, differences between the two markers senti and guarda are taken into
consideration:bycomparingtheirdistributionwithrespecttotheaspectsorcomponents
ofconversationexamined,oneisabletoseesomeclearlydivergentpatterns(forexample,
sentiisusedextremelyofteninquestions,butguardaneveris).Suchdivergencescallfor
an explanation in terms of the respective functions of the markers, so their observation
contributestotheformulationofhypothesesaboutthemarkersworkings.
The hypothesized functions are then tested against the single tokens in the
corpora,corrected,andretestedinarecursiveprocess.Theresultisarelativelysmallset
of observably recurrent functions by means of which all instances of a marker can be
explainedaccurately.Ishallrefertothemasmainfunctions.
Whileaffectingdifferentlevelsoftheinteractionforexample,weshallseethat
senti is used, among others, for turn allocation and for sequential organization these
mainfunctionsmanifestcommonfeatureswhichpointtoastillmoregeneralfunctionas
theircommonroot.Therefore,afurtherprocessofhypothesisformulationandtestingis
conducted in order to work out one fundamental function from which all uses of the
marker can be derived. I shall call this the basic function or basic message of the
marker.ThisbottomupanalysisisschematicallyrepresentedinFigure1.
Figure1:Theanalysisstartsfromthecontextualfunctionsoftheindividualtokens;thenthemainfunctionsofamarkerare
workedout;finally,abasicfunctionisidentified.
The procedure just described calls for some explanation with regard to the
opposition amply discussed in the literature between three approaches to the
62
DATAANDMETHOD
multifunctionalityofdiscoursemarkers,knownasmonosemy,homonymy,andpolysemy
approaches.Inthehomonymyapproaches,everyreadingofagivenformisconsideredas
ameaningonitsown,andnorelationsaretakentoholdbetweenthereadings;thistype
of approach is, however, far less common in literature than the other two (see Fischer
2006a: 13). The monosemy approach, in contrast, is advocated by several scholars. It
assumes that a given form is tied to a single core meaning, and that this core meaning
gives rise to different interpretations due to pragmatic processes that take place in
contextualuse(seeFischer2006a:13).Somemodelshavebeenelaboratedtoaccountfor
the derivation of distinct interpretations from one core meaning via contextual factors
(e.g. Fischer 2000, Diewald 2006). Finally, in polysemy approaches, it is assumed that a
form has different meanings, which are nevertheless connected to each other by, for
instance,metaphoricalormetonymicrelationships,orbythefactthatoneimplicatesthe
other; sometimes, however, the different meanings are not taken to have any common
components(seeFischer2006a:13).
Scholars who take different approaches adduce different arguments for their
choices. Dostie (2004: 50), who takes a polysemy approach, observes that the core
meanings elaborated within monosemic descriptions are sometimes so general that they
could be applied to just any lexical unit. On the other hand, Diewald (2006:423)argues
thatdistinguishingseparatelexemeinherentmeaningsfromcontextualvariationsofone
and the same meaning is difficult for a number of reasons: firstly, because the items in
question have abstract and nonreferential meanings; secondly, because many factors
have to be taken into account in the distinction, such as frequency, stereotypicality, and
register; and thirdly, because there are permanently stereotypical contextual
interpretationsintheprocessofbeingsemanticized,sotheborderbetweenmeaningand
contextual variation is actually fluid. As Waltereit (2006b: 145) notices, the decision for
oneoftheapproachesisoftentimesnotsomuchguidedbyempiricalconsiderationsand
dependent from the case in question, but it is rather founded in theoretical or even
ideologicalchoices.57
As far as the present study is concerned, I originally set out with the idea of
describing different functional types of senti and guarda, but I have eventually come to
identify one basic function for each marker. The reason for this development is that the
functions I was gradually discovering in the analysis of the data appeared to be too
closelyinterrelatednottolookforacommonroot,anditseemedtomethatfindingthis
rootwouldbefundamentaltotheunderstandingofthemarkersmultifunctionalityand
of the way in which different functions often shade into each other. So, in the present
work,thesearchforonefundamentalfunctiondoesnotfollowfromatheoreticaldecision
madeattheoutset,butindeedfromtheconsiderationoftheitemsunderstudy.
Ilsagiteneffetnonseulementdunproblmeempirique,quelonpeutrsoudredunefaonoudune
autreselonlecas,maisaussidunchoixdordrethoriqueoupresqueidologique(itisinfactnotonlyan
empiricalproblem,whichcanbesolvedinonewayortheotherdependingonthecase,butatheoreticalor
almostideologicalchoice)(Waltereit2006b:145).Waltereithimselffavorsapolysemyapproach(seechapter4
above).
57
63
ANALYSIS
7. Analysis
This chapter will present a functional description of the discourse markers senti and
guardaasresultedfromtheanalysisofcorpusdata.
Section7.1willbededicatedtosenti,section7.2toguarda.ForeachmarkerIwill
describe a set of main functions, i.e. observably recurrent functions that account for the
useoftheelementwithdifferentpurposesandondifferentlevelsoftheinteraction.Then,
I will come to describe its basic function or basic message, i.e. a more general,
fundamentalfunctionencodedintheitemthatgivesorigintoallofitsmorespecificuses.
Throughtheidentificationofabasicfunction,itwillbepossibletogiveaunifiedaccount
ofthemarkersusage.
Section7.3willbedevotedtoacomparisonbetweensentiandguarda.Thiswillbe
donebycontrastingtheirdistributionrelativetoseveralaspectsoftheconversation(such
as the turnsattalk, the topic structure etc.), in other words: by comparing the
environmentsinwhichtheyareusedbyspeakers.58Thiswillprovideatangiblebasisfor
comparisonbetweenthetwoitemsandallowustounderpintheirfunctionaldescriptions.
7.1. Senti
7.1.1. Openingaturn,gainingattention
I shall start by illustrating how speakers use senti to open a turnattalk and call other
participants attention to it. The two functions are discussed together because attention
getting can hardly be separated in usage from other functions: the call for attention is
always associated with the signalization thatthe speaker is about to say something.59 In
fact,attentiongettingwillalsobeimpliedinthefunctionsthatIwillexaminenext.
Consider example (16). Speakers JHO, SIM, ROD, and SAR are taking part in a
roleplaygame.JHOandSIMtalkaboutaswordthatispartofthegameequipment;ROD
isconcernedwithsomeglassesonthetable.60
(16)
*JHO:lamiaspada/dov?
Whereismysword?
Giventhatthefunctionsofsentiandguardaaretheresultoftheanalysisandcannotbeabasisfor
comparisonthemselves,theonlywaytocomparesentiandguardaisbycontrastingthecontextsinwhichthey
areused,whichinturngivecluesabouttheirworkings.
59Aninterjectionlikeehi!canbeusedtocallattentionwithoutbeingfollowedbyanyutterance.Senti,instead,
cannevercomealone(notinitsdiscoursemarkinguse);italwaysaccompaniesanutteranceandthereby
prefiguresitsproduction.
60Alltranslationsoftheexamplesaremine.MetatextualcommentsintranscriptsfromtheCORALROM,
however,werewritteninEnglishbythetranscribers.
58
64
ANALYSIS
*SIM:eh?
%exp:cough
Uh?
*JHO:lamiaspadalhoio?
Mysword,doIhaveit?
*ROD:senti/codesti<bicchieri>/sontuttedue...
Senti,theseglasses,aretheyboth...
*SIM:[<]<no>//
%add:heanswertoJHO.[sic]
No.
%par:SARpointsouttheglass[sic]
*ROD:ah/mio//
Oh,itsmine.
*SAR:no//volevichenavessedueluie<tepunti>//
Duh!Youthoughthehastwoandyoudonthaveany?
*ROD:[<]<nonelsenso>seera/unote/unolui...
No,Imean,ifitslike:oneforyou,oneforhim...
*SIM:unote/unolui/unolaltro//
Oneforyou,oneforhim,onefortheother.
*ROD:tuttedueluianche//semagarixxx/avevadettochecavevasete//
Orbothforhim.Maybeifxxx,hesaidhewasthirsty.
(CORALROM,ifamcv07)
JHOhasaskedthequestionlamiaspadalhoio?(itisnotclearwhetherthequestionis
addressed to some participant in particular). Before any answer is given, ROD selects
himself as the next speaker to ask whom two glasses on the table belong to. His turn is
overlappedbySIM,whoanswersJHOsquestion(no).SARreactstoRODsquestionby
showingorperhapshandingoutoneglasstohim,fromwhichRODunderstandsthatthat
glassbelongstohim(ah/mio//).
RODsquestion,introducedwithsenti,initiatesanewadjacencypairrightinthe
middleoftheonejuststartedbyJHO,anditconcernsacompletelyunrelatedsubject.In
view of these conditions, we can assume that ROD needs to announce his question and
callattentiontoitinordertogettheanswerheislookingfor.Inthiscontext,themarker
sentiinturninitialpositionassumesthefunctionofdirectingtheparticipantsattentionto
the upcoming talk, and at the same time announcing the beginning of the turn. This
analysis is in line with the generally agreed upon interpretation of the marker as an
opening signal and attentiongetter (see among others Stammerjohann (1977), Lichem
(1981),Mara(1986),Bazzanella(1994a,1995,2001a),Ziccolella(2007),Koch/Oesterreicher
(2011)).
Senticanalsobeexploitedtoselectaninterlocutorincaseswheremorethanone
participant could be addressed, a use also noticed by Ziccolella (2007: 368). In example
(17) we observe an excerpt from a talkshow interview, where host CAT is talking with
twointervieweescalledFRAandPAO.
65
ANALYSIS
(17)
*FRA:allafine/possiamodireche&l[/]che[/]che[/]cheilmeccanismo&darvi[/]&da
[/]darviniano/della/comedire/della+
IntheendwecansaythatththatthatthatDarwDaDarwinsmechanismofhowcanIsay?
Of
*CAT:dellevoluzione//
Ofevolution.
*FRA:/dellevoluzionedellaspecie/semprelostesso/dopodiche/<sicerca>+
Ofspeciesevolutionisalwaysthesame.Then,onetriesto
*CAT:[<]<ilsapere>noncambianulla?
Doesntknowledgechangeanything?
*FRA:ilsapere/cambia//euno/sidevesforzarediesseremigliore//
Knowledgedoeschangethings.Andoneshouldstrivetoimprove.
*CAT:bene//
Okay.
*PAO:nonfacile//
Itsnoteasy.
*CAT:no//
Itisnt.
*FRA:no/per...
Itisnt,but...
*CAT:senti/Paola/hai[/]haidichiaratodiessereunapersona/focosa/diavere[///]di
prendere[///]dinfiammarti/<facilmente>//
Senti,Paola,youhavesaidthatyouareahotbloodedperson,youhaveyoucatchyourfeelings
areeasilyinflamed.
*PAO:[<]<vero>//unmiograve<difetto//ss>//
Yes,thatsaverybaddefectofmine,yes.
*CAT:[<]<ecco//perchecosa>?checoscheti/suscita/chefa<scattarequella
scintilla>?
Yes,forwhatreasons?Whatmakesyouwhatmakesthatsparkstart?
*PAO:[<]<innanzitutto/leingiustizie>//
Injustice,firstofall.
(CORALROM,imedts08)
The first six turns are exchanged between talkshow host CAT and interviewee FRA.
Then,theotherinterviewee,PAO,intervenestoassessthepreceptstatedbyFRA,withthe
turnnonfacile;CATandFRArespondtotheassessment(withno//andno/per
...).AfterthecompletionofFRAslastturn,CATstartsanewsequence,andthistimeshe
selects PAO as her interlocutor (and as the next speaker, since she asks a question),
addressing her by name. In sum: CAT was first engaged in an exchange with FRA, in
whichPAOintervenes;fromnowon,however,CATaddressesPAOonly.Thepresenceof
sentiatthe beginningofherturn, besidesannouncingthe upcomingtalk,callsattention
andhelpsmanagethechangetothenewaddressee.
66
ANALYSIS
7.1.2. Interruptingthecurrentspeaker
In the next example we shall observe another use of senti for purposes related to the
management of turntaking. Example (18) shows a segment of a phone call between
university professor ELA and teacher MIC. MIC is going to give a seminar for ELAs
students;thetwospeakersaremakingarrangements.
(18)
*ELA:[...]perchpoi/sonoanche[/]anche&st+bisognaanchedirechesonostanchi/
perchlamaggiorpartediquesti/lamattina/hannolavorato//arrivano/dicorsa//&he
/comedire/hannomangiatounpanino/estannotuttoilpomeriggiol//sonounpo
bombardati/quindi/iocapisco/anchelalorodifficolt/laloro/stanchezza/insomma//
per/secifossebisogno/appunto/unpodiallungare+
because,inaddition,theyarealsoalsotonealsohastosaythattheyaretired,becausemostof
them,inthemorning,theywork;theyhurryuphere;uhhowcanIsay,theyhaveeatenasandwich
andtheyspendallafternoonthere.Theyareabitbombardedwiththings,soIunderstandthatits
hardforthem,thattheyaretired,Iguess.Butifyouneedtoextend
*MIC:<manonc>+
Butthereisno
*ELA:[<]/<il>tempolegale/arrivafinoallesette/<equindi>...
Theofficialtimeisuntilseven,so...
*MIC:[<]<s/non[/]non>unproblema/figurati//non+
Yes,itsnotitsnotaproblem,absolutely,not
*ELA:senti/scusami/tivolevochiedereancheunacosatecnica/perch/forsetumel
haiscrittoper/hodeiproblemisulcomputer/nonleggopila[/]laposta//tu/hai
bisognodiundatashow/diunvideoproiettore/nonmeloricordo//
Senti,sorry,Iwantedtoaskyouaboutatechnicalthing,becausemaybeyouhavewrittenittome,
butImhavingsomeproblemswithmycomputer,Icantreadmyemails.Doyouneedadatashow
projector,avideoprojector,Idontremember.
*MIC:s/iohopreparatounapresentazioneconpowerpoint//
Yes,IhavepreparedapresentationwithPowerPoint.
*ELA:conpower<point>//
WithPowerPoint.
(CORALROM,itelpv06)
Aftersayings/non[/]nonunproblema/figurati//,MICstartsanewutterancewith
non,buthestopsonthelastsoundoftheseword,whichistherebylengthenedto0.5
seconds,evidentlytryingtoovercomesomeformulationproblems.Evenifitisnotvisible
from the transcript, at this point ELA starts speaking in overlap with MICs lengthened
non. Despite not having completed the TCU, MIC stops talking and ELA obtains the
turnattalk.Here,sentiisnotsimplyusedtocallattentiontotheupcomingtalk,butalso
and primarily to take the turn away from the other speaker. Note the presence of
scusami (sorry), which demonstrates the speakers awareness of breaking a rule by
interruptingtheother.ThisanalysisconfirmsstatementsmadebyBazzanella(1990,1995)
andManili(1983),whomentionsentiasaninterruptingdevice.Anotherinterestingcaseis
67
ANALYSIS
displayedin(19).Thesegmentisapartofatrial;speakerSAMistheaccused,PUMisthe
prosecutor,andPREisthejudge.
(19)
*SAM:lovedo//non[/]non[/]non[/]nonmeloricordo/onestamente//ma&sicurame
[///]mamagarilhoanchefatto/percarit//nonhomicadettoche+hodettochenonme
loricordo//per/nonchetuttigliappuntamentipoisianostati+
Icanseethat.IdontIdontIdontIdontremember,honestly.ButforsuImaywellhave
doneit,IhaventsaidthatIhavesaidthatIdontremember.Butitsnotlikeallmeetingswere
*PUM:vogliodire/suquestopunto/intendoavvalermidellafacoltdinonrispondere/
unacosa/nonmeloricordo/unaltracosa//
ButImean,onthispointIexercisemyrighttorefusetoanswerisonething,Idont
rememberisanotherthing.
*SAM:allora/sevuoledico/<suquestopunto/nonintendorispondere>//
Then,ifyouwant,IwillsayonthispointIrefusetoanswer.
*PRE:[<]<nono/ehsenta/senta/nonsevuole>ononsevuole//elei/dice/ose[/]se
non[/]senonvuolrispondere/celodicechiaramente//senodice/nonricordo//
No,no,uhsenta,senta,noifyouwantornotifyouwant.Uhyousay,ififyoudontif
youdontwanttoanswer,yousayitclearly,otherwiseyousayIdontremember.
*SAM:iohodetto/<nonricordo>//
IvesaidIdontremember.
(CORALROM,inatla03)
In the third and fourth turns there is a large overlap between speakers SAM and PRE.
AfterSAMsallora/sevuoledico/PREstartsspeakinginoverlapwithhim,although
notransitionrelevanceplacehasbeenreachedyet.PREbeginssayingnono;bythishe
expresses a disapproval that will turn out to refer to SAMs previous utterance: SAM
shouldnotusethewordssevuolewhichwouldmeangivinguptheresponsibilityfor
hisdeclarationbutinsteadstateclearlyhowthingsare.Insuchaconflictsituation,itis
clearthatPREisintentionallyoverlappingSAM.Despitetheoverlap,SAMgoesonwith
hisTCU;PRE,inturn,continuesaswellwithehsenta/senta/nonsevuole,untilSAM
eventuallyrelinquishestheturn.
Similarlytothecasein(18),thespeakerwhousessentiisnotjustcallingattention
to what he has to say, but he is doing so to interrupt the current speaker. SAM keeps
talkingafterPREsnono,soPREcannotgoonwithwhathehastosay,namelywith
the request to make clear statements. Senti provides for the possibility to overlap the
others turn, thereby signalling that one has something to say, and at the same time it
enablesthespeakertodelaytheproductionoftheturncontentuntiltheotherhasgiven
up the turn. Note how the repetition of the marker (senta / senta /) in PREs turn
underlinesthisintention.
68
ANALYSIS
7.1.3. Managingformulationtroubles
Closelyrelatedtothefunctionsjustdescribedistheuseofsentitomaintainattentionand
the turnattalk at points in the interaction at which they are at stake. Example (20) is a
segmentofaninterviewconductedinaprivateenvironment.Thepostgraduatestudent
PAOisinterviewingamancalledBEP,whoisaprojectionistinacinema.
(20)
*BEP:[...]ecco/questoseguita/adaffascinarmi//dal/lamia/proprio/ignoranzadi
meccanica/perchseno/insomma/untecnico/niente/lo[/]loprenderebbecome/cosa
acquisita/normale//per/iorestoimbambolatodifronte+misembraunmiracolo/
tuttelevolte//
[...]now,thiskeepsfascinatingme.Hencemyreallymytechnicalignorance,becauseotherwise,
Imean,atechnician,well,hewouldtakeitforgranted,assomethingnormal.ButIstareatitits
likeamiracletome,everytime.
*PAO:eh/senti/mati+lorifaresti/questo[/]<questolavoro>?
Uhsentibutdowouldyoudoitagain,thisthisjob?
*BEP:[<]<&sen+questo>lavoro//questolavoro/iolhofattopercaso//lhofattoper
caso/enonperscelta//lhofattoperbisogno/nonpercaso//ilcaso/statouncaso/
eccezionale/ilfattochelabbiapotutoincontrare/perchiovengodallartigianato//e
daunartigianato/chemhaportatoadoverchiudereunaditta/perchnonsi
guadagnavapinemmenoisoldi/perpagarlaluce//[...]
Senthisjob.Thisjob,Igotitbyaccident.Igotitbyaccident,andnotoutofchoice.Igotitoutof
necessity,notbyaccident.Theaccidentwasanexceptionalone,thatIcouldfindit,becauseIcome
fromasmallbusiness.Andfromasmallbusinessthatforcedmetocloseacompany,becauseone
didntevenearnenoughmoneytopaytheelectricitybills.[...]
(CORALROM,ifammn13)
The token of senti in this example is again in a turninitial position, but this time the
speakerdoesnotneedtocalltheinterlocutorsattention.IntervieweeBEPhasfinishedhis
turn,whichwastheanswertoapreviousquestion,andPAO,asaninterviewer,isnow
expectedtotakeovertheturnagain.Interestingly,PAObeginsherturnwithaseriesof
hesitation phenomena. After a long eh (1.12 seconds), the marker senti introduces the
beginningofanutterance(mati),butthisisleftincomplete:thespeakerstopsonti,
whosevowelislengthenedto1second;thenshemakesapauseof1.7secondsandstarts
againwithadifferentsyntacticstructure.Evidently,PAOhasnotyetplannedwhattosay
atthemomentatwhichshestartsherturn.Inthiscontext,themarkersentiassumesthe
functiontohelpherkeepingtheinterlocutorsattentionandtheturnattalk,despitethe
factthatshehasnotyetplannedthefollowingutterance.61Tomyknowledge,theuseof
sentiforthemanagementofformulationproblemswaspointedoutonlybyManili(1983).
By saying senti, the speaker signalizes that she is about to say something, and is able to
keeptheothersattentionandtheturn,therebygainingsometimeforformulation.
Obviously,thissentiisalsoaturnopeningsignal.Amarkercanhardlyeverbeassignedonesinglefunction.
However,theopeningfunctionissupersededinthiscasebythatofmaintainingtheattentionandkeepingthe
turnattalkasmorerelevantactivitiesatthispointoftheconversation.
61
69
ANALYSIS
7.1.4. Introducinganewactivity:topics,sequences,andpartsof
conversation
Wenowmovetoafunction,oronecouldsayagroupoffunctions,inwhichsentiactson
thestructureofconversation.Example(21)showsanexcerptfromaphonecallbetween
university professor ELA and researcher ANT. The two participants talk about a third
personwhoisgoingtogiveatalk(apparentlyataconferenceoranexam),andthenabout
ANTscurrentpreparationforanexam.
(21)
*ANT:speriamobene//pensochesia&po[/]unpopreoccupatohhh//
Letshopeforthebest.Ithinkhesabiabitworriedhhh.
*ELA:no/ecco/questobisognerebbedirglielo/chelui/comedire/talmentesuperiore
allasituazione/cometuhaivisto/che+iohocercatodidirglielo/maluimisembrava
uncicredesse//invece+hopaurachesarunagrossadelusione//ma/insomma...
magarifacciamoglidelledomandenoi/ecco/insomma//cosediquestogenere//senti/
latuapreparazione/com?
No,well,this,weshouldtellhim.ThatheishowcanIsaysooverqualified,asyoucouldsee,
thatItriedtotellhim,butitlookedlikehedidntbelieveme.ButImafraidhesgoingtobevery
disappointed,butanyway...Maybewecanaskhimsomequestions,somethinglikethat.Senti,how
isyourpreparationgoing?
*ANT:insomma/hofattounpodicose//ho[/]hodecisochescrivo/lecose/cos<poi>
...
Notbad,Ivedonesomethings.IveIvedecidedtowritedownthings,so...
*ELA:[<]<mh>//tibuttigi<dellescalette>/forsemeglio/eh//
Mh.Yourewritingdownanoutline,maybethatsbetter.
(CORALROM,itelpv04)
In contrast to the previous examples, senti is not related to the activities of calling for
attention,opening,taking,orkeepingtheturn.SpeakerELAisnotbeginninganewturn,
thereisnoevidenceofhesitation,andherrightstotheturnarenotindanger.Itisrather
anothereventthatisimportantforthedevelopmentoftheconversationhere:betweenthe
segments magari facciamogli delle domande noi / ecco / insomma // cose di questo
genere and la tua preparazione / com ?, ELA leaves the current topic (a third
personstalk)andswitchestoanewone(ANTspreparation).62Iarguethatthemainrole
ofsentihereispreciselythatofintroducingthechangeoftopic.
By producing senti, the speaker is able to move the interlocutors attention from
what has been talked about up to that point to what is going to be talked about in the
upcomingstretchoftalk,andchangethedirectionofthediscoursewithoutdisorienting
theinterlocutor.Infact,onewouldfeelthatthenewtopiccomesquitesuddenly,ifsenti
were not there.63 This analysis is in accordance with descriptions of senti as a marker of
InFischersterminology(2006:441),wecouldsaythattopicstructureisthecommunicativedomain,i.e.the
aspectoftheinteraction,towhichthespeakersareattendinghere.
63Thisisconfirmedbytheempiricalinvestigationinchapter8.
62
70
ANALYSIS
topicshift,asfoundinpreviousstudies(seeKhachaturyan2001,Manili1983,Bazzanella
1990 and 1995, Ziccollella 2007). Besides calling attention and helping in taking and
keepingtheturn,sentiisabletoperformwhatwecancall,borrowingTraviss(2005:102)
term,areorientation.Withthisexpression,Travisreferstodiscoursemarkersusessuch
asinitiatingorclosingatopic,returningtoaprevioustopic,andmarkingotherkindsof
breaksintheflowofconversation.Theideaofreorientationseemsveryappropriateto
describesentihere:themarkerredirectstheattentiontosomethingnewandpreparesthe
addresseefortheshift.64
The reorientation function of senti can also work at another level, namely that of
sequences.Theactionsbroughtaboutbyspeakersinaconversationareconnectedtoeach
othertobuildsequences,startingfromsimpleadjacencypairslikegreetinggreetingand
questionanswer up to complex sequences of several turns. The beginning of a new
sequencemostlycorrespondstoachangeintopicorsubtopic;thereare,however,casesin
which speakers begin a new sequence without changing the topic. In cases of this kind,
senti seems to be used precisely to call attention to and prepare the addressee for the
beginningofthenewsequence.
Letusexamineexample(22),anexcerptfromaninterviewconductedinafamiliar
environment.SpeakerELAisinterviewinganoldfamilyfriend,aladynamedLID.LID
talksaboutadogandacatfromtheneighbourhoodthatshesometimesfeeds.First,she
recountshowthedog,calledDuna,enjoysgettingbiscuitsfromher,thenshefocuseson
thecat,Pallino,whichdoesnotlikebiscuitsandgetspiecesofmeat.Then,ELAasksLID
howoftenshetakesthecathomewithher.
(22)
*LID:quande/eglidico/Duna/dico/setutimettiseduta/tibuttoibiscotto//leila
guardansu/versolaterrazza/lasimetteseduta/laspettacheglibuttiibiscotto//
allora/poiltuttacontenta/eh//alloraPallino/ilgattolstraordinario/simette/
accanto/anchelui/allacagna/eguardansuperchaspetta&lu[/]ancheluiqualche
cosa//
%exp:straordinarioisareconstructedword
%exp:theybothlaugh
WhenIsaytoherDunaIsayifyousitdown,Illthrowyouabiscuit;shelooksuptothe
terrace,shesitsdown,shewaitsformetothrowthebiscuit.Thenshessohappy.AndthenPallino,
thecat,hesextraordinary,hestandsnexttothedogandlooksuptomebecauseheexpects
something,too.
*LID:eseglibuttoipezzettino/dellacarne/che/ibiscotto/lui/falacorsapeprendilo
/ma...
AndifIthrowasmallpieceofmeattohim,becauseabiscuit,herunstheretotakeit,but...
80%ofthetokensinthecorporaoccurbeforeastretchoftalkthathasaclearlydifferenttopicorsubtopicas
theprecedingone.Althoughthisdoesnotmeanthattopicshiftmustbetheonlyormaintaskofsentiinall
cases,thestrikingfrequencyofthisenvironmentstronglysuggeststhattheintroductionoftopicshiftmay
havequitesomeweightintheoverallfunctionalspectrumofsenti.Interestingly,themarkerguardahardly
evercooccurswithatopicchange(asweshallseeinsection7.3).Introducinganewtopicseemstobea
specificfunctionofsenti.
64
71
ANALYSIS
*ELA:poinonlomangia/<ibiscotto>//
Thenhedoesnteatit,thebiscuit.
*LID:[<]<no>//nonlomangia/perch/chevuoi/biscotto...no/mapoi/ilgatto/il
biscotto/unc//glipiacelacarne/no?glibuttoqualcheritaglinodicarne/lui/fala
corsa/conlazampa/za//lamettesopralacarne/perchsearrivanolaDuna/la[/]la
glielamangia//sicchlui/tuttocontento...
No,hedoesnt,becauseabiscuit...no,andacat,abiscuitisnothelikesmeat,yousee.Ithrowhim
somemeatchunk,herunsthere,andbang!withhispaw.Heputsitonthemeatchunk,because
ifDunacomes,sheshewilleatit.Andsohessohappy...
*ELA:senti/macheloprendetesempre/ognitanto...
Senti,butdoyoutakehimregularly,oreveryonceinawhile...
*LID:&m&s/quandoloprendoin&ca+viaprendo/unavoltalhaportatolabambina
su//nonmiriconosce//
MswhenItakehimhowell,thegirltookhimhomeonlyonce.Hedoesntrecognizeme.
*ELA:comeno?
Really?
(CORALROM,ifamdl02)
ELAs turn ma che lo prendete sempre / ogni tanto ... is introduced with senti. As in
example (21), senti cannot serve to call for particular attention or to get the turnattalk;
LID has finished her turn (the symbol ... stands for a conclusive prosodic break and
means that the utterance has an intentionally suspended intonation) and ELA not only
cantakeover,but,asaninterviewer,isexpectedtodoso.Incontrastto(21),however,one
wouldnotsaythatthereisashifttoanewtopic:ELAisaskingfornewinformation,but
she is still talking about the cat. The continuity of topic is shown by the use of the
pronoun lo, which refers back to the same object as, in the previous turn, gli and
lui,allpointingtoPallino/ilgatto.
Whatisinteractionallyrelevantatthispointisthatthespeakerisabouttoinitiatea
new sequence of actions, which is characterized by, using Schegloffs (2007: 2) words,
some shapeortrajectory,andwhichbothparticipantswillhavetoconstructtogether.
Similarly to the reorientation of attention towards a new topic, senti performs here a
reorientationtowardsanewsequenceofactions.
Sometimesitappearsthatspeakersusesentitonavigatecomplexsequences,with
or without topic shifts, by marking with it the transition from main sequences to
embeddedonesand/orback.Wecanobservethisuseinexample(23),asegmentfroma
phonecallbetweentwofriends.TwowomencalledSILandHEDaretalkingabouttheir
plansforthefollowingSunday.Thereisgoingtobesomestreetevent(arace,aparade,or
aprocession)whichSILisplanningtoattend,andHEDhasnotyetdecidedwhethershe
willjoinher.
(23)
*SIL:senti/io/tihochiamata/anche/perchvoleosapere/cosavuoifare/domenica//
Senti,IhavecalledyoubecauseIalsowantedtoknowwhatyouwanttodoonSunday.
72
ANALYSIS
*HED:ecco//sentiunpochino//cometuavrestipredisposto/lacosadidomenica?
Yes,sentiaminute,howhaveyouplannedthethingonSunday?
*SIL:io/nonhopredispostoniente//stavochiedendoaGuido/l/comeeraorganizzata
//nonnesaniente//perchlui/questanno/fuori//eva/domani/ostasera/asentire
dovelhannomessodipostazione//
Ihaventplannedanything,IwasjustaskingGuidohowitisorganized.Hedoesntknow.Because
thisyearhesoutside.Andhesgoingtheretomorrowortonighttoknowwheretheyhaveplaced
him.
*HED:eh//
Ah.
*SIL:mh//
Mh.
*HED:hocapito//
Isee.
*SIL:quindi/nonsochegirofanno//
SoIdontknowtheroute.
*HED:ecco//
Okay.
*SIL:mh//
Mh.
*HED:ma/senti/no/ame/mipotrebbeancheandarbene//tantoperilpomeriggio/si
tornaacasa/no?
Well,senti,actuallyitcouldbefineforme.Wewillbegoingbackhomeintheafternoonanyway,
wontwe?
*SIL:no//ancheamezzogiorno/sitornaacasa//perchlpartono[///]bisognaandaresu
presto/chechiudono&l[/]lastrada//<tiricordi>?
No,evenatnoon.BecausetheystartWehavetogothereearly,becausetheyaregoingtocloseth
theroad,remember?
(CORALROM,itelpv01)
SILasksHEDwhatshewantstodo(incidentally,theturnisopenedbysenti),butHED
cannot answer the question: she first has to understandwhat SILsplans are. Note how
the presence of ecco (literally here/there it is, or here/there you are) suggests that the
question about SILs plans for Sunday is something HED had been thinking about and
intended to discuss. With the question come tu avresti predisposto / la cosa di
domenica?HEDstartsapresecondinsertexpansion.65
SILanswersthequestion(or,moreprecisely,shesaysthatshecannotanswer,and
explains why), and after a series of acknowledgments the embedded sequence is

completed.HEDnowgoesbacktothehigherlevelsequence66andstatesthatshemayjoin
Thatis,anexpansionpreliminarytosomeparticulartypeofsecondpairpartwhichhasbeenmade
relevantnextbythetypeoffirstpairparttowhichitisresponding(Schegloff2007:106),orinotherwords:
anexpansioninsertedbetweenthebaseFPPandthebaseSPP(Liddicoat2007:125).Inthepresentexample,
theexpansionispreliminarytotheanswermaderelevantbytheprecedingquestion.
66Thesecondtokenofsentiisprecededbyma.Idonotanalyzemainthiswork,butthereadercanreferto
Bazzanella(1995:233),whoconsidersittobeaturntakingsignal.
65
73
ANALYSIS
the trip. Both the transition to the embedded sequence and the one back to the main
sequencearemarkedbysenti.67
Inviewofcaseslike(22)and(23),Isuggestthatsentisignalsthebeginningofwhat
wecouldcall,ingeneralterms,anewactivity.Bychangingtoanewtopic,orengaging
inanewsequence,speakersturntoanewcourseofaction,theysetouttoaccomplisha
new job through their interaction. Senti helps speakers make the beginning of such an
activiyclearfortheirinterlocutors.
As a natural consequence, senti also serves to indicate shifts at the level of the
conversationsglobalstructure.Thisisexemplifiedin(24),theinitialpartofaphonecall
inwhichspeakersLIAandMAXmakearrangementsforanappointmentthatMAXwill
havewithathirdperson.
(24)
*MAX:pronto//
Hello?
*LIA:Massimo?
Massimo?
*MAX:s?
Yes?
*LIA:senti/tivolevodire/supergi/sucheoralovuoilappuntamento?
Senti,Iwantedtoaskyou:roughly,atwhattimeshouldtheappointmentbe?
*MAX:mah/&he[///]e/perch/acheora/&heincomicia/<aricevere>?
Well,uhuhwhy?Whendotheofficehoursstart?
*LIA:[<]<nonloso>/appunto//acheorativabene/ate?iononloso/se<lui>midice/
allequattro/alletre/alle<sei>//
Idontknow,thatsthepoint.Whenwoulditfityou?Idontknowifhesaysatfour,atthree,at
six.
*MAX:[<]<eh>//<>dipomeriggio/comunque//
Uhsoitsintheafternoon,inanycase.
*LIA:s//diamine/<lui/te>+
Yes.Gosh,he
*MAX:[<]<ss>//nono/vabene//primapossibile/naturalmente//<lequattro>//
Yesyes,nono,itsokay.Asearlyaspossible,ofcourse.Atfour.
(CORALROMitelpv07)
In(24)werecognizethetypicalelementsofaphonecallsopening.Theopeningpartof
telephone conversations typically includes a summons/answersequence, a mutual
identification, greetings, and the introduction of the first topic as the reason for calling,
which ends the opening part and leads to the core of the conversation (see
Glich/Mondada2008:7,Spiegel/SpranzFogasy2001:1247).
SinceSILhasopenedherinitialquestionwithsenti,onecanhypothesizeaprimingeffectasacauseforthe
subsequentoccurrenceofsenti.Thismaybethecase.Still,itdoesnotchangeanythingforourobservations,
sincethefollowingtokenscouldhavebeenutteredindependentlyfromthepresenceofthefirst.
67
74
ANALYSIS
AfterMAXhasansweredthephone(pronto?),LIAidentifiesherinterlocutorby
saying Massimo ?. With the following s ?, MAX confirms the identification and
signalsthatheislisteningandLIAcangoon.LIAsfollowingturnstatesthereasonfor
thecall(seetivolevodire/)andtherebyintroducesthefirsttopicoftheconversation,
namely the arrangements for MAXs appointment (su per gi / su che ora lo vuoi l
appuntamento?).ThisturnbyLIAisprefacedbysenti.Oncemore,wecanassumethat
by uttering the marker, LIA is not trying to calling for attention, since MAX has just
signalledthatheislisteningtoher.Rather,whatisimportanthereisthatLIAisleaving
the opening moves and coming to the main point of her call. At this point of the
conversation,shemaywellwanttomakesurethatMAXfollowsher,andsheusessentito
preparethetransition.68
ThisuseisalsoobservedbyManili(1983:51),whoremarksthatsenticanbefound
atthebeginningofthediscourseorofanewtopic;similarly,Khachaturyan(2001)states
that senti preserves discourse coherence at the beginning of conversations or at topic
shifts; Bazzanella (1995) includes senti in the category of demarcativi, which mark the
structuringofdiscourseandtherelationbetweentopics.
Just as it introduces the core part of a conversation, senti can be used at the
transition from the core to the closing part. In example (25), speakers SER and ROB are
talkingonthephoneaboutROBsintentiontoreportathefttothepolice.ROBisplanning
to go to a nearby police station, but SER advises her to call the emergency number first
and ask which station she should go to. After agreeing on this, the participants end the
call.
(25)
*SER:[<]<comunquepuesse>chetuladenuncialadeviandaafare/sulnucleo/che
corrisponde/allIkea//
ButitmaybethatyouhavetoreporttotheunitinIkeasdistrict
*ROB:no//<xxxsu>?
Noway!xxxupthere?
*SER:[<]<coicarabinieri>//eh/misa//telefonagliprima//<telefonaalcentododici
direttamente>perchiedere//
Tothepolice.Imafraidso.Callthemfirst.Callthe112directlyandaskthem.
*ROB:[<]<eh/no//iocelho>#[/]<celho>dietrocasa//
Ohno!Thereisone...Thereisonejustnexttomyplace.
*SER:[<]<perch>+ehloso/perxxxl//unso/cos//<&dipartimenta>+
Becauseyes,Iknow,butxxxthere.Idontknow,like,department
*ROB:[<]<mh>//
Mh.
Ihaveposedmyselfthequestionwhethersentimaybeaconventionalizeddevicetomarkthetransitiontoa
conversationscorepart.IhaveexaminedthehumantohumanphonecallsfromtheCORALROMasa
sampleforthesimplereasonthatrecordingsmadeininteractionsofotherkindsmostoftendonotinclude
anyopeningpartandIhavefoundthatoutof14recordingswhichcontainedtheopeningofthe
conversation,sevenfeaturedsentiatthetransitionbetweenopeningandcorepart.Alargersetofdatawould
benecessarytoproveordisprovethishypothesis.
68
75
ANALYSIS
*SER:perchiediglielo//
Butdoaskthem.
*ROB:vabene//
Okay.
*SER:chiederai/efanno+
Youaskthem,andtheywilldo
*ROB:vabene//
Okay.
*SER:vabbuo?
Okay?
*ROB:senti/niente//vabene//cisentiamodomaniallora//
Senti,thatsit.Okay.Illtalktoyoutomorrow,then.
*SER:mh//ciao//
Mh.Bye.
*ROB:ciao//
Bye.
(CORALROM,itelpv14)
With the turn senti / niente // va bene // ci sentiamo domani allora //, ROB is clearly
beginningtheclosingpartoftheconversation.Justbeforeit,therearetheturnsvabene
vabbuo?(notethatSERsvabbuo?hasaninterrogativeintonation,butitdoesnot
have the function of a question addressed to ROB, and indeed ROB does not treat it as
such),whichtogetherformapreclosing.Theseareturnswhosebusinessseemstobeto
pass, i.e. to indicate that [a speaker] has not now anything more or new to
say(Schegloff/Sacks1973:304).Byavoidingtheproductionoffurthertopicallycoherent
turns, or the initiation of a new topic, both speakers manifest that they do not have
anythingtoadd.Intheturnopenedbysenti,then,ROBfurtherconfirmsthatthetopiccan
beclosed(niente//vabene)andproposesanarrangementforthenextcall(cisentiamo
domaniallora),whichisacceptedbySER(mh).SERthenstartstheterminalexchange
with the FPP ciao, to which ROB responds (on closings see Schegloff/Sacks 1973,
Glich/Mondada2008:82,Spiegel/SpranzFogasy2001:1248).Sentithusappearsagainat
a transition point, in this case at the transition between the conversations core and the
closing part. Once more, the marker helps the speaker move on by signalling a change
from what was said and done up to that point to something new and ensuring that the
interlocutorwillkeeppace.69
7.1.5. Expressingaspeakersattitude
Iwillnowturntoauseofsentiwhichactsonadifferentaspectofconversation:itdoes
not concern the conversations structure, but rather the attitude of the speaker to the
addressee,andthereforetheinterpersonalrelationshipbetweenparticipants.Inexample
Interestingly,asimilaruseofFrenchcouteisshownbyGlich/Mondada(2008:82).Inaconversation
analyticalperspective,wewouldsaythatsenticonstitutesoneofthedevicesthatthespeakerusestoproperly
initiatetheclosing.
69
76
ANALYSIS
(26), we observe a telephone conversation in which two friends calledSIL and HED are
talkingaboutHEDsstateofhealth.Theexcerptcontainstwotokensofsenti.
(26)
*SIL:domenica/seiandatapoiacamminare//comeseistata?
DidyougohikingonSunday?Howwasit?
*HED:s//oh//dunbene//bellissimo/guarda//
Yes.Oh,great!Wonderful,guarda.
*SIL:sma/ihstavimale/comecorpo?
Yes,butuhdidyoufeelbad,physically?
*HED:ma/senti/quandosonandatavia/nonriuscivoacamminare//
Well,senti,whenIstartedIcouldntwalkwell.
*SIL:mh//
Mh.
*HED:poifacevaanchecaldo//
Moreoveritwashot.
*SIL:mh//
Mh.
*HED:xxxmal+apartelaschiena/celhosempreuguale/ecco//quella/nonnon+
perchquella/deveesserunaltracosa//iovogliofaranchelaradiografia/senti/a
questopunto//mentrepoi/camminando/stavomeglio//
xxxacheApartfromthefactthatthebackisstillthesame,thatsnotnotBecausethatmustbe
somethingdifferent;Ialsowanttotakeanxray,senti,atthisstage.ButafterwalkingforawhileI
feltbetter.
*SIL:eh//
Ah.
*HED:quandocamminavo/comequandosiamoandatiaMonteMorello/ehlosento/i
muscoli//&cap+
WhileIwaswalking,thesameaswhenwewenttoMonteMorello:uhIcanfeelthemuscles,you
kno
*SIL:eh//
Yes.
(CORALROM,itelpv01)
In the first turn, SIL asks if HED went for a walk on the past Sunday and how she felt.
HEDsresponsebeginswithmasenti.Inthisturn,noneofthefunctionsofsentiseenupto
nowisatplay.SinceSILhasaskedaquestionandselectedHEDasthenextspeaker,there
isnoneedforHEDtocallforattention,noristhereanyevidenceofformulationtroubles.
ByansweringSILsquestion,HEDcarriesontheadjacencypairandthetopicinitiatedby
SIL,andnoshiftisoperated.
WhatisrelevantatthispointoftheconversationisthatHEDisexpectedtoanswer
a question, but, as it turns out, she cannot make any straightforward answer: SIL has
asked a polar question (stavi male / come corpo ?), but HED cannot simply chose
betweenyesorno.Instead,shebeginsalongreportwhichdepictsanunstablestate
of health. HEDs answer is what is called a nonconforming answer (Raymond 2003).
77
ANALYSIS
Raymond (2003: 944) observes that the grammatical forms of many FPPs project, in
varying degrees of specificity, a particular item or shape for response they make
relevant;inparticular,yes/nointerrogativesostensiblyreducetheresponsetheymake
relevanttoachoicebetweenalternativetokens:prototypicallyyesandno.Raymonds
study demonstrates that answerers depart from this constraint when a question is
somehow problematic for them, e.g. when it comes with presuppositions which the
answerer cannot accept, but which she would appear to accept if she gave a type
conforminganswer.SILsquestionimpliesthatHEDsstateofhealthwasthesameallday
long, and by answering with yes or no, according to the preference set by the
questions design, HED would implicitly confirm this. Instead of giving a yes/no SPP,
HEDdescribeshowherstateofhealthchangedduringtheday.
I would like to argue that the use of senti here is due precisely to the fact that
HEDsanswerdoesnotfollowthepreferencesetbythequestion.Ingivingthisanswer,
the speaker does something which does not fit the interlocutors expectations. In this
context, senti signalizes that the speaker wishes the interlocutor to accept her answer
despite the fact that it is not completely adequate. It will be shown later (see chapter 8)
thattokensofsentioccurringinthiskindofcontextareinterpretedbynativespeakersas
evidenceoftroublesinansweringandofaselfassertingattitude.
Incidentally, all answers preceded by senti in the corpora were characterized by
being somehow inadequate with respect to the questions. In some cases, the speaker
affirmedthatshedidnotexactlyknowthefactsaskedabout,orcouldnotexplainthem.
Inothercases,theanswerwas,astheoneabove,nottypeconforming:eitherthequestion
aimedatspecificinformation(whichone?howlong?atwhattime?),buttheanswerdid
notcontainit,oritsettwopossiblealternatives(polarquestion,questionaboutpreference
betweentwoobjects),butnoneofthemwaschosenintheanswer.
Letusnowgobacktoexample(26).WhileansweringSILsquestion,HEDcomes
to speak about her plan to take an xray picture. The utterance io voglio far anche la
radiografiaisfollowedbysenti.Thisistheonlytokeninthecorporawhichispostposed
to its scope. This position must therefore be assumed to be quite rare, but it is indeed
perfectly possible. Although it is not visible from the transcript, the prosodic features
clearly manifest the markers connection with the preceding segment. There is a
continuouslyfallingpitchmovementoveriovogliofaranchelaradiografia/sentianda
pitchresetassociatedwithincreasedspeedaftersentiattheonsetofaquestopunto.In
this turnmedial and scopefinal position, the marker cannot play any role in attention
getting, nor in turnmanagement, because it does not have any introductory value.
Instead,ithastheeffectofstressingtheprecedingutterancebygivingitaninsistenttone.
ConsiderthatHEDhasjustdescribedherplaninaratherstrongway(iovoglio)
andtheactionsheistalkingaboutisnotquiteordinary:peopledonottakexraypictures
forjustanybackache,butonlyforseriousafflictions.Sentiseemstoaddtothisutterance
an appeal to agree with the speaker, i.e. to approve of her intention, even if it may
surpriseus.TheplanannouncedbyHEDcorrespondstowhatwecancall,usingVasks
(2000: 261) words, a state of affairs that differs from what the speaker would consider
78
ANALYSIS
standard or usual. A speaker describing such a state of affairs may well need to
prevent doubts or rejections by means of appropriate pragmatic devices.70 In sum, both
tokens of senti in this example concern the interpersonal relationship between the
participants; their role is to convey the speakers request for a certain kind of reaction
towardsherutterance.
Itshouldbenotedthatthefunctionjustdescribedbelongstothekindoffunctions
that are generally subsumed under the label of modalization. Senti is not normally
considered to be a modalizer, and it is generally associated with turntaking and
discoursestructuringfunctions.Still,someofthefunctionsattributedtoitintheliterature
(softening the impact of an unpleasant utterance, creating emotional involvement) point
to modal uses. Khachaturyans (2001) paper is the only work that focuses on this facet,
thoughnotcallingitmodal(Iwillcometothepositionofmystudywithrespecttothatof
Khachaturyanlater).
PonsBordera(2006:87)characterizesmodalizationasincludingtheexpressions
oftheself;processeslikehedging,stressing,signallingagreementanddisagreementare
modal inasmuch as, through them, a speaker includes his or her point of view in
language.This is what senti does here: it signals the speakers point of view, putting it
intoarelationshipwiththatoftheaddressee.
Onecaneasilynoticetheresemblanceofthefunctionjustanalyzedwithfunctions
that are typically attributed to, for instance, modal particles. According to Knig and
Requardt(1991:70),modalparticlesshowthedegreeofstrength(evidence,confidence,
insistence) with which a statement is made or a directive is uttered. Weydt (1969: 68)
affirmsthatmodalparticlesservetoexpresstheattitudeofthespeakertowardswhatshe
is saying. By this I do not mean that senti should be equated with modal particles. The
class of modal particles is defined not only by functional but also by morphosyntactic
features (they are monosyllabic, uninflectable, syntactically integrated) which are not
validforsenti.Theclassisactuallytypicalofsomelanguagesonly,inparticularGermanic
ones, and even if some items classifiable as modal particles have been identified in
Romancelanguages,too(forexampletheFrenchbien,accordingtoWaltereitandDetges
(2007)),thiscouldobviouslynotbethecaseforaninflectable,syntacticallyindependent
itemsuchassenti.However,abrieflookataclassoftypicallymodalizingelementssuch
as that of modal particles, which might otherwise seem quite dissimilar from senti, is
sufficienttorevealthatsentihasadecidedlymodalvalueinsomeofitsuses.
Thenextexamplefurtherillustratesthisuse.Thesegmentistakenfromafamiliar
conversation between an old lady called LIA, her son MAX, and another relative, a
womancalledELA.Theyarelookingatsomefamilypictures.
(27)
*LIA:guardacomerabellina/qui/lamicugina//mammamia//
Lookhowprettyshewashere,mycousin.OhmyGod.
WecanseethisinVaskspaperontheHungariandiscourseparticlesde(but)andis(too,either).
70
79
ANALYSIS
*ELA:ah/nonlariconosco/perchlunaneonata//sbellina/la[/]laElena//
Oh.Icantrecognizeherbecauseshesababy.Yes,shespretty,ththisElena.
*LIA:mah//davecchiona/ora//
Yeah.Shelookssooldnow.
*ELA:eh/<non>+
Uhno
*MAX:[<]<non>veronulla//
Thatsnottrueatall.
*LIA:eh/unpovecchiona/<l>//
Shedoeslookquiteold.
*MAX:<nonveronulla//
Thatsnottrueatall.
*ELA:[<]<s/per/&a>[/]avreiavutodifficolt/ariconoscerla//
Yes,butIIwouldnthaverecognizedher.
*LIA:<bah/se>+
Well,if
*ELA:[<]<perch/>cambiatatanto//era&ca[/]moltocarinaqui//<moltocarina>//
Becauseshehaschangedalot.Shewaspreveryprettyhere.Verypretty.
*LIA:[<]<s/s/nonmicabrutta>//comepersonaspecialmente/erafattabenino...ora
chevi/tuttagobbagobba/tutta&sl+
Yesyes,shewasntuglyatall.Especiallythephysique,shewaswellproportioned...Butnow,what
areyougoingtodo?Shesallhunched,all
*ELA:mah/porina//sentinoi/s[/]strovataancheabbastanzabene//
Oh,poorher.Senti,wefoundshelookedquitefine.
*LIA:eh/sommatotutto//
Well,altogether.
*ELA:rispetto/almatrimonio/<s[/]seratrovata/parecchiopigi>//
Comparedtothewedding;wewefoundshelookedmuchlowerthen.
*LIA:[<]<ah/seh>//<meglio/diquando>...
Oh,sure.Betterthan...
*ELA:[<]<pigidispirito>//
Muchlowerinspirit.
(CORALROM,ifamcv01)
Senti is again in a turnmedial position, where the speaker is by no means in danger of

losingtheturn,andisproducedbeforeanutterancethatcontinuesthecurrenttopic.But
similarlyto(26),whatthespeakerisabouttosaycreatessomecontradictionwithanidea
oftheinterlocutor.In(26),thefirstutterancefeaturingsentiwasincontradictionwiththe
preferred answer format, and the second one diverged for its content from what the
speaker would consider standard or usual. In the present example, LIA affirms that
hercousin usedtobe goodlooking(comepersonaspecialmente/erafattabenino...),
but she is not anymore (ora che vi / tutta gobba gobba); ELA expresses a different
evaluation: noi / s [/] s trovata anche abbastanza bene /. The addition of senti
underlinesthecontrastandclarifiesthatthespeakerintendstoassertherideaagainstthe
oneoftheinterlocutor.
80
ANALYSIS
Whatemergesfrom(26)and(27)isthatsenticanbeusedonaninterpersonallevel
to convey a request for a certain response: accepting a nontypeconforming answer,

agreeingwith(orapprovingof)thespeakersplans,andagreeingwithherevaluationof
things.71Ingeneralterms,then,wecansaythatsentiisabletoconveyarequesttorespond
inawaythatcorrespondstothegoalsthespeakerpursueswiththeutterance.
7.1.6. Markingquotedspeech
IwillnowillustratethelastmainfunctionIdetectedinthecorpusdata:thatofmarking
quoted speech. 11 out of the 136 analyzed tokens of senti were found in this kind of
context. Recall that by quoted speech I mean not only actual quotations of what
somebody said at some previous point, but also the embedment of constructed direct
speech(seesection6.2).
Letusexaminethisfunctioninexample(28),asegmentfromaphonecallbetween
ayoungmannamedCRIandhisuncleZIO.CRIsmobilephonehasbeenstolenfromhis
apartmentwhilehewassleeping.Hisflatmatehadleft,andthedoorwasaccidentallyleft
open.ThecircumstancesleadCRItosuspectthecleaninglady.CRIhasthenlearnedfrom
thepolicethatthemobilephoneoperatorregisteredacalltoRomaniaafterthetheft.After
recounting these facts to ZIO, CRI is now discussing with him the idea of talking to a
person from the house administration in order to find out whether the cleaning lady is
Romanian,andwhetherthereisanywaytorecoverthephone.
(28)
*ZIO:seinvecequestarumena/no+
ButifsheISRomanianokay?
*CRI:mh//
Mh.
*ZIO:/uno/allamministratore/jefaunbellodiscorso//jedir[/]jedice/senta/noi/
nonfamoniente/no/ecco//perlomenofacciartrovasto[/]stocazzodicellulare/
parlacetu/no//
Onemakesaniceproposaltotheadministrator.OnewillsayOnesays:senta,wewontdo
anything,okay?Alright.Butatleastletusfindthisthisbloodymobile,talktoher.
*CRI:s/<infatti>//
Yes,exactly.
(CORALROM,itelpv13)
ZIO advises CRI what to say to the house administrator by directly showing the
prospected talk in a quotation. The quotation is introduced with a verbum dicendi, je
dice72(theverbis inthethirdpersonsingularbecausethesubjectisthesameasinthe
previous sentence: uno). Senta appears immediately after the verbum dicendi, at the
beginning of the quotation, and it is part of it:ZIO is certainly not addressing CRI with
Thatis:theresponsecanconcernthecontentofthespeakersutterance(agreementontheplan,onthe
evaluationexpressed)and/ortheutterancesfunction(acceptanceofitasananswertothequestion).
72Recallthatjeisageographicallymarkedformofthepronoungli(tohim)(seefootnote55).
71
81
ANALYSIS
themarker,asdemonstratedbythechoiceofthepoliteformsenta,butissimulatingthe
interaction between CRI and the administrator. Senti is typically used when some
interlocutorispresent(incontrasttomarkerslikealloraordunque,whichwecanwelluse
when talking to ourselves), and it constitutes a direct appeal to the interlocutor, as is
evidentfromtheinflectionforpersonandnumber.Itspresencethusrecreatesasituation
of direct speech and can be exploited to characterize a quotation as such. Using senti, a
speakercanunderlinethechangefromherownperspectivetothatofthequotedspeaker;
orwecouldalsosay:sheclarifiesthechangeofdeicticorigooperatedbythequotation.
Redeker(2006:344)remarksthatquotationsshiftthedeicticcenterofthediscourse[...]
andreferindexicallytothecontextinwhichthequotedspeechwasutteredorisimagined
tobeuttered.ThemarkingofthedeicticshiftbymeansofsentiiswellvisibleinZIOs
turn, as the polite form senta clearly makes reference to a different situation and a
differentaddresseethanthepresentone.Surprisingly,theuseofsentiinquotationswas
mentioned,tomyknowledge,onlybyStammerjohann(1977).
Note that this function has to be regarded as a secondlevel function as
comparedtotheothers.Whiletheotherfunctionsareinherentinthemarkeranddirectly
arise from its property of performing some kind of appeal to the adressee, this one is
basedonthefactthatthemarkerspresencerecallsacertaintypeofinteractionandhelps
in creating the illusion of it. As Travis (2005: 117) observes regarding the use of the
Spanishbuenoinquotations,thisisbesttreatedasasecondaryfunction,and[...]therole
ofbuenointhisenvironmentistoquoteoneoftheotherfunctions.
7.1.7. Aunifiedaccount:abasicfunctionofsenti
Summingupthefunctionsdescribeduptonow,senticanbeusedtocreateattentionwhile
openingaturnattalk,interruptanotherspeaker,andkeeptheturnincaseofformulation
troubles.Itcanalsoredirectattentionfromwhatwassaidanddonebeforetosomenew
activity,andtherebyintroducetheshifttoanewtopic,thestartofanewsequence,orthe
transitiontothenextpartofaconversation;moreover,itconveysanappealtorespondto
the utterance according to the speakers goals. Finally, it fulfils the secondlevel
functionofmarkingquotationsbysimulatingasituationofdirectspeech.
Eachofthesefunctionscanbethemainoreventheonlyfunctionofsentiinagiven
context. Very often, however, a single token of the marker fulfils more than one task,
affectingdifferentaspectsoftheinteractionatonce.ThisiswhatBazzanella(2006a)calls
the syntagmatic multifunctionality of discourse markers: not only can different
instances of a marker perform different functions i.e. the paradigmatic
multifuncionalitybutonesingletokencanalsoaccomplishmanytaskssimultaneously.
Similarly,PonsBordera(2006:79)speaksofpolyfunctionalityatatypelevel,meaning
thatanelementisabletoexpressdifferentvaluesondifferentoccasions,andatatoken
level,meaningthatonetokenofanelementcanmanifestfunctionsatdifferentlevelsof
discourseatthesametime.
82
ANALYSIS
Thispropertycanbeobservedinexample(29).Inatelevisioninterview,speakerA
isinterviewingthejournalistandTVcookBandherhusbandC,asportjournalist.Ahas
remarkedthatBisalwayswearingsomewhatsexyclothes;BandCreacttoherstatement.
(29)
01
02
03
04
05
C:
08
09
10
[haha
A:
[mh]
B:
C:
Haha(laughing)
Mh.
[no,]
Indeednot.
(--) e trovo che sia MOLto bello?
andIthinkitsverynice
che::: che LEI.=
07
Imnotajealousperson,
B:
06
[io io non] [sono una] persona geLOsa,
that...thatshe
=ins insomma diMOStri anche; h
B:
C:
wwell,thatsheshows
[(no eh)
Nouh
[la sua belLEZ]za oltre alla sua pre[parazione (
)]
herbeauty,besideshereducation()
B:
[ma senti GIA sto in]

cucina tutto il [giorno.=]no,=
Butsenti,Ispendalldayinthekitchen,tostartwith.Youunderstand?
11
A:
11
B:
[((ride))]
(laughs)
=e anCOra mica mi devo [mettere pure il gremBIUle;=dai= ]
12
13
A:
B:
(IB3)
Idonthavetowearanapronontopofeverything,comeon!
[chi;=eh
[(gi) almeno mi metto due due TAC]
Yes,atleastIwillwearhighheels.
[=qualche soddis]faZIOne;
Somesatisfaction...
WhileCisrespondingtoAsstatement,explainingthatheisnotjealousandapprovesof
hiswifesstyle,Bstartstalkinginoverlapwithhim.Bmakesafirstattempttotalkatline
08,startingwithnoeh,butimmediatelygivesup.Thenshetriesagain(line10),this
timebeginningwiththemarkersmasenti,whichsheuttersinaloudervoice,andshegoes
onherfirstTCU.Now,itisCwhorelinquishestheturn.EvenifhiscurrentTCUisnot
complete at the moment of the overlap, C does not fight to keep the turn; instead, he
decreases the volume to the extent that the last syllables are not understandable (and
thereforetranscribedwiththeblankspace()),andhestops.Bgoesonwithherturn,
whichgivesanironicjustificationofherdressingpreferences:sinceshespendsalldayin
thekitchenwhichprobablyrepresentsaratherboringoccupation,orevenasignoflittle
emancipationasawomanshewantstoatleastbesatisfiedwithherclothes.
83
ANALYSIS
BsturnisdirectedtoAasaresponsetoherpreviouscommentonBsoutfit.That
BisaddressingA,andnotC,isevidencedbytheeyegazeinthevideo,butalsobyAs
reaction,whichexpressesunderstanding(gi)andaddstoBsargumentation(almeno
mi metto due due TACchi;=eh). So, B is taking As attention away from Cs turn and
directingittoherown.Thesentiplacedatthebeginningoftheoverlapallowsthespeaker
toannouncetheupcomingtalk,callattentiononit,andtherebytaketheturnattalkand
interrupt the current speaker. At the same time, the presence of senti adds an insistent
tonetoBsstatement,signallingherwishthatAagreewithwhatshesaysandacceptitas
ajustificationforthefactsdiscussed.Thejustification,whichisevidentlynotserious(note
Aslaughter),getsamoreresolutetonewithsentianditshumorouscharacteristhereby
underlined. In short, senti fulfils more than one function at once; it helps the speaker
manage different tasks related to one stretch of talk, both with regard to its production
andtothegoalspursuedwithit.
Along with the observation of this multifunctionality, it will be noticed that the
variousfunctionsofsentidonotseemtobecompletelyseparatefromoneanother.They
donotappearastheresultofdistinctmessagesattachedtothesameform,butinsteadas
mutually related. Let us leave aside, for the moment, the function of marking quoted
speech, which is obviously related to the others in the sense that it reproduces them
insidequotations.ThefunctionofindicatingthatthespeakerisabouttostartwhatIhave
calledanewactivity,andthatofinvitingtheinterlocutortorespondtotheutterancein
accordance with the speakers goals, are possibly two interpretations of a more generic
appealtocooperateinwhatthespeakerisabouttodo(orhasjustdone,intherarecaseof
postposed senti) on different interactional levels. Such an appeal of course entails the
announcementofsomeupcomingtalkandattractsattentiontoit,whichhasconsequences
forthemanagementofattentionandturns.Itshouldthenbepossibletoaccountforthe
multifunctionality of senti by means of a unified functional description, that is, the
description of a general, more abstract, but more comprehensive function from which
morespecificonescanbederived.
Iwouldliketoproposethatthebasicfunctionofsenticanbeformulatedasthatof
expressinganappealtoattendtotheactivitycurrentlybeingcarriedoutbythespeaker
inawaythatcomplieswiththespeakersintentions.Dependingonwhatthespeakers
aredoinginagivencontext,thisbasicfunctionorwecouldcallitbasicmessagewill
be exploited for different purposes: it will work as a request to pay attention, and/or to
redirect ones attention to something new, and/or to respond in a way that corresponds
withthegoalspursuedbythespeaker;anyfunctioncanbeintheforeground,according
tothecontext.Inaddition,theverypresenceofthemarkersignalizesthatsomethingelse
isgoingtobesaidandthusdrwasattention,duetothefactthatitcannotbeutteredalone,
butalwaysaccompaniessomeotherutterance.
Thinking of senti this way helps us explain the fact that even if it is most
commonlyregardedasanattentiongetterandopeningsignal,itisnotequivalenttoother
markersthatareclassifiedinthesameway,suchasguardaorvedi.Sentiandtheothers
as well encodes a message that goes beyond the simple appeal to listen; it conveys
84
ANALYSIS
complex information about the speakers intentions and has therefore further
consequencesfortheinterpretationoftheutterance,whichcannotbethesameasforother
markers.
Incidentally,thedescriptionproposedseemsconsistentwiththesemanticsofthe
verbsentire.Accordingtodictionaries,73sentirecanhavethereadingsofudire(to
hear), ascoltare (to listen), dare retta (to pay attention, to heed, to give
credence), and ubbidire (to obey). The present work is not concerned with the
developmentofsentioutofthecorrespondingverbform;however,itisinterestingtonote
that the semantics of the verb are not dissimilar from the message of the marker as
proposedabove.Thefactthattheformsentiasanimperativeverbformcannotonlybe
arequesttolistentosomething,butalsoarequesttoactinagivenway(inthemeanings
of dare retta andubbidire), gives the proposed description of senti some diachronic
plausibility.
The proposed description is also supported by the fact that, in the corpora, the
utterancesaccompaniedbysentiareutterancesthatrequire,fordifferentreasonsandon
differentlevels,theaddresseesadjustmenttosomeintentionofthespeaker.Mostoften
sentiisusedinquestions,whichbytheirverynatureimplythattheaddresseerespondby
doing something in the direction established by speaker; requests are also frequent. In
addition,sentiisusedbythespeakerswhenexpressingopinionsthatcontradictthoseof
theinterlocutors(seee.g.(27)),indescriptionsoffactsthatdonotmatchtheinterlocutors
expectations and wishes or normal expectations, and in answers that are not type
confirm or do not provide the information asked for (e.g. (26)). In all of these contexts,
whatthespeakersaysanddoesmaybedifficultfortheinterlocutortoacceptorcomply
with. The occurrence of senti under these conditions strongly suggests that the marker
maybefunctionallyrelatedtotheneedforacooperativeresponse.
SimilarobservationshavebeenmadebyKhachaturyan:[g]lienunciatiintrodotti
consenti(domanda,incitazione,giudiziosoggettivo)presuppongonosemprelareazione
dellinterlocutore (the utterances introduced by senti (question, invitation, subjective
judgement)alwayspresupposeareactionbytheinterlocutor);thereactionisexpectedto
beapositiveone(Khachaturyan2001:131).
Like the present work, Khachaturyans paper identifies a single fundamental
function for senti, in terms of a scenario generale (see chapter 4). Let me briefly recall
how this scenario generale is described: senti p (p being the sequence of utterances
introducedbythemarker)meansthatthespeakerissurethattheinterlocutorwillaccept
p as being motivated by the existence of another sequence q (Khachaturyan 2001: 134).
Sequenceqcanbeverbalized,butdoesnothavetobe.Weunderstandthatsentireinforces
orrecallsthelinkbetweenpandq,therebycreatingcoherenceatpointslikethebeginning
of a conversation or a topic shift, where coherence would otherwise be in danger
(Khachaturyan2001:135ff.).
SeeDeMauro(ed.),Ildizionariodellalinguaitaliana(2000:2409)andSimone(ed.)Ilvocabolariodellalingua
italiana(2005:1643f.)
73
85
ANALYSIS
Myanalysisconfirmsthesestatementstoalargeextent.Therequestofareaction,
theexpectationthatthereactionbepositive,andtheideaofacceptancearesupportedby
my corpus data, which show that senti expresses the appeal for a response, and in
particularforonethatcomplieswiththespeakersintentions.74Atthesametime,mydata
arenotincompleteagreementwithKhachaturyansdescriptioninsomerespects.Icould
findnoevidencethatsentipointstoasequenceqasareasonforp;instead,itseemstome
thatitisthefactofannouncinganewactivitypersewhichhelpsmaintaincoherence:by
appealing to attend to the speakers upcoming activity, senti prefigures a shift and
preparestheaddresseeforit.Inotherwords,Ibelievethatsenticontributestocoherence
by making disruptions explicit, rather than by indexing connections. The existence of a
reasonforproducing p couldbeaninferencethatwedrawwhenhearingtheutterance,
probably supported by the requestfor cooperation expressed by senti, rather than being
encoded in the marker. Furthermore, I suggest that senti does not indicate the speakers
certainty about the interlocutors acceptance, but rather conveys a request for it, as is
suggestedbytheimperativeform.
Summarizing the content of this section, I have proposed that the
multifunctionality of senti, both in a paradigmatic and in a syntagmatic sense, can be

accounted for by assuming a basic function to which more specific ones can be traced
back. The functions examined in the preceding sections are oftentimes accomplished
simultaneously by one and the same token of the marker and appear to be interrelated,
whichsuggeststhattheymightbeinstancesofamoregeneralfunction.Ihaveidentified
thebasicfunctionofsentiasthatofexpressinganappealtoattendtothespeakersactivity
inawaythatcomplieswiththespeakersintentionsintentionsthatcanconcerndifferent
levelsoftheinteraction.
Byvirtueofthisbasicmessage,sentiisabletoassumefunctionswhichpertainto
different interactional levels (see Figure 2). On a superficial level, by conveying an

appealtoattendtosomeactivity,senticreatesattentionandannouncesupcomingtalk.As
a consequence, it can work as an attentiongetter, thereby affecting the level of the
communicativecontactbetweenparticipants,anditcanbeusedtomarkthebeginningof
a turn, interrupt another speaker, or hold the turn in case of formulation problems,
functioningonthelevelofturnmanagement.Atthesametime,asthemessageprepares
the addressee for the beginning of a new activity, thereby signalling moreover that she
will have to cooperate in it, senti is used to initiate sequences, introduce new topics, or
move to a new part of the conversation, aspects that are of course tightly interwoven.
Iprefernottotalkaboutacceptanceinrelationtothebasicfunctionofsenti,though.Evenifinsome
contextsthetermacceptanceundoubtedlyrepresentsasuitabledescriptionofthemessageofsenti,itseems
topointtoostronglytothecontentofutterances(e.g.acceptingtheideaexpressedbythespeaker),ortotheir
communicativefunction(e.g.acceptingasuggestion,acceptingananswertoaquestion).Mydatashowthat
whattheaddresseeissupposedtorespondtocanconcernotherlevelsoftheinteractionaswell;forexample,
shecanberequestedtofollowthespeakerintheshifttoanewtopic.Wecanstillsaythattheaddresseeis
requestedtoacceptthechangeoftopic,butthiswouldnotgivethedueimportancetothefactthatsheis
alsosupposedtocooperateinit.Speakingofcomplyingwiththespeakersintentionsseemstomeamore
comprehensivedescription.
74
86
ANALYSIS
When it is employed for these purposes, senti thus acts on the internal structure of the
conversation. The marker is also apt to indicate a speakers wish for a cooperative
response to utterances that can, for various reasons, be at odds with the ideas or
expectations of the addressee. So, besides its structuring role, the marker can have a
bearingontheleveloftheinterpersonalrelationshipbetweenparticipants.75
Finally, since the message presupposes the presence of anaddressee,and senti is
thus typical of direct speech, speakers may use it to mark quotations. In this case, senti
works on the level of the deictic origo, in the sense that it contributes to clarifying the
changeofdeicticorigocarriedoutinthequotation.
Figure2:functioningofsenti.Thebasicmessagegivesrisetodifferentfunctionsondifferentinteractionallevels.
It is clear that, on each of the interactional levels involved, a range of still more specific, circumscribed
contextualvaluescanthenarisethroughtheuseofsentiindifferentsituations.
75
87
ANALYSIS
7.2. Guarda
7.2.1. Openingaturn
Ishallbeginthedescriptionofguarda76byillustratingitsuseinopeningturnsattalk.Let
uslookatexample(30),whichdisplaysasegmentfromatelevisioninterview.Journalist
BIA is interviewing VAL, the chief executive and heir of a large company founded by
VALsownfamily.
(30)
*BIA:lapolitica/unaiuto/ounostacolo?
Ispoliticsanaidoranobstacle?
*VAL:guardi/perunochefalindustriale/daunindustriale/cheviveedoperanel
mondo/lapolitica/potremmodirecheinquelsenso/&aiu[//]non&ser[///]aiutapoco/
stavoperdirenonserveaniente/lapolitica/invece/intesacomecittadino/cheoperain
questanazione/potrebbeessereunacosa/digrandeaiuto/manon/aiutandole
imprese/macercandodicomplicarglilavitailmenopossibile//
Guardi,foracompanyowner,asacompanyownerwholivesandworksintheworld,onecould
saythat,inthissense,politicsisofisuseisoflittlehelp.Iwasabouttosayitsuseless.Onthe
otherhand,politicsinthesenseofacitizenworkinginthiscountrycouldbeofgreathelp,butnot
byhelpingcompanies,butbytryingtocomplicatetheirlivesaslittleaspossible.
(CORALROM,imedin02)
BIA asks for VALs opinion about the influence of politics on industry. VALs answer
beginswiththemarkerguardi,thepoliteformofguarda.Guardiisinturninitialposition,
immediatelyfollowingthetransitionrelevanceplace.Onthebasisofthisposition,wecan
assumethatguardiisusedasanopeningsignalhere,inthesensethatbymeansofitthe
speakersignalsthatheisabouttobegintheexpectedturn.Turnopeningbelongstothe
functionsthataremostoftenassignedtothemarkerguarda(seeLichem1981,Manili1983,
Koch/Oesterreicher2011).
Afurtherexampleisgivenin(31).Theinteractiontakesplaceinatelevisiontalk
show;talkshowhostCAThasjustquotedanIndiansayingaboutevilnessandsheasks
herguestswhattheythinkaboutit.
(31)
*CAT:[...]//allora/questasentezaindiana/viispiraqualcosa?
So,doesthisIndianstatementsayanythingtoyou?
*FRA:unabellissimadefinizione/<innanzitutto>//
Itsabeautifuldefinition,firstofall.
*CAT:[<]<tu>/dovelosentiiltuoveleno?
%add:referedtoFrancesccaReggiani[sic]
Wheredoyoufeelyourpoison?
Partoftheanalysiscarriedoutinthischaptercanalsobefoundinadedicatedpaper,seeFuschi(inpress).
76
88
ANALYSIS
*FRA:guarda/io/ho[/]sodiavereunafacciadifficile+
Guarda,IhaveIknowIhaveadifficultside
*CAT:eh//
Aha.
*FRA:/so/diavere/moltissimiamici/personedifiduciaeccetera/alcuniliamomolto/
esonounpezzodipane/mirendocontodiaveredeglisbalzidiumore/spessocontante
persone/imieiamicimidicono/nonhaiuncaratterefacile/iomiritengoper/una
personabuona+
IknowIhavealotoffriends,peopleItrust,andsoon;someofthemIloveverymuch,andIam
verykindtothem;ImconsciousthatIoftenhavemoodswingswithmanypeople;myfriendssay:
yourcharacterisnoteasy,butIthinkIamagoodperson
(CORALROM,imedts08)
CAThasaskedFRAwhatherevilsideis(whereherpoisonis);ananswerfromFRAis
nowrelevant.TheguardathatprefacesFRAstalkindicatesthatFRAisabouttobeginher
turnandprovidetherelevantresponse.
7.2.2. Interruptingthecurrentspeaker,gainingattention
Example(32)showsasegmentofaconversationbetweenthemembersoftwobandswho
sharethesamerehearsalroomandareconsideringthepurchaseofsomenewequipment.
Theytalkaboutthefactthatthemicrophonetheyhaveatpresentemitsanannoyingbeep.
(32)
*GPA:mastrano//
Butthatsstrange;
*SRE:io+
I
*GPA:chafischiare/dovrebberoesserelefreqenzealte//lefrequenzealte/<alui/xxx>//
Cositshouldbehighfrequenciesthatbeep.Highfrequencies,tohimxxx
*ANG:[<]<maguarda/lhoprovato>veramenteintutteleposizioni//semimettol/
nonfischia//per/nonmisentoio/<piio>//
Butguarda,Ivetrieditreallyinallpositions.IfIstandthere,itdoesntbeep,butthenIcant
hearmyselfanymore.
*SRE:[<]<anche>[/]ancheconme/fischia/spesso//
AlsoAlsowhenIsing,itoftenbeeps.
*GPA:eh/ragazziio/eh...il[/]limpianto[/]limpianto/chevuoldire?<intermini>+
Wellpeople,Iuh...thetheequipmentTheequipment,whatdoesitmean?Intermsof
(CORALROM,ifamcv02)
Guarda appears at the beginning of ANGs turn.77 When ANG starts speaking, GPA has
not yet reached a completion point, as is visible from the fact that the segment le
Guardaisprecededbyma.AsIhavealreadypointedout(subsection7.1.4,footnote66),Icannotanalyzema
here,butitshouldsufficetosaythatthisitemhasbeenclassifiedasaturntakingsignal(Bazzanella1995:
233).Inthepresentexample,thecontrastivevalueoftheconjunctionmacouldalsobeatplay,inlinewiththe
roleofANGsutterance.
77
89
ANALYSIS
frequenze alte / is neither semantically nor syntactically autonomous and ends with a
nonterminal prosodic break. The two participants speak in overlap for some seconds:
GPA continues his turn (whose content is not understandable, though) and produces a
terminalbreak;then,heleavestheturntoANG.
Note that the situation is characterized by some contrast between GPAs and
ANGs view: GPA is expressing his doubts about the problem with the microphone (
strano,afischiaredovrebberoesserelefrequenzealte),andANGdescribessomefacts
which reaffirm this problem. First, she says that she has tried singing from all possible
positions(andstrengthensthestatementwithveramente),thensheconcedesthatthere
couldbeasolutiontotheproblem:themicrophonedoesnotbeepifshestandsatsome
otherplaceintheroom;however,sheimmediatelydeniesthevalidityofthissolutionby
sayingthatshecannothearherselfsingingwhenshestandsthere.
ANGs turn is designed to counter the reserves expressed by GPA. This
argumentative role supports the assumption that ANGs overlap and subsequent
interruption have a strategic function and are likely to be done deliberately, in order to
defend ANGs position. In this context, guarda does not only signal the opening of the
turn,butitalsoworksasaninterruptingdevice(seealsoFagard2010,Waltereit2002).By
projectingthatthespeakerisgoingtosaysomething,themarkerenableshertotakethe
othersattentionawayfromthecurrentspeakerandtogettheturnforherself.
I already pointed out that attentiongetting can hardly be separated from other
functions, because the creation of attention is associated with the announcement of

upcoming talk (see section 7.1.1). The reader may wonderwhy I discuss the function of
attentiongettinghere,whileinthecaseofsentiIdiscussedittogetherwiththatofturn
opening. Because guarda is most often found in responsive moves (as is also noticed by
Mara (1986: 189)), in most cases of turnopening guarda, speakers actually already have
theattentionoftheirinterlocutors.Casesinwhichguardaassumesaclearattentiongetting
roleareratherassociatedwithsituationsinwhichthespeakerhastofightfortheturn.
It should be noticed, finally, that while projecting the upcoming talk, the marker
also provides the speaker with theopportunity to start speaking without yet presenting
anycontent.So,thespeakerhastimetogettheturnattalkwhileavoidingtheriskthat
somesubstantialpartofhertalkmaybeovercomebytheoverlap.
7.2.3. Managingformulationtroubles
The following example illustrates the use of guarda as a means to hold the turn while
dealingwithformulationproblems.Thisusewillbeillustratedinexample(33),anexcerpt
fromatalkshow.Twoparticipantsappearinit:thejournalistandtalkshowhostANN,
andMAS,amemberoftheparliament.
(33)
*ANN:onorevoleMastella/comemai/cisonostatetantepolemiche/sullannunciodi
Berlusconidivoler/formarexxx/questetrecommissionidinchiesta//nonlaprima
voltachesi/fannodellecommissionidinchiesta//
90
ANALYSIS
MrMastella,whyistheresomuchquarrellingaboutBerlusconisannouncementthathewantsto
formxxxthesethreeboardsofinquiry?Itsnotthefirsttimethatboardsofinquiryhavebeenused.
*MAS:ma/guardi/perch/facendolo/omeglio/annunciandodivoler/commissionare
alParlamento/questetrecommissionidinchiesta/inrealt/dlidea/ancoradiessere
opposizione/anzichmaggioranza//maggioranza/hapossibilit/strumenti/perfare
accertamenti/suquellichesono/lepresunteverit/olepresuntebugie//quindi/pare
piunattointimidatorio/rispettoallopposizione/perdire/staticalmi/buoni/nonvi
preoccupate/garantiscoio/nonmidisturbate//ilche/evidentemente/insommacrea/
unqualcheproblema//
Well,guardi,becauseindoingthis,better:inannouncingthathewantstoordertheParliamentto
formthesethreeboardsofinquiry,heactuallygivestheimpressionofbeingstillintheopposition
andnotinthemajorityparty.Themajoritypartyhasthepossibility,ithastoolstoascertain
supposedtruthsorsupposedlies;soitratherlookslikeanintimidationtowardstheopposition;like
saying:bequiet,becalm,dontworry,Iwillguarantee,dontbotherme,whichofcoursecreates
sometroubles.
(CORALROM,imedts04)
ANN has asked for MASs opinion about some events in the Italian parliament, thus
selectinghimasthenextspeakerandmakinghisanswerrelevant.MASsanswerdoesnot
followimmediately,though.Whathappenshereisnotshowninthetranscript,butiswell
hearableintherecording:first,MASbreathesinfor1.25seconds,heuttersthemarkersma
guardi,andstopsagainfor0.61seconds;then,MASuttersthewordsperch/facendolo
/,lengtheningthefinalsoundsofboth(thelastvowelinperchhasadurationof0.59
seconds, that of facendolo of 0.77 seconds). After another pause of 1.26 seconds, he
operates a repair (o meglio / annunciando di voler / commissionare al Parlamento /
queste tre commissioni d inchiesta /), and eventually moves on.78 In view of MASs
evident difficulties in deciding on the formulation, or possibly on the content of his
answer,themarkerguardaatthebeginningoftheturnseemstohavetheprimaryfunction
of managing the speakers planning troubles. Guarda announces the upcoming content
and thus makes it possible for the speaker to start talking, as he is expected to do after
ANNs FPP, while gaining time for formulation. This kind of use is also mentioned by
Waltereit(2002),whodescribesguardaasahesitationphenomenon.
7.2.4. Expressingaspeakersattitude
The following example will show the use of guarda for the expression of a speakers
attitude towards the addressee. With this function we move to another level of the
interaction: that of the interpersonal relationship between speaker and addressee. As I
InaGATtranscription,thesegmentwouldread:
78
01
A:
hhhh ma (.) GUARdi; (--)
02
03
hhhwell,guardi.
perch:: faCENdolo::. (1.26)
becauseindoingthis
o MEglio;
better:
[...]
91
ANALYSIS
pointed out already about senti, this belongs to the type of functions that is generally
labeled as modal. Let us examine it in example (34), which displays a segment from a
telephone conversation between two friends. Two women, called HED and SIL, are
makingarrangementsforajointtrip,whenHEDnoticesthatherrabbitisgnawingonthe
ironingboard.
(34)
*SIL:[...]appenasoqualcosa/tichiamo/per//
(...)butassoonasIknowsomething,Illcallyou.
*HED:ecco//
Okay.
*SIL:eh?
Alright?
*HED:hei//
%add:Heldaisspeakingtoherrabbitthatisnibblingtheironingboardwhilesheis
speakingonthephone
Hey!
*SIL:mifacciosentireio//
Illcallyou.
*HED:questaqui/mimasticaancheilcoso/guarda//tremenda//
%sit:therabbitisnibblingtheironingboard
Thisoneischewingeventhethingyhere,guarda.Shesterrible.
*SIL:ohiohi//
Ohdear!
*HED:questami&ma[/]mimastai&pie[/]mimangiaipiedi&de[/]dellassedastiro//
%alt:(5)mastica
Sheschewsheschewingthefeesheseatingthefeetoftheironingboard.
*SIL:ohfigurati//
Indeed!
(CORALROM,itelpv01)
Guarda follows the utterance questa qui / mi mastica anche il coso /. The marker is
producedinturnmedialposition,ataplacewherethespeakeralreadyhastheturnand
no formulation problems can be detected. For these reasons, its presence cannot be
motivatedbythefunctionsseenuptonow.Infact,nofunctioninvolvingtheprojectionof
upcomingtalkcanbeatplay:guardaevidentlyreferstotheutterancewhichprecedesit,as
ismanifestedbytheweakerprosodicbreakbetweenthatutteranceandthemarker,and
thestronger,conclusivebreakwhichseparatesguardafromthefollowingspeech.Hence,
themarkermustratherbethoughtofasacommentonwhathasbeensaid.
It is worth noting that most frequently, guarda occurs precisely in a noninitial
position: in the corpora, 30% of the tokens were turninitial, 60% turnmedial, and 10%
turnfinal.Alsolookingattheunititrefersto,i.e.toitsscope,onenoticesthatguardadoes
notalwaysintroduceit,butoftenfollowsit:60%ofthetokensoccurbeforethescopeand
40% after it. This means that the role of guarda is by no means restricted to announcing
92
ANALYSIS
upcomingspeech.Acloserlookattheconversationsegmentin(34)revealsthatguardais
indeedplayinganotherrole,whichconcernstheactionsperformedbythespeakerandthe
contentofherutterance.
Bysayingquestaqui/mimasticaancheilcoso/,HEDisdescribingafact,anda
quiteunusualone:therabbitischewingherironingboard.Theadverbanche(also
oreven)indicatesthattheeventexceedswhatcanbecallednormalexpectations.The
reaction of SIL, namely ohi ohi actually produced just after HEDs utterance, in
overlapwithtremendashowsthatHEDsutterancehasindeedbeeninterpretedas
the description of something unexpected and unpleasant. The addition of guarda at the
endofthisstatementhastheeffectofstrengtheningit,underliningthatthingsarereally
as the speaker says, although they can appear odd, or even surprising. Note that when
saying something which does not correspond to usual expectations, it may well be
desirabletostressonesreliability.Inthiskindofcontext,guardaassumesthefunctionof
signalizingthatthespeakercanbetrustedaboutwhatsheissaying,therebyemphasizing
thecontentandshowingthespeakersinvolvement.Thiscanbeobservedbyconsidering
thesameutterancewithoutthemarker:thebarestatementquestaqui/mimasticaanche
ilcoso/islessemphasizedandconveyslessinvolvement.79
Thisanalysisis,toalargeextent,inlinewithSchwarzes(1988:356)explanationof
guardaasannouncinganargumentativelyimportantstatementandinvitingtheaddressee
totakeitseriously.Tobeprecise,mydatacannotconfirmthatutterancesfeaturingguarda
aregenerallypresentedasargumentativelyimportant;infact,inmanyoftheutterances
containing guarda this does not seem to be the case, nor is there any evidence that
speakerswouldbetryingtopresentthemasso.Conversely,theclaimthatguardainvites
theinterlocutortotakeastatementseriouslygoesinthesamedirectionasmydescription:
conveying the message that one can trust the speaker as I have formulated it can
representaninvitationtotakeseriouslywhatthespeakerissaying.Thisanalysisisalsoin
line with Bazzanellas (1995: 230) statement that guarda can strengthen an utterance by
stressingthespeakersconviction.Insomecontexts,underliningthatonecanbetrusted
aboutwhatonesayscanindeedbeawaytoshowthatoneisconvincedaboutit.80
Interestingly,asimilarvaluehasbeenobservedfortheEnglishlook.Aswereadin
Brinton (2001: 180), among other functions, the forms lookee, look you, (now) look (here),
lookahere, and loookit can assume the meaning of believe me when I say; moreover,
theyaresaidtoexpressepistemiccertainty.81WithregardtolookandtheDutchparallel
formkijk,vanOlmen(2010b:228)statesthatwhatistypicaloflookandkijkisthatthe
Aswillbeshowninchapter8,nativespeakersfoundutteranceswithguardatoexpressgreatercertainty.
However,Iprefertodescribethemarkerasindicatingthatthespeakercanbetrusted,andnotasindicating
conviction,becauseitseemstomethatthefirstdescriptioncanbemorebroadlyappliedtoaccountfor
differentcases.Aspeakercanbeconvincedaboutanopinion,butwhenoneisforexamplesimply
reportingonsomefact,itbecomesproblematictospeakaboutconviction.Basedonmydata,Ibelievethat
themarkermoregenerallysignalizesthatthespeakercanbetrustedwithrespecttoherutterances;conviction
isoneofthepossiblereasonsforwhichspeakersmaywanttostresstheirreliability,andisinferredfromthe
specificcontextratherthanbeingencodedinthemarker.
81Thisdoesnotmeanthatguardaandlookareequivalent.Infact,Brinton(2001)mentionsusesoflookwhich
wouldnotworkforguarda.
79
80
93
ANALYSIS
speakeriscommittedtowhatfollowsor,inotherwords,that,inhisof[sic]heropinion,
the rest of the utterance is an important and truthful contribution to the conversation
(seealsovanOlmen2010a:80).Itseemsthatavalueofcommitment,avalueofcertainty,
andaninvitationtobelievethespeakercanalsodescribetheuseofguardajustshown.82
Letusconsiderafurtherexampleinwhichthisfunctionbecomesvisible.In(35),
weseeapartofaprivateconversationbetweentwoyoungwomen,SABandPAO.SAB
hasrecentlyattendedaconcertofoneofherfavoritebandsandistalkingwithPAOabout
them,inparticularaboutthesinger.
(35)
*PAO:[<]lorosono>inglesi//anchelui<inglese?
TheyareEnglish;isheEnglish,too?
*SAB:[<]<s/lorosono>/vicinoLondra//di&v+e[///]anchesepoioravivonoin
America//s/inFlorida/misembra//enulla/sicchsdetto/<io>+
Yes,theyarefromsomewhereclosetoLondon,fromvandEventhoughnowtheylivein
America;yes,inFlorida,Ithink.AndsowesaidI
*PAO:[<]<elui>conchista/xxx?
Andwhoishewith?
*SAB:luis+chalaterzamoglie/ora//ssposatotrevolte//s/infattisdetto/forse
cisaqualchesperanza//selecambiacos//chaquarantanni//perguarda/nonli
dimostrapernulla//proprio/picheinvecchia/epichemigliora/<guarda>//
Hehashenowhashisthirdwife;hegotmarriedthreetimes.Yes,thatswhywesaid:maybewe
canstillhope,ifhechangeswiveslikethis.Hesfortyyearsold,butguarda,hedoesntlooklike
thatatall.Really,theolderhegets,thebetterhelooks,guarda.
*PAO:[<]<come>ilvino//
Likewine.
*SAB:davvero//io/sonrimastaproprio/flesciata//(...)
Really.Iwasreallydazzled.
(CORALROM,ifamdl09)
Theexcerptcontainstwotokensofguarda.Thefirstprecedesthesegmentnonlidimostra
per nulla //. This constitutes a very positive evaluation: the singer does not look like a
Iwouldliketoaddsomethingtothispoint.AccordingtovanOlmen,lookgenerallytakesanutterance
initialposition,andkijkonlyoccursutterancefinallyasanexpressionofsurprise(utterancefinal
expressive),whichappearstoberoughlyequivalenttotheinterjectionalguarda(seechapter2,section2.4).
VanOlmenseemstoconsidertheexpressionofcommitmentasapropertyofutteranceinitial,butnot
utterancefinaluses.WhileIcannotjudgeaboutlookandkijk,Iwouldliketonotethatsucharestrictiondoes
notapplytoguarda.VanOlmencomparesthefunctionsoflookandkijkdetectedinhiscorporawiththoseof
guarda,regarde,andmiraashavebeendescribedbyotherscholars,withtheaimofinvestigatingtheriseofthe
discoursemarkingusesfromtheverbalsources.Forguarda,hereliesontheanalysisofWaltereit(2002).He
quotesanexampleofutterancefinalguarda:ehnomahosbagliatoradioguarda(huhnobutIvemadea
mistakeIvechosenthewrongradiostationlook)(vanOlmen2010b:236,originaltranslation,quotedfrom
Waltereit(2002:990))andhedescribesthisinstanceasaddingforcetotheutterance.Whenhecomestothe
developmentofthediscoursemarkingusesinthefivelanguages,however,itseemsthatutterancefinaluses
arenottakentoexpresscommitment,whileonlyutteranceinitialonesare.Iargue,instead,thatasenseof
commitmentisalsopresentinutterancefinalguarda.Guardahastheeffectofaddingforcetotheutterance
exactlybecauseitindicatesthatwecantrustthespeaker.
82
94
ANALYSIS
fortyyearold, but definitely younger (note the emphasizing use of per nulla). The
secondtokenmodifiestheutteranceproprio/picheinvecchia/epichemigliora/,
whichexpressesafurtherpositiveevaluation,andisatthesametimethestatementofa
factwhichevidentlycontradictsnormalexpectations.TheplayfulreactionofPAO,come
ilvino//,demonstratesthatthisstatementisnotmeantliterally,butisratheraslightly
exaggerated way for SAB to express her appreciation of the singers good looks. Both
utterances convey an evaluation that exceeds what can be considered neutral, or
average, and because of this, some support may be required. In this context, the
presenceofguardastressesthatwecantrustSABwhenmakingthesestatements,despite
thefactthattheymaysoundexcessive.83Byutilizingguarda,thespeakershowsthatsheis
reliablewhensayingwhatshesays,andshestressesherinvolvement.
Thisfunctioncanofcoursebeexploitedincontextswherenothingisbeingstated
whichcontradictsorexceedsnormalexpectationsperse,butwhereitcanbecomeuseful
forotherdiscoursestrategicpurposes.In(36),guardaoccursinanutteranceinwhichthe
speakeropenlycontradictstheopinionoftheinterlocutor.Theconversationtakesplacein
atelevisionbroadcast.TheparticipantsareinterviewerAandhertwointervieweesBand
C, a married couple. B, the wife, is a journalist and TVcook, and C, the husband, is a
football commentator (Cs name is replaced by yyyyyyy in the transcript). C has
workedasacommentatorduringtheFootballWorldCup,andAaffirmsthatsincethen
hehasbecomesomewhatconceited.
(36)
01
A:
02
03
04
05
06
09
10
Intwothousandandsix,theWorldCup,
=tu ti sei un po montato la TESta, (-)
B:
A:
yougotsomewhatofabighead...
[n:o:::.
No.
[diCIAmolo yyyyy][yy;
Letsbehonest,yyyyyyy
C:
[grazie a] [grazie a LEI forse no.]
Thankstothankstohermaybenot.
B:
07
08
duemilaSEI i monDIAli?=
[no::;=guarda;
No,guarda.
(---)
C:
cio (.) LEI [le:: ]
Imean,she
A:
C:
(IB2/1)
[siamo] sicuri;
Areyousure?
s s.=sono abbastanza siCUro;
Yes,yes,Imprettysure.
Inarguingthatguardaunderlinesthespeakersreliability,Idonotwishtoclaimthatspeakersconsciously
thinkaboutpotentialdoubtsoftheirinterlocutors.Itisclearthatdiscoursemarkersareusedinalargely
automaticway.Theproposedanalysisdoesnotintendtodescribespeakersthoughts,butismeantasaway
torepresentthemessagethatisbehindthemarkersuse.
83
95
ANALYSIS
SpeakerBfirstreactstoAsstatementbyexpressingherdisagreementwithn:o:::.;atthe
sametimeAaddsdiCIAmoloyyyyyyy;,bywhichsheurgestheinterlocutorstoadmit
thatsheisright.Bthenrepeatsherutteranceno::;,thistimewithguarda.Therepetition,
and the straightforward formulation of the contradiction note, in contrast, Cs less
confident forse no characterize this utterance as a clear attempt by B to affirm her
versionofthefactsagainstAsinsistence.TheadditionofguardaunderlinesBsintention
to persuade A, by emphasizing that B can be trusted and, hence, that A is wrong and
should rethink her evaluation. At the same time, showing reliability for what one says
also implies that one has concerned oneself with the issue talked about, and is not
contradicting the interlocutor recklessly. The speaker is trying to convince the other by
indicatingthatshecanbetrusted,sheisnotjustenforcingherownview.Asaresult,the
speakers position is underpinned, but the contrast with the interlocutors idea is
expressedinalessfacethreateningway.ThismechanismispointedoutbyWeydt(2006:
209)withreferencetoGermanparticles:particleswhichindicatethataspeakeristaking
into account the interlocutors point of view lead hearers to perceive the speech as
friendly. The association of this effect with guarda is consistent with descriptions of this
marker as mitigating unpleasant messages (Manili 1983), and as being used in case of
disagreement(Manili1986).
7.2.5. Markingquotedspeech
Thelastfunctionofguardathatemergedfrommydataisthatofmarkingquotations.41
out of the 141 analyzed tokens were found in quoted speech. The use of guarda in this
context is illustrated in example (37), which shows a part of the intervention of an
education inspector during a teacher training. The inspector (ISP) is talking about the
importanceofteachersinformingchildrensparentsabouttheirdidacticplans;shemakes
acomparisonwithwhatamedicaldoctorwouldsaytoapatientsmother.
(37)
*ISP:[...]seprendoinveceunmedicoserio/cosadice/guardisignora/rispettoaquesti
sintomi/allora/iocredochesiaopportunofarequestopiano//primaglifacciamoquesto
/poiquestopoiquesto/dopodichevediamodovesiamoarrivati/facciamoquestotipo
dixxx...faunprogetto//[...]
[...]ifItakeaseriousdoctorinstead,whatdoeshesay?GuardiMadam,inviewofthese
symptoms,Ithinkitsadvisabletomakethisplan:firstwedothis,thenthis,thenthis,thenwesee
howfarwehavecome,wemakethiskindofxxx...Hecreatesaproject.[...]
(CORALROM,inatpe03)
ISPwantstogiveanexampleofwhataseriousdoctorwouldsaytoachildsmother,and
she does so by quoting the doctors (fictitious) words. After the introduction with a
verbum dicendi, cosa dice, the quotation begins with guardi signora. The marker,
combinedwiththeaddressterm,stressestheshifttotheperspectiveofthedoctortalking
96
ANALYSIS
tothemother,orputdifferently,theshiftfromthedeicticcentreofspeakerISPtothatof
thequotedspeaker.AsIhavearguedaboutsenti,guardaalsopresupposesthepresenceof
aninterlocutor,soutteringguardarecreatesthesituationofdirectspeechandcontributes
tomarkingthefollowingtalkasaquotation.
This use has been observed by Fagard (2010) and by Waltereit (2002). Waltereit
arguesthatguardaoccursinquotationsbecauseitenablesspeakerstostressthechangeof
viewpoint,whichisoftenalsoachangeoftopic(Waltereit2002:993).Althoughmydata
do not support the assumption that guarda serves to change the topic (see section 7.3.3
below), I completely agree with the interpretation that guarda signals the change to a
distinctviewpoint.
As in the case of senti, the function of marking quotations represents a second
level function, because in contrast to the others, it does not follow from the markers
inherent properties, but instead from the fact that guarda is typical of direct speech and
usefullycontributestosimulatingit.
7.2.6. Aunifiedaccount:abasicfunctionofguarda
We have seen that guarda can serve to open a turn, to interrupt the current speaker,
therebyalsoattractingattention,toholdtheturnincaseofformulationtroubles,andto
convey the message that we can trust the speaker, with the effect of emphasizing and
underpinningstatements.Finally,itisexploitedtomarkquotedspeech.
Needless to say, even though these functions have been presented separately,
moreoftenthannottheyarecopresent.Considerthefollowingexamplefromatelevision
interview:interviewerAaskstheinterviewee,actressB,whetherhercolleaguesresenther
for having married a film director (probably implying that, in their view, B would owe
hercareertothehusbandandnottoherowntalent).
(38)
01
A:
02
05
B:
] non lo SO?=
Well,Idontknow,
becauseIdontIdonthear,
=n: a me non arRIvano?=
08
dontthey?
[ma
=perch io non: non non SENto.=
07
comeon,theydotry,sometimes,
[o NO;]
06
Becauseyouarethewifeofthedirect
=dai;=ci PROvano un po'; (-)
04
Butanddotheymakeyoufeelguilty?
=che tu sei la moglie del reGIs=
03
ma e ti FANno sentire in COLpa=
nIdontget
[=<<ride queste VOci->>]
theserumors,
97
ANALYSIS
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
A:
B:
A:
B:
B:
A:
18
andsotheywillnotsaythat.
[ma GUARda.=
Wellguarda
noin
actually,thisIdont
Idontpayattentiontoit,
becauseIdomyjob,
Ireadthescreenplays,
Itrytounderstandwhichoneisright
andwhichoneIfeel,
perch voglio SEMpre cercare di:; h
becauseIalwayswantto
di essere CArica e trasmettere:. (--)
28
goodbeforethen,
=e quale mi SENto. h
27
Andsoyouwerealready
=CERco di capire qual' giusto;=
26
Twoyears.
e quindi tu (l) eri GIA';
LEGgo i coPIOni;=
25
Howlonghaveyoubeenmarried?
due ANni; h
=perch faccio il mio laVOro; h
24
[da quanto vi siete spoSAti.]
=non ci BAdo TANto=
23
Yes,twoyears.
=in realTA' questo non ci:=
22
=non: in::=
21
themarriageisrecent,isntit?
=s [due ANni.
B:
20
soIdontknow.
[= reCENte il matri]MOnio,=no?=
e quindi [non lo diRANno]
19
Well,afterall,
brava da PRIma,
17
[e quindi non lo SO;]
A:
16
[be ANche perch.=
tobeenergeticandcommunicate
quello c che c' SCRITto. (-)
29
(IB4)
whatiswritten.
QUEsto poi alla fine:.
Thatsit,intheend.
In lines 1517, A expresses the assumption that Bs colleagues probably do not resent B
afterall,becauseBgotmarriedtothedirectoronlyrecently,andshehadalreadyproven
to be a good actress before then. B reacts by stating that she does not give much
importancetothesekindsofthings,butsimplythinksaboutdoingherjobwell.Instating
this, B contradicts As presupposition that she does care about what other people say
about her. The presence of guarda as an introduction to this turn emphasizes that B is
goingtobehonestinherstatement,althoughitwillcontradictanideaofA.
98
ANALYSIS
Atthesametime,theintroductionthroughguardaenablesBtomanagesometasks
concerning the allocation of the turn. Note that Bs turn begins just after a possible
completionpoint,namelyafterequinditu(l)eriGIA;bravadaPRIma,whichsuggests
thatBistryingtotakethefirstchancetotalkandcorrectAspresuppositions.84However,
a series of hesitation phenomena evidence that B has not completely planned the first
utterancewhenshestartstalking(seethelengthenednon:andin::,therepetitionof
inandlaterofnonci).TheuseofguardaallowsBtoannouncehercontributionand
taketheturnassoonasitbecomespossible,despitenothavingfullyplannedwhattosay.
Examiningthemarkersusethroughoutthecorpora,itappearsthattheobserved
multiplicity of functions can be subsumed under and explained by one more basic
function,whichispreciselythatofsignalizingtotheaddresseethatthespeakercanbe
trustedwithrespecttotheutterance(s)produced.Byvirtueofthismessage,themarker
canbeusedtoconveyaspeakersattitudetowardswhatissaidandtheaddressee,fora
variety of interactional purposes; at the same time, as the marker announces when
preposed to the scope that some stretch of talk is going to be produced and creates
expectationforit,itcanbecomeusefulforturnmanagingtasks.Anyofthefunctionscan
gain a prevalent weight over the others, or many functions can be active at once,
dependingontheaimsofthespeakeratagivenpointintheinteraction.Thefunctionof
markingquotationsisobviouslyderivedfromthesamebasicone,becauseitdrawsonthe
factthatguardaistypicallydirectedtoaninterlocutor(inaccordancewiththemessageit
conveys),andthereforerecreatesasituationofdirectspeech.
NotethatwhenIdescribethebasicfunctionassignalizingthatthespeakercanbe
trusted with respect to the utterance(s) produced, I do not intend to say that it is
necessarily an invitation to believe in what the speaker says, though in many cases for
instancethoseseeninsection7.2.4abovethiswouldbeanappropriatedefinition.Fora
descriptionthatstrivestobegeneralandexplainallinstancesofuse,furtheraspectshave
to be taken into account.85 In fact, when guarda is employed, for instance, to underpin a
proposal,itisnotsomuchthebeliefintheutterancescontentthatisatstake,butrather
theutterancesappropriatenessasaproposalinacertainsituation.Letmetrytoillustrate
this point in example (39). Speakers A and B are planning a visit to some museums. B
remarksthattherearetoomanymuseumstochoosefrom;Aproposestoskipthosethat
arefurthestawayfromthepointofdeparture.
(39)
01
B:
=FORse:.
Maybe...
ItshouldbeaddedthatacrossthewholeinterviewBtriestopreventAfrompraisingher;soitispossible
that,alsointhiscase,shewantstoavoidthatAfurtherpraisehertalent.
85Forthisreason,eventhoughinsection7.2.4IhavereferredtoBrintons(2001)mentionofanepistemic
valueoflookformsandtovanOlmens(2010)characterizationoflookandkijkasmarkersofcommitment,Ido
notdescribeguardaasamarkerofcommitment,orasanepistemicmarker.Thesewouldbevalid
characterizationsofguardainmanycases,buttheywouldnotbepreciseenoughasgeneralexplanations.
84
99
ANALYSIS
02
03
04
05
A:
A:
08
09
10
11
[ci sono troppi muSEI,]
Therearetoomanymuseums.
(-)
s=allora questo=
Yes.So,thisone
=se no possiam fare coSI' guarda, h
07
Sowecoulddo
B:
06
quin[di potremmo FAre
Orwecandoitlikethis,guarda.
questi due li lasciamo PERdere? (-)
B:
A:
B:
A:
12
Thesetwoweleaveout.
s?
Yes.
(-) che sono lonTAni?
Becausetheyarefarapart.
s;
Yes.
(--) cio il museo di castelVECchio=
Thatis,theMuseodiCastelvecchio,
=e il museo lapidario maffeIAno?
(PC3)
andtheMuseoLapidarioMaffeiano.
Oncemore,guardaisclearlyattachedtotheutterancethatprecedesit(notetheprosodic
integration in the preceding segment and the breathing that separates it from the
followingone,whichbuildsanewprosodicunit).Becauseofitsposition,guardalacksall
projecting value, and one must assume that it is working as a comment qualifying the
precedingutterance.ThisutteranceconstitutesaproposalforthejointactivityofAandB:
possiamfarecos(thereferenceofcosfollowsinthenextutterances,whichelucidate
Asconcreteplan).Asinotherexamples,theeffectofthemarkeristhatofunderpinning
whatissaid;inthiscase,moreexactly,ofunderliningAswishtoconvinceBthatheridea
isgood.Itbecomesapparentthattheunderpinningintentexpressedbyguardadoesnot
necessarilyrefertothecontentofutterances,butitcaninsteadrefertotheintentions(we
could say: the illocutionary points) that inform them. Put differently: guarda does not
always refer to what a speaker says, but also to what a speaker does. Brinton (2001)
affirms that in the development from the structure verb form look + clause to the
correspondingdiscoursemarkers(e.g.look,lookahere),theformshaveundergoneachange
in scope to the effect that rather than relating merely to the event expressed in the
complementclause,theycometorelatetotheentirespeechevent.Iwillnotgointothe
discussionofhowguardahasdeveloped,whichisnotthefocusofmywork,butitseems
to me that this is precisely what happens with this marker: its message relates to the
entirespeechevent.
The assumption of the basic function or basic message above is supported by a
number of observable facts concerning the contexts in which guarda is used. Across the
whole corpora, guarda almost exclusively occurs in contexts which not only are well
compatible with, but often call for the use of an element able to underline that we can
trust the speaker. A large majority of tokens accompany expressions of speakers
100
ANALYSIS
opinions, frequently characterized by being particularly positive or negative, or

conflicting with the interlocutors ideas or expectations, and reports about facts and
situations which contradict normal expectations or the assumptions of the interlocutors.
Guardaisalsoemployedwhenspeakersgiveaccountsoffactsoroftheirpersonalideas,
defendthemselvesfromcriticism,andwhentheymakeproposalstotheaddressees.Inall
ofthesecases,wehavetodowithcontextsthatfavororrequire,fordifferentreasons,that
thereliabilityofthespeakerbestressed.
At a lexical level, utterances featuring guarda often contain adjectives whose
meaning implies the contradiction of expectations, such as strano (strange) and

incredibile (incredible), interjections indicating (positive or negative) astonishment,
like Madonna and mamma mia (roughly equivalent to boy, gosh), as well as
adjectives and adverbs expressing a particularly positive or negative evaluation, e.g.
decisiva (decisive), bellissimo (beautiful), perfetti (perfect), splendidi
(splendid), tremendo (terrible), allucinante (hallucinating, here in the sense of
unbelievable), molto volentieri (very gladly), proprio simpatica (really likeable),
assolutamenteirripetibile(absolutelyunrepeatable).
Moreover,guardaaccompaniessentencesandphrasesthatconveyevaluationsina
hyperbolicalway,asforexamplecredevodimorire(IthoughtIwoulddie,saidabout
waking up in very cold weather), ne sono rimasta sconvolta (I was shocked by that,
referred to a statement judged as grossly stupid), non cascava uno spillo (not even a
needle would fall, said in relation to a crowded place), and roba da pazzi (literally
madmens things, an idiomatic phrase employed for something which is disapproved
of or considered weird). Sometimes assessments accompanied by guarda are stressed
through repetition, for example: tremenda / guarda // tremenda // tremenda //
tremenda(shesterrible,guarda,shesterrible,shesterrible,shesterrible).
Itisalsoworthnotingthatthemarkeroftencooccurswithexpressionsrelatedto
truthfulnessandtrustworthiness:veramente(really),sinceramente(honestly),su
i serio (seriously), in realt (in reality), bisogna dica la verit (I must tell the
truth), devo dire che (I have to say that), ti giuro (I swear), credimi (believe
me),nontiraccontobugie(Imnottellingyoulies).
Therecurrenceofthesefeaturesacrossthedatastronglysupportstheassumption
thatthemessageconcerningthespeakersreliabilitymaybeconstantlyactivatedinguarda
asitsmostfundamental,basicmessage.
Incidentally, using the marker in contexts which are not compatible with such a
message seems impossible, or at least odd. Let us look at example (40), quoted from
Waltereit (2002: 993). This guarda is described by Waltereit as a hesitation phenomenon,
andindeeditappearsthatthespeakeruttersitinordertogaintimewhilesearchingfor
theproperwording.
(40)
A:maiono_nonmipiaceperono_nonopreferireifareunaguardapubblicazione
puradellelettere
DMno,IdontlikeitbutnonoIdprefertoguardapublishthelettersastheyare
101
ANALYSIS
B:puradelleletterecos?
Thelettersexactlyastheyare?
A:s_cheper_cioconuncappelloincuispieghiamoeccononostante_sisiparlato
dipacifismo
Yesbutwithanintroductionwhereweexplainthatneverthelesspacifismhasbeendiscussed
AexplainstocolleagueBwhatformathewouldlikeforthepublicationofacollectionof
letters, as opposed to another idea (see non mi piace pero, preferirei). The turn
verbalizesthecontrastandpresentsAspersonalopinion.IfAweredoingsomethingelse,
say describing his new house, the insertion of guarda to bridge a formulation problem
wouldnotbeacceptable,aswecanseeinexample(41)(constructed):86
(41)
A:*abbiamoduebagni,unostudioeunaguardastanzapergliospiti
Wehavetwobathrooms,aworkroom,andaguardaguestroom
Here,thereisnoneedforthespeakertostressthatwecantrusther,sotheuseofguarda
becomes superfluous and confusing.87 The message concerning the speakers reliability
seemstobeconstantlypresentandimposeconstraintsontheuseofthemarker,evenin
caseswhereotherfunctions(hereformulationmanagement)areintheforeground.
Assumingthismessagealsoenablesustoexplainwhyguarda,thoughbeingable
tooccurinsimilarcontextsassenti,isnotequivalenttoit.Recallexamples(14a)and(14b)
fromchapter5,repeatedhereas(42a)and(42b):
(42a)
B:Guardi,lasignoranonincasa.Sevuolechiamarepitardi.
Guardi,MrsRossiisnothere.Wouldyoupleasecalllater?
(Bazzanella1995:236,emphasisadded)
(42b)
Nodoubt,almostanyexamplecanbecomeacceptableonceputintoanappropriatecontext.Still,thevery
factthatthisexampleisunacceptableunderstandardconditionsshowsthatguardaisindeednotcompatible
withjustanycontext,duetotheinteractionbetweenthecontextandthemarkersmessage.
87Conversely,thefollowingversionwouldbeacceptable:abbiamoduebagni,unostudioepersinouna
guardastanzapergliospiti(wehavetwobathrooms,aworkroom,andevenaguardaguestroom).The
additionofpersinoimpliesthat,inAsview,theaddresseewouldnotexpectthehousetofeaturea
guestroom.Assoonassomethingisstatedwhichmayforanyreasonviolateexpectations,guardabecomes
acceptableandassumesthevalueofaconfirmationthatwecantrustthespeakerdespitethesurprising
characterofherstatement.IthankVahramAtayanforthisexampleandforourinterestingandfruitful
discussion.
86
102
ANALYSIS
B:Senta,lasignoranonincasa.Sevuolechiamarepitardi.
Senta,MrsRossiisnothere.Wouldyoupleasecalllater?
Aswasobserved,speakerAsoundedkindin(42a),butsomewhatannoyedin(42b).The
basic functions proposed above provide an explanation for this divergence: guarda
indicates that the speaker is seeking the interlocutors trust, so (42a) gives us the
impressionthatthespeakeristryingtojustifyherresponse,therebyputtingherselfina
weakerpositionascomparedtotheinterlocutor;senti,byconveyingarequesttocomply
with the speakers intentions, gives us the impression of a more selfassertive attitude,
andmakestheturnin(42b)soundrude.
At this stage, one may ask how this basic function or basic message can be
reconciledwiththemarkerssourceitem,theverbguardare.Isuggestthat,firstofall,
guardashouldnotbeunderstoodasanappealtopayattentiontothespeakerandthetalk
beingproducedincontrasttowhatonemightspontaneouslythinkbutrathertosome
objectoreventtowhichthespeakerwantstopoint.Acalltopayattentiontothespeaker
istypicalofsenti,whichindeedappealstoattendtothespeakersactivity.Theorientation
towards the speaker is particularly evident in the form stammi a sentire88 through the
presence of the personal pronoun mi (me). For guarda, no such form exists, nor is it
conceivable to introduce any utterance with stammi a guardare. The oddity of such a
formmakesusimmediatelynoticethatthemeaningofguardaisnotaboutlookingatthe
speaker.89Instead,Ibelievethatguardaconstitutesaninvitationofcourseametaphorical
one, at least in the present use to consider some object or event from the interactional
contextorfromsomecontextthatthespeakeristalkingabout.Ametaphoricalappealto
observe something can be used to indicate evidence and become a way to tell our
interlocutors that they can trust us.90 Brinton (2001) notes that the epistemic quality
present in the English marker look goes back to the conventionalization of the invited
inferencethatwhatisvisiblemustbebelieved(Brinton2001:193).Itmaywellbethat
something similar has happened with guarda, too. A form that points metaphorically to
someobservablethingcanwellturnintoadeviceforindicatingaspeakersreliability.
Thisform,translatableaslistentome,isnotasfrequentassenti,anddidnotoccurinthedata,butis
currentlyusedinItalian.Bazzanella(1990:640)mentionsittogetherwithsentiinherinventoryofItalian
discoursemarkers.
89Ifweallowourselvessomefreedomandconstructtheformsentimi,thisstillseemstowork,although
beingodd.Wecanseethisifwemodifyexample(24)fromsection7.1.4:?Sentimi/tivolevodire/supergi
/sucheoralovuoilappuntamento?.Aformguardamiis,atleastaccordingtomynativecompetenceof
Italian,notacceptableatall.Usingexample(35)fromsection7.2.4,weobservethatwecannotnotsay:*cha
quarantanni//perguardami/nonlidimostrapernulla.Wenoticeimmediatelythatthemessageofguarda
isnotaboutlookingatthespeaker.
90AlthoughIdonotanalyzethediachronicevolutionofguarda,Ihavetonoteherethattheseideasareat
variancewiththeproposalofWaltereit(2002:998ff.).Waltereitarguesthatthemarkerhasoriginatedfromthe
useoftheimperativeforinterruption:theimperativesuggeststhatthespeakerhasseensomethingthatthe
othershavenotnoticed,anditallowshertotaketheturnimmediately(seechapter4above).Analternative
suggestionwouldbetolookfortheoriginofguardainitspotentialforsupportingonesstatementsby
metaphoricallypointingtosomeevidence.
88
103
ANALYSIS
Summingupthepresentsection,Ihaveproposedthatguardahasabasicfunction
orbasicmessagewhichconsistsofsignallingthatthespeakercanbetrustedwithrespect
totheutterance(s)produced.Thiscanbethemainfunctionofthemarkerinsomecases,
oritcanstayinthebackgroundwhileotherfunctionsbecomemorerelevant(seeFigure
3). Because it creates expectation of further talk when it is not postposed guarda is
exploited for tasks related to the management of turns and to the addressees attention:
openingaturn,holdingtheturnwhileovercomingformulationtroubles,takingtheturn
by interrupting another speaker, and calling attention to ones upcoming talk.
Correspondingly, depending on the speakers aims, guarda is able to act on different
interactionallevels:ontheinterpersonalrelationshipbetweenspeakerandaddressee,on
the management of turns, and on the communicative contact between participants. In
addition,sinceitsbasicfunctionimpliesthedirectappealtoanaddressee,guardacanbe
usedinquotationstoreproducedirectspeech;itwillthenplayaroleonthelevelofthe
adopteddeicticorigo.
Figure3:functioningofguarda.Thebasicfunctiongivesrisetodifferentfunctionsondifferentinteractionallevels.
104
ANALYSIS
7.3. Theuseofsentiandguarda:acomparison
Afterhavingexaminedsentiandguardaseparately,Iwouldliketooffer,inthissection,a
comparisonbetweenthetwomarkers.
Somefactscanalreadybepointedoutbasedontheresultsfromthetwopreceding
sections. The analyses carried out have led to the identification of a number of main
functionsandabasicfunctionorbasicmessageforeachmarker.Lookingatthoseresults,
we can see that senti and guarda have decidedly different basic functions: senti has been
foundtoessentiallyconveyanappealtotheaddresseetoattendtothespeakersactivity
in a way that complies with the speakers intentions; guarda, in contrast, conveys the
messagethatthespeakercanbetrustedwithrespecttotheutterancesproduced.Thetwo
markersareabletoassume,inasense,analogousfunctionsincontext:bothmarkerscan
open up a new turn, attract the interlocutors attention, help to interrupt a current
speaker, serve to manage formulation problems, and mark quoted speech, but their use
for these purposes draws on distinct basic messages. Both of them can also modalize
utterances through the expression of a speakers attitude, which is, however, not the
same. In addition, senti can perform tasks that have not been registered in the case of
guarda:introducinganewtopic,anewsequence,oranewpartofaconversation.Hence,
even if some of the functions fulfilled by senti and guardaare analogous, due to the fact
thatbothmarkersareabletoworkonpartiallythesamelevelsofinteraction,theydo
notdosointhesameway.
How can this statement be further substantiated? As was announced at the
beginningofthechapter,Iintendtoprovidesuchevidencebycomparingfeaturesofthe
contexts in which senti and guarda are employed; such features follow from, and thus
mirror,themarkersrespectivefunctionalproperties.
In chapter 6, I explained that the analysis of corpus data would follow a set of
criteria which account for different aspects or component of the conversation. The
examination of each token according to these criteria primarily formed the basis for the
qualitative analysis of the markers, but it also allows for a quantification of their
distribution with respect to those aspects of the conversation. These data can now be
directlycontrastedtoseehowthebehaviourofthetwomarkersdiverges.Thecomparison
will enable us to further develop and deepen the descriptions given in the previous
sectionsandtodirectlyappreciatedifferencesbetweenthetwomarkers.
Concretely, I will compare senti and guarda with regard to their relation to the
managementofturnsandtheunitsintheirscope(subsection7.3.1),theirrelation tothe
varioustypesofactionscarriedoutbythespeakers(subsection7.3.2),andtheirrelationto
sequenceorganization,theconversationsglobalstructure,andtopicstructure(subsection
7.3.3)(thevariousaspectswillbediscussedingroups,duetotheirfunctionalrelatedness).
We shall see that senti and guarda manifest observably distinct patterns with respect to
mostoftheaspectsexamined.
In addition, I will consider this time in a qualitative perspective differences
betweensentiandguardainquotedspeech.Thetwomarkersfunctionanalogouslyinthis
105
ANALYSIS
kindofcontext,namelyasdevicesrecallingdirectspeech.However,Iwillaskwhether,in
linewiththeirdistinctbasicfunctions,thetwomarkerscontributedifferentmessagesto
thequotedutterances.
7.3.1. Relationtotheorganizationofturnsandthescope
I will start the comparison by considering the relation of senti and guarda with the
organization of the turnsattalk. Let us first observe the position that the two markers
occupy in the turns. Senti appears in 65.6% of its tokens in turninitial position and in
34.4% in turnmedial position; guarda is turninitial in 30% of the cases, turnmedial in
60%,andturnfinalin10%91(seeTable1).Hence,inthemajorityofthecases,sentioccurs
inapositionthatenablesittofunctionasanintroductoryelementforthewholeturn;in
contrast, guarda does so in a much smaller number of cases, and speakers tend to use it
moreoftenwithintheirturns.
While it is generally claimed that senti and guarda work as opening signals, the
distributionjustdisplayedencouragesustoconsidermorecarefullythischaracterization
and consider that this function might have a different weight for the two markers.
Obviously,turninitialplacementdoesnotnecessarilyimplythatamarkerisperforming
turnopeningasitsmainfunctionineverycase,butasamatteroffactguardahasmuch
lesschanceofdoingsothansentihas.So,whilebothitemscanperformturnopening,this
taskmaybemoreimportantforsentithanforguarda.
Twofurthercriteriaofanalysisthatarerelatedtotheorganizationofturnsconcern
theuseofsentiandguardaatplaceswhereaspeakertakes,orattemptstotake,theturn
away from another speaker, and at places where speakers encounter difficulties in
formulation.Theexaminationoftheseaspectsinthecorpusdatawasintendedtoreveala
potential role of the markers in interrupting current speakers and keeping the turn in
cases of formulation troubles, functions that both markers were found to fulfil. With
respect to these criteria, we observe, again, discrepancies between senti and guarda;
however,thelimitednumberoftokensfoundatsuchplacesdoesnotenableustoargue
thatthediscrepanciesobservedmayevidenceadifferenceinthemarkersfunctioning.If
we look at how often senti and guarda occur at places where a speaker is clearly
interruptingortryingtointerruptanother,92wefindthat13.6%ofthetokensofsentiand
7% of guarda appear in such an environment. As for their use in cases of formulation
problems which are evidenced in the data by silent and filled pauses, lengthened
sounds, reformulations, repetitions, and linguistic expressions related to formulation
Thesevaluesrefertoatotalnumberof125tokensofsentiand100tokensofguarda.The11tokensofsenti
and41ofguardathatappearinquotedspeechareofcoursetreatedseparatelylater,whentheuseofthe
markersforthatspecificfunctionisconsidered.
92Ionlyincludecasesinwhichspeakersareclearlyinterruptingothers,thatis,Idonotincludethosecasesin
whichthereisthedoubtthataspeakermaysimplyhaveselectedherselfasthenextspeakersimultaneously
withanother,orstartedspeakingafterapossiblecompletionpointwhichturnsoutnottobetheendofthe
previousturn.Ialsorestrictmyselftothosecasesinwhichclearformulationtroublescanberecognized;so,
forexample,pauseswithastylisticvaluearenotconsidered.
91
106
ANALYSIS
18.4% of the tokens of senti and 9% of guarda93 occur in this kind of environment (see
Tables 2 and 3). Since these numbers are low overall, one cannot draw any conclusions
about functional differences between senti and guarda. Rather, it seems that this
distribution is entailed in the higher frequency of senti as an introductory device as
comparedtoguarda,whichIhavealreadyobservedinrelationtotheirpositioninturns.94
Table1:positionofsentiandguardaintheturns
Discourse
marker
senti
guarda
Turninitial
N.
%
82/125
65.6%
30/100
30.0%
Turnmedial
N.
%
43/125
34.4%
60/100
60.0%
Turnfinal
N.
%
0/125
0.0%
10/100
10.0%
Table2:occurrenceofsentiandguardawhenaspeakerinterruptsortriestointerruptanother
Discourse
marker
senti
guarda
Ininterruptions
N.
%
17/125
13.6%
7/100
7.0%
Nointerruptions
N.
%
108
86.4%
93
93.0%
Table3:occurrenceofsentiandguardaincasesofformulationproblems
Discourse
marker
senti
guarda
Withformulationproblems
N.
%
23/125
18.4%
9/100
9.0%
Noformulationproblems
N.
%
102
81,6%
91
91.0%
An interesting point for comparison is the position occupied by senti and guarda
withrespecttotheirscopes,i.e.theunitsoftalkofvariousformandsizetowhichthey
referanduponwhichtheyact.Inthecorpora,sentistronglytendstobeplacedbeforeits
scope:99.2%ofthetokensoccurbefore,andonly0.8%aftertheunitofreference.So,itcan
be assumed that in almost all cases, senti possesses a projecting value: it prefigures that
thespeakerwillsaysomethingandpreparestheaddresseeforit.Notethatthisdoesnot
meanthatannouncingtheupcomingtalkmustbetheprimaryfunctioninallcases,butit
is brought about by the very fact of uttering the marker. Since senti cannot be uttered
alone,itcreatesexpectationforfurtherspeech,attractingattentiontoitandpreparingfor
itsreception.
Thedistributionofguardaisverydifferent:guardaoccursin60%ofthecasesbefore
itsscope,andin40%afterit.Thismeansthatthemarkercanhaveaprojectingvaluein
NotethatIamnotclaimingthat18.4%ofthetokensofsentiand9%ofguardafunctiononlyforfloorholding,
northat13.6%ofsentiand7%ofguardaareonlyinterruptionsdevices.Themultifunctionalityofdiscourse
markerswouldmakesuchacountquitequestionable:moreoftenthannot,onetokenperformsvarioustasks
atonceandcannotbeassignedasinglefunction.
94Oneobservationisdueastotheoccurrenceofsentiwithhesitationphenomena.Wehaveseenthatsentiis
oftenusedattheshifttoanewtopicoranewsequenceofaconversation.Thebeginningofanewtopicor
sequencecanrequiresomeadditionalplanningandformulationwork,soitwillnotbesuprisingthatsentiis
exploitedtosignaltheupcomingshiftwhilegainingsomeplanningrespite.
93
107
ANALYSIS
60%ofthetokens,butitalsoworksveryoften asaretrospectivecommentonwhathas
beensaid,withoutanyintroductoryfunctionfortheturnorpartsofit(seeTable4).
Table4:positionofsentiandguardawithrespecttotheirscopes
Discourse
marker
senti
guarda
Beforethescope
N.
%
124/125
99.2%
60/100
60.0%
Afterthescope
N.
%
1/125
0.8%
40/100
40.0%
Asaresultofthiscomparison,itcanbeconcludedthatsentimustbemorestrongly
associated with the function of introducing talk than guarda is (and it thus performs
functions such as taking, opening, and holding the turn more often than guarda does).
Guarda,inturn,appearstobeparticularlysuitableforqualifyingutterancesexpost.
These facts were taken into account in the elaboration of the functional
descriptionsofsentiandguardathathavebeenpresentedintheprecedingsections.How
do the functions I have proposed account for the distribution just observed? If one
assumes as I have done that senti constitutes a request to attend to the speakers
activity,andthusincludestheprojectionofupcomingtalkasapartofitsbasicmessage,
one can naturally explain its use at points where a unit of talk a whole turn or an
utterance that is part of it is being started or restarted, and where the speaker has to
securetheaddresseesattentionandtherighttospeak.Regardingguarda,Ihaveargued
thatitsbasicfunctionistoindicatethespeakersreliabilitywithrespecttoherutterance;if
this is correct, it will not be surprising that speakers though employing guarda with a
projectingfunctionaswellwillveryoftenusethismarkertoqualifywhattheysayonan
interpersonallevel,byaddingitattheendofutterancesandturns.
7.3.2. Relationtospeakersactions
Intheanalysisofcorpusdata,Ifurthermoretookintoaccountwhatactionsthespeakers
carried out in the interaction by means of the utterances in which senti and guarda
appeared, as for example asking a question or making an offer. My aim now will be to
lookatwhatkindofactionssentiandguardaaccompanyinthecorpusdata,anddiscuss
somestrikingdifferencesbetweenthetwomarkers.
The types of actions which senti and guarda accompany in the corpora are
displayedinTables5and6.Typeswhoselabelmightbeunclearwillbeelucidatedinthe
following part of the section. Note that in the tables, the types are ordered by their
frequency,butatthesametimesomeofthemaregroupedtogetherduetotheirsimilarity:
forexample,askingaquestionandrequestingtoreportonsomethingareconsidered
tobefunctionallysimilar.95
InrelationtothecategoriesandthenumbersdisplayedinTables5and6,itshouldbeborninmindthatthe
identificationoftheactionsperformedbyspeakersisnotalwaysclearcut.Itisnotoriousthatspeakerscando
manythingswithanutterance.Whilethiscomplexitywastakenintoaccountinthequalitativeanalysisofthe
individualtokens,forthequantificationofthetypesofactions,asisrepresentedinthetables,Isticktothose
95
108
ANALYSIS
Table5:actionsaccomplishedbythespeakerswiththeutterancesinwhichsentioccurs
Senti:actionsaccomplishedbythespeakers
Askingaquestion
AssertingBevents
AssessingBevents
Requestingtoreportonsomething
Describingfacts/situations(outofwhich3answerstoquestions)
Expressingopinions(1answertoaquestion)
Assessingsomething(3answerstoquestions)
Expressingfeelingsinreactiontosomething
Makingrequests
Takingleaves
Announcingactionstobeperformedbythespeaker
Makingarrangements
Issuinginvitations
Givinginstructions
Defendingoneself(1answertoaquestion)
Wishingsomethingtosomebody
Acceptingproposals
Complaining
Warning
Total
N.
65
3
73
3
2
12
3
11
7
1
8
5
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
125
%
52.0
2.4
58.4
2.4
1.6
9.6
2.4
8.8
5.6
0.8
6.4
4.0
3.2
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
100.0
Table6:actionsaccomplishedbythespeakerswiththeutterancesinwhichguardaoccurs
Guarda:actionsaccomplishedbythespeakers
Assessingsomething(outofwhich5answerstoquestions)
Expressingfeelingstowardssomething(1answertoaquestion)
Describingapersonalreactiontosomething
Expressinganopinion(2answerstoquestions)
Describingfacts/situations(6answerstoquestions)
Givingaccounts(2answerstoquestions)
Defendingonself
Makingproposals
Announcingactionstobeperformedbythespeaker
Downgradingcompliments
Justifyinganotherutteranceonametadiscursivelevel
Issuinginvitations
Threatening(ironically)
Total
N.
37
10
56
4
5
23
6
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
100
%
37.0
10.0
56.0
4.0
5.0
23.0
6.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
100.0
actionsthatIcouldrecognizeastheprimaryones,basedonsequentialanalysis.Duetothenatureofthe
object,itiswellpossiblethatanotheranalystcouldcometoaslightlydifferentcategorizationoftheactions;
nevertheless,thedistributionofthemarkersshowssuchclearpatternsthat,eveninthatcase,Ifeelconfident
thattheobservationsIamtomakeinthissectionwouldremainvalid.
109
ANALYSIS
As the tables show, many types of actions appear only a few times (e.g.
complaining, warning), presumably due to the fact that they simply do not occur very
often in interaction. I will not consider these types in the comparison between senti and
guarda because they obviously cannot be safely expected to reflect any functional
differencesbetweenthemarkers.WhatIwillconsideraresomehighlyfrequenttypesof
actions,whichcanbeseenastypicalenvironmentsofuseforthetwomarkers.Wewill
seethat,withrespecttotheseactiontypes,sentiandguardashowremarkabledifferences.
Letusstartwithguarda.Guardaaccompaniesalargenumberofutterancesthatone
can characterize, in general terms, as expressing a speakers personal evaluation of or

positionaboutsomething.Thelargestpartofthetokens(37.0%)isfoundinassessments
of things, persons, situations, and events. By assessment, I mean the action of
evaluating in some fashion persons and events being described within [the speakers]
talk(Goodwin/Goodwin1987:6).Someexamplesinthecorporaareutteranceslikegl
strano (its strange), or tremendo (its terrible).96 In addition, guarda occurs in
utterancesthatconveyspeakersevaluationsofthingsinalessdirectway.Someofthem
(10.0%) express the feelings of a speaker in reaction to something: this is the case for
interjections like mamma mia and ohi ohi, and clauses with an exclamatory value
such as questomo / icch gl //97 (what a man he is!). These kindsof utterances can
indicate, depending on the context, feelings of surprise, admiration, annoyance, or
discomfort among others towards some object or event. They are thus functionally
close to evaluations.98 Another group of tokens (4.0%) are found in utterances which
describe the speakers reaction towards some fact talked about. To give an example:
credevodimorire,saidaboutwakinguponaverycoldmorning,andinresponsetoa
priorremarkontheweather,isobviouslynotamerereportaboutanevent,butamanner
ofconveyingaverystrong,negativeevaluationoftheweather,anditisthuscomparable
toanassessment.Finally,guardaappearsinexpressionsofspeakersopinionsaboutsome
topicunderdiscussion(5.0%).Altogether,morethanhalfofthetokensofguarda(56.0%)
are produced in situations where speakers express their personal evaluation of and
positionaboutsomething.
The second largest group of tokens (23.0%) occur in descriptions of facts and
situations:speakersreportonaneventortheystatethatsomesituationisthecase,e.g.a
svegliarmistamattinaallesette/uncelafacevo/(wakingupthismorningatseven:I
couldntdothat).Aswasnotedinsection7.2,thecontentofthesedescriptionsisoftenat
Tobeprecise,GoodwinandGoodwin(1987:6f.)makeaterminologicaldistinctionbetweenassessment
segment,whichisthelinguisticunit(e.g.anadjective)thatindicatestheevaluation;assessmentsignal,
whichisanyphenomenondisplayingaspeakersinvolvementinanassessment(suchasintonation,oran
assessmentsegment);assessmentaction,whichistheactiontherebyperformedbyaspeaker(astheauthors
putit,thetypeofspeechact);andassessmentactivity,i.e.theinteractiveactivityofassessingsomething,
whichinvolvesmultiplespeakersandecompassesfurtheractionsrelatedtotheassessment(suchas
monitoringtheothersresponse).WhenItalkaboutassessments,Imeanthethirdreading:thetypeof
actionperformedbyaspeakerthroughherutterance(s).
97Thisutterancecontainssomediatopicallymarkedfeatures(thespeakercomesfromTuscany).InStandard
Italianitwouldsoundquestuomoche.
98Forinstance,inGoodwinandGoodwin(1987:11),theinterjectionAh::::::;istakenasanassessment.
96
110
ANALYSIS
oddswiththeassumptionsoftheinterlocutorsorwithwhatcanbeconsiderednormal
expectations.
Let us now turn to senti. We could reason that the types of actions just seen are
simply frequent in interaction, and therefore expect them to occur with senti as often as
with guarda. However, senti accompanies descriptions of facts only in 9.6% of the cases,
and expressions of speakers personal positions and evaluations in 8.8% (comprising
assessments (5.6%), expressions of feelings (0.8%), and opinions (2.4%)). Inturn, it often
introducesquestions,onwhichIwillcommentlater.
Even if both markers can be used in similar contexts, as soon as we look at their
overalloccurrenceinthedata,itbecomesevidentthatspeakersdonotusetheminquite
thesamecontextsafterall.Whycouldthisbethecase?
Itseemstomethatguardamightbesooftenusedinthesetypesofactionsbecause
of the message it encodes. If we assume that guarda indicates that the speaker can be
trustedaboutherutterance,withthecorollaryeffectofunderpinningherpositionand,in
somecontexts,alsoofdemonstratingconsiderationfortheinterlocutorsassumptions,itis
not surprising that guarda will often be exploited by speakers when expressing their
personalopinionsorevaluations,andwhenrecountingfactsthattheinterlocutorsdidnot
experiencethemselves.
Senticansupporttheexpressionofanopinionorthestatementofsomefacts,too,
butitdoessobyvirtueofadifferentmeaning.Ifthismeaningconsists,asIhaveargued,
inanappealtoattendtothespeakersactivityinawaythatcomplieswithherintentions,
senti will signal a somewhat selfassertive attitude. While this can be suitable for
supportingtheexpressionofonespositioninsomesituations,itiscertainlymorerarely
appropriatethanthemessageencodedinguarda.
Regardingthedistinctattitudeassociatedwiththetwomarkers,thedataprovide
an interesting example, which is shown in (43). In this familiar conversation, a mother

(MAR) and her grownup children, university students MIC and ANT, are heatedly
discussingtheimportanceforactorstofeelthecharacterstheyplay.MIChasuntilnow
vehemently advocated the idea that good actors should be able to hide their own
personality completely, while his sister ANT has argued that one cannot possibly
suppressonesownpersonalityaltogether.MARhastakenasimilarpositionasANT.As
wasmentionedinchapter4,Manili(1986:169)considerssenti,guarda,aswellasveditobe
pragmaticallynecessarywhenspeakersradicallydisagreewiththeirinterlocutors;wewill
see in this example that, although both senti and guarda can be used in cases of
disagreement,theydonotseemtoexpressthesameintentionwithregardtoit.
(43)
*ANT:mammastadicendoproprioquesto//staparlandodiinterpretare//perchunose
lodevesentire<addosso/quelpersonaggio>//
Momissayingexactlythis,shestalkingaboutperforming,becauseonehastofeelthecharacteron
oneself.
111
ANALYSIS
*MIC:[<]<devessere/quelpersonaggio>//
Youmustbethatcharacter.
*ANT:<selodevesentireaddosso//manondevessere>/quelpersonaggio//
Youmustfeelthecharacter,butyoumustntbethecharacter.
*MIC:[<]<oh//haivisto//oh>//eh/u[///]aminghia/s//mo/<scusate//m
scappata>//
%exp:(6)il;(7)la
There.Thereyouare.UhthShit,youmust!Sorry,itslippedout.
*MAR:[<]<sh>//
%act:MARwavesherhandtoMIC,tobesilent[sic]
Shush!
*MIC:mscappata//eh...noncipossofare+<&scus>+
Itslippedout,uh...Icantdoanysorr
*MAR:[<]<no>/maguarda//dipende//peresempio//allaGinaLollobrigida/micali
possonofarfare<la>+
No,butguarda,itdepends.Forexample,GinaLollobrigida,theycouldntletherperformth
*MIC:[<]<eh>/s//<GinaLollobrigida>//
Yeah,right!GinaLollobrigida.
*MAR:[<]<ladonnabrutta>/lapoveraccia...
Theuglywoman,thepoorone...
*ANT:no/maapartema/chequellal<secondome/unattricenon>+
%exp:(5)mamma
No;butnottomentionthefact,mom,thatIdontthinksheisanactressatall
*MIC:[<]<senti/GinaLollobrigida[/]GinaLolobbriggida>+
Senti,GinaLollobrigidaGinaLollobrigida
*MAR:[<]<n>adAnnaMagnani/glipotevanofarfarelabellezzamondiale//scusa//
AndtheycouldnthaveAnnaMagnaniperformthemostbeautifulwomanintheworld,either.
*MIC:senti/ma/GinaLolobbriggida/<sefossestata>giovaneoggi+
%exp:(2)mamma
Senti,mom,ifGinaLollobrigidawereyoungnow
*MAR:[<]<vabene/yyy/yyy>...
Okay,itsyyyyyy...
*MIC:avrebbefattotuttaltrotipodifilm//
Shewouldactinacompletelydifferentkindofmovies.
*ANT:ma+
But
*MIC:e[/]echiudiamo//parliamodi[/]diartistiseri//<digentechesarecitare>//
Andandletsclosethetopic.Letstalkaboutaboutseriousartists,peoplewhocanactuallyact.
(CORALROM,ifamdl01)
MICisvisiblyirritatedbythedisagreement;thiscanbenotonlyheardinthetoneofhis
voice, but also recognized by the repeated overlaps (see <dev essere / quel
personaggio>,<oh//haivisto//oh>)andbyhisimpoliteaminghia/s.Tothelatter
utterance, MAR reacts by waving her hand to MIC and saying sh: she expresses her
disapproval of the swearword (note MICs scusate // m scappata) and tries to calm
down her son. Then, MAR presents an opinion that is in contrast with that of MIC (see
112
ANALYSIS
noatthebeginningoftheturn),butthatisconstructedinawaywhichclearlyseekshis
agreement.Beginningwithdipende,MARshowsthatsheistakingamoderateposition
andlookingforreconciliation.Also,theuseofconcreteexamples(seeperesempio)can
generally make an opinion appear more reasonable. Even after the negative reaction of
both children to the example Gina Lollobrigida, MAR tries to bring forward her
argumentinafacesavingway,byclosingherturnwithscusa.MARhasintroducedthe
expression of her opinion with guarda. If we take it that this marker has the function of
indicatingthatonecantrustthespeaker,itwillbeverywellsuitedtostrengthenMARs
ideawhileshowingrespectfortheothers,inlinewithherreconcilingintention.
Incontrast,MICsutterancesmanifestquiteanaggressive character.MICplainly
showshisannoyance(seeaminghia/s)andrepeatedlytriestopreventtheothersfrom
speaking. He first overlaps MARs turn with a sarcastic eh / s // Gina Lollobrigida;
then,whileANTisherselfcommentingonGinaLollobrigida,heoverlapsherturnwith
<senti / Gina Lollobrigida [/] Gina Lolobbriggida> +. Later in the discussion ANT will
complainaboutMICsinterruptions,andhewilldeclare:iodevoimporrelemieidee//
[...]emenoparla/laltro/emenoalternativac(Imustimposemyideas[...]andthe
less the other speaks, the less alternatives there are). The first senti appearing in MICs
turncanbeaccountedforasaninterruptiondevice,inviewofMICsclearattemptstoget
thefloor.Atthesametime,itcansignalthatthespeakerwantstheotherparticipantsto
adjusttohisintentions,thatis,inthiscase,toaccepthisarguments,afunctionthatfits
wellwithMICsbehaviourinthisconversation.Thisfunctionisallthemoreplausiblefor
the second token of senti in senti / ma / Gina Lolobbriggida / <se fosse stata> giovane
oggi+.BeingutteredwhenMIChasfinallygotthefloor,thissentiappearstounderline
aboveallMICsintentiontoimposehisownviewovertheothers.
In sum, in this excerpt both senti and guarda appear at the beginning of turns in
which speakers express contrasting opinions. The action accomplished by the two
speakersisthesame,buttheuseofthemarkersisassociatedwithdifferentattitudesand
pointstoasubtlybutsubstantiallydifferentfunctioning.
LetusgobacktotheinventoryofthetypesofactionsinTables5and6.Lookingat
senti, one is struck by the high frequency of questions (52.0%). In addition to questions,
sentiintroducessomerequestsforreports(1.6%),asforexample:raccontamidellafiera/
diluglio//(tellmeabouttheJulyfair).Formally,thesearerequests(fallingintonation,
verbs in the imperative form), but since the speaker is demanding that the addressee
recount some facts, the function is comparable to that of a question. There are,
furthermore, a few cases of what I have termed after Sidnell (2010: 257) asserting B
events (2.4%). Assertions of Bevents are assertions of events (or whatever else) about
which the recipient knows more or better than the questioner, which are routinely
understood as constituting a request for confirmation and thus as doing questioning
(Sidnell 2010: 257). In our corpus data, the questioning function of these assertions is
made even clearer by the fact that they show up in interviews and are produced by
interviewersinregardtoeventsthatconcerntheinterviewees,asforexamplein(44):
113
ANALYSIS
(44)
*CON:Biaggi/senta/il+dimercato/parleremodimercatodelcalcio//masiparla
anchedimercato/dipiloti//e/propriolaStampa/ilquotidianolaStampadiRoberto
Beccantini/oggiriporta/diunsuopossibile/passaggioallAprilia/perlaprossima
stagione//anziunritorno/sarebbeinquestocaso//
MrBiaggi,senta,ththefootballtransfers,wewillbetalkingaboutfootballtransfers,butthey
alsotalkaboutriderstransfers.AndLaStampa,thenewspaperLaStampabyRoberto
BeccantiniwrotetodayaboutyourpotentialtransfertoApriliainthenextseason.Actuallyit
wouldbeareturn,inyourcase.
*BIA:beh/ineffetti/io/hosemprelasciatoleporteaperte/allacasaitaliana/chemha
datotantisuccessi//&he/s/cipotrebbeessereanche/qualchepossibilit//peral
momento/tuttoun&p[///]mipareunpoprematuro//&he/lepossibilitsonotante//
[...]
Well,indeedIvealwaysleftthedooropenfortheItaliancompanythathasbroughtmesomuch
success.Uhyes,thatcouldbeapossibility,butforthetimebeingeverythingisabiIthinkits
premature;uhtherearemanypossibilities.
(CORALROM,imedsp01)
VerysimilartoassertionsofBeventsareactionsthatIhavelabelledassessingBevents
(2.4%).Inthiscase,interviewersnotonlydescribebutalsoassesseventsaboutwhichthe
interviewees can be taken to be better informed; the events are then assessed by the
intervieweesasaresponse.
Intotal,questionsandothertypesofspeakersactionsthatarefunctionallysimilar
toquestionsaccountfor58.4%ofthecasesinwhichsentiisused.In contrast, guarda does

not accompany one single question throughout the corpora. One cannot help but ask a)
whythisisthecase,andb)ifguardacanactuallybeemployedinquestionsatall.Fischer
(2006a: 437) illustrates how okay is apparently restricted to some illocutionary acts only,
andarguesthatthiscouldbeduetothemarkersinherentproperties.Couldguardathen
besubjecttosucharestrictionforquestions?
Asforpointb),itappearsindeedthatguardacannotbeemployedinquestions.To
giveanexample,inexcerpt(45),sayingguardainsteadofsentibeforethequestionquest
anno/&i/dovetuseistata?wouldyieldaveryoddresult:99
(45a)
*ELA:/so/cheandate/&sem[/]insomma/abbastanzaspess<allElba>/vacanze...
IknowyoualwImean,quiteoftengotoElba;holidays...
*LID:[<]<tuttiglanni>//
Everyyear.
*ELA:anchequest<anno>?
Thisyear,too?
Iamawarethatconstructedexamplesareatoddswithastrictlydatadrivenapproachandwiththe
methodsofCAuponwhichIhavedrawn.Notwithstanding,Ibelievethatconstructingexamplescanbe
helpfulandshouldnotbeexcludedapriori:corpusdataonlyshowuswhatispossible,butitcansometimes
beusefultoseewhatisnotpossible,andaskwhy.
99
114
ANALYSIS
*LID:[<]<sss>/anchequestanno//so&sta[///]ho/saltatosolamenteunanno//
Yes,yes,thisyear,too.IstayIveonlyskippedoneyear.
*ELA:avetefattodelavoriincasa//
Youwererenovatingthehouse.
*LID:s/ecco//motivifinanziari//osimettevairiscaldamento/ocisi&risca[/]ocisi
bagnavalestate//
Yes,indeed.Financialreasons.Wecouldeitherinstalltheheating,orheatortakebathsin
summer.
*ELA:senti/questanno/&i/dovetuseistata?
Senti,thisyear,iwherehaveyoubeen?
*LID:aCavo//<sempre[/]sempre>aCavo//
ToCavo,asusualasusual,toCavo.
*ELA:[<]<ah/sempraCavo>//
Oh,inCavo,asusual.
(CORALROM,ifamdl02)
(45b)
*ELA:/so/cheandate/&sem[/]insomma/abbastanzaspess<allElba>/vacanze...
IknowyoualwImean,quiteoftengotoElba;holidays...
*LID:[<]<tuttiglanni>//
Everyyear.
*ELA:anchequest<anno>?
Thisyear,too?
*LID:[<]<sss>/anchequestanno//so&sta[///]ho/saltatosolamenteunanno//
Yes,yes,thisyear,to.IstayIveonlyskippedoneyear.
*ELA:avetefattodelavoriincasa//
Youwererenovatingthehouse.
*LID:s/ecco//motivifinanziari//osimettevairiscaldamento/ocisi&risca[/]ocisi
bagnavalestate//
Yes,indeed.Financialreasons.Wecouldeitherinstalltheheating,orheatortakebathsin
summer.
*ELA:??guarda/questanno/&i/dovetuseistata?
Guarda,thisyear,iwherehaveyoubeen?
*LID:aCavo//<sempre[/]sempre>aCavo//
ToCavo,asusualasusual,toCavo.
*ELA:[<]<ah/sempraCavo>//
Oh,inCavo,asusual.
Theversionguarda/questanno/&i/dovetuseistata?ishardlypossible.Introducing
the question with guarda raises the expectation of some further action, for which the
question would constitute a mere premise, e.g. guarda, questanno dove tu sei stata?
PerchpensavochepotremmoandareallElbainsiemeasettembre(guarda,wherehave
you been this year? Because I was thinking that we could go to Elba together in
115
ANALYSIS
September).Justasitis,theturnwithguardaisnotacceptable.100 So,thenonoccurrence
ofguardainquestionsisnotanaccident:themarkerdoesnotworkinthatenvironment.
We can now reformulate question a) above: why is guarda not compatible with
questions, while senti occurs extremely often in this type of action? It seems possible to
giveanexplanationstartingfromthebasicfunctionsofthetwomarkers.Foronething,it
wasshownthatsentiisamplyusedtoopennewsequencesinaconversation(seesection
7.1.4), a use which was traced back to the basic function of requesting to attend to the
speakersactivity.Questionsconstitutebytheirnaturethebeginningofanadjacencypair
andthusofanewsequence,sosenticanbeusefullyemployedtoopenthem.Atthesame
time, the basic function of senti fits well the purpose we could say: the illocutionary
point of questions. A question implies that the speaker wants the addressee to follow
her in the activity she has started, namely by giving her an answer; so, senti is ideally
suitedtohelpsignalthisintention.Conversely,themessageencodedinguardathatthe
speakercanbetrustedwithrespecttoherutteranceisobviouslynotappropriatefora
question: we may well underline our reliability when presenting some content to our
interlocutors,butnotwhenweaskthemforone.
Interestingly,thesamedifferencehasbeenobservedbyvanOlmen(2010a)forthe
EnglishandDutchmarkerslookandkijk,asopposedtolistenandluister.Lookandkijkare
not followed by real questions, but only by rhetorical ones, which van Olmen takes as
evidence for the fact that these two markers express the speakers involvement (van
Olmen2010a:81).Incontrast,listenandluisterarefollowedbymostlyrealquestions(van
Olmen 2010a: 84). Van Olmen also reasons that, when used as real directives to look at
something, the forms look and kijk have to be accompanied by statements about the
presence of some object or the occurrence of some event, and that this restriction is
maintainedinthepragmaticusage.Listenandluister,derivingfromdirectivestosimply
listentothespeaker,areapt,instead,toaccompanyanymessage(vanOlmen2010a:88).
The explanation I have suggested above for the contrast between senti and guarda with
respecttoquestionsisdifferentfromvanOlmens,anditshouldbepointedoutthatitis
not meant to counter van Olmens argument, for the obvious reason that one cannot
assumesentiandguardatobeexactlyequivalenttolisten/luisterandlook/kijk.However,it
is interesting to note that facts analogous to those observed above are found in other
languagesaswell,andthatthesearchforanexplanationgoesinasimilardirection.
Toconclude,wehaveseenthattherearesometypesofactionsinwhichsentiand
guardaaremostoftenusedbyspeakers.Forguarda,expressionsofopinions,evaluations,
and descriptions of facts or situations represent the most typical environment; senti can
also occur with such actions, but it does so much more rarely than guarda (and with a
different role, as we have seen in example (43)). For senti, questions and actions
functionallyakintoquestionsarethemostfrequentactiontypes;guarda,however,isnot
compatible with them. Hence, although one may expect that senti and guarda could be
ThisisofcoursemyownperceptionasanativespeakerofItalian,butothernativespeakershave
confirmedthistome.Irepeatedthistestwithseveralquestions,alwayswiththesameresult.
100
116
ANALYSIS
employedinthesametypesofactions,thisisonlypartiallytrue;theiractualdistribution
showscleardifferencesintheiruse,whichinturnpointtodifferencesinfunction.
7.3.3. Relationtosequenceorganization,globalconversation
structure,andtopics
Moving on to a higher level, we shall now take into consideration three criteria
correspondingtothreefurtheraspectsorcomponentsofconversation:theorganizationof
speakers actions in sequences, the topic structure, and the global structure of
conversationasdividedintoanopeningpart,acore,andaclosing.Theseaspectswillbe
discussedtogetherbecauseoftheirmutualconnection:thebeginningofanewsequence
often corresponds with a shift in topic and vice versa; the change from one part of the
conversationtothenextisalsoashifttoanewsequence.
In section 7.1.4, I have described the use of senti to mark the beginning of
sequences,topicshifts,andchangesfromonepartoftheconversationtoanother.Ihave
arguedthatthemarkerhelpsmanagesuchruptures,asitallowsforareorientationofthe
participants activities. Since I did not register these functions for guarda, this is a
particularlyinterestingpointforcomparison.Letusobservehowsentiandguardabehave
withrespecttotheseaspectsinthecorpusdata.
Concerningsequenceorganization,thevastmajorityofthetokensofsentiappear
at places where speakers begin a new sequence (77.6%), or resume a sequence that had
previouslybeenstartedandsuspendedforsomereason(3.2%)(forexampleanadjacency
pairsuspendedbyaninsertexpansion,orastorytellingsuspendedbycommentsofother
participants).Intotal,80.8%ofthetokensappearatpointswherespeakersstartorrestart
a sequence, and only 19.2% are found in utterances that develop an already ongoing
sequence.Inthecaseofguarda,barely5.0%ofthetokensoccuratthebeginningofanew
sequence, and 2.0% at the resumption of a sequence, whereas 93.0% of the tokens are
foundinsidesequences(seeTable7).101
Table7:positionofsentiandguardawithrespecttosequenceorganization
Discourse Withinasequence
marker
N.
%
senti
24/125
19.2%
guarda
93/100
93.0%
Atthebeginningof
anewsequence
N.
%
97/125
77.6%
5/100
5.0%
Attheresumption
ofasequence
N.
%
4/125
3.2%
2/100
2.0%
Inregardtothelevelofglobalconversationstructure,thedivergencebetweensenti
andguardaisnotasgreatastheonejustseen,becausebothmarkersoccurratherseldom
atthetransitionbetweenconversationparts.Thisisquitenatural,consideringthatthere
Recallthat40tokensofguarda(correspondingto40.0%)andoneofsenti(0.8%)arepostposedtotheirscope,
i.e.theyrefertotheunitsoftalkthatprecedethem.Itisclearthatthesetokenscannotintroducethebeginning
ofanewsequence,topic,orconversationpart.Thefrequentuseofguardaasanexpostcomment,asopposed
tothemostlyintroductoryuseofsenti,hasitscorollaryondifferentlevelsofanalysis.
101
117
ANALYSIS
are not as many shifts between conversation parts as there are between sequences or
topics,andconsideringmoreoverthatmostrecordingsinthecorporadonotcontainfull
conversations,butonlytheircorepartorsegmentsofit.However,onecanstillappreciate
some differences between the twomarkers. 11.2% of the tokens of senti are produced at
points of transition between parts of a conversation; 88.8% appear inside conversation
parts,andnotattheirborders.Outofthe11.2%occurringatborders,6.4%arefoundat
the beginning of the core part, 4.0% at the beginning of the closing, and 0.8% preface a
returntothecorepartafteranattempttostarttheclosing.Forguarda,wehaveonlyone
token(1.0%)thatapparentlyoccursattheshiftfromtheopeningtothecorepartIwill
explainlaterwhytheshiftisapparentratherthanrealagainst99.0%thatareproduced
withinconversationparts(seeTable8).
Comingtotopicstructure,80.0%ofthetokensofsentiarefoundbeforestretchesof
talk which clearly have a different (sub)topic than the prior one; 20.0% of the tokens,
instead,donot.Guardashowsanoppositesituation:only5.0%ofthetokensprefaceashift
toanew(sub)topic,while95%donot(seeTable9).
Thisdistributionstronglysuggeststhatwhilesentimustbefunctionallyrelatedto
thetasksofintroducingnewsequencesandtopics(andconversationparts,althoughthe
occurrence in that environment is not as frequent), these can certainly not be central
functionsofguarda,ifthismarkercanhavesuchfunctionsatall.
Table8:positionofsentiandguardawithrespecttotheglobalstructureofconversation
Discourse Withinonepart
marker
ofthe
conversation
N.
%
senti
111/125 88.8%
guarda
99/100
99.0%
Atthetransitionbetweentwoparts
Beforecorepart Beforeclosing
part
N.
%
N.
%
8/125
6.4%
5/125
4.0%
1/100
1.0%
Beforereturnto
thecorepart
N.
%
1/125
0.8%
Table9:positionofsentiandguardawithrespecttothetopicstructure
Discourse Precedingashiftintopicor
marker
subtopic
N.
%
senti
100/125
80.0%
guarda
5/100
5.0%
Notprecedingashiftintopic
orsubtopic
N.
%
25/125
20.0%
95/100
95.0%
A closer examination of the few cases in which guarda does appear at such transition
points reveals that, even there, the new sequence, conversation part, or topic is actually
verycloselyconnectedwithwhathasbeendoneandtalkedaboutbefore,andthatguarda
doesnotactuallyservetosignalanytransition,butisinsteadtheretoperformothertasks.
Example(46)illustratesoneofthecasesinwhichguardaprecedesthebeginningof
anewsequence.SpeakersAandBarelookingatalistofhotelsandtryingtochoosean
accommodationfortwentystudentsonaschooltrip:
118
ANALYSIS
(46)
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
A:
B:
A:
B:
09
10
11
12
13
B:
15
16
17
18
A:
B:
B:
21
22
A:
B:
[xxxxx
xxxxx
zero virgola cinque chiLOmetri.
pointfivekilometres
fromthetown,fortyfiveeuroperperson.
mhm,
Mhm.
(1,14)
poi questo in centro cinquanta euro a perSOna,
Then,thisoneisinthetowncentre,fiftyeuroperperson;
(-)
e (.) QUEsto;=
andthisone
Withoutbreakfast,intownaswell,fortyfi
[(xxx xxx)
quaran
(xxx xxx) quaran]tat quarantaDUE-
xxxfortxxxfortytfortytwo.
(1.2)
a::hm,=
Uhm...
=GUARda. (-)
Guarda...
io per (.) quei sei per quegli otto euro in PIU-=
forjustsixeighteuromore
=opterei per QUEsto perch in CENtro comunque;
Iwouldchoosethisonebecauseatleastitsintown.
A:
(--)
hh stavo pensando anchio la stessa COsa;=
23
doubleandtripleroomswithbreakfast,
A:
20
BedandbreakfastTheWanderer,
(-)
camere doppie e triple pi [colaZIO:ne;]
=senza [colazione sempre in centro quarantaci]
19
Mh.
=bed and breakfast il vianDANte,
dal centro quarantadue euro a perSO:na;
14
Therearefreeroomsinthesehotels:
mh;=
A:
08
c posto in questi alBERghi,
Iwasthinkingthesame,
=anche perch se loro sono
24
(PC2)
alsobecauseifthereare
quanti sono VENti?
howmanyofthem?Twenty?
TheturnintroducedwithguardaisaproposalofspeakerBtoAand,assuch,itbeginsa
new sequence and makes As acceptance or rejection relevant. However, the ensuing
sequence is just a part of a longer stretch of interaction centred on one main task: the
choice of an accommodation. The process begins several turns before, with A reading
aloud the information about the first hotel in the list, and it results in Bs proposal. The
119
ANALYSIS
turn opened by guarda is indeed beginning a new sequence, but a sequence that is
embeddedinasuperordinatetaskwhichAandBarealreadytryingtoaccomplish.
Notethatthepresenceofguardahereisbynomeansunacceptable.Themarkeris
simply there for reasons other than the introduction of the new sequence. It opens the
turn,possiblyalsoprovidingtimeforformulation(thepauseafterguardasuggestssome
formulation difficulties), and at the same time it underpins Bs proposal by underlining
thatAcantrusther.
Example(47)belowdisplaysthetokenofguardathatoccursapparentlyatthe
borderbetweentheopeningandthecorepartofaconversation.Inaradiocallinshow,
the showhost CON holds a series of telephone calls with people who wish to express
their opinion on a previously established topic (namely, idleness). In this excerpt, CON
endsthecallwithaparticipantnamedGIAandimmediatelystartsanewcallwithGIM.
(47)
*GIA:[<]<purtroppoquesto>[/]questeducazioneal[/]allasolidariet/allamondialit/
comesidicevaunavolta/nellamiagenerazione/&he/messaveramenteinun
angolinoestremo//
Unfortunatelythisthiseducationtotosolidarity,toglobalawareness,astheyusedtosaybefore,
inmygeneration,uhitisreallyrelegatedtoaremotecorner.
*CON:permoltopraticatadallagente/dallepersone//questoanchevadetto//Gianni
/laringraziamo<di[/]delsuopuntodivista//&he>/cihafattomoltopiacere//
Butitisdonebypeople,byindividuals,thisshouldbesaid,too.Gianni,thankyouforgivingyour
pointofview.Uhwewereveryhappytohearit.
*GIA:[<]<prego//stato/unpiacere//grazie>//
Yourewelcome,itwasapleasure.Thankyou.
*CON:Giampiero//pronto?
Giampiero,hello?
*GIM:s//buongiorno//
Yes,goodafternoon.
*CON:buongiorno/Giampiero//
Goodafternoon,Giampiero.
*GIM:mah/guardi/io/ineffetti/&he/laringraziodiaverchiamato//ma/&he/
diciamocheilmiointerventoavrebbedovutofarlo/ol[/]lautoredellibrochehocitato
/cioDanielMothe/allesuecollaboratrici+
Well,guardi,actuallyuhIthankyouforcalling,butuhthiscontributionshouldhavebeenmade
byththeauthorofthebookIhavementionedthatisDanielMothtoyourcollaborators.
*CON:ciparlidiquestolibro/perchnon<nesappiamomolto>//
Tellusaboutthisbook,becausewedontknowmuchaboutit.
*GIM:[<]<s/no>/lostoleggendo//
Yes,well,Imreadingit.
*CON:ah//lostaleggendo<edi&co>[///]com/comiltitolo?
Oh,yourereadingit.Andwhatwhatisthetitle?
*GIM:[<]<ma>+sichiama/lutopiadeltempolibero//
ButItsTheutopiaoffreetime.
(CORALROM,imedin03)
120
ANALYSIS
Guarda(hereintheformguardi)appearsjustafterthemutualgreetingsandopensaturn
in which GIM comments in advance on what he intends to say (he will not finish the
commentbecauseCONwilltakeadvantageofashorthesitationtotaketheturn).Atfirst
glance,guardaseemstobeprefacingthetransitionfromtheopeningtothecorepartofthe
conversation.However,thesituationismorecomplex.GIMisnotinitiatingacompletely
new interaction; he is intervening in one that has already been going on for some time,
adding his own viewpoint to the discussion. The conversation between CON and GIM
has just begun, but it is a part of a longer conversation in which other speakers have
participated.Inaddition,theutterancelaringraziodiaverchiamatoseemstoreferback
to some immediately prior interaction which must have taken place between GIM and
CONorbetweenGIMandsomeofCONscollaborators(seechehocitato/[...]/allesue
collaboratrici) before the broadcast. The presence of in effetti (in fact or actually)
pointstotheprosecutionratherthantothebeginningofaconversation.Insum,theturn
opened by guarda is not a genuine transition from the opening to the core, but rather it
followsupaprecedingcorepart.
Finally,letusexaminetheoccurrenceofguardaatpointsoftopicshift.Inprevious
studies, guarda has been attributed the function of marking topic shift (Lichem (1981),
Manili(1986),Waltereit(2002)),butthisfunctioncannotbeconfirmedbymydata.Only
five tokens occur before utterances whose topic is not the same as the prior and, as we
shall see, guarda does not seem to be functional to the shift. In two of these five cases,
guarda introduces utterances that comment on somebodys immediately preceding talk.
Example (48) is a case in point. The interaction takes place during a seminar, and the
participants are two students (CEC is one of them) and two professors, ELA and MAX.
ELA cannot remember a taxonomy that she has developed, and MAX expresses his
disapprovalofELAsbadmemoryinasarcasticway.Inhernextturn,ELAcommentson
MAXsattitude:
(48)
*CEC:[<]<manon>lecopule//#perch+no/perch/ceraunafrasecopulare//mentre
/<pergliarticoli>+
Butnotthecopula....BecauseNo.Becausetherewasacopularclause.Whileforarticles
*MAX:[<]<perchcera>unafrase<copulare>//
Becausetherewasacopularclause.
*CEC:[<]<eh>//
Yes.
*MAX:allora/perchsiincrociava/unaclassificazione/ditipo/generale/#
linearizzazionetipobidue/eh/<secondole>+
Thatis,becauseitcrisscrossedageneralclassification...alinearizationofaB2type,right?
Accordingtothe
*ELA:[<]<dunque/non>meloricordopi#/selbidue/%he/<suquesto/&he>+
IdontrememberifitsB2.Uhonthisuh
*MAX:[<]seuntuteloricordite/Manuela>/<chiselodevericordare>?
Ifyoudontremember,Manuela,whoshould?
121
ANALYSIS
*ELA:[<]<eh/figurati>//hhh<eh>+
%exp:laugh(hhh)
Indeed.hhhuh
*MAX:[<]<me>deo[/]deopiglianotaanchedelle[/]delletueclassificazioni...
ShouldIshouldIwritedownyouryourclassifications,too?
*ELA:no///m&+sehhh+hhhguarda/tremendo//enonmisembrachesiabidue//
misembrachesianelle/<&he+&ve[///]cio/scusami>+
%exp:laugh(hhh)
No,itsmsehhhhhh(laughs)Guarda,hesterrible.IdontthinkitsB2,Ithinkitsintheuh
veNo,sorry
(CORALROM,inatte03)
ELAsutterancetremendoreferstoanewtopicascomparedtotheprecedingstretch
of talk: she is not speaking about the taxonomy anymore, but about MAX. However,
MAXs sarcasm has already been made relevant in the ongoing interaction by MAXs
priorturn,soELAscommentcannotbeseenasactuallyintroducing anewtopicinthe
conversation, but she is rather responding to something that has just happened in the
interaction.
Three tokens, then, occur before utterances which do introduce completely new
topics;still,theiruseappearstobebetterexplainablebyfunctionsotherthanthemarking
oftopicshift.Letusobserveexample(49),takenfromapublicspeech:
(49)
*VER:[...]alloranoi/riteniamo/cheilnostrosindacato/debbaradicalmentecambiare
rotta//debbaaffermaredeipuntiprecisi//nonpossarilanciareunastrategia/conquesto
congresso//nonpossaenondebbarilanciareunastrategia/chepuessereanche
propostaeaccoltainbuonafede/macheciportaauna&n[/]auna&l[/]aunanuova/e
ulterioresconfitta//ioguardate/evito/percorrettezzaeperonestintellettuale/nei
confrontidelcompagnochesaraaillustrarelamozionedimaggioranza/echestimoe
&per[///]fralaltrocilegaunamiciziaanche/personaledatempo+quindi/lascioda
partetuttelequestionideilettori//iolosocheavrei/moltiargomenti/inquesto
specificocongresso/sucuifarviriflettere//quindimeneasterr//[...]
[...]so,webelievethatourlabourunionshouldradicallychangedirection,itshouldassertsome
preciseideas,itcannotputforwardastrategy,withthiscongress,itcannotandshouldnotput
forwardastrategythatmaybeproposedandacceptedwiththebestintentions,butwouldleadtoa
ntoaltoafurtherdefeat.GuardateIwillrenounce,outofintellectualfairnessandhonesty
towardsthecolleaguewhowillpresentthemajoritysmotion,andwhomIesteem,andfor
incidentally,weareboundbyalongfriendshipforthisreasonIwillleaveasideallreaders
questions.IknowthatIhavemanytopicsforyoutoconsiderinthisspecificcongress,soIwont
touchonthem.[...]
(CORALROM,inatps03)
Guarda prefaces a series of utterances with which speaker VER announces his intention
not to talk about something which the audience might have expected (le questioni dei
lettori).Thistopicisnew,foruntilnowVERhastalkedaboutsomethingelse:theacting
122
ANALYSIS
strategyofthelaborunion.Inspiteofthefactthatthereisachangeoftopic,Ibelievethat
guardaisnotputthereasamarkeroftopicshift.VERisdescribingsomethingthatcanbe
surprising for the audience: he could talk about many things that would make the
audience think, but he will not do so. In this context, guarda seems to be working at an
interpersonallevel,ratherthanontopicstructure:ithastheeffectofunderliningthatthe
intention described by VER can be taken seriously, even if contradicts our expectations.
Note that Khachaturyan (2001), in her study of senti, remarks a difference between senti
and guarda with respect to topics: while senti occurs at topic shifts, guarda introduces
information that is connected with the prior context. This is amply confirmed by my
analysis.Itcanstillbespecifiedthatguardacanofcourseprecedeutteranceswhichstarta
new topic, as in the example just examined, but indeed its presence in such an
environmentisnotfunctionaltotheshift.
In sum, not only does guarda occur very seldom at points of transition between
sequences, conversation parts, and topics, but when it does, the transition is mostly not
clearcut, and the ensuing stretch of talk is actually tightly connected with, and follows
from, what has been done before it. Moreover, even when a clear shift is accomplished,
thepresenceofthemarkercanbebetteraccountedforintermsofotherfunctions.Inthis
sense,guardaisthusclearlydifferentfromsenti,whichisaswehaveseenoftenusedat
suchtransitionsanddoesservetomarkthem.Itshouldbenoticedthatthischaracteristic
of guarda is in accordance with the proposal that the item primarily functions on an
interpersonalleveltoindicatethatwecantrustthespeaker.Infact,thismessageiswell
suited for use within an ongoing discussion, but it is not particularly apt to prepare
interlocutorsforaruptureintheconversation.Incontrast,thiscanbeideallydonewith
senti,asitcallstheaddresseetoattendtothespeakersactivity.
7.3.4. Sentivsguardainquotedspeech
Before concluding, I would like to briefly discuss the use of senti and guarda in quoted
speech.Wehaveseeninsections7.1.6and7.2.5thatthecorporacontain11tokensofsenti
and 41 tokens of guarda produced in quotations with the function of reproducing direct
speech.102 This constitutes a secondlevel use, in the sense that it is based on the
markersabilitytorecreate,bytheirverypresence,acertaintypeofinteraction.
Forthecomparisonbetweensentiandguarda,thisusehastwofacets.Ontheone
hand, the markers work analogously: by virtue of expressing an appeal to the

interlocutor,theyrecallasituationofdirectspeechandarethusexploitedtocharacterize
Onecouldwonderwhythespeakersinthecorporamarkedmorequotationswithguardathanwithsenti.
Thisquestionwillnotconcernusherebecauseitdoesnotcontributetothepurposeofdescribingthe
functionsofthemarkers,butrathertothatofdescribingquotations(althoughitwouldcertainlybe
interestingpersetounderstandwhatmarkersaremoretypicalofquotations).Tomakesomehypotheses,it
maybethati)sincetherearehardlyanytopicshiftsandsequenceshiftsinsidequotations,sentimaysimply
havefeweroccasionsofuse;ii)theencodedmessageofguardamaybe,forsomeotherreason,moreoften
suitablethanthatofsentitoaccompanyreporteddirectspeech;iii)guardamightbedevelopingintoasortof
defaultquotationmarkingdevice.Astudyonalargenumberofquotationswouldbenecessarytoanswerthis
question.
102
123
ANALYSIS
quotations as such. On the other hand, they contribute different messages to the
quotations of which they form a part. The distinction is certainly not always sharp in
quotedspeech.Forexample,ifonesubstitutessentiin(50a)takenfromastorytelling
forguardain(50b),thereseemstobenogreatdifference:
(50a)
*ANG:[...]eallorailsoldato/gliraccontatutto//dice/iosonvenutoquaperchero
disperato//facevotuttogiusto/tuttoquellochebisognavafare/eppuremiprendevo
sempredellebotte//eilre/glidice/senti/setuvuoirestare/iohoqualcosa/dafarti
fare//daqualchetempoaquestaparte/cqualcunochemirompetuttelepiante/del
giardino/chespezzairami//e/mistarovinando/propriotuttoilgiardino//tudovresti
starequi/farelaguardia/cercaredicapirechi/efareinmodo/chequestodisastro/
nonsuccedapi//[]
[...]andthenthesoldiertellshimeverything.Hesays:IhavecomeherebecauseIwasdesperate.I
dideverythingproperly,everythingoneshoulddo,buttheywouldalwaysbeatme.Andtheking
says:Senti,ifyouwanttostay,Ihaveataskforyou.Forsometimesomebodyhasbeenbreaking
theplantsinmygarden.Theybreakthebranches,andtheyarespoilingallofmygarden.You
shouldstayhereandwatch,trytofindoutwhoitis,andstopthisdisaster.
(CORALROM,ifammn20)
(50b)
*ANG:[...]eallorailsoldato/gliraccontatutto//dice/iosonvenutoquaperchero
disperato//facevotuttogiusto/tuttoquellochebisognavafare/eppuremiprendevo
sempredellebotte//eilre/glidice/guarda/setuvuoirestare/iohoqualcosa/dafarti
fare//daqualchetempoaquestaparte/cqualcunochemirompetuttelepiante/del
giardino/chespezzairami//e/mistarovinando/propriotuttoilgiardino//tudovresti
starequi/farelaguardia/cercaredicapirechi/efareinmodo/chequestodisastro/
nonsuccedapi//[]
[...]andthenthesoldiertellshimeverything.Hesays:IhavecomeherebecauseIwasdesperate.I
dideverythingproperly,everythingoneshoulddo,buttheywouldalwaysbeatme.Andtheking
says:guarda,ifyouwanttostay,Ihaveataskforyou.Forsometimesomebodyhasbeen
breakingtheplantsinmygarden.Theybreakthebranches,andtheyarespoilingallofmygarden.
Youshouldstayhereandwatch,trytofindoutwhoitis,andstopthisdisaster.
Itseemstomethatsentiandguardadorecalldifferentintentionshere,butsincetheydo
notconstitutearealappealtotheinterlocutor,theirencodedmessagesarelessrelevant:
whatisimportanthereistosimulatedirectspeech.Moreover,duetothelackofcontext
forthequotedutterance,eitherofthemessagesisappropriate,andthedifferencebetween
thetwoitemsbleachesout.
However, in other cases one can appreciate a clear distinction between the
markers.Consider(51a)and(51b).PAOisquotingaconversationbetweenherdaughters
teacherandherself:PAOmeetstheteacheratademonstration,andtheteacherexpresses
his surprise about seeing PAO there; PAO then explains the reason why she is there,
namelythatsheisamemberinanassociationcalled3febbraio(Februarythird):
124
ANALYSIS
(51a)
*PAO:[...]ahallamanifestazionea[/]aFirenze/hoincontratounexprofessoredella[/]
dellayyy/mifigliola/ilqualediRifondazionecomunista/iolosobenissimo/ma/ho
fattofintadinonsaperlo//lhosalutata/ahancheleiqui/&ecc//[...]dice/non&cre[/]
nonsapevocheanchelei/fosse/inconsiglio//ioguardi/dico/facciopartedeltre
febbraio/eglihospiegato/checosera//[...]
[...]oh,atthedemonstrationininFlorence,Imetanexteacherofofyyymydaughterwho
isintheCommunistRefoundationParty.Iknowthatverywell,butIactedasifIdidntknow.I
greetedhim,Oh,yourehere,tooandsoon.[...]Hesays:IdidntthinIdidntknowyouarein
thecommittee,too,andIsay:GuardiIsayImamemberin3febbraioandIexplainto
himwhatitis.[...]
(CORALROM,ipubcv01)
(51b)
*PAO:[...]ahallamanifestazionea[/]aFirenze/hoincontratounexprofessoredella[/]
dellayyy/mifigliola/ilqualediRifondazionecomunista/iolosobenissimo/ma/ho
fattofintadinonsaperlo//lhosalutata/ahancheleiqui/&ecc//[...]dice/non&cre[/]
nonsapevocheanchelei/fosse/inconsiglio//iosenta/dico/facciopartedeltre
febbraio/eglihospiegato/checosera//[...]
[...]oh,atthedemonstrationininFlorence,Imetanexteacherofofyyymydaughterwho
isintheCommunistRefoundationParty.Iknowthatverywell,butIactedasifIdidntknow.I
greetedhim,Oh,yourehere,tooandsoon.[...]Hesays:IdidntthinIdidntknowyouarein
thecommittee,too,andIsay:SentaIsayImamemberin3febbraioandIexplainto
himwhatitis.[...]
Ifguardaissubstitutedforsenti,thequotedutterancebecomesodd;itsoundssomewhat
annoyed and not at all appropriate for the represented situation, where the speaker is
simplyexplainingareasonforacertainfact.Thetypeofappealconveyedbysentigives
rise to an interpretation which does not fit the context, whereas guarda, indicating the
speakers reliability, is perfectly suitable here. We can thus see how senti and guarda,
besides performing the task of recreating direct speech, affect the quoted utterances in
differentways,inlinewiththeirrespectiveencodedmessages.
7.3.5. Conclusions
In this section I have examined the distribution of senti and guarda with respect to
differentaspectsorcomponentsofconversation,soastoseewhetherandhowtheirusage
differs. I have shown that even if it is possible to employ senti and guarda in similar
contexts, speakers do not actually do so. The placement of the tokens relative to their
scope,thepositionstheyoccupyintheturnsattalk,thetypesofactionstheyaccompany,
their position in sequence organization, in the global structure of conversation, and in
topicstructurearedecidedlydifferent.Thishasledtoconsiderationsaboutthemarkers
functionsthatseemtosupportinallrespectsthefunctionaldescriptionsproposed.
Finally,theobservationofthetokensfoundinquotationshasshownthatsentiand
guardaconveyrecognizablydifferentmessagesinthisenvironmentaswell.
125
EXCURSUS:NATIVESPEAKERSINTERPRETATION
8. ExcursusNativespeakersinterpretationsofsenti
andguarda:anempiricalinvestigation
Thischapterwillpresentasmallsizeempiricalstudyofnativespeakersinterpretations
of senti and guarda. The goal is to find out whether and to what extent the functional
descriptionsproposedinchapter7areabletoaccountforwhatnativespeakersactually
perceivetobetheroleofsentiandguardaincontextand,thus,whethertheyaretenableas
descriptionsofthemarkersfunctioning.
Any work that aims to discover the functions of a discourse marker implies a
component of interpretation,103 which ultimately relies on the researchers linguistic

competence:afteraccurateobservationofcorpusdata,wemustdrawonourcompetence
ofthelanguagetounderstandwhythemarkerhasbeenusedinthewayweobserve,and
whatitsbearingis.Weknow,however,thatlinguistsideasaboutthemeaningofaword
maysometimesdifferfromspeakersactualuseandunderstandingofit(seee.g.FoxTree
2007:299).So,itappearsinterestingtolookatspeakersinterpretationsofsentiandguarda
to see whether the claims made here about their functions are able to accommodate the
understanding of them by native speakers, and to what extent the analysis proposed is
thustenableasadescriptionofhowthesemarkersworkinlanguageuse.
Despite the considerable amount of research that has been done on discourse
markers,onlyveryfewstudieshavebeenconcernedwithspeakersinterpretationofthem
(e.g. Hentschel 1981, 1982; Fischer 2000; FoxTree/Schrock 1999; FoxTree 2001, 2007;
Redeker 2006). So, the empirical study to be presented here is also intended as a
contribution to the development of this question, and as a way to explore possible
methodsofapproachingit.
8.1. Method
The study is not conceived to test the proposed functional descriptions directly, but
instead it intends to investigate speakers interpretations of senti and guarda
independently from my own analysis. First, I will find out what effects senti and guarda
have on the speakers interpretations of utterances, and only then the effects identified
willbequalitativelycomparedwiththeproposeddescriptions.
Inthisrespect,thestudydepartsfromtheproceduremostcommonlyadoptedin
worksconcernedwithspeakersinterpretationsofdiscoursemarkers,whichusuallystart
frompreviouslyobservedfunctions(e.g.Hentschel1981,FoxTree/Schrock1999,FoxTree
2001,Redeker2006).Instead,Iintendtostartfromtheresponsesoftheparticipantsand
SeeFischer(2000:36)andHansen(1998:214).Hansenwrites:Aninterpretativeapproachofcoursehasan
inescapablysubjectivedimension,whichmeansthatonecannotinanysenseofthewordprovethecorrectness
ofonesanalyses,butcanonlyhopetodemonstrateitasconvincinglyaspossible.
103
126
detectthemarkersfunctionsbasedonthem,asisdonee.g.byFoxTree(2007).Theaimis
toavoidthattherespondentsviewsberestrictedtoaspectsIhaveinmind:becausethe
workings of discourse markers are notoriously difficult to grasp, the danger exists that
respondentsmightlimitthemselvestoconfirmtheinterpretationsproposed,butnotsay
whattheyactuallyperceive.Incontrast,Iaimtotakeanyfunctionintoaccountthatmay
turnouttoberelevantfortherespondents.
8.1.1. Deletionandsubstitutiontests
As a methodological tool, deletion and substitution tests are employed. In the deletion
tests, two versions of the same utterance, one containing a discourse marker, and one
without it, are evaluated; in the substitution tests, the same utterance is given in two
versions with two different markers (see examples below). A total of 12 tests were
compiled,namelysixdeletiontestsandsixsubstitutiontests.Theformatofthedeletion
testsisillustratedbythefollowingexample:
(A)
A:Lamattinaandreivolentieri,amenochenonpiova.Sepiove...
B:No,sepioveno.Manoncredoproprio,guarda.
A:Diconodis,checambiailtempo.
A:Inthemorning,Iwouldbegladtogo,unlessitrains.Ifitrains...
B:No,notifitrains.ButIreallydontthinkitsgoingtorain,guarda.
A:Theysayitis,thattheweatherisgoingtochange.
(B)
B:No,sepioveno.Manoncredoproprio.
A:Inthemorning,Iwouldbegladtogo,unlessitrains.Ifitrains...
B:No,notifitrains.ButIreallydontthinkitsgoingtorain.
A:Theysayitis,thattheweatherisgoingtochange.
Anexampleofasubstitutiontest:
(A)
A:Questoincentrocostacinquantaeuroapersona,equestosenzacolazionesemprein
centro...
B:Quarantadue.
A:Guarda,ioperquegliottoeuroinpi,optereiperquestoperchcomunqueincentro.
A:Thisoneinthetowncentrecostsfiftyeuroperperson,andthisonewithoutbreakfast,intown
aswell...
B:Fortytwo.
A:Guarda,forjusteighteuromoreIwouldchoosethisonebecauseatleastitsintown.
127
(B)
centro...
B:Quarantadue.
A:Senti,ioperquegliottoeuroinpi,optereiperquestoperchcomunqueincentro.
A:Thisoneinthetowncentrecostsfiftyeuroperperson,andthisonewithoutbreakfast,intown
aswell...
B:Fortytwo.
A:Senti,forjusteighteuromoreIwouldchoosethisonebecauseatleastitsintown.
Discoursemarkersarecommonlyunderstoodtobeinterpretativeinstructionswhichhelp
the addressee process the utterances they accompany. Hence, it should be possible to
tracethefunctionofamarkerinagivencontextbyexamininghowtheinterpretationof
the utterance changes when the marker is deleted, or when the same utterance is
presentedintwoversionswithdistinctmarkers.
Anotherprocedure,whichisusedinstudiesthatpursuesimilarquestionsasthis
one, is that of explicitly asking the respondents to describe the meaning and the
conditions of use of a marker. This procedure is not adopted here because, looking at
previousworks,itappearsthatitleadstoresultsofveryvariablesignificance.Inastudy
on um/uh, you know, and like, FoxTree (2007) found, using explicit questions, that
respondentshadclearfolknotionsofthemeaningsanduseofthosemarkers,andthey
provided consistent descriptions of their meanings (FoxTree 2007: 306). In contrast, in
Fischers(2000)studyoftheGermanparticlesoh,ach,h,hm,andtheEnglishoh,ah,er,
um,theanswersgivenbytherespondentsdidnotdisplayanyclearpattern(Fischer2000:
42f.) Differences in the results significance may partially depend on how the responses
are evaluated and the number of participants involved, but they also show that,
altogether, explicitly asking speakers to formulate the meaning of discourse markers
mightbeariskyprocedure.
Forthesereasons,itispreferredtouncoverthefunctionsofthemarkersindirectly:
indeletionandsubstitutiontestsrespondentsarenotrequestedtoformulatethemeaning
ofamarkerthemselves,withthedifficultiesthatsuchanabstractmeaningposes;instead,
theyareaskedtodescribetheirperceptionofthewholeutterance.Thetestdialoguesin
which the markers are embedded should provide the respondents with enough
informationtointerpretthem.
Another reason for choosing this methodological procedure is that it is to be
expected that linguisticallyuntrained speakers may not be able to take into account the
waysamarkerisusedindifferentsituations,buttheywouldratherresorttothefirstuse
they can think of. Deletion and substitution tests represent a means to control for this,
becausethemarkersarepresentedindialoguesrepresentingavarietyofconditions.
128
8.1.2. Questionnaires
The 12 deletion and substitution tests are arranged into four questionnaires; two
questionnairesincludetwodeletiontestsandonesubstitutiontesteach(questionnaires1
and 3), and the other two include one deletion test and two substitution tests each
(questionnaires2and4).Thisdistributionismeanttoprovideforsomevariation,soasto
preventtherespondentsfromgettingtiredbyrepeatingthesametask,andimportantly
from simply replicating their answers. The number of three tests per questionnaire is
determinedbythefactthatdeletionandsubstitutiontestsrequiresomeintrospectionand
are mentally quite demanding, so it appears advisable not to strain the respondents to
ensurethattheycarryoutthetasksascarefullyaspossible.
The content of the questionnaires is as follows: a brief introduction attracts
attentiontothefactthatasinglewordcanchangethings,104andthattherespondentwill
be requested to evaluate utterances that differ by only one word; then, the three tests
follow. Each of them consists of the two versions of a short dialogue followed by a
question. Respondents are asked whether they can perceive any difference between the
two versions, and if yes, to describe it in their own words. In choosing to ask an open
question, it is taken into account that the answers might turn out quite heterogeneous;
however,anopenquestionispreferredoverothertypesofquestions(e.g.multiplechoice)
because it allows respondents to describe any difference they may perceive. Asking
whethertheynoticeanydifferenceshouldpreventrespondentsfromfeelingforcedtofind
a difference when they do not perceive any, which would be counterproductive for the
purpose of the study. The questionnaires end with a few demographic questions
concerningtherespondentsplaceofbirthandresidence,thedurationoftheirresidence
there,theirsex,andtheirage(thefullquestionnairesaredisplayedinAppendix3).
8.1.3. Testdialogues
Forthecompilationofthetestdialogues,Iusedexcerptsfromrealdialogues.Iconsidered
thatconstructingdialoguesentailstheriskofsuggestingthroughtheirdesignparticular
functions that I could have in mind, a risk that should of course be avoided. Moreover,
realdialoguesensureauthenticityofsituationsandlanguage.
To gather real dialogues for the tests, I exploited the two corpora previously
analyzed, selecting excerpts in which speakers use senti and guarda. The selection
followed two main criteria: understandability of the excerpts, and representation of
differentconditionsofuseofthemarkers.
Accordingtothefirstcriterion,excerptsshouldbewellsuitedtobepresentedas
autonomousshortdialogues,thatis,theyshouldremaincomprehensiblewhentakenout
ofthewholeconversation.Furthermore,theyshouldnotcontainanyelementsthatcould
hampercomprehension,suchassubtlejokesordialectalexpressions.
Iintentionallyavoidedusingmoretechnicaltermsintheintroductiontothetests,inconsiderationofthe
factthattherespondentswerenotlinguists.
104
129
As for the second criterion of selection, the size of the study excludes any
pretension to represent in the test dialogues all possible conditions of use, but at least
somevarietyshouldbereproduced.Thisposesanoperationalizationproblem:howarea
markersconditionsofusetobereducedtosomediscreteunits?
I have established a set of features that may characterize the conditions under
whichamarkerisused,drawingonthecorpusanalysisalreadycarriedout.ThefeaturesI
have taken are: the placement of the marker in turninitial, medial, or final position, its
beingpreposedorpostposedtothescope,itsplacementbeforeatopicshiftorbeforethe
continuation of a topic, and the type of action carried out by the speaker through her
utterance(s). These features proved particularly relevant for understanding the markers
workingsduringthecorpusanalysis.
Wehaveseen(chapter7,subsection7.3.1)thatsentioccurredturninitially(65.6%)
andmedially(34.4%),mostlyprecedingitsscope(99.2%),andseldomfollowingit(0.8%);
guardawasfoundinturninitial(30.0%),medial(60.0%),aswellasfinalposition(10.0%),
and appeared both before its scope (60.0%) and after it (40.0%). Accordingly, I have
chosenexcerptsthatcoverallofthesefeatures.Sentioftenoccursinutterancesthatstarta
new topic or subtopic (80.0%), as well as in utterances continuing on a current topic
(20.0%), whereas guarda is very rarely found before topic shifts (5.0%) and, as was
demonstrated(chapter7,subsection7.3.3),isnotfunctionallyrelatedtothem.Ihavethus
selected excerpts containing a topic shift for the deletion tests on senti, and without any
topic shift for the deletion tests on guarda and for the substitution tests, which have to
representconditionsvalidforbothmarkers.
In regard to the actions performed by speakers, the selection of suitable excerpts
provestobemorecomplex.Asapointofdeparture,Ihavelookedatwhattypesofaction
aremostfrequentforeachmarker,andwhattypesoccurwithbothmarkersthesecond
questionbeingrelevantforthesubstitutiontests.Forsenti,wehavemostoftenquestions
(58.4%), in fewer cases descriptions of events and situations (9.6%), expressions of
personal positions (8.8%), requests (6.4%), leavetakings (4.0%), and announcements of
actions the speaker intends to perform (3.2%). For guarda, the most frequent are
expressions of personal positions (56.0%), followed by descriptions of events and
situations (23.0%), and to a smaller proportion by accounts (6.0%), selfdefenses (4.0%),
proposals (3.0%), and announcements of actions (3.0%). This data have been taken as a
guidefortheselectionofexcerpts,butthefrequencyofthedifferenttypesofactionhas
not been taken as a strict rule, due to practical reasons. We observe that there is a
considerablegapbetweenafewhighlyfrequenttypesofactionandtheothertypes;this
situationposesthefollowingproblem:ontheonehand,itseemsadvisabletoincludethe
lessfrequenttypesinthetests,soastoprovideforbroadervariety;ontheotherhand,for
thesetypesofactionstherearesimplynotmanyinstancesinthecorporafromwhichone
canchoose(especiallytakingintoaccountthecriterionofunderstandability).Asaresult,I
have selected excerpts representing the most frequent actions for each marker, excerpts
representing the most frequent actions common to both markers, and excerpts
representingsomeofthelessfrequentactions,butwithoutstrictlyfollowingtheirdegree
130
of frequency. The representation of the features in the test dialogues are displayed in
Tables1012.
Note that I have not included any instance of senti or guarda as used in quoted
speech. Because this use only serves to reproduce the usage in direct speech, its
considerationisnotnecessaryininvestigatingthequestionofhowspeakersinterpretthe
twomarkers.
TheselectedexcerptshavebeenrewrittenaccordingtoItalianorthographicrules
tomakethemreadableforlinguisticallyuntrainedpersons.Somehavebeensubjectedto
minor editing: to prevent the respondents from losing the thread, long turns have been
shortenedanddisfluencieshavebeenpartiallydeleted;expressionswithpossiblyunclear
meaningshavebeensubstitutedbymoreexplicitones(thetestdialoguescanbeseenin
Appendix2andinsidethequestionnairesinAppendix3).
Table10:Deletiontestsforsenti:featuresrepresentedinthedialogues
Conditionsunderwhichsentiappears
Positionintopic
structure
Positionintheturn
Positioninthescope
Speakersaction
Beforetopicchange
Beforecontinuingcurrenttopic
Turninitial
Turnmedial
Turnfinal
Beforethescope
Afterthescope
Descriptionoffacts(answer)
Question
Request
Dialogue
A
B
Dialogue
D
E
Table11:Deletiontestsforguarda:featuresrepresentedinthedialogues
Conditionsunderwhichguardaappears
Positionintopic
structure
Positionintheturn
Positioninthescope
Speakersaction
Beforetopicchange
Beforecontinuingcurrenttopic
Turninitial
Turnmedial
Turnfinal
Beforethescope
Afterthescope
Proposal
Descriptionoffacts
Expressionofanopinion
131
Table12:Substitutiontests:featuresrepresentedinthedialogues
Conditionsunderwhichguardaandsentiappear
Beforetopicchange
Positionin
topicstructure Beforecontinuingcurrenttopic
Turninitial
Positioninthe
Turnmedial
turn
Turnfinal
Positioninthe Beforethescope
scope
Afterthescope
Descriptionoffacts
Proposal
Speakers
action
Expressionofanopinion(answer)
Announcementofanaction
Dialogue
senti>guarda
G
H I
guarda>senti
J
K
L
At this stage, a brief comment on the choice of written dialogues is due. The
alternativeoptionofpresentingrespondentswiththerecordingswasconsidered,butwas
eventually discarded for two reasons. For one, creating substitution tests would require
an amount of work on the sound files that is far beyond the scope of this study. More
importantly, written dialogues have been used in previous studies (e.g. FoxTree 2007,
Hentschel 1981, 1982), which do not report on any disadvantages. In Hentschels (1982:
231)study,itisassumedthatrespondentsresorttowhatiscalledaStandardintonation
(standard intonation), and this is confirmed by the relative homogeneity of responses;
further confirmation was provided by studies in which participants had to read texts
aloud. In view of these facts, written dialogues have been considered adequate for the
purposesofthepresentinvestigation.
8.1.4. Respondents
Twentyfourrespondentstookpartinthestudy(15womenand9men).Allofthemwere
nativespeakersofItalian,agedbetween19and65,andcomingfromdifferentregionsof
Italy.20outof24respondentshadalwayslivedinItaly;fourwerelivinginGermanyat
thetimeofthestudy,buttheyhadgrownupinItalyuntilatleasttheageof24andhad
been in Germany for at most 4.5 years, so their competence of Italian could safely be
considerednative.ThedemographicdataareshowninTable13.
InordertoreachasufficientnumberofspeakersfromdifferentItalianregions,the
questionnaires were compiled as online forms and sent tothe respondents by electronic
mail.Eachofthefourquestionnaireswasfilledoutbysixofthe24respondents.
132
Age
Sex
Questionnaire1
Campania
Howlong
resident
19years
19
Lombardy
AostaValley
1year
29
Lombardy
Lombardy
25years
25
EmiliaRomagna
EmiliaRomagna
65years
65
Lombardy
Lombardy
21years
21
Piedmont
Lombardy
21years
21
Questionnaire2
Sicily
Lombardy
16years
29
Campania
NRW(Germany)
4,5years
29
Lombardy
Lombardy
29years
29
10
Campania
Lazio
10years
46
11
Lombardy
Lombardy
26years
26
12
Lombardy
Lombardy
26years
26
Questionnaire3
13
Lombardy
Lombardy
28years
28
14
Lombardy
Lombardy
30years
30
15
TrentinoAltoAdige Berlin(Germany)
5months
25
16
Lombardy
Lombardy
24years
24
17
Veneto
NRW(Germany)
11months
28
18
Lazio
NRW(Germany)
6months
27
Questionnaire4
Table13:demographicdataabouttherespondents
19
Piedmont
Piedmont
24years
24
20
Piedmont
Piedmont
24years
24
21
Piedmont
Piedmont
24years
24
22
Piedmont
Piedmont
24years
24
23
Lombardy
Lombardy
21years
21
24
Lombardy
Lombardy
23years
23
n.
Regionofbirth
Regionofresidence
Campania
8.2. Results
8.2.1. Somepreliminaryremarksontherespondentsanswers
Atotalamountof71answersweregiven,including35answersinthesubstitutiontests
and36answersinthedeletiontests.Asexpected,duetotheuseofopenquestionsinthe
tests(thatis:whethertherespondentsperceivedanydifferencesbetweenthetwoversions
ofadialogue,andifyes,whatdifferences)theanswersshowedsomeheterogeneity.The
respondents took different perspectives on the test dialogues, which can be classified in
four types: a) they described the pragmatic interpretation of the utterances and of the
markers; b) they assessed the dialogues from a normative point of view; c) they judged
themarkersacceptability;d)theycommentedonthemarkerssemantics.However(and
happily), the majority of the answers took perspective a), i.e. they focussed on the
133
pragmatic interpretation of the utterances, thereby providing exactly the type of

information wanted for the study. To be precise, 63 out of the 71 answers contained
statementsaboutthepragmaticinterpretation(moreexactly:18answersoutof18inthe
deletiontestsforsenti,14answersoutof18inthedeletiontestsforguarda,and31answers
outof35inthesubstitutiontests).
8.2.2. Dosentiandguardaaffectutteranceinterpretation?
In the deletion tests, the question of whether there was any difference between the two
versionsofadialoguewasansweredaffirmativelyin30casesoutof36.Thisshowsquite
convincinglythatthepresence/absenceofthemarkersdidmakeadifferenceintheway
respondents understood the utterances. In the substitution tests, the question was
answered affirmatively in 33 cases out of 35, which shows that the presence of senti as
opposed to guarda and vice versa clearly affected the interpretation; hence, the two
markerswerenotfelttobeequivalentbytherespondents.
Consideringthesixnegativeanswers(i.e.thoseaffirmingthatthetwoversionsof
adialoguewereequal),twoofthemweregivenindeletiontestsforguarda(dialoguesE
and F), four in a deletion test for senti (dialogue C), and two in a substitution test
(dialogue G). The fact that most negative answers were given in relation to the same
dialogues is interesting, too: apparently, the degree to which the markers affected the
interpretationvarieddependingonthecontext.
8.2.3. Whateffectsdosentiandguardahave?
Turning to the question of what differences respondents noticed, the answers showed
quite clear patterns. To mention some examples, two respondents judged that the
statement of an opinion beginning with senti sounded more aggressive than the same
statementbeginningwithguarda,andtwoothersfounditthreatening.Accordingtothree
respondents, a proposal beginning with senti sounded aggressive, arrogant, and
impatient.
Based on similarities like these, it was possible to build categories of relatively
homogeneousstatementsforeachmarker(6categoriesofstatementsconcerningsentiand
5 categories of statements concerning guarda). Due to the small size of the study, two
similarstatementsbydifferentrespondentswereconsideredenoughtoformacategory;
however,thiswasthecaseforonlythreeofthe11categories,whiletheothersweremade
upbyseveral(upto13)statementseach.
There were of course some answers that did not exhibit any common traits with
others. As FoxTree (2007: 302) points out, open questions inevitably yield a number of
idiosyncraticresponses.Forexample,onerespondentstatedthatanutteranceinwhicha
speakerdescribedsomeactionsandtheirdisappointingresultsoundedmoredesperate
withsentithanwithguarda.Accordingtoanotherrespondent,theversionwithsentiofthis
utterance gave the impression that the speaker had acted following somebodys advice,
134
whereas in the version with guarda she had acted on her own initiative. Despite the
presence of idiosyncratic answere like these, the majority of the statements did show
similaritieswithothersandcouldthusbeorderedintocategories.
It should be noted that respondents often made several statements within one
answer.Consequently,Ihavenotgroupedwholeanswersintocategories;instead,Ihave
segmented each answer into single statements and then grouped the statements into
categories.Eachofthecategoriesmanifestsadistincteffectofsentiorguarda.
In what follows, I will list the effects that have emerged for each marker,
illustrating them with some examples from the respondents answers. For the marker
senti,thefollowingeffectsemerge:
1)Indicatingatopicshiftandanattitudetowardsthetopic.Whensentioccurredin
utterances starting a new topic, respondents interpreted it as indicating the intention to

change topic and call attention to the shift. It was also described as a device to quit a
discussion which the speaker did not completely approve of, and to change topic in a
resolute way. So, it appears that senti is interpreted as signalling a topic shift, and
furthermoreasconveyingacertainattitudetowardstheprevioustopicortheshiftitself.
2)Indicatingresolutionandselfassertiveness.Thiseffectresultsfromanumberof
statements according to which, for example, a proposal introduced with senti sounded
arrogant, aggressive, or irrevocable (while it had a calm tone with guarda). One
respondent paraphrased a senti embedded in a proposal with ascolta bene perch devi
scegliere quello che ti consiglio io (listen carefully because you must choose the one I
recommend),andanotherfoundthatthespeakersoundedimpatientandwasimplying
tanto vale, no??? (in that context, something like: no need to discuss that, dont you
think?).Answerstoquestionsbeginningwithsentiwerejudgedasselfconfidentoreven
aggressive and threatening. One respondent found that, in a dialogue where a speaker
announcedtheintentiontodosomething,theannouncementsoundedmoredecidedwith
senti,andtheinterlocutorsparticipationwasdemanded.Altogether,statementsfromthis
categoryshowthatsentiisfelttoindextheintentiontoimposeonesownwillonothers.
3) Indicating a selfdefensive attitude. Senti was interpreted as expressing a self
defensiveattitudewhenpreposedtoanonconforminganswer.Inanutterancethatcould
beinterpretedasajustification,sentisuggestedthatthespeakerimpliednonpossofarci
niente(Icantdoanythingaboutit).Itappearsthatsentiisunderstoodasasignthat
the speaker, who is facing some problematic situation, wants to defend herself and
declineresponsibility.
4) Indicating annoyance. When senti introduced answers to questions, some
respondentsinterpreteditasasignofthespeakersdisagreementandaversiontowards
the subject of the question; in some cases it was taken as a sign that the speaker was
botheredorannoyedbythequestion,orhadtroubleansweringit.Itthusseemsthatsenti
indicatesannoyanceaboutaquestion,ormaybemoregenerallyaboutsomeeventin
theinteraction.
5) Strengthening a statement. Some respondents affirmed that the content of
utteranceswasstrengthened,emphasized,orreaffirmedbythepresenceofsenti.
135
6) Indexing a close relationship between speakers. Respondents perceived
utteranceswithsentiasmorecolloquialandfamiliarthanwithoutsenti.Alsocomparedto
guarda,anutterancewithsentirecalledacloserrelationship.
Letusnowturntoguarda.Concerningthismarker,thefollowingeffectshavebeenfound:
1)Callingforattentionandintroducingtalk.Whenguardawasopeningtheanswer
toaquestion,respondentsdescribeditascallingforattentionandintroducingcolloquial
speech.Callingforattentionandintroducingspeechcanberegardedastwodistincttasks,
but they are clearly interdependent (attention is always called on some upcoming talk,
andprojectingthebeginningofastretchoftalkevokesattentionfromtheaddressee).
2) Indicating certainty. A guarda following the expression of an opinion was
interpretedbyrespondentsasasignthatthespeakerwassureaboutwhatshesaid.
3) Indicating consideration for the ideas of others. A proposal introduced by
guarda was judged as friendly and calm, while it became more direct and assertive
withoutit;onerespondentspecifiedthatthemarkersignalizedthatthespeakerhadtaken
intoaccounttheneedsofothers,whilethesameutterancewithoutguardaimpliedcos
e basta (in that context, something like: we are going to do it this way and thats it).
Compared to senti, guarda made a proposal sound friendly, whereas senti made it
aggressive. In addition, two respondents provided interesting paraphrases of guarda:
secondo me and secondo il mio parere (in my opinion). Summing up, from the
statements in this category it emerges that guarda makes utterances sound friendly, and
that it does so because it indicates that the speaker takes other perspectives into
considerationandregardsherownideaasjustoneofmany.
4)Indicatingresignation.Inutterancesthatpresentedsomesolutionstoproblems,
guardawasfelttoexpressthespeakersresignation.
5) Strengthening a statement. According to some respondents, guarda
strengthened,underlined,orconfirmedthecontentofutterances.
8.3. Discussion
8.3.1. Speakersinterpretationsandtheproposeddescriptionofsenti
andguarda
Thedeletionandsubstitutiontestshaveledtotheidentificationofarangeofeffectsthat
senti and guarda produced on the interpretation of the utterances presented to the
respondents.Basedontheseresults,weshallnowgobacktoourinitialquestion:canthe
functionaldescriptionsofsentiandguardathatIhaveproposedinchapter7accountfor
nativespeakersinterpretationsofthemarkers?
Becauseboththeresultsfrommycorpusanalysisandthefindingsfromthetests
justdisplayedareofaqualitativenature,theanswertotheabovequestionwillbelooked
for by means of a qualitative evaluation of what explanations the basic functions I have
136
proposed can offer for the effects that the markers were found to have in the context
accordingtotheresultsofthetests.
8.3.1.1 Senti
Ihavearguedthatsenticanbedescribedasanappealtotheinterlocutortoattendtothe
speakers activity in a way that complies with the speakers intentions. Can this
descriptionaccountforthecontextualeffectsmentionedbytherespondents?
1)Indicatingatopicshiftandanattitudetowardsthetopic.Concerningtheeffect
ofindicatingatopicshift,thishasalreadybeendetailedinchapter7,soitwillalreadybe
clear how the proposed basic function accounts for it. In regard to the second function
(thatofindicatinganattitudetowardsthetopic),respondentsaffirmedthatsentiwasused
toquitadiscussionthespeakerdidnotfullyapproveof,andtochangetopicinaresolute
way.Itseemstomethatthisiswellcompatiblewiththebasicfunctionabove:sentiisnot
justacallforattention,itisadirectappealtotheinterlocutortoattendtothebeginning
activity by acting correspondingly. So, its use can well give an impression of resolution
andbeinterpretedasasignthatthespeakerdoesnotapproveoftheprevioustopic.
2) Indicating resolution and selfassertiveness. This label subsumes descriptions
which range from an attitude of selfconfidence and resolution to aggressivity. These

descriptions refer to test dialogues in which speakers make proposals (dialogue J),
describe facts as an answer to a question (A), express an opinion as an answer to a
question(K),announceanactiontheyintendtoperform(H),orgiveadescriptionoffacts
that can also be seen as a justification (L). The proposed basic function seems able to
account for the perception of the attitudes above: when a speaker is performing these
types of actions, adding an appeal to the addressee to comply with her intentions can
easilybeinterpretedasasignthatthespeakerwishestoimposeherideaoropinionover
others.
3) Indicating a selfdefensive attitude. This effect has emerged in relation to a
dialogue in which senti accompanies the description of an activty which has brought
disappointingresults(I),adescriptionoffactsthatcanbeunderstoodasajustification(L),
and a description of facts that constitutes a nonconforming answer (A). Briefly: it has
emergedindialoguesinwhichthespeakerssaysomethingwhichisparticularlyexposed
to criticism or refusal. The basic function proposed can explain the perception of a self
defensive attitude in the following terms: in cases where statements are exposed to
criticismorrefusal,theappealtocomplywiththespeakersintentionscangiverisetothe
inferencethatthespeakeristryingtoeliminatepossibleresistanceand,hence,thatsheis
tryingtoprotectherself.
4)Indicatingannoyance.Thiseffecthasbecomeapparentinanswerstoquestions
(one typeconforming, expressing an opinion (K), and one nonconforming, describing

some facts (L)). Again, I believe that we can explain the effects reported by the
respondentsintermsofaninteractionofthebasicfunctionwiththesituationrepresented
inthedialogues.Ihavearguedthatsenticanbeusedinnonconforminganswerstosignal
137
thattheinterlocutorshouldaccepttheanswerdespiteitsinappropriateness(seechapter7,
section7.1.5),becauseitmoregenerallysignalsthewishthattheinterlocutoradjustto
the intentions of the speaker. This can well lead to the inference that the speaker is
somewhat annoyed by the question and by the fact that she cannot properly answer it.
The same inference can of course also arise in cases in which the answer is type
conforming,ifsentiisadded.
Looking back to point 3), it appears that, put more generally, when a speaker
producesanutterancethatmayencountersomeresistancebytheinterlocutor,eitherwith
respect to its function (e.g. justification) or its content (e.g. opinion, nonconforming
answer), the addition of senti is immediately felt as a sign that the speaker wants to
overcome such resistance. As a consequence, the tone will be perceived as resolute and
selfassertive, and we will infer that the speaker is trying to protect herself from some
affront,orthatsomethingisannoyingher.
5) Strengthening a statement. In order to discuss this effect it is necessary to
remarkthatbysayingthatsentistrengthens(oremphasizes,orreaffirms)astatement,
the respondents have described the statements impact on them as readers, but this
description does not reveal what the marker adds to the statement concretely. It seems
plausible that this effect might be related to the expression of resolution and self
assertiveness; and indeed the descriptions as strengthening occurred in the same test
dialoguesastheeffectsin2)and3).Thebasicfunctioncanthusaccommodatethiseffect
in the sense that the appeal to comply with the speakers intentions can enhance the
utterancesimpactontheaddressee.
6) Indexing a close relationship between speakers. This judgement is likely to
derive from the fact that discourse markers are normally considered, also among
linguisticallyuntrainedspeakers,astypicalofcolloquialspeech.Atthesametime,ithas
tobenotedthatsentiwasperceivedasmorecolloquialthanguarda.So,theassociationof
senti with a close relationship might also be due to the particular message it conveys,
which is less facesaving than that of guarda, and thus more likely to occur among
speakerswhoknoweachotherwell.
8.3.1.2 Guarda
Ihaveidentifiedthebasicfunctionofguardaasthatofindicatingthatthespeakercanbe
trusted with respect to what she is saying. Let us now see how this function is able to
explaintheeffectsresultingfromthetests.
1) Calling for attention and introducing talk. These functions have already been
discussedintheanalysisofguardainchapter7,subsections7.2.1and7.2.2,whereIhave
shown how the basic function proposed accounts for them. While conveying its basic
message, guarda has the effect of projecting upcoming talk; it thus creates attention and
canhelpintroduceaturn.
138
2) Indicating certainty. This effect was reported in relation to an utterance
expressing the speakers opinion about a future event (D); respondents found that the
speaker sounded more certain in the version with guarda than without it. The proposed
basic function fits this interpretation well. If we assume that guarda signals that we can
trust the speaker, when one expresses an opinion about something that has not yet
happened, the presence of the marker can well be interpreted as a sign that one is sure
aboutwhatonesays.
3) Indicating consideration for the ideas of others. This effect resulted from
statements according to which guarda made utterances sound more calm and friendly,
and suggested that the opinions or needs of others had been taken into consideration.
Thesestatementsweremostlymadeinrelationtodialoguesinwhichguardaaccompanied
a proposal (J, E) and the expression of an opinion (K). In these situations, an appeal to
trustthespeakercansuggestthatwhileexpressingherownideathespeakerdoesnot
wanttoenforceherview,butratherwantstojustifyitfortheaddressee,therebyputting
herself in a weaker position. The marker can therefore lead to the inference that the
speaker is considering the opinions and needs of the others, and that she regards her
position as just one of many (recall the paraphrases secondo me and secondo il mio
parere).Asaresult,theutterancewillbeperceivedasfriendly.
4)Indicatingresignation.Theeffectofsignallingresignationisatfirstglancemore
difficulttoreconcilewithmyanalysis,althoughitdoesnotseemtobeincompatiblewith
it.Thiseffectwasreportedoninrelationtodialoguesinwhichaspeakermadeaproposal
(J)orannouncedwhatshewantedtodoinordertosolveaproblem(H).Ihavesaidabove
that guarda can serve to justify a position; in these contexts, its presence may cause the
inference that the speaker has thought about other solutions but eventually resigned
herselftotheonesheisnowsuggestingorannouncing.Itshouldalsobenoticedthatthis
effect was reported by respondents only in substitution tests, so the interpretation as a
signofresignationmightbepartiallyduetothecontrastwithsenti.
5)Strengtheningastatement.AsIhaveremarkedaboutsenti,sayingthatamarker
strengthensastatementdoesnotactuallygiveanyclueaboutwhatthemarkeraddsto
the statement in question. However, this effect seems well compatible with the basic
functionproposed:byaddingtotheutteranceanappealtotrustthespeaker,themarker
cangivemoreprominencetowhatissaid.
Concluding,thefunctionaldescriptionsofsentiandguardaprovidedinchapter7
haveturnedouttobesuitableinexplainingtheunderstandingofthesetwomarkersby
nativespeakers.Someoftheeffectsreportedonbytherespondentscanbemotivatedas
directlyfollowingfromthebasicmessages,orfromthepropertyofannouncingupcoming
talkthatisassociatedwiththem;otherseffectsareexplainableasderivingfrominferences
thataredrawnbythehearers/readersonthebasisofthesamefundamentalmessagesand
thesituationsinwhichthemarkersareembedded.
139
8.3.2. Suitabilityofthemethod
Forthepurposeofuncoveringthewaysinwhichdiscoursemarkersaffecttheperception
of utterances by native speakers, deletion and substitution tests have proved to be well
suited.Bycomparingtheoverallimpressionsdescribedbytherespondentsinrelationto
thetwoversionsofanutterance,ithasindeedbeenpossibletogetcluesabouthowsenti
andguardacontributetoutteranceinterpretation.
Theuseofanopenquestion(whetherrespondentscouldperceiveanydifferences
between the two versions, and if yes, what differences they perceived) was expected to
yieldheterogeneousanswers,andthusposedifficultiesfortheevaluationoftheresults,
butitwaschoseninordertoconstraintherespondentsviewsaslittleaspossible.Indeed,
theanswerscollectedarequitecomplex:mostofthemcontainmorethanonestatement,
and some of them touch on different aspects of the markers use (such as their
acceptability from a normative perspective, or their semantics), which makes them
difficult to compare. Nevertheless, the answers have turned out to be less problematic
than expected, since the great majority of them contain exactly the kind of information
needed:onlytworespondentstookapurelynormativeperspective,whiletheremaining
22focussedonthemarkerspragmaticfunctions,sometimesaddingremarksabouttheir
acceptabilityorsemantics.Moreover,thestatementspresentsimilaritieswhichallowfor
systematisation.
The answers provided by the respondents have also shown that native speakers
are able to identify via introspection the way in which markers act, and to verbalize it;
native speakers introspection can thus be a valuable means to study the functions of
discoursemarkers.
The methodological tools employed here can of course be improved upon. For
example, the presentation of the markers in dialogues representing possible contexts of

use could be integrated by their presentation in contexts in which they never appear in
the corpora, and in contexts that, according to my analysis, can be expected to be
incompatible with their functions (e.g. guarda in questions). Moreover, by enlarging the
set of tests, one could address the question of the correlation between a markers
interpretation and its context of occurrence, which could be addressed only marginally
here. In fact, the tests developed here have aimed to represent different features of the
markerscontextsofusee.g.thetypeofactionperformedbythespeakers,thepresence
oftopicshiftsetc.butthetotalnumberofdialogueswasbyfartoosmalltohavethese
featuresappearinallpossiblecombinations.Alargernumberofdialogueswouldmakeit
possible not only to detect, as has been done here, recurrent effects of the markers, but
alsotoinvestigatehowtheseeffectsrelatetothedifferentcontextualfeatures.
140
SUMMARYANDPROSPECTS
9. Summaryandprospects
The present work has presented an indepth corpusdriven analysis of the discourse
markerssentiandguarda,withthegoalofprovidingacoherent,unifiedaccountoftheir
broadrangeofuse.Ithasreliedontheconvictionthatlookingforageneral,fundamental
functionasthebasisofthethevarioustasksfulfilledbyamarkercanaddgreatlytoour
understandingofit.Discoursemarkersarenotoriouslymultifunctional;nevertheless,the
variety of their contextual values can be reduced and their complexity made more
transparent by the identification of some more general, underlying pattern. In line with
thisobjective,Ihavepresented,foreachmarker,arangeofmainfunctionswhichaccount
foritsuseondifferentlevelsofinteraction;then,Ihaveidentified,asthecommonrootof
those functions, one basic function or basic message. This message is encoded in the
marker in all of its instances and can yield different effects depending on the activities
pursued by the speakers in context. By positing this message, it has become possible to
explain the existence of multiple functions associated with a single marker, and the
frequentcoactivationofseveralfunctionsinoneandthesametoken.
Besidesanalyzingsentiandguardaindividually,theworkhasaimedtobringtheir
differences into focus. As it was observed at the outset of the study, although the two
markersareabletofulfilpartiallysimilarfunctions(e.g.turnopening,interruption),they
cannot be freely exchanged without affecting the interpretation of utterances. This fact,
however,couldnotbeexplainedintermsofthepreviouslyavailabledescriptions,andno
comparative analysis existed. Therefore, I have conducted a comparison of the
distribution of senti and guarda relative to several aspects of the conversation (turns,
actions,sequencestructure,topicstructureetc.),soastogaugedivergencesintheiruse.
Clearlydistinctpatternshaveemergedandhaveshownthattheuseofthetwomarkersis
associatedwithquitedifferentactivities.Forexample,sentifrequentlyannouncesastretch
oftalk,whereasguardaoftencommentsretrospectivelyonit;sentiismostfrequentlyused
in questions, guarda, instead, in expressions of evaluations. The emergence of such
patterns has provided tangible evidence for the functional difference between senti and
guarda. At the same time, the comparison has helped us complete the picture of the
markersworkings,underpinningthefunctionaldescriptionsproposed.
Over and above the intent to deepen our knowledge of senti and guarda
specifically,Ihopethatthisworkhasprovidedanexampleofamethodologicalprocedure
that can turn useful for other, potentially more extensive analyses. I have shown that a
multilayeredanalysis,basedonawelldefinedlistofcriteriaandcategories,canoffera
solid basis to illuminate the role accomplished by discourse markers by providing both
qualitative and quantitative information about their use in corpus data; moreover, it
createsanessentialpreconditionforanobjectiveandsoundcomparisonbetweenmarkers.
Itwasfurthermoredemonstratedhowcontrastingdistinctitemscanbeameanstobetter
141
SUMMARYANDPROSPECTS
defining the characteristics of each of them, and it can ultimately lead to a more
comprehensiveunderstandingofthem.
Finally, I have presented, in an excursus, a smallsize empirical study of native
speakersinterpretationsofsentiandguarda.Inaseriesofdeletionandsubstitutiontests,
respondents described how their interpretations of utterances varied according to the
presence or absence of the markers. Their statements, grouped together by content
similarities, pointed to a number of effects that the two items brought about. The
investigation has given an insight into the way senti and guarda contribute to the
interpretationofutterancesbynativespeakers,therebydemonstratingthat,evenfromthe
point of view of linguisticallyuntrained persons, the two items possess clear and
distinctive meanings. I have then discussed whether the perceptions reported on by the
respondents can be explained by the functional descriptions of the two markers that I
have put forward, so to measure the tenability of my descriptions as adequate
representationsofthemarkersfunctioninginlanguageuse.Ihavecometotheconclusion
that the proposed descriptions indeed seem to account well for native speakers
interpretationsofsentiandguarda.Lastbutnotleast,consideringthatempiricalresearch
ondiscoursemarkersinterpretationsisstillinitsinfancy,thestudyhasalsointendedto
make a contribution to its development by trying methodological tools that had not yet
beenappliedtothiskindofquestion.
Altogether, I hope that this work can not only shed light on the circumscribed
phenomenaitfocuseson,butalsobecomeausefulstartingpointforfurtherresearch.The
analysis presented here could be profitably extended to other items, both at an
intralinguisticandacrosslinguisticlevel.Suchanextentionwouldalsobeanopportunity
to include more aspects in the analysis, which could prove relevant for the
characterizationofothermarkers.
An aspect which could not be investigated here, but which could certainly be
takenintoaccountformorepreciseandinsightfuldescriptions,isthecooccurrenceofa
given marker with others. The study of Fraser (2011) on the sequencing of contrastive
discourse markers in English has shown how interesting facts about the function of
individualitemscanbediscoveredbyobservinghowtheitemsclustertogether.Another
interestingpointwouldbethephoneticrealizationofmarkers,meaningbythisnotonly
theirpitchcontour,105butalso,forinstance,thevolume,thespeed,andthevoicequality
withwhichtheyareproduced.
Looking at the crosslinguistic level, it is wellknown that discourse markers
hardly have any direct correspondents in different languages (see, for example, the
observationsaboutdiscoursemarkerstranslationsmadebyAijmer,Foolen,andSimon
Vandenbergen (2006)). It would therefore be interesting to apply an analysis like the
presentonetomarkersfromdifferentlanguages,soastoinvestigatesemasiologically
Thepitchcontourofmarkersissometimestakenintoaccount,butmostlyinarathersimplifiedway,i.e.by
measuringwhetheritisfalling,rising,orlevel.Thisfactorhasbeenfoundnottoplayanyimportantpart,by
itself,inestablishingthefunctionofamarker(seechapter6,section6.2,footnote48);consideringittogether
withalargersetofprosodicfactorscould,incontrast,beavaluablesourceofinsight.
105
142
SUMMARYANDPROSPECTS
to what extent similar forms are functionally equivalent or divergent, and

onomasiologicallywhatformsaccomplishacertainfunctionindistinctlanguages.
An issue I have not touched upon, then, is the diachronic rise of discourse
markers. This topic represents a main point of interest in current research, especially in
theareaofdeverbalmarkers.Inpassing,Ihavemadesomeobservationsabouthowthe
the messages that I have argued to be encoded in senti and guarda can be put into
relationshipwiththemeaningsofthecorrespondingverbs;still,Ihaveaimedatapurely
synchronic analysis, in the belief that a careful examination of the present discourse
marking functions is a necessary point of departure for the formulation of hypotheses
abouttheirevolution.Asanaturalextensionofthepresentwork,theanalysisconducted
hereonpresentdaydiscoursemarkerscouldbeappliedtoformsappearinginprevious
language periods; such an analysis could enable us to highlight the properties that
chracterizetheitemsatdistinctstagesandtracebackthechangesthathaveoccurredover
time.
143
REFERENCES
References
Aijmer, K. (1988). Now may we have a word on this: the use of now as a discourse
particle.InM.Kyt,O.Ihalainen,&M.Rissanen(eds.),Corpuslinguistics,hardand
soft.ProceedingsoftheEigthInternationalConferenceonEnglishLanguageResearchon
ComputerizedCorpora(pp.1534).Amsterdam:EditionsRodopiB.V.
Aijmer, K., Foolen, A., & SimonVandenbergen, AM. (2006). Pragmatic markers in
translation:amethodologicalproposal.InK.Fischer(ed.),ApproachestoDiscourse
Particles(pp.101114).Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Andersen,G.(1998).ThePragmaticMarkerlikefromaRelevancetheoreticPerspective.
InA.H.Jucker&Y.Ziv(eds.),Discoursemarkers.DescriptionsandTheory(pp.145
170).AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:Benjamins.
Anscombre,JC.&Ducrot,O.(1988).Largumentationdanslalangue.LigeandBruxelles:
PierreMardaga.
Auer,P.&Gnthner,S.(2005).DieEntstehungvonDiskursmarkernimDeutschenein
Fall von Grammatikalisierung?. In T. Leuschner & T. Mortelsmans (eds.),
GrammatikalisierungimDeutschen(pp.335362).Berlin/NewYork:deGruyter.
Austin,J.L.(1962).HowtodoThingswithWords.London:OxfordUniversityPress.
Bazzanella,C.(1985).Lusodeiconnettivinelparlato:alcuneproposte.InA.FranchiDe
Bellis & L. M. Savoia (eds.), Sintassi e morfologia della lingua italiana duso. Teorie e
applicazionidescrittive(pp.894).Roma:Bulzoni.
Bazzanella, C. (1990). Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken
Italian.JournalofPragmatics,14,629647.
Bazzanella, C. (1991). Le interruzioni competitive e supportive. In S. Stati, E.
Weigand & F. Hundsnurscher (eds.), Dialoganalyse 3: Referate der 3. Arbeitstagung,
Bologna1990.Vol.1(pp.283292).Tbingen:Narr.
Bazzanella, C. (1994a). Le facce del parlare. Un approccio pragmatico allitaliano parlato.
Scandicci:LaNuovaItalia.
Bazzanella,C.(1994b).Gliindicatorifticinellainterazionescolastica.InF.Orletti(ed.),
Traconversazioneediscorso.Lanalisidellinterazioneverbale(pp.233243).Roma:La
NuovaItaliaScientifica.
Bazzanella,C.(1995).Isegnalidiscorsivi.InL.Renzi,G.Salvi,&A.Cardinaletti(eds.),
Grandegrammaticaitalianadiconsultazione(pp.225257).Bologna:ilMulino.
Bazzanella,C. (1999).Corrispondenze funzionali di well in italiano: ananlisi di un testo
letterarioeproblemigenerali.InG.Skytte&F.Sabatini(eds.),Linguisticatestuale
144
REFERENCES
ecomparativa.InmemoriamMariaElisabethConte(pp.99110).Kobenhavn:Museum
TusculanumPress,.
Bazzanella,C. (2001a). Segnali discorsivi nel parlato e nello scritto. In M. Dardano, A.
Pelo & A. Stefinlongo (eds.), Scritto e parlato. Metodi, testi e contesti (pp. 7997).
Roma:Aracne.
Bazzanella, C. (2001b). Segnali discorsivi e contesto. In W. Heinrich & C. Heiss (eds.),
Modalitesubstandard.AbtnungundSubstandard(pp.4164).Bologna:Clueb.
Bazzanella, C. (2006a). Discourse Markers in Italian: towards a compositional
meaning. In K. Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 449464)
Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Bazzanella,C.(2006b).Segnalidiscorsiviesviluppiconversazionali.InF.AlbanoLeoni,
R. Giordano (eds.), Italiano parlato. Analisi di un dialogo (pp. 137157). Napoli:
Liguori.
Bazzanella, C. (2010). I segnali discorsivi. In L. Renzi & G. Salvi (eds.), Grammatica
dellitalianoantico(pp.13391357).Bologna:IlMulino.
Bazzanella,C.&Cristofoli,M.(1998).Piuttostocheelealternativenonpreferenziali:un
mutamentoinatto?.Cuadernosdefilologaitaliana,5,267278.
Bazzanella,C.,Bosco,C.,Garcea,A.,GiliFivela,B.,Miecznikowski,J.,&TiniBrunozzi,F.
(2007a). Italian allora, French alors: Functions convergences and divergences. In
M. J. Cuenca (ed.), Contrastive Perspectives on Discourse Markers. Catalan Journal of
Linguistics,6(pp.930).Barcelona:UniversitatAutnomadeBarcelona,Serveide
Publicacions.
Bazzanella, C., Bosco, C., Gili Fivela, B., Miecznikowski, J., & Tini Brunozzi, F. (2007b).
Segnali discorsivi e tipi di comunicazione. In C. Bosisio, B. Cambiagli, E.
Piemontese & F. Santulli (eds.), Atti del 7. congresso dellAssiciazione italiana di
linguistica applicata: aspetti linguistici della comunicazione pubblica e istituzionale,
Milano2223febbraio2007(pp.239265).Perugia:Guerra.
Bini, M. & Pernas, A. (2007). Marcadores discursivos en los primeros estadios de
adquisicin del italiano L2. In R. Monroy & A. Snchez (eds.), 25 aos de
lingstica aplicada en Espaa: Hitos y retos (pp. 2536). Murcia: Servicio de
publicacionesdelauniversidaddeMurcia.
Blakemore,D.(1987).SemanticConstraintsonRelevance.Oxford:Blackwell.
Blakemore,D.(1992).UnderstandingUtterances. AnIntroductiontoPragmatics.OxfordUK
andCambridgeUSA:Blackwell.
Brinton,L.(2001).FromMatrixClausetoPragmaticMarker:theHistoryofLookForms.
JournalofHistoricalPragmatics,2.2,177199.
145
REFERENCES
Brinton,L.(2009).PathwaysintheDevelopmentofPragmaticMarkersinEnglish.InA.
vanKemenade&B.Los(eds.),TheHandbookoftheHistoryofEnglish(pp.307334).
WestSussex:WileyBlackwell.
Briz Gmez, A. (1993). Los conectores pragmticos en espaol coloquial (I): su papel
argumentativo.Contextos,XI,21/22,145188.
BrizGmez,A.&GrupoVal.Es.Co.(2008).Diccionariodepartculasdiscursivasdelespaol.
Alicante:BibliotecaVirtualMigueldeCervantes.Online:http://www.dpde.es
Briz Gmez, A. & Hidalgo Navarro, A. (2008). Marcadores discursivos y prosoda:
observacionessobresupapelmodalizadoratenuante.InA.Briz,A.Hidalgo,M.
Albelda, J. Contreras, & N. Hernndez Flores (eds.), Cortesa y conversacin: de lo
escrito a lo oral, III Coloquio internacional del Programa EDICE, Valencia, 2226 de
noviembre de 2006 (pp. 390409). Valencia: Departamento de Filologa Espanola,
UniversitatdeValncia.
Company Company, C. (2006). Subjectification of verbs into discourse markers.
Semanticpragmaticchangeonly?.InB.Cornillie&N.Delbecque(eds.),Topicsin
Subectification and Modalization, Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 20, (p. 97121).
Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Contento,S.(1994).Imarcatoridiscorsividelcolloquiopsicologico.InF.Orletti(ed.),Tra
conversazione e discorso. Lanalisi dellinterazione verbale (pp. 217232). Roma: La
Cresti, E. & Moneglia, M. (eds.). (2005). CORALROM. Integrated Reference Corpora for
SpokenRomanceLanguages,DVD.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Cresti, E., Panunzi, A., & Scarano, A. (2005). The Italian corpus. In E. Cresti & M.
Moneglia (eds.), CORALROM. Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance
Languages(pp.71110).AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:Benjamins.
De Mauro, T. (ed.). (2000). Il dizionario della lingua italiana. Torino: Paravia Bruno
MondadoriEditori.
De Mauro, T., Mancini, F., Vedovelli, M., & Voghera, M. (1993). Lessico di frequenza
dellitalianoparlato.RicercaacuradellOsservatoriolinguisticoeculturaleitalianoOLCI
dellUniversit di Roma La Sapienza. Milano: Etaslibri. Online: http://badip.uni
graz.at/en/
Deppermann, A. & Elstermann, M. (2008). Lexikalische Bedeutung oder
Konstruktionsbedeutungen? Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel von Konstruktionen
mit verstehen. In A. Stefanowitsch & K. Fischer (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik II.
VonderKonstruktionzurGrammatik(pp.103133).Tbingen:Stauffenburg.
Diewald,G.(2006).Discourseparticlesandmodalparticlesasgrammaticalelements.In
K.Fischer(ed.),Approachestodiscourseparticles(pp.451478).Amsterdam:Elsevier.
146
REFERENCES
Diewald, G. (2008). Satzmodusrestriktionen bei der Grammatikalisierung von

ModalpartikelnmitbesondererbercksichtigungderEntwicklungvonruhig.In
O. Letnes, E. Maager, & H. Vater (eds.), Modalitt und Grammatikalisierung /
Modality and Grammaticalization. Fokus, 34. LinguistischPhilologische Studien (pp.
131152).Trier:WissenschaftlicherVerlagTrier.
Dostie,G.(1993).Ladescriptionsmantiquedesexpressionsdiscursivesexpressivesen
lexicographie.InG.Hilty(ed.),ActesduXXeCongrsInternationaldeLinguistique
etPhilologieRomanes.Vol.2(pp.5366).TbingenandBasel:FranckeVerlag.
Dostie, G. (1998). Deux marqueurs discursifs issus de verbes de perception: de
couter/regardercoute/regarde.Cahiersdelexicologie,73,85106.
Dostie,G.(2004).Pragmaticalizationetmarqueursdiscursifs.Analysesmantiqueettraitement
lexicographique.Bruxelles:DeBoeck&Larcier.
Drescher,M.&FrankJob,B.(eds.).(2006).Lesmarqueursdiscursifsdansleslanguesromanes.
FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang.
Elordieta,G.&Romera,M.(2002).ProsodyandMeaninginInteraction:TheCaseofthe
Spanish Discourse Functional Unit entonces then. In B. Bel & I. Marlien (eds.),
Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002 (pp. 263266). AixenProvence: Laboratoire
ParoleetLangage.
Ericsdotter, C. & Abete, G. (2007). Forma e funzione dellespressione hai capito? nel
dialettodiPozzuoli.BollettinoLinguisticoCampano,11/12,3772.
Fagard, B. (2010). vida, olha: Imperatives as discourse markers and grammaticali
zationpathsinRomance:Adiachroniccorpusstudy.LanguagesinContrast,10(2),
245267.
Fiehler, R., Barden, B., Elstermann, M., & Kraft, B. (2004). Eigenschaften gesprochener
Sprache. Theoretische und empirische Untersuchungen zur Spezifik mndlicher
Kommunikation.Tbingen:GunterNarrVerlag.
Fischer, K. (2000). From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics. Berlin and New York:
MoutondeGruyter.
Fischer,K.(ed.).(2006).Approachestodiscourseparticles.Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Fischer, K. (2006a). Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to
discourseparticles:introductiontothevolume.InK.Fischer(ed.),Approachesto
discourseparticles(pp.120).Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Fischer, K. (2006b). Frames, constructions, and invariant meanings: the functional
polysemyofdiscourseparticles.InK.Fischer(ed.),Approachestodiscourseparticles
(pp.480502).Amsterdam:Elsevier.
FoxTree,J. E.(2001).Listenersusesofumanduhinspeechcomprehension.Memory
andCognition,29(2),320326.
147
REFERENCES
FoxTree,J.E.(2007).Folknotionsofumanduh,youknow,andlike.TextandTalk,273,
297314.
FoxTree, J. E. & Schrock, J. C. (1999). Discourse Markers in Spontaneous Speech: Oh
WhataDifferenceanOhMakes.JournalofMemoryandLanguage,40,280295.
FrankJob, B. (2006). A dynamicinteractional approach to discourse markers. In K.
Fischer(ed.),Approachestodiscourseparticles(pp.359374).Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Fraser,B.(1999).Whatarediscoursemarkers?.JournalofPragmatics,31,931952.
Fraser,B.(2006).Towardsatheoryofdiscoursemarkers.InK.Fischer(ed.),Approaches
todiscourseparticles(pp.189204).Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (2011). The sequencing of contrastive discourse markers in English. Baltic
JournaloftheEnglishLanguage,LiteratureandCulture.Vol.1,2011,2935.
Fuschi, L. (in press) The discourse marker guarda: studying multifunctionality. In S.
DiaoKlaeger & B. Thrle (eds.), Linguistique interactionnelle contrastive. Grammaire
etinteractiondansleslanguesromanes.Tbingen:Stauffenburg.
Goodwin,C.&Goodwin,M.Harness(1987).ConcurrentOperationsonTalk:Noteson
theInteractiveOrganizationofAssessments.IPRAPapersinPragmatics,1(1),154.
Guil,P.,Bazzanella,C.,Bini,M.,Pernas,P.,Gil,T.,Borreguero,M.,Pernas,A.,Kondo,C.
M., & Gillani, E. (2008). Marcadores discursivos y cortesa lingstica en la
interaccin de aprendices de Italiano L2. In A. Briz, A. Hidalgo, M. Albelda, J.
Contreras, & N. Hernndez Flores (eds.), Cortesa y conversacin: de lo escrito a lo
oral. III Coloquio internacional del Programa EDICE. Valencia, 2226 de noviembre de
2006 (pp. 711729). Valencia: Departamento de Filologa Espanola, Universitat de
Valncia.
Glich,E.(1970).MakrosyntaxderGliederungssognaleimgesprochenenFranzsisch.Mnchen:
WilhelmFinkVerlag.
Glich, E. (2006). Des marqueurs de structuration de la conversation aux activits
conversationnellesdestructuration:Rflexionsmthodologiques.InM.Drescher
& B. FrankJob (eds.), Les marqueurs discursifs dans les langues romanes (pp. 1135).
FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang.
Glich, E. & Mondada, L. (2008). Konversationsanalyse. Eine Einfhrung am Beispiel des
Franzsischen.Tbingen:Niemeyer.
Hansen, MB. Mosegaard (1998). The function of discourse particles. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Hansen,MB.Mosegaard(2006).Adynamicpolysemyapproachtothelexicalsemantics
of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours). In K.
Fischer(ed.),Approachestodiscourseparticles(pp.2141)Amsterdam:Elsevier.
148
REFERENCES
Hasund, I. K. (2001). Markers of epistemic stance: a contrastive study of the pragmatic

particleslikeinEnglishandliksominNorwegian.InH.Vater&O.Letnes(eds.),
Modalitt und mehr / Modality and more. Fokus, 23. LinguistischPhilologische Studien
(pp.129140).Trier:WissenschaftlicherVerlagTrier.
Hentschel, E. (1981). Partikeln und Hrereinstellung. In H. Weydt (ed.), Partikeln und
Deutschunterricht(pp.1330).Heidelberg:JuliusGroosVerlag.
Hentschel, E. (1982). Halt und eben. In K. Detering, J. SchmidtRadefeldt, & W.
Sucharowski (eds.), Sprache erkennen und verstehen. Akten des 16. Linguistischen
KolloquiumsKiel1981.Vol.2(pp.231241).Tbingen:Niemeyer.
Heritage,J.(1984).Achangeofstatetokenandaspectsofitssequentialplacement.InJ.
M.Atkinson&J.Heritage(eds.),StructuresofSocialAction.StudiesinConversation
Analysis(pp.299345).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Jucker, A. H. & Ziv, Y. (eds.). (1998). Discourse markers. Descriptions and Theory.
AmsterdamandPhiladelphia:Benjamins.
Jucker,A.H.&Ziv,Y.(1998).Discoursemarkers:Introduction.InA.H.Jucker&Y.Ziv
(eds.), Discourse markers. Descriptions and Theory (pp. 112). Amsterdam and
Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Khachaturyan, E. (2001). Sul segnale discorsivo senti. Studi di Grammatica Italiana, 20,
127138.
Khachaturyan, E. (2002). Analisi contestuale dei segnali discorsivi (indagine su
diciamo).Studiitalianidilinguisticateoricaeapplicata,2,245258.
Khachaturyan,E.(2009).Segnalidiscorsiviformatidalverbodire.Approcciosemantico.
InS. Bach, L. Cecchini, & A. Kratschmer (eds.), Atti dellVIII Congresso degli
Italianisti Scandinavi. AarhusSandbjerg, 2123 giugno 2007 (pp. 348362).Aarhus:
InstitutforSprog,LitteraturogKultur,AarhusUniversitet.
Khachaturyan,E.(2010).Thefunctionofmitigationinspokenlanguage.Theanalysisof
tak skazat (Russian) and diciamo (Italian). Oslo Studies in Language 2(2), 393
412.
Khachaturyan, E. (2011). Una classificazione dei segnali discorsivi in italiano. In E.
Khachaturyan(ed.),OsloStudiesinLanguage,3(1),95116.
Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W. (2011). Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Franzsisch,
Italienisch,Spanisch.Secondedition.BerlinandNewYork:deGruyter.
Knig,E.&Requardt,S.(1991).Arelevancetheoreticapproachtotheanalysisofmodal
particles in German. In W. Abraham (ed.), Discourse particles across languages.
Multilingua,10(pp.6377).Berlin:DeGruyter.
Lehmann,C.(1985).Grammaticalization:SynchronicVariationandDiachronicChange.
LinguaeStile20(3),303318.
149
REFERENCES
Lemnitzer,L.&Zinsmeister,H.(2006).Korpuslinguistik.EineEinfhrung.Tbingen:Narr.
Lichem, K. (1981). Bemerkungen zu den Gliederungssignalen im gesprochenen
Italienisch. In C. Schwarze (ed.), Italienische Sprachwissenschaft (pp. 6182).
Tbingen:GunterNarrVerlag.
Liddicoat,A.(2007).AnIntroductiontoConversationAnalysis.London:Continuum.
MacWhinney,B.(2000).TheCHILDESProject.ToolsforAnalyzingTalk.Vol.1:Transcription
FormatandPrograms.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Manili, P. (1983). Per unindagine su vedi, senti, guarda (e forme collegate). Perugia: Le
EdizioniUniversitperStranieri.
Manili,P.(1986).Sintassideiconnettividiorigineverbale.InK.Lichem,E.Mara,&S.
Knaller(eds.),Parallela2.Aspettidellasintassidellitalianocontemporaneo.AttidelIII
incontro italoaustriaco della SLI a Graz. 2831 maggio 1984 (pp. 165176). Tbingen:
Narr.
Manili,P.(1988).Perunindaginesusai,sa(eformecollegate).AnnalidellUniversitper
StranieridiPerugia,10,179213.
Mara,E.(1986).Perunanalisideisegnalidiscorsivinellitalianoparlato.InK.Lichem,
E. Mara, & S. Knaller (eds.), Parallela 2. Aspetti della sintassi dellitaliano
contemporaneo.AttidelIIIincontroitaloaustriacodellaSLIaGraz.2831maggio1984
(pp.177189).Tbingen:Narr.
MarnJord,M.J.(2005).Gramaticalitzaciifuncidiscursivadelsverbsdepercepci,
Caplletra38,4771.
Mllering, M. (2004). The Acquisition of German Modal Particles. A Corpusbased Approach.
Bern:Lang.
Moneglia,M.(2005).TheCORALROMresource.InE.Cresti&M.Moneglia(eds.),C
ORALROM. Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages (pp. 170).
Mller,S.(2005).DiscourseMarkersinNativeandNonnativeEnglishDiscourse.Amsterdam
andPhiladelphia:Benjamins.
Nemo,F.(2006).Discourseparticlesasmorphemesandasconstructions.InK.Fischer
(ed.),Approachestodiscourseparticles(pp.375402).Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Paillard,D.(1998).Lesmotsdudiscourscommemotsdelalangue.Legrdeslangues14,
1041.
Paillard,D.(2000).Lesmotsdudiscourscommemotsdelalangue:pourunetypologie
formelle.Legrdeslangues16,99115
Paillard, D. (2010). Marqueurs discursifs et scne nonciative. In S. Hancil (ed.),
Connecteursdiscursifs(pp.1339).PressesUniversitairesdeRouen.
150
REFERENCES
Pellet, S. H. (2005). The Development of Competence in French Interlanguage Pragmatics: The

Case of the Discourse Marker donc. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin.
Online: http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/2351/pellets16854.
pdf?sequence=2
PonsBordera,S.(1998a).Conexinyconectores:estudiodesurelacinenelregistroinformalde
la lengua. Cuadernos de Filologa, Anejo XXVII. Valencia: Publicacions de la
UniversitatdeValncia.
Pons Bordera, S. (1998b). Oye y mira o los lmites de la conexin. In M. A. Martn
Zorraquino&E.MontoloDurn(eds.),Marcadoresdiscursivos:teorayprctica(pp.
213228).Madrid:Arco.
PonsBordera,S.(2006).Afunctionalapproachtothestudyofdiscoursemarkers.InK.
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the
StructureofResponding.AmericanSociologicalReview2003,68,939967.
Redeker,G.(1991).Linguisticmarkersofdiscoursestructure.Linguistics29,11391172.
Redeker,G.(2006).Discoursemarkersasattentionalcuesatdiscoursetransitions.InK.
Rodrguez Somolinos, A. (2003). Un marqueur discursif du franais parl: coute ou
lappellaraison.InA.RodrguezSomolinos(ed.),Desmotsaudiscours:Etudesde
linguistiquefranaise(pp.7183).Madrid:UniversidadComplutense.
Romero Trillo, J. (1997). Your attention please. Pragmatic mechanisms to obtain the
addresseesattentioninEnglishandSpanishconversations.JournalofPragmatics,
28,205221.
Roulet, E. (1991). Vers une approche modulaire de lanalyse du discours. Cahiers de
linguistiquefranaise,12,5381.
Roulet,E.,Auchlin,A.,Moeschler,J.,Rubattel,C.,&Schelling,M.(1987).Larticulationdu
discoursenfranaiscontemporain.Secondedition.Bern:Lang.
Sacks,H.(1995).LecturesonConversation.Vol.1.Oxford:Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the
organizationofturntakingforconversation.Language,50:4,696735.
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping Talk and the Organization of TurnTaking for
Conversation.LanguageinSociety29:1,163.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation
Analysis.Vol.1.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Schegloff,E.A.&Sacks,H.(1973).OpeningupClosingsSemiotica,8,289327.
Schiffrin,D.(1987).Discoursemarkers.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
151
REFERENCES
Schiffrin (2006). Discourse marker research and theory: revisiting and. In K. Fischer
(ed.),Approachestodiscourseparticles(pp.315338).Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Schmidt, T. & Schtte, W. (2010a). FOLKER (software). Online: http://agd.ids
mannheim.de/folker.shtml
Schmidt, T. & Schtte, W. (2010b). FOLKER: An Annotation Tool For Efficient
Transcription Of Natural, MultiParty Interaction. In LREC 2010 Proceedings.
Online:http://www.lrecconf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/18_Paper.pdf
Schourup(1999).Tutorialoverview.Discoursemarkers.Lingua,107,227265.
Schwarze,C.(1988).GrammatikderitalienischenSprache.Tbingen:MaxNiemeyerVerlag.
Searle,J.(1969).Speechacts.AnEssayinthePhilosophyofLanguage.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Searle, J. (1975). A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. In K. Gnderson (ed.), Language,
Mind,andKnowledge.MinnesotaStudiesinthePhilosophyofScience.Vol.7(pp.344
369).Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
Searle, J. (1979). Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Selting, M., Auer, P., BarthWeingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K.,
CouperKuhlen, E., Deppermann, A., Gilles, P., Gnthner, S., Hartung, M., Kern,
F.,Mertzlufft,C.,Meyer,C.,Morek,M.,Oberzaucher,F.,Peters,J.,Quasthoff,U.,
Schtte, W., Stukenbrock, A., & Uhmann, S. (2009). Gesprchsanalytisches
Transkriptionssystem2(GAT2).Gesprchsforschung.OnlineZeitschriftzurverbalen
Interaktion,10,353402.
Sidnell,J.(2010).ConversationAnalysis.AnIntroduction.WestSussex:WileyBlackwell.
Simone,R.(ed.)(2005).Ilvocabolariodellalinguaitaliana.Roma:IstitutodellaEinciclopedia
ItalianafondatadaGiovanniTreccani.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Spiegel,C.&SpranzFogasy,T.(2001).AufbauundAbfolgevonGesprchsphasen.In
K. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann, & S. F. Sager (eds.), Text und
Gesprchslinguistik.Vol.2(pp.12411251).Berlin/NewYork:deGruyter.
Stame,S.(1994).Sualcuniusidinocomemarcatorepragmatico.InF.Orletti(ed.),Tra
conversazione e discorso. Lanalisi dellinterazione verbale (pp. 205216). Roma: La
Stammerjohann, H. (1977). Elementi di articolazione dellitaliano parlato. In Studi di
grammaticaitaliana.Attidelseminariosullitalianoparlato(AccademiadellaCrusca).18
20.9.1976.Vol.VI(pp.109120).Firenze:PressolAccademiadellaCrusca.
152
REFERENCES
Stati,S.(1986).Connettiviinterfrasaliecoerenyapragmatica.InK.Lichem,E.Mara,&
S. Knaller (eds.), Parallela 2. Aspettidella sintassi dellitaliano contemporaneo. Atti del
IIIincontroitaloaustriacodellaSLIaGraz.2831maggio1984(pp.309316).Tbingen:
Narr.
Stenstrm, AB. (1994). An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London and New York:
Longman.
Travis, C. E. (2005). Discourse markers in Colombian Spanish. A study in polysemy. Berlin:
MoutondeGruyter.
Travis, C. E. (2006). The Natural Semantic metalanguage approach to discourse
markers. In K. Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 219242),
Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and Context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of
discourse.LondonandNewYork:Longman.
Van Olmen, D. (2010a). Imperatives of visual versus auditory perception as pragmatic
markersinEnglishandDutch.Englishtextconstruction,3:1,7494.
Van Olmen, D. (2010b). The imperative of intentional visual perception as a pragmatic
marker:acontrastivestudyofDutch,EnglishandRomance.LanguagesinContrast
10(2),223244.
Vask,I.(2000).TheinterplayofHungariande(but)andis(too,either).InG.Andersen
& T. Fretheim (eds.), Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude (pp. 255263).
Virtanen, T. (2009). Corpora and discourse analysis. In A. Ldeling & M. Kyt (eds.),
Corpus Linguistics. An international Handbook. Vol. 2. (pp. 10431070). Berlin and
NewYork:DeGuyter.
Waltereit,R.(2002).Imperatives,interruptioninconversation,andtheriseofdiscourse
markers:AstudyinItalianguarda.Linguistics,40,9871010.
Waltereit,R.(2006a).TheriseofdiscoursemarkersinItalian:aspecifictypeoflanguage
change. In K. Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 6176).
Amsterdam:Elsevier.
Waltereit, R. (2006b). Comparer la polysmie des marqueurs du discours. In M.
Drescher&B.FrankJob(eds.),Lesmarqueursdiscursifsdansleslanguesromanes(pp.
141152).FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang.
Waltereit,R.&Detges,U.(2007).Differentfunctions,differenthistories.Modalparticles
and discourse markers from a diachronic point of view. Catalan Journal of
Linguistics,6,6180.
Weydt, H. (1969). Abtnungspartikeln. Die deutschen Modalwrter und ihre franzsischen
Entsprechungen.BadHomburg:Gehlen.
153
REFERENCES
Wierzbicka,A.(1992).Thesemanticsofinterjection.JournalofPragmatics,18,159192.
Wierzbicka,A.(1996).Semantics.PrimesandUniversals.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Ziccolella,S.(2007).Imarcatorididiscorsonellinterazioneintribunale.InC.Bosisio,B.
Cambiagli,E.Piemontese,&F.Santulli(eds.),Attidel7.congressodellAssiciazione
italiana di linguistica applicata: aspetti linguistici della comunicazione pubblica e
istituzionale. Milano 2223 febbraio 2007 (pp. 363377). Perugia: Guerra
154
APPENDIX1:TRANSCRIPTIONCONVENTIONS
Appendix1:Transcriptionconventions
CORALROMtranscriptionconventions(Cresti/Moneglia2005):
//
conclusiveprosodicbreak
?
conclusiveprosodicbreak,utterancewithinterrogativevalue
conclusiveprosodicbreak,utteranceintentionallysuspended
+
conclusiveprosodicbreak,utteranceinterrupted
/
nonconclusiveprosodicbreak
[/]
nonconclusiveprosodicbreakcausedbyafalsestart
[//]
nonconclusiveprosodicbreak,falsestartwithpartialrepetition
[///]
nonconclusiveprosodicbreak,falsestartwithoutrepetition
<>
overlappingspeech
[<]
overlappingrelationbetweentwobracketedsequences
*XYZ:
turnofoverlappedspeechbynonidentifiedspeakers
:/
turnformsalinearsequencewiththeprecedingturnofthesamespeaker
&
speechfragment
hhh
paralinguisticornonlinguisticelement
xxx
incomprehensibleword
yyy
nontranscribedword
#
pause>0.25seconds
%act:
dependinglineindicatingtheactionsofaparticipant
%sit:
eventsorstateofaffairs
%add:
participanttowhomtheturnisaddressed
%par:
gesturesorparalinguisticaspects
%exp:
explanationnecessaryforunderstandingtheturnorthesignhhh
%amb:
descriptionofthesettinginamediaemission
%sce:
descriptionofthesceneinamediaemission
%com:
transcriberscomment
%alt:(5)
alternativetranscriptionreferredtothefifthwordintheturn
GAT2transcriptionconventions(Seltingetal.2009):
[
]
overlappingspeech
h / h
breathin/breathout,approx.0.20.5seconds
hh / hh
hhh / hhh
(.)
micropause<0.2seconds
(-)
shortpause,0.20.5seconds
(--)
mediumpause,0.50.8seconds
(---)
longpause,0.81.0seconds
(1.2)
measuredpause
haha hehe
syllabiclaughter
((ride))
laughter
155
APPENDIX1:TRANSCRIPTIONCONVENTIONS
<<ride> parola>
(
)
(xxx)
(incomprensibile, 3 s)
(allora)
(allora/ancora)
perSOna
=
guarda;= uniDEA
guarda uniDEA
:
::
:::
?
,
;
.
laughingspeech
incomprehensiblepassage
incomprehensiblesyllable
incomprehensiblespeechwithduration
reconstructedword
alternativereconstructions
focalaccent
latchingbetweenintonationphrases
discoursemarkerattachedtointonationphrase
discoursemarkerintegratedinanintonationphrase
lengtheningofsound,approx.0.20.5seconds
highrisingintonation106
risingintonation
continuingintonation
fallingintonation
lowfallingintonation
Forthecategoriesrisingintonationandfallingintonation,Isetapitchmovementof1.5tones(risingor
falling)asathreshold.Movementsover1.5tonesweretranscribedashighrisingandlowfalling.
106
156
APPENDIX2:TESTDIALOGUES
Appendix2:Testdialogues
Deletiontests:senti
Dialogue Version Text

A.
1.
A:Maatedaquantchetipiacciono...insommacheascoltii
DepecheMode?
B:Maio...senti,perchceramiofratellocheliascoltavaquandera
giovane.QuindiiosoncresciutaunpoapaneeDepecheMode,
Smiths,questagentequi.
2.
A:Maatedaquantchetipiacciono...insommacheascoltii
DepecheMode?
B:Maio...perchceramiofratellocheliascoltavaquandera
giovane.QuindiiosoncresciutaunpoapaneeDepecheMode,
Smiths,questagentequi.
B.
1.
A:Quellomontatoeraunpopibruttino,perhadettochesi
potevacambiareicolori,dellecosecos.Quindiniente.
B:Mh.
A:Senti,quandotornatevoi?
B:Mah,oranonloso.Torneremoversoleotto.
2.
A:Quellomontatoeraunpopibruttino,perhadettochesi
potevacambiareicolori,dellecosecos.Quindiniente.
B:Mh.
A:Quandotornatevoi?
C.
1.
A:Iochiudoamezzogiorno,tivengoaprendere...alluna.
B:Alluna.
A:Eh?Andiamoinmacchina.
B:Mh.Senti,dammiunsucco,va.
A:Mh.Darancia...
B:No,dammeloalcedro,va.
2.
B:Alluna.
B:Mh.Dammiunsucco,va.
A:Mh.Darancia...
157
Deletiontests:guarda

D.
1.
2.
E.
1.
A:Questoincentrocostacinquantaeuroapersona,equestosenza
colazionesempreincentro...
B:Quarantadue.
A:Guarda,ioperquegliottoeuroinpi,optereiperquestoperch
comunqueincentro.
2.
B:Quarantadue.
A:Ioperquegliottoeuroinpi,optereiperquestoperch
comunqueincentro.
F.
1.
A:Dovraipurvenireaprendertiuncaffitaliano!Misonportato
mokaecaff!
B:Cosa?!
A:lunicacosachehomessoinvaligiadiitaliano,guarda.Lunica.
2.
A:Dovraipurvenireaprendertiuncaffitaliano!Misonportato
mokaecaff!
B:Cosa?!
A:lunicacosachehomessoinvaligiadiitaliano.Lunica.
Substitutiontests:originalsentisubstitutedforguarda

G.
1.
A:Domenicaseiandatapoiacamminare?Comeseistata?
B:Masenti,quandosonoandatavianonriuscivoacamminare.La
schienasempreuguale,ecco,perchquelladeveessereunaltra
cosa.Mentrepoicamminandostavomeglio...
2.
B:Maguarda,quandosonoandatavianonriuscivoacamminare.
Laschienasempreuguale,ecco,perchquelladeveessereunaltra
cosa.Mentrepoicamminandostavomeglio...
H.
1.
B:Laschienasempreuguale,ecco,perchquelladeveessere
unaltracosa.Iovogliofaranchelaradiografia,senti,aquesto
punto...Mentrepoicamminandostavomeglio...
158
H.
2.
I.
1.
2.
B:Laschienasempreuguale,ecco,perchquelladeveessere
unaltracosa.Iovogliofaranchelaradiografia,guarda,aquesto
punto...Mentrepoicamminandostavomeglio...
A:Sonoandatapoi,avedereimobili.Perboh...Senti,sonoandata
allIkea,elpraticamentegliarmadisonbellibelli,perlangoliera
nonc.
B:Ah
A:Sonoandatapoi,avedereimobili.Perboh...Guarda,sono
andataallIkea,elpraticamentegliarmadisonbellibelli,per
langolieranonc.
B:Ah
Substitutiontests:originalguardasubstitutedforsenti

J.
1.
B:Quarantadue.
A:Guarda,ioperquegliottoeuroinpi,optereiperquestoperch
comunqueincentro.
2.
B:Quarantadue.
A:Senti,ioperquegliottoeuroinpi,optereiperquestoperch
comunqueincentro.
K.
1.
A:Lapoliticaunaiutoounostacolo?
B:Guardi,perunindustrialecheviveedoperanelmondo,la
politicapotremmodirecheinquelsensoaiutapoco.Lapolitica
inveceintesacomecittadinocheoperainquestanazione,potrebbe
essereunacosadigrandeaiuto.
2.
B:Senta,perunindustrialecheviveedoperanelmondo,lapolitica
potremmodirecheinquelsensoaiutapoco.Lapoliticainveceintesa
comecittadinocheoperainquestanazione,potrebbeessereuna
cosadigrandeaiuto.
L.
1.
A:Londulatoverdecelhai,tu?
B:Oh,no,nonhopostopertenerlo.Locercavaanchelui,guarda.
Maeh,purtroppo...
A:Volevocinquemetri,hodacoprireunarniadelleapi.
2.
B:Oh,no,nonhopostopertenerlo.Locercavaanchelui,senti.Ma
eh,purtroppo...
159
APPENDIX3:QUESTIONNAIRES
Appendix3:Questionnaires
Questionnaire1
Unaparolacambialecose...come?
Avolteunaparolapufareladifferenza.
Quidiseguitotroveretedeibrevidialoghi,estrattidaconversazionireali.
Ognidialogopresentatoindueversioni,chedifferisconosoloperunaparola:nella
secondaversioneunaparolamancaosostituitadaunaltra.
Sottoognicoppiadidialoghisonoriportatedinuovo,percomodit,leduefrasiche
differiscono.Dopoaverlelette,descrivetebrevementesepercepiteunadifferenzatrale
dueversioni,equale.Grazie!
I.
1
2
>No,sepioveno.Manoncredoproprio,guarda.
>No,sepioveno.Manoncredoproprio.
Cdifferenzatraledueversioni?Sepercepiteunadifferenza,descrivetelaconparole
vostre.
II.
1
B:Masenti,quandosonoandatavianonriuscivoacamminare.Laschienasempre
uguale,ecco,perchquelladeveessereunaltracosa.Mentrepoicamminandostavo
meglio...
2
B:Maguarda,quandosonoandatavianonriuscivoacamminare.Laschienasempre
uguale,ecco,perchquelladeveessereunaltracosa.Mentrepoicamminandostavo
meglio...
160
>Masenti,quandosonoandatavianonriuscivoacamminare.[...]
>Maguarda,quandosonoandatavianonriuscivoacamminare.[...].
vostre.
III.
1
centro...
B:Quarantadue.
2
centro...
B:Quarantadue.
A:Ioperquegliottoeuroinpi,optereiperquestoperchcomunqueincentro.
>Guarda,ioperquegliottoeuroinpi,optereiperquestoperchcomunqueincentro.
>Ioperquegliottoeuroinpi,optereiperquestoperchcomunqueincentro
vostre.
Idialoghisonofiniti.Perconcludere,avreibisognoancoradiqualcheinformazione:
Lapersonachehacompilatoilquestionarionataa...
evivea...
daquantotempo?
Et:
Sesso:M/F
161
Questionnaire2
I.
1
A:Dai,vienidameaprendertiuncaffitaliano!Misonportatomokaecaff!
B:TeliseiportatiinInghilterra?!
A:lunicacosachehomessoinvaligiadiitaliano,guarda.Lunica.
2
A:Dai,vienidameaprendertiuncaffitaliano!Misonportatomokaecaff!
B:TeliseiportatiinInghilterra?!
A:lunicacosachehomessoinvaligiadiitaliano.Lunica.
>lunicacosachehomessoinvaligiadiitaliano,guarda.Lunica.
>lunicacosachehomessoinvaligiadiitaliano.Lunica.
vostre.
II.
1
B:Laschienasempreuguale,ecco,perchquelladeveessereunaltracosa.Iovogliofar
anchelaradiografia,senti,aquestopunto...Mentrepoicamminandostavomeglio...
2
B:Laschienasempreuguale,ecco,perchquelladeveessereunaltracosa.Iovogliofar
anchelaradiografia,guarda,aquestopunto...Mentrepoicamminandostavomeglio...
>Iovogliofaranchelaradiografia,senti,aquestopunto...
>Iovogliofaranchelaradiografia,guarda,aquestopunto....
162
vostre.
III.
1
A:Sonoandatapoi,avedereimobili.Perboh...Senti,sonoandataallIkea,el
praticamentegliarmadisonbellibelli,perlangolieranonc.
B:Ah
2
A:Sonoandatapoi,avedereimobili.Perboh...Guarda,sonoandataallIkea,el
praticamentegliarmadisonbellibelli,perlangolieranonc.
B:Ah
>Senti,sonoandataallIkea,elpraticamentegliarmadisonbellibelli,perlangoliera
nonc.
>Guarda,sonoandataallIkea,elpraticamentegliarmadisonbellibelli,perlangoliera
nonc.
vostre.
evivea...
daquantotempo?
Et:
Sesso:M/F
163
Questionnaire3
I.
1
B:Guardi,perunindustrialecheviveedoperanelmondo,lapoliticapotremmodireche
inquelsensoaiutapoco.Lapoliticainveceintesacomecittadinocheoperainquesta
nazione,potrebbeessereunacosadigrandeaiuto.
2
B:Senta,perunindustrialecheviveedoperanelmondo,lapoliticapotremmodirechein
quelsensoaiutapoco.Lapoliticainveceintesacomecittadinocheoperainquesta
nazione,potrebbeessereunacosadigrandeaiuto.
>Guardi,perunindustrialecheviveedoperanelmondo,lapoliticapotremmodireche
inquelsensoaiutapoco.
>Senta,perunindustrialecheviveedoperanelmondo,lapoliticapotremmodirechein
quelsensoaiutapoco.
vostre.
II.
1
A:Quellomontatoeraunpopibruttino,perhadettochesipotevacambiareicolori,
dellecosecos.Quindiniente.
B:Mh.
A:Senti,quandotornatevoi?
2
A:Quellomontatoeraunpopibruttino,perhadettochesipotevacambiareicolori,
dellecosecos.Quindiniente.
164
B:Mh.
A:Quandotornatevoi?
>Senti,quandotornatevoi?
>Quandotornatevoi?.
vostre.
III.
1
B:Alluna.
B:Mh.Senti,dammiunsucco,va.
A:Mh.Darancia...
2
B:Alluna.
B:Mh.Dammiunsucco,va.
A:Mh.Darancia...
>Mh.Senti,dammiunsucco,va.
>Mh.Dammiunsucco,va.
vostre.
evivea...
daquantotempo?
Et:
Sesso:M/F
165
Questionnaire4
I.
1
centro...
B:Quarantadue.
2
centro...
B:Quarantadue.
A:Senti,ioperquegliottoeuroinpi,optereiperquestoperchcomunqueincentro.
>Guarda,ioperquegliottoeuroinpi,optereiperquestoperchcomunqueincentro.
>Senti,ioperquegliottoeuroinpi,optereiperquestoperchcomunqueincentro.
vostre.
II.
1
A:Maatedaquantchetipiacciono...insommacheascoltiiDepecheMode?
B:Maio...senti,perchceramiofratellocheliascoltavaquanderagiovane.Quindiio
soncresciutaunpoapaneeDepecheMode,Smiths,questagentequi.
2
A:Maatedaquantchetipiacciono...insommacheascoltiiDepecheMode?
B:Maio...perchceramiofratellocheliascoltavaquanderagiovane.Quindiioson
cresciutaunpoapaneeDepecheMode,Smiths,questagentequi.
>Maio...senti,perchceramiofratellocheliascoltavaquanderagiovane.
>Maio...perchceramiofratellocheliascoltavaquanderagiovane.
166
vostre.
III.
1
B:Oh,no,nonhopostopertenerlo.Locercavaanchelui,guarda.Maeh,purtoppo...
2
B:Oh,no,nonhopostopertenerlo.Locercavaanchelui,senti.Maeh,purtoppo...
>Locercavaanchelui,guarda.Maeh,purtoppo...
>Locercavaanchelui,senti.Maeh,purtoppo...
vostre.
evivea...
daquantotempo?
Et:
Sesso:M/F
167
Erklrung
Hiermit erklre ich, die vorliegende Dissertation selbststndig erarbeitet zu haben, keine
anderen als die angegebenen Hilfsmittel verwendet zu haben, und wrtlich oder inhaltlich
bernommene Stellen als solche kenntlich gemacht zu haben.
Laura Fuschi
Bielefeld, Oktober 2013

Discourse Markers in Spoken Italian

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discourse Markers in Spoken Italian

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITT BIELEFELD

Fakultt fr Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft

Discourse markers in spoken Italian

Erstgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Barbara Job

Gedruckt auf alterungsbestndigem Papier ISO 9706

neglected by linguists; they were disdained as a sort of linguistic detritus (Schourup

contribution to this broad field of studies by proposing an indepth analysis of the

currently mentioned in to my knowledge all works presenting inventories of Italian

As in any study of discourse markers, therefore, the first thing to be done is to

textlinguistic perspective, which focuses on their structuring role on a macrosyntactic

are interested include pragmatic markers (Fraser 2006, Aijmer/Foolen/Simon

includes morphologically heterogeneous elements which go back to conjunctions,

confirmed by Schiffrin (2006) in a paper that focuses more specifically on the

Redeker proposes a revised model of discourse coherence and an operational

A discourse operator is defined as a word or phrase for instance, a

Discourse operators are described here as asubgroup within a broader category,

discourse markers indicate a relation between the discourse segment in which

The author also characterizes the behaviour of discourse markers on different

that Frasers pragmatic markers roughly correspond to Schiffrins and to Redekers

The author considers it as a defining and generally accepted characteristic of discourse

Bazzanella argues that the specific meaning of a marker in a given occurrence is

determined by a number of cotextual and contextual parameters. Cotextual parameters

include textual components (syntagmatic position, anaphoric and cataphoric relations,

In regard to formal properties, Bazzanella observes that discourse markers come

with a variety of prosodic contours; they are generally described as intonationally

Bazzanella (2006a: 456f.) proposes a taxonomy of the functions that discourse

A second type of macrofunction is that of interactional functions, which are

on the hearers side: interrupting devices; backchannels; attention confirmed;

textual markers: markers structuring the parts (introduction, transition, list,

reformulation markers: paraphrase markers; correction markers; exemplification

It is also interesting to note that Bazzanella includes modalization among

discoursemarking functions. Her taxonomy (see above) comprises functions related to

2.3.1. Morphosyntactic heterogeneity, functionally determined

The nonintegration of discourse markers in the syntactic structure of their host

Besides the opposition between truthconditional and nontruthconditional

Finally, the meaning of discourse markers is often qualified as reduced or

On a more general level, a common view is that discourse markers work as

With regard to the reference of this label, my concept of discourse markers is

linguistic elements) that are produced to accompany discourse segments of different

I have stated above that I conceive of discourse markers as encoding indications

encode pragmatically autonomous content and actually constitute utterances26 in

With a somewhat different intent, Khachaturyan (2011) proposes a functional

FrankJob (2006), then, presents an analytical view on discourse markers which

underlines the interactional origin of their pragmaticalization and regards their

approach Italian discourse markers in the framework elaborated by the Laboratoire de

Crosslinguistic comparison between parallel forms is also the main interest of

example, Bazzanella and Cristofoli (1998) havestudied thecurrent evolution of piuttosto

of deverbal discourse markers development (i.e. their grammaticalization, or

overview of Italian discourse markers based on a corpus of radio interviews. Though

monograph on spoken romance languages, as examples of Gesprchswrter

In the chapter about discourse markers of the Grande grammatica italiana di

Elizaveta Khachaturyan (2001) presents an analysis of senti based on a corpus of

The interlocutor is sympathetic and the speaker wants to establish a friendly

Depending on the realisation of p and q, this meaning is subject to three contextual

Turninitial at a nontransitionrelevance place: guarda serves to interrupt and to

Introducing reported speech: guarda is a part of the quote. Since quotations

Turninitial after a transitionrelevance place: guarda introduces a new aspect of

As a turn itself: guarda is a phatic marker expressing admiration and surprise

indicating certainty about the acceptance of the utterance as being motivated by

expressing surprise, disappointment, disapproval, or admiration (probably

contrasting their behaviour with respect to the different aspects of conversation

The intent of reducing the multiple functions of markers to general subjacent

communicative background frames, and constructions. The meaning of a marker is

I am substantially influenced, moreover, by Hansens (1998) analysis of French