Palavras-chave
Spontaneous speech
Parentheticals
Reported speech
Como Citar
Resumo
This study explores the role of parenthetical structures and reported speech in the organization of spontaneous spoken discourse, focusing on their functional and prosodic features. Building on the Language into Act Theory (L-AcT), the paper examines how the two discourse-levels work, interact, and contribute to the overall architecture of speech. Parentheticals, operating within an intra-enunciative plane, introduce secondary content that is prosodically marked by pitch lowering, boundary pauses, and reduced prominence. In contrast, reported speech introduces an external or fictive voice, establishing a meta-enunciative level often marked by a quotative frame and prosodic shift such as pitch increases or expanded pitch ranges. Despite their formal and functional differences, both phenomena exhibit complementary roles in structuring discourse and challenge the notion of a linear discourse model by revealing a stratified organization of speech, where utterances can be embedded, layered, and recontextualized in real time. Based on empirical data from a corpus-driven analysis, this study highlights the close relationship between prosody and discourse function, showing how speakers manage multiple communicative layers within a single interaction.
Referências
1. Austin JL. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1962.
2. Barbosa PA. Prosódia. São Paulo: Parábola Editorial; 2019.
3. Boersma P, Weenink D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.4.06, retrieved 25 February 2024 from http://www.praat.org/; 2024.
4. Bolinger D. Intonation and its uses. Melody in Grammar and Discourse. London: Edward Arnold; 1989.
5. Calaresu E. Testuali parole. La dimensione pragmatica e testuale del discorso riportato. Milano: Franco Angeli; 2004.
6. Calaresu E. I segnali indiscreti: il riconoscimento della rappresentazione e ricostruzione di discorsi (o discorso riportato). In: Desoutter C, Mellet C, editors. Le discours rapporté: approches linguistiques et perspectives didactiques. Bern: Peter Lang; 2013. p. 80-98.
7. Chafe W. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1994.
8. Cohen A., 't Hart J. On the anatomy of intonation. Lingua 1967;19:177-192.
9. Couper-Kuhlen E. Coherent Voicing. On Prosody in Conversational Reported Speech. InLiSt 1998;1:1-28.
10. Cresti E, Moneglia M. The illocutionary basis of Information Structure. Language into Act Theory. In: Adamou E, Haude K, Vanhove M, editors. Information structure in lesser described languages: Studies in prosody and syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins; 2018. p. 359-401.
11. Cresti E. Corpus di italiano parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca; 2000.
12. Crystal D. Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1969.
13. Dehé N. Parentheticals in Spoken English: The Syntax-Prosody Relation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
14. Ducrot O. Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit; 1984.
15. Ferrari A, Cignetti L, De Cesare AM, Lala L, Mandelli M, Ricci C. Roggia CE. L’interfaccia lingua-testo. Natura e funzioni dell’articolazione informativa dell’enunciato. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso; 2008.
16. Ferrari A, Zampese L. Grammatica: parole, frasi, testi dell’italiano. Roma: Carocci; 2016.
17. Ferrari A. Linguistica del testo. Principi, fenomeni, strutture. Roma: Carocci; 2014.
18. Goffman E. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1981.
19. Günthner S. Polyphony and the Layering of Voices in Reported Dialogues: an Analysis of the Use of Prosodic Devices in Everyday Reported Speech. Journal of Pragmatics 1999;31(5):685-708.
20. ’t Hart J. Differential sensitivity to pitch distance, particularly in speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1981;69(3):811-821.
21. ’t Hart J, Collier R, Cohen A. A perceptual study on intonation. An experimental approach to speech melody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
22. Hermes DJ, van Gestel JC. The frequency scale of speech intonation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1991;90:97-102.
23. Kaltenböck G. Spoken Parenthetical Clauses in English: A Taxonomy. In: Dehé N, Kavalova Y, editors. Parentheticals. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins; 2007. p. 25-52.
24. Izre'el S, Mello H, Panunzi A, Raso T, editors. In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins; 2020.
25. Lehiste I. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1970.
26. Moneglia M, Raso T. Notes on the Language into Act Theory. In: Raso T, Mello H, editors. Spoken Corpora and Linguistic Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins; 2014. p. 468-495.
27. Oliveira M., Cunha D. Prosody as Marker of Direct Reported Speech Boundary. In: Bel B, Marlien I, editors. Proceedings of Speech Prosody. ISCA Archive; 2004. p. 263-266.
28. Panunzi A. I piani del discorso nel parlato spontaneo. In: Cilloni G, Durkiewicz M, Grochowska-Reiter A, Kozakiewicz-Kłosowska, D, editors. I contesti dell’italiano: lingua, didattica, interculturalità. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG; 2025. p. 239-251.
29. Panunzi A, Gregori L. DB-IPIC. An XML database for the representation of information structure in spoken language. In: Mello H, Panunzi A., Raso T, editors. Pragmatics and prosody. Illocution, modality, attitude, information patterning and speech annotation. Firenze: Firenze University Press; 2012. p. 133-150.
30. Saccone V. Le unità del parlato e dello scritto mediato dal computer a confronto. La dimensione testuale della comunicazione spontanea. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso; 2022.
31. Saccone V, Panunzi A. Strutture parentetiche nel parlato italiano: classificazione funzionale e identificazione prosodica. In: Castagneto M, Ravetto M, editors. La comunicazione parlata. Vercelli 2021. Roma: Aracne; 2023. p. 461-486.
32. Saccone V, Panunzi A. Il discorso diretto riportato nel parlato spontaneo: tra prosodia e pragmatica. In: Roccaforte M, editor. La comunicazione parlata. Spoken Communication. I venti anni del GSCP. Roma: Aracne; 2025. p. 497-513.
33. Saccone V, Trombetta C. Parenthetical Units and Structures in Italian and German spoken language: prosodic and textual analysis. CHIMERA. Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies 2018;8:1-23.
34. Sams J. Quoting the unspoken: An analysis of quotations in spoken discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 2010;42:3147-3160.
35. Santos SM. How to deal with discourse markers. A prosodic, corpus-based, computational, and experimental proposal [PhD Thesis]. Federal University of Minas Gerais & Université Paris-Saclay; 2024.
36. Santos SM, Bossaglia G. Morphosyntactic, prosodic, functional and distributional description of the information unit of Parenthesis in spoken Brazilian Portuguese. Caletroscópio 2018;6:37-63.
37. Selkirk E. Comments on Intonational Phrasing in English. In: Frota S, Vigário M, Freitas MJ, editors. Prosodies: With Special Reference to Iberian Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2005. p.11-58.
38. Tucci I. Obiter dictum: la funzione informativa delle unità parentetiche. In: Pettorino M, Giannini A, Dovetto F, editors. La Comunicazione parlata 3. Atti del Congresso GSCP (Napoli, 23-25 febbraio 2009). Napoli: Università l’Orientale Press; 2010. p. 635-654.
39. Wichmann A. Spoken parentheticals. In: Aijmer K, editor ed. A Wealth of English (Studies in Honour of Göran Kjellner). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis; 2001. p. 177-193.
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Alessandro Panunzi, Valentina Saccone