Cover not available

Article published In: Meaning in Interaction: Studies in memory of Jack Bilmes
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Elwys De Stefani
[Interactional Linguistics 3:1/2] 2023
► pp. 40–66

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Displaying a negative stance by questioning meaning

The Italian format Che cosa vuol dire X? (‘What does X mean?’)

ORCiD logo with link | Heidelberg University
Published online: 12 January 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.22012.des
Abstract
Speakers of Italian have at their disposal a variety of phrasal and clausal resources for questioning meaning, among which is the format che cosa vuol dire X? (‘what does X mean?’). Likewise, recent studies on English and German about similar resources have shown that speakers use them to identify a meaning problem. This contribution takes a step further, by showing that the ‘what does X mean?’ format allows speakers to accomplish a variety of actions. These may be related to (a) the negotiation of understanding, and (b) the display of a negative stance. In many occurrences, the interactants display clear orientation to either a problem of understanding or a commonly shared negative stance. However, in sensitive environments (such as conflictual discussions), the resource allows speakers to (c) frame their negative stance as a problem of understanding, thereby resisting escalation of the conflict. The ‘what does X mean?’ format may or may not be produced with concomitant embodied behaviour. When the format is used to problematise understanding, no specific embodied conduct is observed. Yet, when it is used to display a negative stance, speakers may be seen to perform the grappolo gesture.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Che cosa vuol dire X?
  • 3.Data and method
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Questioning meaning
    • 4.2Displaying a negative stance: Non-turn-final che cosa vuol dire X?
    • 4.3Che cosa vuol dire X? in environments of disagreement
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (33)
References
Bilmes, J. (2011). Occasioned semantics: A systematic approach to meaning in talk. Human Studies, 34(2), 129–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Calabria, V., & De Stefani, E. (2020). Per una grammatica situata: aspetti temporali e multimodali dell’incrementazione sintattica. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, 49(3), 571–601.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Jorio, A. (1832). La mimica degli antichi investigata nel gestire napoletano. Napoli: Fibreno.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2023). An exercise in Interactional Semantics: Definitions and specifications provided in response to was heißt x? (‘what does X mean?’). Interactional Linguistics 3 (1/2), 13–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppermann, A., & De Stefani, E. (2019). Defining in talk-in-interaction: Recipient-design through negative definitional components. Journal of Pragmatics, 1401, 140–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Spranz-Fogasy, T. (Eds.), be-deuten: Wie Bedeutung im Gespräch entsteht. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
De Stefani, E. (2020). ‘Nel senso (che)’ in Italian conversation: Turn-taking, turn-maintaining and turn-yielding. In Y. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström, & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent syntax for conversation. Clausal patterns and the organization of action (pp. 25–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). On Gestalts and their analytical corollaries: A commentary to the Special Issue. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 5(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Stefani, E., & Gazin, A.-D. (2014). Instructional sequences in driving lessons: Mobile participants and the temporal and sequential organization of actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 651, 63–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Stefani, E., & Horlacher, A.-S. (2008). Topical and sequential backlinking in a French radio phone-in program: Turn shapes and sequential placements. Pragmatics, 18(3), 381–406.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Mundane talk at work: Multiactivity in interactions between professionals and their clientele. Discourse Studies, 20(2), 221–245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1997). ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 281, 69–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dubois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glenn, Ph. (2019). Conflict interaction. Insights from conversation analysis. In M. Evans, L. Jeffries, & J. O’Driscoll (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language in conflict (pp. 215–245). London, UK: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2015). Grammatische Konstruktionen im Kontext sequenzieller Praktiken – was heißt x-Konstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch. In J. Bücker, S. Günthner, & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik V: Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten (pp. 187–218). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helmer, H. (2020). How do speakers define the meaning of expressions? The case of German x heißt y (‘x means y’). Discourse Processes, 57(3), 278–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis. Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1995). Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 231, 247–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 21, 458–508. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mehan, H. (1979). ‘What time is it, Denise?’: asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 28(4), 285–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multiple resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 651, 137–156. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nencioni, G. (1987). Costanza dell’antico nel parlato moderno. In Accademia della Crusca (Ed.), Gli italiani parlati. Sondaggi sopra la lingua di oggi (pp. 7–25). Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patota, G. (2006). Grammatica di riferimento dell’italiano contemporaneo. Novara: Garzanti Linguistica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poggi, I. (1983). La mano a borsa: analisi semantica di un gesto emblematico olofrastico. In G. Attili, & P. E. Ricci-Bitti (Eds.), Comunicare senza parole: la comunicazione non-verbale nel bambino e nell’interazione sociale tra adulti (pp. 219–238), Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, G., & Sidnell, J. (2019). Interaction at the boundaries of a world known in common: Initiating repair with ‘What do you mean?’. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(2), 177–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. McH., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. The English used by teachers and pupils. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Deppermann, Arnulf & Alexandra Gubina
2025. Coding actions in social interaction: Potentials and problems. Research on Language and Social Interaction 58:3 ► pp. 258 ff. DOI logo
Deppermann, Arnulf & Elwys De Stefani
2023. Meaning in interaction. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Koole, Tom
2023. Meaning as referential work. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo
Mondada, Lorenza
2023. The semantics of taste in interaction. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue