Caffi 1999

ELSEVIERJournal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 On mitigation * Claudia Caffi Department of Scienze Glotto-Etnologiche, University of Genoa, Via Balbi, 1-16126 Genoa, Italy "Vostra Signoria mi scriva quali parole pare a lei che debbano esser mitigate, ch'io mi sforzerb di mitigarle." Torquato Tasso, Lettera del 14 di Maggio 1575, in: Le lettere di Torquato Tasso, disposte per ordine di tempo e illustrate da Cesare Guasti, Firenze, Le Monnier, 1852-1855, vol. I, p. 75. Abstract If saying is doing it must be an effective doing. Mitigation (or 'downgrading', German Abschwdchung) is a cover-term for a set of strategies, rooted in a metapragmatic awareness, by which people try to make their saying-doing more effective. The notion of mitigation outlined in Rhetorica ad Herennium (86-82 b.C.) and landed in pragmatics in the eigthies (Fraser, 1980), lends itself easily to connecting different fields (e.g. pragmatics and classical rhetoric), different categories (e.g. illocution and perlocution), and different perspectives (e.g. sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic approaches to communication). The aim of the present paper is to recast the issue of mitigation, which is defined as the result of the weakening of one of the interactional parameters, in a broad, integrated pragmatic framework by connecting different approaches to interaction, in particular rhetorical and psychological approaches. In the present work, which takes its data from a corpus of transcripts of doctor-patient and psychotherapeutic conversations in Italian, different kinds of mitigators and mitigation strategies will be discussed along with the potential effects they release both with regard to their instrumental adequacy and the psychological distance they project between the interactants. © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. I wish to thank the organizers of the Third Rasmus Rask Colloquium, Odense, 5-7 November 1996, Hemming G. Andersen, Leo Hoye and Johannes Wagner for their kind invitation and hospitality. I am indebted to Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Alessandra Fasulo, Klaus H61ker, Richard W. Janney, Clotilde Pontecorvo, and Marina Sbis~tfor insightful comments on an earlier draft. I'd like to thank Ian Harvey for his careful stylistic revision. I'm also grateful to the anonymous doctors and patients who were not afraid of the recording, thereby making possible the research partly reported here. This paper - which summarizes some issues I deal with extensively in my book on mitigation (in preparation) - would not have been possible without Jacob Mey's work in pragmatics. 0378-2166/99/$ - see front matter © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S0378-2166(98)00098-8 882 C. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 I. Introduction This paper aims at recasting the issue of mitigation in a broad, integrated pragmatic framework by bridging different approaches to the study of communication, in particular, rhetorical and psychological approaches, which tend to remain too distant from each other and are only occasionally linked. The general view of communication I subscribe to is that of a complex system where many parameters - be they discrete or scalar, central or peripheral - interact and can be labeled as systemic, holistic. I will use the term 'parameter' in more or less its everyday sense of 'a quantity whose value varies with the circumstances of its application' (Webster's new worm dictionary, 1988). The issue of the hierarchical organization of parameters and their relationship in given contexts, e.g. their mutual implication, is beyond the purposes of the present paper. However, the basic reason for adopting this term and its systemic theoretical framework is summarized by one of the premises of system theory applied to human communication, namely the assumption that the parameters of an open system are more important than the system's initial conditions (Watzlawick et al., 1967: §4.33). The advantage of this perspective lies in the fact that it allows a dynamic approach to interaction where the focus is on the system's functioning and contextual organization. According to my definition, mitigation - which I take to be a synonym for attenuation - is the result of a weakening of one of the interactional parameters, and a downgrading when the parameters involved are scalar. Mitigation is one of the two directions of modulation,1 namely the rhetorical stylistic encoding of an utterance (Caffi, 1991), its expressivity, opposed and complementary to the direction 'reinforcement'. Hence, it is a superordinate organizing concept to which it is possible to ascribe different functions performed by heterogeneous linguistic means that are labeled variously in pragmatic research (e.g. Edmondson, 1981; House and Kasper, 1981; Blum-Kulka et al., 1989; for a survey, see Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1992). As a consequence of the weakening of an interactional parameter, mitigation locally affects the allocation and reshuffling of rights and duties triggered by the speech act, and, crucially, changes their intensity and cogency. Globally, it reduces participants' obligations (Meyer-Hermann and Weingarten, 1982: 243), to which the felicity conditions of a speech act belong, thereby furthering the achievement of interactional goals. Thus, mitigation is functional to smooth interactional management in that it reduces risks for participants at various levels, e.g. risks of self-contradiction, refusal, losing face, conflict, and so forth. This definition enables us to explain why mitigating devices in natural languages studied so far are much more numerous than reinforcing devices. To give one example, with reference to requests in English and 1 The term 'modulation' is used in HaUiday (1976: 200) to refer to "a kind of quasi-modality" and in Lyons (1977: 65) to refer to "the superimposing upon the utterance of a particular attitudinal colouring, indicative of the speaker's involvement in what he is saying and his desire to impress or convince the hearer". The term is also used in Georges Mounin's many works on translation with reference to one technical procedure of translation. My different use of the term takes inspiration from physics, where modulus means 'intensity', which is a scalar parameter defining a measurable quantity, e.g. a force. (1979). inasmuch as the management of psychological distance is part and parcel of our communicative competence in both encoding and decoding processes (Frijda. lending themselves easily to an increase or decrease in psychological distance. In particular. Extending Lakoff's (1973) metaphor. The negative character of the speech act for the addressee. mitigation affecting deontic modality reduces addressee's obligations.a tripartite classification of mitigating devices based on different scopes of mitigation. which also differ in conventionality: (1) the dimension of interactional efficiency. We are faced here with very subtle inferences which are easy to grasp and difficult to describe and which once again foreground the problem of the integration of affect and emotive communication in pragmatics (Arndt and Janney. is in my view a crucial one. I propose to gather the different functions of mitigation around two main dimensions. To use a distinction advanced in a different framework by Giles et al. So. I will try to show that mitigation is active in both the dimensions distinguished above. and these can be central or peripheral. 1978).C. how mitigation affects different parameters and different dimensions at the same time. because it involves psychological and emotive aspects which have so far been neglected in favor of sociolinguistic aspects (Blum-Kulka. tentatively. Adamzik. i. my first aim is to show. which meets essentially instrumental needs. House and Kasper (1981) list eleven types of downgraders and six types of upgraders. and 'shields' respectively. and the utterance source. Typically. Given these starting points. This issue. its being a face-threatening act (Brown and Levinson. 1984) which have developed Goffman's concept of 'face work'. 1979. I will advance a classification of mitigating mechanisms based on the three components of the utterance on which mitigation can operate: the proposition. since mitigation is functional to the monitoring of emotive distances between interlocutors. is just one of these parameters. with which mitigation is usually associated. 1992: 273). since mitigation helps achieve interactional goals. I will argue that mitigation works in a multi-layered and multi-dimensional way.more as a heuristic tool than as a cross-cut typology . according to the type of interaction and its goals. 1982: 112). 1987. Caffi and Janney. simultaneously affecting a plurality of linguistic levels and interactional dimensions. I will try to illustrate the multi-level process defined by Giv6n (1989). I will focus on the contribution that mitigated choices can make to the emotive monitoring of interaction.e. More precisely. 'hedges'. and rather ethnocentrically. the illocution. the inferential. The basic effect of reducing obligations makes it possible to unify mitigation which relates to deontic modality and mitigation which relates to epistemic modality. The . which concerns the less conventionalized (and less studied) steps of the inferential process. which meets essentially relational needs. (2) the dimension of identity construction. 1994). as the examples are in Italian. My second concern here will be to put forward . abductive process whereby grammatical and semantic phenomena shade into pragmatic modalities and psychological effects. while mitigation affecting epistemic modality reduces speaker's obligations. I'd like to call them 'bushes'. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 883 German. This research perspective has been partly anticipated by German research on image-work (Imagearbeit) and relational work (Beziehungsarbeit) (Holly. using examples of different types of mitigation from a corpus of doctor-patient interaction in Italian. quos defendimus. IV. which here will be presented only as a working hypothesis.e. 2 Mitigation is outlined in Rhetorica ad Herennium. The Auctor ad Herennium says that deminutio (extenuatio. i. There is another possible conceptual distinction regarding the fact that mitigation can foreground a result (while backgrounding the strategy).aut natura ant fortuna ant industria dicemus egregium. and the perspective is a dynamic one. 3. or a strategy (while backgrounding the result).207). 118. one of the founders of family therapy. mitigation is linked to Brown and Levinson's (1978) notion of 'face-threatening act'. 2 In the narrow sense. In order to clarify these kinds of effects. Both notions call into play the problem of responsibility management in discourse. one of the exornationes sententiarum. in De Oratore 3. the corresponding level of analysis is that of the ~nonciation. downgrading. deminuitur et adtenuatur oratione [. advanced in 1959 by Jay Haley.) as deminutio. . Extending the concept of mitigation To define mitigation as it has been employed in pragrnatics. it is necessary to distinguish between a narrow and a broad sense of the tenn. laeicoat~)aims at avoiding an impressionof arrogance: "Deminutio est. and the perspective is a static one. ne qua significetur adrogans ostentatio. 1994). figures of thought. Furthermore. In the broad sense. the theory of disqualification. and its result. 'mitigation' denotes both the mitigating device. f'n'st proposed by Fraser (1980). quod.. a possible perlocution. My third point. The other sense of the term foregrounds the process. involving cognitive as well as emotive aspects. As a nomen actionis. uses mitigatio and inminutio (3. Langner. 2. 50 (Cornificium. here a stylistically shaped speech act. 'mitigation' is a synonym of weakening.] Quare quemadmodum ratione in vivendo fugitur invidia. The two senses are not mutually exclusive: mitigation in the narrow sense is simply a case of mitigation in its broad sense. it has. The term refers then to the goal of mitigating as an autonomous communicative goal. Cicero. the operation on the linguistic form. 86-82 B.884 C.e. Since it is anchored in linguistic form. 37).). downtoning (German Abschwiichung. the corresponding level of analysis is that of the ~nonc~. however.. I will apply a non-linguistic model. and is one of the two opposite directions of modulation. 52). shares with the psychological notion of 'disqualification' the basic feature of deresponsabilization. In this latter case. takes into account some possible links between scopes of mitigation and their potential effects on the relational emotive level. I will distinguish some mitigating strategies which concern larger units than the utterance. the means used to achieve the result. to explain the functioning of schizophrenic communication in a systemic framework. 38. quom aliquid inesse in nobis aut in iis. terms which were to be adopted by Quintilian in lnstitutio Oratoria (6. sic in dicendo consilio vitatur odium". Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 formal criterion I have selected is clearly only one of the possible classificatory criteria. the advantage that it avoids the risk of an unfettered proliferation of maxims which vary according to the linguist's sensibility and imagination (from 'be tactful' to 'be optimistic' etc. 'mitigation' foregrounds the goal achieved by an action.C. i. literally 'belittlement' (though also the term mitigatio is employed in IV. The pragmatic notion of 'mitigation'. in its broad as well as in its narrow sense. g. Langner's 1994:83 distinction between the Abschw?ichendes and the Abgeschw?ichtes). Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 885 Mitigation is a relational concept. In fact. Edmondson. the mitigating device). Fraser. insofar as mitigation can be interpreted as an attempt at softening. event. every case of mitigation in its narrow sense. 1989) for different types of speech act in dif- . reflexively marks the act in which it occurs as a potentially or actually threatening act. it is also to account for some empirical linguistic facts. since lists of mitigating devices include devices referring to non-directive . I refer basically to the broad sense as well as to the sense which foregrounds the process. the 'object' may have already happened. the 'object' referred to by 'mitigation' has already happened. based on metapragmatic competence. though they do not foreground the active. Though implicitly held by authors.e. 1981. Now. research on various types of downgrading (e. or an unwelcome perlocutionary sequel in the technical sense of the term . it exists merely as a possibility. e. 'downgrading'. it is a three argument predicate: someone mitigates something through something else. In fact.g. Logically. the presupposition triggered by the lexeme. My aim in proposing an extension of the notion of mitigation (the term itself I am not particularly committed to) is not just to gain in generalization and simplicity on an abstract theoretical level.not inherently threatening . In my work. i. both in its everyday and in its metalinguistic explication. The extended view of the notion (alternative terms could be 'attenuation'.c. 1981. and consider the former as a special case of the latter. this view has so far not been adequately recognized theoretically. mitigation works through analogous mechanisms and along the same dimensions. in which case mitigation refers to an anticipatory strategy.is negative. though in different Gestalten. i. The sense of mitigation I intend to deal with covers the set of cases where one of the two objects involved is a linguistic object (the linguistic means of mitigation. degrees of epistemic certainty. in which case mitigation is co-extensive with repair..acts such as statements (for example. In the latter case the object has no ontological reality. considering mitigation as a result strictly connected with unwished-for perlocutionary goals or sequels and explicitly rejecting an extension of the term (in spite of Larry Horn's opinion reported by Fraser in the footnote. both in deontic and epistemic modality. or state of affairs in the everyday sense of the term. In everyday use. 'weakening'. includes in mitigating strategies parenthetical verbs and other disclaimers for assertive illocutions). Paradoxically. House and Kasper. 1980. intentional character of the process as 'mitigation' does) has the advantage of providing a unified account of the different cases that have been considered intuitively to be cases of mitigation. while the other is an abstract component of the utterance. In metalinguistic use. is that the extralinguistic object to which it applies whether it is an action. or it may not yet have happened. both in phenomena related to politeness and in phenomena related to different motivational dimensions. both in directive speech acts and in constative speech acts. process.e. social distance. on the other hand. Blum-Kulka et al. etc. psychological distance. which is centered on the linguistic means by which mitigation is achieved. one feature of the cluster of semantico-pragmatic features of the utterance (cf. 1980: 342). Fraser (1980) has the narrow sense in mind. KerbratOrecchioni. lexical. the following can be employed in many different illocutions. the set of mitigation markers includes a subset of specialized markers which are also markers of illocution. 4.g. 1975). for example.or hearer-centeredness and their 'direction of fit' (Searle. address terms (the apostrophe in rhetoric). that apart from the set of specialized means typical of a given illocution. un po'. magari. i. from a formal viewpoint. which could be studied as cases of grammaticalization. probabilmente ('probably'). at different degrees of transparency. my starting hypothesis about distributional constraints of mitigators according to the type of illocution proved to be somehow inadequate. (b) global. 1967. a reasonable hypothesis to explain the process of specialization of some mitigators into illocution markers. un attimo. not only downgrades the illocutionary force by downgrading the epistemic commitment to the proposition. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 ferent languages. from modal adverbs to parenthetical verbs. 1995). On the other side. vocative. see Blum-Kulka et al. In particular. Substitutive means are at work in so-called 'indirect speech acts' (Searle. which I provisionally subdivided into two macro-types according to their speaker. constative-verdictive acts vs. there are downgraders like un attimo. e. Another kind of substitutive means is represented by 'shields'. I expected to find different classes of mitigating devices reducing the speaker's obligations in the case of constatives-verdictives. With regard to 'external' mitigation: if-clauses. e. the 'evidentials'.g. but also indexes the act as a statement. grounders. specialized for a specific illocution. Lausberg. though not emphasized.g.e. I compared. syntactic: (a) local. diminutive suffixes. has shown. it emerged instead that. per favore ('please') downgrades the directive and at the same time indexes the act as a request. There is an inclusive relationship between the two sets of mitigation.g. mitigating strategies are basically similar across illocutions. which will be addressed under s. e. is that these latter . As it happened. pre-sequences. Similarly.886 C. and the hearer's obligations in the case of directives. since data showed rather a bi-partition of mitigators from a functional viewpoint into two basic groups: the group of 'illocution-free' mitigators and the group of 'illocution-bound' mitigators. e. in a previous stage of my research on mitigation strategies in Italian (Caffi. in other words. 1989): morphological means. e. 1975) which question or state felicity conditions of a speech act. magari and other passe-partout downgraders that can be used in various illocutionary acts (where they modify various aspects). which can be labeled 'substitutive' and 'additive' (cf. specialized mitigators cover the whole range of epistemic mitigators specialized for statements. among the whole range of specialized mitigators for requests. In line with these findings. downgraders in both illocutionary macro-types can be clustered around two types.g. preparatory conditions for the performance of the action. in requests. which progressively lose their semantic content and become 'frozen' mitigators (Labov and Fanshel. With regard to 'internal' mitigation (for the distinction between internal and external mitigation. the linguistic means employed to mitigate different types of speech acts. conditional mood. which are simultaneously indicators of mitigation and indicators of illocution. The specialization process could be explained diachronically by the conventionalization of devices. Among the additive means. markers such as un po '.. hypothetical constructions. Theoretically. directive-exercitive acts. 1992: 200). Thus. 1977: 83). As it has been pointed out by previous research on modals. They cannot be direct . prohibitions.4. We cannot settle for the notion of face or for politeness as the only motivational dimension of our communicative behavior.empathy cannot be 'said' . or any other analogous label we might decide to choose. in constructing an empathetic atmosphere. one of the communicative problems doctors usually describe as most urgent is the problem of the most effective choices. For instance. co-operativeness and politeness are redefined and overridden by the decisional goals of interaction. In any case. in Searle's sense. mitigators like un attimo. A concept such as 'face'. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 887 markers are directly connected with the essential condition. useful though it may be. p e r caso. What is behind face? What is beyond politeness? Future research on these issues should focus not only on the interpersonal dimensions but also on the intrapersonal dimensions. 1980). in actual linguistic choices by speakers. to some extent. but is based on the analysis of actual speech. Doctors are supposed to be invasive of the other's territory. also on the relational and emotive level. What is important to stress is that the necessity of this integration is not only a theoretical a priori. with reference to speakers' emotive distance detectable in linguistic micro-choices in a context. imposing obligations. far from being an implementation of an old-fashioned philosophical speech act theory. including my own data. Other psycholinguists suggest the notion of 'stake' as a crucial variable (Ghiglione. In Caffi and Janney (1994) we emphasized the importance of the emotive aspects of communication as a neglected variable of pragmatic theories. This integration also met with concrete problems which arose during my work in institutional settings. 1986).C. of the act (the idea of linking mitigation and felicity conditions is proposed in Lakoff. work by implicature and are based on very general semantic mechanisms. as has been pointed out in Amdt and Janney (1987) and Caffi and Janney (1994). and the doctor's pro- . the immediate choices in Wiener and Mehrabian's (1968) model. the whole system of expectations and acceptable behaviors changes. What is more. Wiener and Mehrabian's (1968) 'immediacy'. such as temporal or logical operations (see below 5.g. etc. The pragmatic analysis of this reassessment cannot be exhausted by the sequential structural study of these activity types. is another potentially useful concept. e.). they must be integrated into a stylistic study focussed on the construction of these (provisional) social and psychological identities. Here it will only be possible to hint at how this multiple integration between different dimensions can be conceived. Instead. 3. in building what psychoanalysts call the 'helping alliance'. It should incidentally be noted that the heightened involvement due to the matters at stake (the patient's health. Mitigation: Interactional and relational aspects Mitigation. clients typically give up. magari etc.they must be constructed indirectly. un po'. since they are supposed to make self-disclosures which are often threatening for their positive face. their faces. In fact. is psychologically inadequate. in doctor-patient interaction. is an empirical way of anchoring interaction management. in order to go further it is necessary to study how sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic factors interact in specific settings. . Thus. Obviously. 1987). 4.888 c. I'd like to call these different types of mitigators 'bushes' (i. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 fessional reliability) enhances the degree of conversational cooperation and the number of inferential abductive steps on both sides (Arndt and Janney. is now allowed to raise these questions. linguistic variables) within the interactional system. etc. the ego-hic-nunc at the core of Benveniste's (1970) instance d'~nonciation. more than one type of mitigating device can be employed simultaneously in each case. a kind of mitigation in the delivery of a diagnosis (Maynard. merely conforming to external social expectations (a definition of 'face' may be 'just what society expects us to conform to')? Today's pragmatics. according to the abstract component on which mitigation centers. since the dif- 3 Thispoint is madeby Ray Birdwhistellin Batesonet al. the case of passing on bad news. 1992). and conversely.e. I will concentrate on the speech act unit. 'hedges'. propositional hedges). For the sake of space and clarity. and the deictic origin of the utterance (Btihler. Following and extending Lakoff's (1973) metaphor. and phenomena such as the 'perspective display'. 1985). 1934). Leaving aside the external mitigation obtained by pre-sequences. 1989). sociological. having overcome the phase in which the anthropological. the reference and the predication). different kinds of mitigation can be distinguished according to their different scopes in the speech act. as if communication were a machine) A general systemic approach makes it possible to ask questions such as: how can surface stylistic choices contribute to building up the interpersonal relationship? And this question forms part of a set of more general questions related to the definition of the 'subjectivity': who is speaking in pragmatics? Who are the inhabitants of pragmatics as a general theory of human interaction? Or. (Blum-Kulka et al. A pragmatic theory must account for all these variables together. a reconstruction of recognizable effects which is compatible with a given context.. historical. and 'shields' respectively. (1981 : 296). one mitigating device can mitigate more than one aspect of the speech act simultaneously. These abstract scopes can be gathered around three major focuses: the proposition (and within it. the 'I-here-now'. in particular. I will exclude cases of sequential or multi-turn mitigation. the illocution (and within it. We have no direct access to the speaker's mind. Scopes of mitigation By way of starting a systematic account. piece after piece. and the best we can offer is a description of what we are entitled to infer on the basis of actual words. grounders. like Winnicott's (1965) false-self. to rephrase the title of one of Jacob Mey's books (Mey. not one after another. psychological subject had to be suppressed in favor of his/her formal simulacrum. whose pragmatics? Is the model speaker of pragmatics. There are no clear-cut distinctions between these cases. but rather the links between interdependent variables (psychological. what is crucial from this perspective is not individual psychology. the speaker's propositional commitment toward the proposition in assertive speech acts). patient (P) and psychotherapist (T) . there is no explicit operator of mitigation and the weakening operation takes place at a deeper. I will discuss some examples integrating different perspectives. it affects syntax. It is impossible here to gloss the examples extensively. level intonation or "holding intonation in which the tone neither falls nor rises" (Gumperz 1992:235) (Italian "intonazione sospensiva") *+ overlap (*marks the beginning in A's and B's turns. 4 The English translations are only tentative.c. or morphology. also due to the well-known fact that markers are often not integrated syntactically into the sentence (disjuncts). Furthermore. I have taken into account the whole conversation.client (C) conversations recorded from 1994 to 1996 in Northern Italy. nevertheless. it is often problematic to assign them a scope. I have dealt with some pragmatic aspects of this type of asymmetrical interaction also in Caffi (1997). in order to show h o w mitigation works. crucially. the three kinds of mitigating devices are heterogeneous. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 889 ferent parts of the speech act are not neatly separated. 1988). unlike in bushes and hedges. I find it useful in making some first heuristic distinctions. more abstract level: for instance. in shields. Nor is it possible to consider the very important 4 Abbreviations used are the following: GP general practice visit SV specialistvisit PsV psychiatricvisit PsS psychotherapeuticsession Transcript conventions used are the following: short pause (up to 2" duration) -pause (between 2" and 5") :: lengthenedsyllables = "latched" utterances falling intonation contour ? rising intonation contour -> intonationcontour of "non-finality". inasmuch as bushes and hedges are lexicalized expressions. Instead. as in passive transformations. as in the shift from first-person singular pronouns to other person pronouns. The following examples are taken from transcripts of doctor (D) . 5. and my concern is not with words as such but with their use (this point is treated extensively in H61ker. And. Approximate as this triad may be.+ marks the end in A's and B's turns) (h) audible breath XXX additionalpitch ** low volume (italics) non-linguistic phenomena xx unintelligiblewords ((XXX)) omissions . Some examples In this section. my point of view is not t a x o n o m i c but pragmatic: my goal is not to classify expressions but to explain occurrences. sometimes markers: if the latter is the case. In fact. More precisely the achieving of the perlocutionary object is furthered by a device operating on the reference in the locutionary act. Bushes (propositional hedges) In bushes. gaze. 1991). they often instantiate a diminutivum puerile which further encourages the patients' natural tendency . which is actually what the doctor is going to do. I will narrow the discussion down to some cases in which mitigation is a local strategy. Locutionary. 1989). dare ('to give') is a mitigated lexical choice compared to prescrivere ('to prescribe'). which in turn affects the illocutionary level. such as changes in pitch prominence. Austin's locutionary (rhetic) act. Instead. le do uno sciroppino da prendere. signal that this condition is not fully satisfied. and indirectly calming her possible worries about her pathology. In particular. which is the typical function of 'internal modification' according to Blum-Kulka (1992: 267). etc. But let us look at the diminutive sciroppino. 5. In fact. i.. which is detectable in linguistic micro-phenomena even within a single utterance. gaze aversion. (1) D. 1987. for each example.. In fact. the doctor utters (1) as he is about to write a prescription. the pragmatic counterpart of Lakoff's (1973) logico-semantic notion of 'fuzziness'. illocutionary. similar to. which is typically made less precise. and perlocutionary levels are affected by a single morphological device. rhythm. The downgrading operation centers on the interactional parameter 'precision' (Bazzanella et al. We can find bushes in examples (1)-(4). In doctor-patient interaction. Even at a first glance. the condition which states that the procedure must be executed completely. diminutives in asymmetrical interaction frequently seem to exploit the function of 'stressing the ingroup membership'. Mitchum. the scalar dimension of illocutionary force that has been labeled as 'obligation on the hearer' (Bazzanella et al. thereby both downgrading the burden for the patient in complying with it. a sort of on-line preface of the action while starting its performance. decreasing the weight of imposition (Brown and Levinson.1. particular postures. and from which multidimensional pragmatic effects are inferable. though not identical with.e. 1991). true performatives. the diminutive suffix with its semantic feature [-SERIOUS] (Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi. Caffi /Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 prosodic and kinesic means of mitigation. bushes. On the interpersonal level.890 c. the focus of the mitigating device is on the propositional content. smile. speech rate. 1978) of the directive. as well as eye-contact. 1994: 17) has the function of reducing the severity and unpleasantness of the therapeutic prescription. which often work as 'approximators'. I will sketch the interplay between different interactional parameters released by mitigation in an attempt to distinguish: (a) the instrumental aspects and (b) the relational aspects. (Arndt and Janney. (GP) 'I'11 give you a cough syrup+DIM' This utterance is a case that Austin would have labeled as 'suiting action to words'. which is related to the second B-felicity condition in Austin's (1962) terms. The parameter of precision here interacts with other even more salient aspects. where mitigation. co-defined along a three-turn sequence as a non-prototypical case of a given disease and therefore not particularly serious. In the psycholinguistic framework developed by Wiener and Mehrabian (1968). this means a convergence of two codes. may reject this definition of the relationship (saying something like 'not as bad as the last one you gave me') or may continue the interaction on excessively intimate terms so that intimacy 'brakes' would have to be deployed by the doctor. the sequential format of the exchange plays an important role in producing . diminutives "may at large be seen as in-group markers that fall into the sphere of our notions of familiarity. which also occurs in (2) and (3) below. affects the parameter of 'precision'. a typical case of accommodation in Giles and Coupland's (1991) terms (the powerful member adapts his/her code to the other's code).~ solo un pochino:= P. sometimes becoming a distinctive feature of a doctor's communicative style that makes it very close to a sort of baby-talk. intimacy and decreased psychological distance .C. Significantly. in my corpus of 'therapeutic' interaction. the convergence not only concerns definitions and codes (the technical and the non-technical) but also styles. which is a verdictive speech act in Austin's (1962) sense. la sua non 6 una vera e propria emia. The doctor's mitigation is reformulated through the patient's mitigation on which agreement is finally reached. is extremely frequent. (2) D.just a bit = P. =una puntina. a spot+DIM The doctor. both from an instrumental and a relational viewpoint. On a relational level. a spot+DIM D. accepts the non-technical definition suggested by the patient in his turn-completion. the patient. Through the joint sequential definition as well as through mitigation. yours is not a real hernia. (GP) D. feeling him/herself treated like a child. Certainly. If the benefits of mitigation sketched above are clear. .. . the use of this morphological mitigating resource. it also implies potential costs: for instance. reached via mitigation: the patient volunteers a re-formulation of the diagnosis (una puntina) which is both colloquial and mitigated with a bush (the diminutive suffix). the health problem is. Much more than a simple terminological agreement. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 891 toward regression. not only the social but also the psychological distance between the interlocutors (a general practitioner and a South Italian shoemaker in a big Northern town) is diminished. though imprecisely. after his attempt at mitigating the diagnosis. D. [they] may also function as 'accelerators' of intimacy" (Dressier and Merlini Barbaresi. una puntina. In a less pessimistic and more general version.. different kinds of effects are reached: first. un pochino is a diminutive form of un po'). Examples (2) and (3) are understatements in diagnosis. on a purely referential level. Further. by using an understatement and a minimizer in the predication ('it is just a bit of a hernia'. the diminutive in (1) could be described an as indicator of immediacy. centered on propositional content again. 1994: 233). non 6 mica un problema grosso. .it's not a big problem' Mitigating syntactic means are used in the second part of the turn. mitigation is obtained through morphological means. a case of empathetic deixis. In the two-part turn of (3). research on doctor-patient interaction has repeatedly shown that a typical doctor's strategy is to treat requests for information as boring symptoms of anxiety. the scope of the mitigation centers on the illocution. structural and stylistic aspects is at best partial. i. P. which bears a feature of [--PROXIMITY] (in paradigmatic opposition to questo. however. i.works somehow to the detriment of the interlocutor's reliability: he is indirectly treated as excessively worried. stylistic aspects. prompts a general remark: a pragmatic account which separates. (4) T. which reformulates the propositional content of the first part with a stylistic variatio. Indeed. This issue deserves. it could be observed that the reassuring function of these minimizations .2. which shows the intertwining of sequential and stylistic aspects of interaction. hmm (PsV) ..e. on illocutionary force indicators. From an instrumental viewpoint. a litotes shaped as a negatio contrarii (non d mica un problema grosso). 'this'. ma quello 6 un problemino. Bazzanella et al. since the problem at hand had just been introduced by the patient in the adjacent turn) conveying a negative attitude: (3) D. Hedges In hedges.e. which should have been selected in the co-text. these bushes minimize the seriousness of the problem. maybe an anxious subject. as Levinson (1992) does. . This example. a bit fussy. at worst misleading. 5. which in any case remains undefined by the expert in precise terms. From a relational viewpoint. My view of speech acts as clusters of multi-level and multidimensional features which range along a continuum of gradual variations both within a given type of illocutionary force and between two different types (cf. the diminutive suffix and the pronoun quello ('that'). a full discussion which for reasons of space I can't enter into here. i. however. The partners' sharing of the minimizing attitude expressed in the mitigated informal style redefines their relationship and puts it on a more friendly basis. 1991) leaves no space for a notion such as that of 'indirect speech act'. (GP) 'but that's a problem+DIM. Giv6n. In examples (4) and (5) we find hedges. The latter would also be in contradiction with my claim (see 7 below) about the non-dichotomic functioning of bushes and hedges.e. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 this effect: the co-production of the problem definition is an interactional achievement which contributes per se to building a co-operative climate. This co-production also involves.the benefit . 1989. io le proporrei se vuole una medicina apposta per vedere se riesco a farla dormire.892 C. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 893 T. the mitigating devices are the following: (1) io le proporrei. The modal probabilmente occurs twice in the following example: (5) D.'s (1989) model.it is probably a consequence of an intestinal problem: that began with the flu eh:' Here. on the one hand.where the clothes-stand is .probabilmente 6 una:: conseguenza di un problema intestinale: che ~ cominciato con l'influenza eh: (SV) 'probably it is . (2) se vuole ('if you like'). per vedere se riesco afarla dormire ('to see if I can make you sleep') which. the diagnosis can be analyzed as a verdictive speech act in Austin's (1962) terms. Besides. if you like. this is a case of internal mitigation according to Blum-Kulka et al. Probabilmente weakens the speaker's degree of certainty about the proposition: the overall effect on the utterance is that the diagnosis is downgraded to a hypothesis. to see if I can make you sleep. from this relational. probabilmente 6: .in the same speech act. a type of illocutionary act whose preparatory felicity conditions have to do with the authority or the competence of the speaker-agent. as the 'healer'. applies the negative politeness principle by appealing to the hearer as a rational partner who cannot be forced to do something that s/he does not fully understand. 1989: 19). the doctor presents the therapy as an attempt whose possible success will be his personal merit. (3) A supportive postponed move. with an oscillation between two different 'narratological' answers to the question 'who is the protagonist?' . hmm In (4).C. thereby indirectly affirming his strong role. For these reasons. he formally downgrades his directive to a proposal which it is up to the patient to accept.knowledge. emotive perspective. a routine formula. the scope of the mitigation is (that aspect of the illocution which is) the speaker's epistemic commitment to the propositional content. diagnosis is easily able to show the interplay of different parameters .and correlatively between two different cultural models of the professional's role. a grounder (of the Head Act): a final clause. a hedged performative: the verb in the conditional mood is a weaker form than the performative expression 'I propose'. From a relational perspective. a consultative device (Blum-Kulka et al. The semantic indeterminacy associated with the litotes in (4) and the downgrading of certainty on the part of the speaker in (5) are mirrored by the . I'd propose. power.. role . P.dove c'~ l'attacapanni . a case of external mitigation. Pragmatically. there is an ambivalence in the doctor's utterance about who is the main actor in the therapeutic process. on the other hand. a special medicine. The assignment of a minor value to the parameter of knowledge in (4) and (5) goes together with a downgrading of the parameter of power. according to Blum-Kulka (1992: 267). nothing more than an attempt to trace abductively the temporal and causal sequence of facts. increases the symmetry . And this range includes the possible interpretation on the part of the patient that the doctor's decreased epistemic subscription to the content may be paralleled by a decrease in assertiveness. a verdictive.qualcosa del genere. i.3. the syntactic bushes ~ un periodo cosi and qualcosa del genere which make the reference fuzzy. to use a psychological category (Arndt and Janney. in what I'd like to call an 'emotive subscription'. d u n periodo cosi/qualcosa del genere are bushes that make the proposition semantically fuzzy. and finally by the explicit admission of uncertainty va a sapere). remains to be deconstructed. more than a hypothesis. Further. and psychological distance are connected parameters in a multilayered process which. 5. the giving up of any hypothesis. In example (6).e. modal adverbs are listed as indicators of nonimmediacy. 1962. in a word. especially in its less conventionalized steps. the report of a mental state.something like that' In (6).. a behabitive. in the overlapping area of 'competence'. in Wiener and Mehrabian (1968: 44). 1989)? In (6). his/her involvement in deciding what the case is. This shift happens when the sincerity condition (Austin's. when the problem at hand is not a matter of degree but a matter of type (Giv6n.va a sapere . in (6) the downgrading of the knowledge parameter (by the lexical means magari.894 C. In conclusion. in adducing further evidence etc. social power. From a relational perspective. In particular. A-conditions) crucial to verdictives. mitigation affects both the proposition and the illocution. magari/va a sapere are hedges focussed on the aspect of the assertive illocution which is the commitment to truth (the neustic). what the examples show clearly is that epistemic certainty. In fact. Combinations of bushes and hedges In the following examples. in confirming the hypothesis. if the patient is also entitled to a kind of knowledge. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 upgrading of the hearer's active role. the weakening of the 'epistemic certainty' parameter affects the parameter of 'social role'. in sharing the responsibility for the abductive process. This weakening. e. here a professional one. On the relational level. F-conditions) prevails over the competenceknowledge condition (Austin's. (6) D. this means a redefinition of the role of the patient as slightly less passive. It becomes. the expression of a doubt. an identification of the speaker with his/her communication. while the parameter 'intimacy' or 'emotive closeness' is indirectly assigned a major value. (GP) 'maybe it's a sort of bad moment . this example raises an important theoretical question: what is the threshold beyond which mitigation produces not only a deintensification of the same act but a different act. is such that the speech act seems to shift from one type to another. the parameter of 'epistemic certainty' is crucially affected by mitigation and is assigned a minor value. 1962.who knows . the relationship may proceed on a more symmetrical basis: at this point a range of possible emotive inferences opens up. obtained through a combination of bushes and hedges. precisely in the 'modification' class. 1987).g. magari ~ un periodo cosl . which hopefully can be limited. which is even stronger than in (5). displaced. This reformulation is both self-serving (obeying cautiousness) and altruistic (Fraser. (PsV) T. Shields The scope of mitigation in the following examples is Biihler's (1934) deictic origin. It is the lexical choice of the predication which allows the doctor to background the responsibility of the client: the event 'happens'. a 'hedge' in the sense proposed here. It also weakens the asymmetry and calls for the client's co-definition of the problem.can also make mistakes. it happens to you to faint). by Haverkate (1992).now if I've understood correctly . (7) is another example of the combined use of bushes and hedges: (7) T. yeah. de-focalization. After four starters (niente mh si allora) signalling hesitation. the hypothetical premise which leaves open the possibility that things can also be treated differently. . in shields. niente mh sl . In fact. Le capita ('it happens to you') is a bush. Ogni tanto ('sometimes') is a bush. It is as if the doctor. globally aimed at minimizing the problem. though it so far lacks a systematic account. also gives up his social role based on that knowledge: both seem temporarily suspended. it reduces the frequency of the symptom thereby also reducing the seriousness of the problem (the fainting). in shields.a psychiatrist .your problem is that you sometimes happen to faint (lit. there is no explicit operator of mitigation which works on a more abstract level. focussed on the propositional content. and hedges. has to some extent been anticipated by the rhetorical notion of aversio (Lausberg. It functions as a metacommunicative anticipation-neutralization of a possible disagreement. C. but rather it is dislocated. On the relational level. at the core of Benveniste's (1970) instance d'~nonciation. 5. the 'I-here-now' (ego-hic-nunc). se ho capito bene ('if I've understood correctly') is a 'disclaimer' in Fraser's (1980) sense. a controlling reformulation or a 'gist' in Thomas' (1989) sense. there is backgrounding. since its scope is the whole illocution. C. and others. by Brown and Levinson's notion of 'impersonalization mechanisms' (1987: 273). As I have already pointed out under section 4. Greimas and Courtrs' (1979) notion of d~sembrayage. the combination of bushes. by giving up his knowledge. the act is not mitigated by explicit linguistic means.allora se ho capito bene . 1967: §431). si. focussed on the propositional content. nothing) mh yeah . constructs the relationship as one where the expert . or even deletion of the utterance source. Caffi /Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 895 from a social viewpoint and the (not necessarily welcome) intimacy from a psychological viewpoint. implicitly stating her control capacity. The idea.il suo problema ~ che ogni tanto le capita di svenire. 1980): the client has to check if the reformulation is correct. without being brought about intentionally by an agent. well (lit. on the predication.c.4. The other two means of displacement are interconnected and can be labeled 'spatiotemporal'. the underlying motive [for the use of 'we'. Thus. that is made more authoritative and unquestionable by the channel (written code) and by the use of the technical register. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 As will be clear from the following examples. In discourse production there can be various shifts to and from the 'I'. or immediately accessible to. with impersonal subjects like uno/a. shields do not work in a scalar way. si ('one') in sentences like uno sta in pensiero ('one worries'). the overall relational effect is one of distancing. Objectivization. its argumentative power. 1992). which is very frequent in psychotherapeutic sessions (Gaik. while the cognitive informativeness of the act is reinforced... 1988). c'~ un'i:perplasia estrogenica . At the same time. (SV) 'there's an estrogenic hyperplasia . as in impersonal constructions or agentless passive constructions. where the doctor shifts to using 'we' (meaning something like 'one' in impersonal constructions). Symmetrically. which could be labeled 'actantial'. These shields can work locally. as in example (13) below. which is ascribed to another impersonal source. is discussed in Gumperz (1982). Gumperz claims: "Perhaps . and there are several ways in which the responsibility for the speech act can be subtly shifted away. preferred choice. when a narrative replaces a discourse focussed on the present context.. with a high-value assignment to the 'precision of propositional content' parameter. or by cases where the author is simply deleted.it is written here' The scope of the mitigation is the utterance-source. the source of the utterance act: the first (based on the 'I').amounts to weakening the doctor's personal commitment to his diagnosis. is one of these shields. or globally. CC] is to signal personal distance and to distinguish descriptions of impersonal laboratory pro- . but in a yes-no way. More precisely. or a hypothetical sentence: I call these shields 'fictionalization' and 'eventualization' (Haverkate. There is no reference to the patient either: the disease 'is there'. 1992) shields respectively. to borrow a term from narratology. There is a defocalization of the speaker as the agent of the utterance. Moreover. The displacement can even involve another possible world. and with it. no reference is made to the two interlocutors: not only is there a 'notI' but also a 'not-you'. Shifting the responsibility to another source .896 c. as in Goffman's (1979) cases of 'footing' (Levinson. at the level of a single utterance. for instance. the addressee . since the displacement involves the 'here-now'.c'~ scritto qui. is represented prototypically by cases where the act is ascribed to someone else. releasing their various interactional effects through a process of contrast with the unmarked. the deictic origin. the disease is very clearly identified. as textual strategies. there appear to be some basic strategies of displacement linked with the three basic components of the deictic origin. opened up through the use of an hypothetical device. we can have a deletion of the 'you' when no reference is made to the actual addressee of the message.which is not shared by. A somewhat similar case. the 'as if'. and it is a fact for which a piece of evidence is invoked. expected. Example (8) illustrates a non-ego strategy of objectivization: (8) D. adesso non mi vorrei proprio assumere la responsabilittt completamente (ride) (PsS) C. non c'~ (h) emotivittt. her utterance is objectivized (the verbal aspect is perfective): she doesn't say 'I don't have thoughts' (io non ho pensieri) but 'there are no thoughts' (non ci sono pensieri). it has. a gnomic-proverbial statement: instead of the second-person subject (when you get nervous etc. ma. Further. there aren't. after a false start in which she polemically echoes the therapist's formulation. the utterance's source.I don't know. e quindi ha distrutto la propria intelligenza. Example (10) illustrates a subcase of objectivization. 'ho' (ripresa polemica dellaformulazione di T). impersonal third-person subject whose behavior is assessed as prototypical.c. It is a move which. At this point. there isn't:: ->. almost brutal paraphrasis. T. 'I have' (polemical quotation ofT's formulation). non ci sono pensieri. as an external observer. it shows oscillations between downgrading and reinforcement: (9) C. C.e. si ~. At the same time there's no surface trace of the actual individual utterer: the expert's opinion becomes a matter of common knowledge. impersonal and passive constructions. i. illustrates different shields of objectivization and impersonalization. there is a generic. T. non c'~ ideazione. interesting also since it overtly deals with negotiations about responsibility for saying and doing. there's no (h) emotivity. non c'~:: ->. ~: ~ stata. T. Even grammatically. taking the client's account literally. the 'I'. C. there is no capacity of reaction to stimuli from the environment. the ego. uses other shields. non c'~ reattivittt agli stimoli dell'ambiente. there are no thoughts. and what is described is not an action but a state of affairs. Example (9).b 6 . 1958: §42): . transforms it into an action which has actually been performed by her.). now I wouldn't want to take the whole responsibility (laughs) The client speaks of her feelings as a matter of fact. it is: it has been. with a move that Weingarten (1990) would call Aktivierung/Dynamisierung. C. T. non ci sono pensieri. there is no capacity of thinking. just a minute. These shields are still not enough to express her refusal to completely undertake the responsibility for 'having destroyed her mind' so that she feels it necessary to make the point explicit. It is as if the client were watching her thoughts from the outside. The therapist (a psychoanalyst) reformulates the client's words using a reinforced. the client retraces her steps and. Caffi /Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 897 cedures from statements about personal opinions or self-initiated actions" (1982: 184-185). It is a case of what in rhetoric has been called a 'figure of communion' (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca. has been deleted. there are no thoughts. C. non ci sono. so you have destroyed your mind. dobbiamo fare una radiografia dell'articolazione del femore con l'anca. 'could'). I don't know. 1958: §42). which is impersonal. while it is an upgrader compared to p o t e r e ('can'. which imposes the obligation. The act is represented as shared.(GP) 'what's more. the 'I' of the deictic origin. it is worth mentioning the following use. 'I suggest an X-ray') and the 'you' (e. from a psychological standpoint. The use of the deontic modal dovere.g. is known in rhetoric as 'enallage of persons' (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca. 5 It is a pseudo-inclusive 'we' (Haverkate. dovere ('must') is a downgrader compared to d necessario ('it is necessary'). is the second mitigating device in (11). 1992). 'you must do an X-ray'): the shield is on the utterer. Modal devices can be both mitigating and reinforcing depending on the context and on the criterion of analysis: e.g. ('must'). 'must' could be seen as an upgrader with respect to 'it is necessary'. . Further. which is obtained by substituting the first-person pronoun with other personal pronouns. as the statement comes from an authority. paradoxically to operate ->-' 5 Amongthe many possible pragmatic values of the use of the first-personplural pronoun. et donc polie) de son individualit6dans l'anonymat d'une collection" (Hag~ge. Besides. on a scale of modals. and on the addressee. as well as on the addressee. he works at XXX ((name of hospital)) in XXX ((name of place)) if they had. it gains the status of an unquestionable.898 C.g. quando uno diventa nervoso fa cosL (PsV) 'when one gets nervous one acts that way' The patient's behavior is treated as everybody's behavior. The dislocation of the act to someone else. poi oltreattutto lui lavora al XXX ((nome di ospedale)) di XXX ((nome di luogo)) ci fosse da fare non so paradossalmente da operare ->. a sharing which has a grammatical trace in the first-person plural. a solidarity 'we'. the 'you': (11) D. a directive. (GP) 'we'll have to do an X-ray of your hip joint' The first-person plural pronoun in (11) signals a personal involvement on the part of the doctor. thus being exempted from an individual obligation. 1985: 279). from a logical standpoint. par fusion (drprrciative. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 (10) T. which replaces the 'I' (e. the shield is on the speaker. its function here seems to be opposite to the above quoted function hypothesized by Gumperz. apodictic truth. the performance of the action prescribed is depicted as if it were somehow shared by the doctor. atemporal. which is the precise opposite of the rhetorical device ofpluralis maiestatis: "le persan et le turc se servent d'un pluriel 'nous' pour rrferer ~ l'adresseur. thus avoiding an explicit prescription. usual in such circumstances. hence less immediate from the partner's point of view. In (12) the architecture of the shield which I suggest calling 'eventualization' is more complex: (12) D. In (11). certo. This latter is a kind of metacommunicative gloss working both on the whole speech act ( ' I ' m only saying. i. i. not-here. the patient's present state.e. which introduces the message as one among other possible topics. be' adesso io sono qua e sono entrata per degli accertamenti: ulteriori= T.. as one of Rhoda's typical mitigation strategies. *adesso sta male?+in questo momento? P. which nevertheless is salient in that context. in the background. =no dico adesso ora qui.e. not-now' vs. syntactic. what is crucial is an account of how this actual goal is achieved. P.e. i. be' . which serves to introduce the category of topical shields. which the analyst tries urgently to restore. no: non mi d~ nessun fastidio parlare con lei. it can be claimed that this strategy aims at self-protection (traditional psychoanalysis would describe it in terms of 'resistance'). an evaluation lurks.e. (13) P. a global strategy of de-actualization of a topic.c. sta male? P. At another level of analysis. ') and on the propositional content. a marker non so and the evaluative adverb paradossalmente. that . the first session in a course of psychotherapy.. In narrativization there is an 'I. si. which is thus further removed. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 899 What is mitigated in (12) is the speech act of supposition. and lexical.. as a paradox. percM parla con me? P. e poi: dall'85 a11'87 i due anni diciamo in cui: stavo male ma non: per altri versi ma non cosi male come sto adesso sono comunque riuscita a continuare a lavorare mi hanno cambiato la respo*nsabilit~+ T. and then from 85 to 87 the two years when: let's say I felt bad but not in other respects but not so bad as I feel now anyway I managed to keep working they changed my du*ties+: D. which signals a separation from the present communication. This type of shield was focussed by Labov and Fanshel (1977: 336) under the label 'narrative response'. thereby decreasing its importance. To use Benveniste's famous distinction. oltreatutto. it also is a stylistic cue that opens the way to a more formal register. T. the client's discourse is an histoire which finds it hard to become discours. here by shifting a present feeling to the past. actualization or focalization on 'Ihere-now'. There is a cumulative use of linguistic devices: textual. and the client's shield is first of all for herself and her present pain. (13) is an example of a 'narrativization' shield. (PsS) P. which is told in a rather detached style instead of being enacted. T. Whatever the interpretation of the strategy may be. i. A negative affect toward the topic can be inferred from this removal.e. something like 'maybe an operation will be necessary'. i. The shifting away from an aspect of deictic origin can become a global strategy. as in (13). This is done in order to make the (actually realistic) hypothesis of an operation more distant and improbable. *now are you feeling bad?+ at the moment? . the subjunctive in the hypothetical construction. praticamente. per cosi dire. in particular 'objectivization'.g. work by an overall substitution (e. one utterance is substituted by another bearing a non-ego. There is a sort of continuum between: (a) true quotational cases. obtained through specific textual means. (13) is suitable to close this section because it is a transitional case between deictic shields. which can be seen as being placed along a scale of decreasing transparency (for the concept of 'transparency'. i. well now I'm here and I've come in for further tests= =no I mean now at this very moment here. namely. as sketched in section 6 below. and (c) bushes. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 P. In order to clarify the difference between them.e.quotational and topical mitigation. and topical shields. P. and the second is the strategic backgrounding of a topic. are you feeling bad? well. similar in that to bushes and hedges. P. non-nunc feature). both cognitive and emotive.1. to his/her utterance or part of it is suspended too. quotational and topical shields operate on 'something' which actually appears on the linguistic surface. what can be seen as a non-fulfilment of Austin's (1962) second B-condi- . see H61ker. see Authier-Revuz. namely literality. because you are speaking to me? no: I don't mind speaking to you. In other words. when the speaker distances him/herself from what s/he says by the explicit signal that s/he is using words only as quotes (for an extended treatment of metalinguistic expressions in French. (b) the cautionary markers which call a metalevel into play. T. e. D. While deictic shields.g.. Similar effects are obtained through the use of markers such as per cosi dire ('so to speak'). 6. While deictic mitigation is in absentia . shields based on the negation of one of the aspects of the deictic triad.g. while the second cases signal metacommunicatively what can be seen as a non-complete fulfilment of Austin's (1962) first B-condition. Other strategies of mitigation My aim in this section is to list some discourse strategies in which mitigation can be inferred as a second-degree effect. signal. is in praesentia. the condition concerning the correct execution of the procedure. diciamo cosi ('let's say'). Quotational shields are those cases in which a metalevel is opened up by the use of expressions like fra virgolette ('in quotes'). as already pointed out under 5. T. quasi. without making reference to a metalevel. the signalled suspension of the literal meaning implies that the speaker's subscription.deictic shields are in paradigmatic opposition to other unmarked choices in a given context . Let us consider what this 'something' may be. non-hic. it may be useful to observe that the first are linked to a yes-no property of communication in general terms. 1988). P. 1994). The operations I have in mind are of two basic types: the first is the suspension of literal interpretation. of course. The third cases. e. I'd like to call the former 'quotational shields' and the latter 'topical shields'. The main difference between them is the following. yes.900 C. however. 'for instance'). thorny topic. where the mechanism is the 'lateralization' of a topic. obtained through the use of connectives such as tra l'altro ('by the way'. Obviously the topic itself is delicate. Strategic digressions correspond to the rhetoric notion of aversio a materia (Lausberg. (PsV) T. obtained through the use of connectives such as ad esempio.C. ha avuto per caso qualche altra gravidanza che si ~ interrotta spontaneamente cosl o no ? = C. namely. Topical shields can be further subdivided into strategic digressions. 'by any chance') as in (14): (14) T. and strategic examples. the other possible translation is "incidentally" ('by the way'). Topical shields are those cases in which there is a strategic backgrounding of a topic whose occurrence is expected. the condition concerning the complete execution of the procedure. p e r esempio ('for example'. whose scope is the whole question. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 901 tion. 1967: §434). as in (15) (on examples. =no. Each of the two possible English translations selects only one of the two simultaneous possibilities in Italian: one is "accidentally" ('by any chance'). we also have to explain how the speaker manages both to ask the embarrassing question and to protect the addressee's face: these conflicting goals are simultaneously pursued by the use of the co-textual shield. va be' problemi in casa: li ho sempre avuti quindi: T. 1995): (15) C. through the decreased value assigned to an interactional parameter that can be labeled 'relevance of a topic for the present purposes of the exchange'. or p e r caso ('incidentally'. 'what's more'). presented as a side topic in a hypothetical hierarchy of topics. In this latter case. it can be classified as a topical shield in which the inferable mitigating effect is obtained through the 'lateralization' of the topic. whose scope is the propositional content. Caffi and HSlker. The mechanism by which this reduction is achieved is the paradigmatization of the topic. which introduces the topic and at the same time downgrades its relevance and urgency in the context. The funny effect of (14) for an Italian speaker is due to the ambiguity of the scope of the Italian mitigator p e r caso (similar to the German zufiillig/zufiilligerweise). che problemi ci sono? . which is related to the scalar parameter 'precision' which affects the propositional content. Having recognized this. and negatively face-threatening for the patient. painful. another passe-partout downgrader similar to un attimo. typically an embarrassing. this reduction amounts to a contrast with the expected. have you accidentally/incidentally had any other pregnancies with a miscarriage or not?= C. Strategic examples are those cases where again the parameter which is reduced is the 'relevance of the topic for the present purposes of the exchange'. Crucially. =no. preferred choice in that context. or set in a paradigm of equipollent possibilities .. there is one way in which a person can avoid indicating what is to take place in a relationship. (PsS) C. from the fact that a topic is given a reduced textual salience .] subtle qualifications are always present [. and thereby avoid defining it.] Whenever a person tries to avoid controlling the definition of a relationship. Bateson's colleague at the Veterans' Administration Hospital. which. mitigation is obtained by downgrading the 'topical relevance' dimension. If the topic is actually recognizable as salient in that context. stylistic choices . which in any case requires more systematic empirical work. style is related to the notion of metacommunication. on which I cannot dwell here (Beavin-Bavelas.are viewed as choices defining the relationship between interlocutors.] it is difficult for a person to avoid defining. It is possible to see a connection between the description of mitigation given above and Haley's (1959) work on 'disqualification'.. studied schizophrenic dialogues by applying Bateson's and his own communication model. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 C.. In other words. 7. at a different level he is defining the relationship as one in which he is not in control[. Haley's 'disqualification' and potential anti-empathetic effects of mitigation in therapeutic interaction.. Thus. There is a clear similarity between those types of shields and the rhetorical figure of reticentia. 1990). his relationship with another [. what are the problems? C.] However. results from the fact that a topic is placed in a paradigm of possibilities." (Haley.. or taking control of.. Jay Haley. its backgrounding triggers an implicature concerning the unwillingness on the part of the speaker to handle it..it is possible to infer that it is of a minor emotive salience to the speaker in the given context. which is connected by implicature with the emotive saliency of a topic. The relational effect at work here is that the downgrading of the relevance of a topic means implicitly the downgrading of the emotive salience of the topic for the speaker in the actual communicative situation. Haley says: "one cannot not qualify a message [. Beavin-Bavelas et al. In other words.in the first stage confined to non-verbal communicative behavior .. where. Even though he will be defining the relationship by whatever he communicates. In order to point out this connection. ad esempio c'~ mio paph che: *ogni tanto beve +. not presented in a hierarchy. va be'. it will be useful to recall some of Haley's points. well for instance there is: my father who *sometimes drinks +. 1985. as in (15) the topic of the father's alcoholism (also mitigated by the bush ogni tanto 'sometimes'). He can negate what he says. 1959: 323-325) . he can invalidate this definition by using qualifications that deny his communications.since it is 'lateralized'. in Palo Alto. Haley's model has been repeatedly exploited and modified in Beavin-Bavelas' works on 'equivocation'. in turn. well as to problems at home: I ' v e always had them T. is de-intensified..902 C. as is well known. qualifying the message from a relational viewpoint. To sum up: topical shields are the surface means by which the interactional parameter of topical relevance. and the founder of systemic family therapy. 'am saying something'. the displacement of the act to another source. 1990) reformulation of it. which has its systematic and dramatic instantiation in schizophrenic behavior. as in (12). 'to you' and 'in this 6 Hereis the point of main difference. 1959: 326). as in (13). like instrumental ones. as an (in)adequate. and ambivalence is pervasive. as I have repeatedly stressed. as in example (8) above. as I have tried to sketch in this paper. he regards it as a qualification of the message which is somewhat incongruent with the message itself. in this co-text': it is the dimension of evaluation of the message centered on its sequential relevance. The negation of the 'to you' component is exemplified by cases in which the speaker signals s/he is not talking to the interlocutor but to someone else.e. schizophreniccommunication(where the negation of the 'in this situation' component. indicating that s/he is speaking "to the person's status position rather than to him personally" (Haley. Again. Haley does not mean 'deny' as a logical negation. or under the influence of something external (a disease. 1959: 326). ambiguous. it is possible to specify the ways in which this ambivalence is achieved and reconstruct some steps through which mitigation can contribute to defining (or not defining) the relationship and the speakers' co-identity. Haley breaks down a message into four components. a case close to 'quotational shields'. However. In fact. In Haley's exemplification. for instance. rather. a person can avoid defining his relationship with another" (Haley. 'in this situation' is reinterpreted by Beavin-Bavelas as 'in this sequence. The speaker. different from that of the actual interaction s/he is engaged. i.).'s (1967) concept of 'transactional disqualification'. the cases of 'not-I' are those in which the speaker speaks on behalf of someone else. or signals s/he is not using words but only mentioning them. in the name of some authority. I would like to stress the following points. 6 In sum. etc. I would suggest that some prototypical cases of the mitigated choices I have called 'shields'.not made explicit as it should have been. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 903 Of course.Co-textual relevance is also the main focus in Sluzky et al. The negation of the 'am saying something' component is exemplified by cases in which the speaker says something in a contradictory. in sum. what emerges from the previous sections is that de-responsibilization is also at the core of mitigation. By way of opening up a connection between the notions of disqualification and mitigation in its broad sense. "may indicate that he is only an instrument transmitting the message" (Haley. as the basic core of incongruent communication. there is no guaranteed inferential automatism: relational aspects. i. a drug. taken literally. inappropriateresponse to the preceding interaction. 'to you'. " B y qualifying his messages with implications that he isn't responsible for his behavior. or unclear way. 1959: 325).e. thereby indicating "one is not communicating a message but merely listing letters of words" (Haley. avoiding defining the relationship. i. Now. 1959: 325). 'in this situation'. each of which can be negated: 'I'. . The negation of the 'in this situation' component is exemplified by cases in which the speaker indicates his/her utterance is referring to some other time or place. correspond to Haley's disqualification of the 'I'. for instance. between Haley's model and Beavin-Bavelas' (1985. Haley considers de-responsibilization. of his/her role or status position.C. is frequent) and everyday communication. This change is probably due to the different kinds of data on which Haley and Beavin-Bavelas focus their research.e. have to be negotiated between communicators. although they are not as high as in the case of shields. a weaker claim to truth or a weaker claim to fulfilment (Hiibler.904 c. there is no disqualification. The hearer's problem will also be to decide at what level to interpret the downgrading: with respect to the content or with respect to the relationship with the speaker? In other words. these mitigation mechanisms may amount to micro-cases of double-bind since the doctor risks undoing at one level what s/he is doing at another. it can be argued that when shields increase the emotive distance. it is precisely this avoidance at the core of the shield which is potentially contrary to empathy. however. While using different mechanisms. Further. is it centered. Rather. in Haley's terms. Also needed. that is. as they do in the majority of cases I have studied. i. In conclusion. the cost of not defining the relationship. emotive level. I don't disqualify my message by avoiding responsibility for its content. a downgrading of the subscription to the proposition. is the doctor cautious because s/he really doesn't know or because s/he actually knows but doesn't want to say (Bergmann. even if this means 'leaving the field'. are simultaneously at play in bushes and hedges. As regards these kinds of mitigation. The extent to which this correlation between shields and emotive distance can be generalized clearly requires further inquiry. may be paralleled by a downgrading of the relational emotive subscription. is the doctor's uncertainty real or strategic. i. I assume responsibility for reducing the responsibility. where shields are. on the relational level. This weakening may. on the relational level.e. also imply some costs. this is due to the margin of uncertainty about the definition of the relationship: Who is speaking to whom? Whose 'project' is enacted by the utterance? On whose behalf is one speaking? And why does s/he need to hide his/her voice behind another's voice? Other aspects of Haley's T component. 'in this situation' components? In sum. 1983). the speaker as the utterer of an illocutionary act. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 situation'. are further constraints which would account for cases like (10) and (11). the proposition expressed. thereby indirectly defining the relationship as one where the speaker is not in control. 'to you'. on both the propositional. a sort of emotive withdrawal. in Haley's terms. the margin of uncertainty about the definition of the relationship is reduced because there is no displacement to another utterance source or to another space and time. at least in the sense that the path is still open to a possible subsequent retraction. on the 'am saying something' component or rather on the '1'. in fact. In other words. but a weaker qualification. For instance. with respect to shields such as impersonal constructions. empathetic figures of communion. they all seem to entail the benefit of avoiding the direct assumption of responsibility for the utterance as well as. and Haley's 'am saying something' component. cognitive level and on the non-propositional. And this is particularly true for activity-types such as doctor-patient interaction and psychother- . 1992)? It is this twofold uncertainty that is at the basis of the potential anti-empathetic effects of the use of bushes and hedges in therapeutic contexts. but only a reduced subscription to the proposition or a reduced endorsement of the illocution. On the other hand. Nevertheless. The hearer's co-operation is necessary in order to reconstruct the act on both the content and the relational levels. a sort of cognitive withdrawal. as in shields.e. by saying 'probably'. is it related to instrumental aspects or to relational aspects. The latter was also the subject of my third working hypothesis. which can be congruent and mutually reinforcing. which I see as complementary. while in bushes and hedges the speaker. In conclusion. reliability in the decision-making process and the need for authenticity call for a refraining (r~calibrage) of the whole system of relevances and inferences. to use Haley's distinction. the mitigating choices clustering around a negation of the 'I'. and shields through the mechanisms which have been at least partly analyzed in this paper. what is weakened is the subscription to the proposition. in the case of hedges. in shields s/he 'leaves the field' and somehow disappears. Recent ethnomethodological research on interaction in institutional settings (e. which finds external support in theories such as Haley's disqualification. affecting responsibility management in discourse both in cognitive and in emotive terms. In particular. what is weakened is the endorse- . tiptoeing. the link between this feature and surface choices has not yet been fully clarified. and 'in this situation' components. deictic shields. where. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 905 apeutic interaction. the examples cursorily discussed above show clearly that mitigation works at many levels and on many dimensions. hedges. sociological. It's precisely because saying is doing that we have to be cautious and weigh words against contexts. With regard to my first hypothesis. In fact. or somehow in conflict. Compared to the omnipotent subject of early pragmatics. seem to imply more risks of distancing than bushes or hedges. is nevertheless still present. mitigators mitigate because they manage the responsibility of the speech act in different ways: in the case of bushes. self-effacing subject. or. Drew and Heritage. though weakening some aspects of his/her responsibility. I think there's no contradiction between these two images. which can be clustered around the 'am saying something' component. as well as to clarify the connection between types of mitigation and their relational impact.C. mitigation projects a wary. on his/her guard. respectively. Both medical and psychotherapeutic encounters are indeed types of interaction where congruent qualification is crucial for the building of the 'working alliance' and the actual achievement of practical professional goals. The inferable effects of mitigating devices include both instrumental and relational aspects.g. and (micro)-linguistic dimensions can be integrated. Conclusions Pragmatics offers the theoretical space where psychological. it proved useful to enlighten different semantic and pragmatic aspects which can be modified by mitigation. and which however needs to be tested on more data. 'to you'. these mechanisms can all produce distancing effects on the relational level because they are ways of avoiding defining the relationship. 1992) has higlighted a distinctive feature of professional linguistic behavior: cautiousness. We are now able to express this fmding more precisely and say that cautiousness results from the use of bushes. With regard to my second hypothesis concerning the gathering of mitigating means around different scopes in the utterance. Reasonable as they may be on the practical level. However. 8. R. Charles. i. Jacqueline. while the closest psychological categories are avoidance strategies (Lewin. Simpson.. Paris: Larousse. Le langage et la vie. Don D. the deictic origin. by substitution: what is involved is not a downgrading of the quality of some interactional scalar dimensions. A situational theory of disqualification: Using language to 'leave the field'. Charles. Gregory. John Langshaw. in Benveniste's 1970 terms). Bally.. Bazzanella. In: J.e.) centered directly on the core of the utterance. 2 vols. 189-211. 1965 [1925]. Carla. and periphrasis. Janney. shields are yes-no devices (e. New-York: Springer. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. 1967: §434) respectively. Kirsten. while bushes and hedges work in praesentia. Pierre. 7. References Adamzik. Oxford: Pergamon. in the case of shields. but rather. Speech acts: Fiction or reality?. what in psychoanalysis are viewed as defense mechanisms at work in the 'resistance'. Trait6 de stylistique franqaise. e. Claudia Caffi and Marina Sbis~. 1962. they are lexicalized expressions. 63-76. 1959). Forgas. which is then ascribed to another source or shifted to another situation. a clash between the co. some types of quotational and topical shields can be connected with the rhetorical categories of aversio ab oratore (in particular the case of sermocinatio. Ray L. Paris: . In: I. Birdwhistell. 1984. understatement. at a more abstract level.I ' . 1981. Austin. Amdt. Sigman. Bally.Janet. 'now/not-now'. The rhetorical categories closest to shields are enallage and reticence.A. Bange. eds. Paul Watzlawick. Ervin Goffman. . Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 ment of the illocution.. Horst and Richard W. Hall. Genrve: Librerie Droz.g. Language and social situations. etc. shields operate in absentia. while the closest psychological categories are immediacy (Wiener and Mehrabian. Jackson. 1994. 1967: §432) and of aversio a materia (Lausberg. Scheflen. 1968). Bateson. Ces mots qui ne vont pas de soi: Boucles rrflexives et non-coincidences du dire. 1963 [1909]. they work along a scale of degrees of epistemic commitment to the proposition (this is the case with many bushes) or of degrees of endorsement of one of the scalar dimensions of illocution (this is the case with hedges). Authier-Revuz. 1994. Ttibingen: Narr. While bushes and hedges are scalar devices. Berlin: De Gruyter. and proximity devices (Caffi and Janney. disqualification (Haley. 1935). 1991. ed. 1990) and. Albert E. 1994). what is avoided is the self-ascription to the utterance. among the emotive devices listed in Caffi and Janney (1994). Further. prosodic and kinesic choices in speech. and volitionality. These categories exhibit the strategic mitigating potential of discourse texture. Paris: Didier. Finally. Gen~ve: Librairie de l'Universit6 Georg & Cie S. 2 vols. Edward T.906 C. Scalar dimensions of iUocutionaryforce. Lausberg. London: Oxford University Press.P. Beavin-Bavelas. The rhetorical categories closest to bushes and hedges are euphemism. in particular those of specificity.agar. 1985. equivocation (Beavin-Bavelas et al.. Analyse conversationnelleet throrie de l'action.g. the formal support of subjectivity (l'appareil formel de l'~nonciation. thereby offering new themes for future research on the visibility of the speaking subject. ' I ' / ' n o n . ed. evidentiality. Sprachliches Handeln und sozialer Kontakt. Ljubljana: IPrA. 1987. and J. How to do things with words. Asher. InterGrammar: Toward an integrative model of verbal. La nouvelle communication. litotes. Stuart J.~litions du Seuil.and contextually bounded expectations and the actual choice which gives rise to an emotive contrast. 1992.. ed. Oxford: Pergamon. Berlin: De Gruyter. Bruce. Claudia. Shoshana. Mitigation in doctor-patient interaction. forza illocutoria. Norwood. Reprinted in 1974 in: Probl~mes de linguistique g6n6rale II. Paul and John Heritage.-E. Metapragmatics. Beccaria. Nico H. In: M. 291-310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1981. In: R. 1980. digressione. Cambridge: Polity. 255-280.. A. Emile. 1958. eds.. 1994. Dimensioni della linguistica. Benveniste. and the First International Conference of Anthropology and History of Health and Deseases. Shoshana. 1992. eds. Katrin Indermiihle and Beat Gugler. Genova: Erga Edizioni. eds. Langages 17. Duranti. Drew and J... reticenza. 1982.C. Bertalanffy. Caffi. eds. eds. Blum-Kulka. perifrasi. eds. Paris: Gallimard. 1992.R. special issue of Versus. Claudia and Klaus H61ker. mitigazione. Emile. enfasi. ed. Aaron. In: M. Btthler. Caffi. Edmondson. Caffi. 137-162. Caffi.. Penelope and Stephen Levinson.. Language in society 18: 159-212. Berlin: De Gruyter.. riassunto. Norman. Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. General system theory. Roger and Albert Gilman. Simpson. 1990. 1995. Spoken discourse: A model for analysis. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. Genoa. In: G. Cicourel. In: A. Rethinking context. Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper. Key. 1981. In: T. Torino: Einaudi. Urs Kalbermatten. 1989. Willis. De la subjectivit6 dans le langage. 1970. In: G. Claudia. Jena: Fisher. Willis and Juliane House. 1992. Veiled morality: Notes on discretion in psychiatry. atto linguistico. Talk held at Zurich University (unpublished). 103-119. Heritage. ed. Todorov. Claudia. 1995. Politeness in language. La mitigazione. Journal of Pragmatics 22: 325-373. Caffi. Equivocal communication. Claudia. eds.. Caffi. Caffi. Guerci. Nicole Chovil and Jennifer Mullett. Goody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication. Jt~rg R. atto perlocutorio. 1992. 1978. in preparation. litote. Claudia. atto locutorio. Dizionario di linguistica. Talk at work.. Journal de Psychoiogie. Dressier. Gobber. Examples. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 907 Beavin-Bavelas.J. Proceedings of the Third European Colloquium of Etnopharmacology. 1934. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. mitigazione. NJ: Ablex. 56-311. . In: P. In: A. 1992. ed. 1992.2 june 1996. Rethinking context. Reprinted in 1987 as: Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Nonverbal communication today: Current research. Benveniste. ed. preterizione.. Giacalone Ramat. Goodwin. The meanings of emotional expression. Berne-Stuttgart: Huber. 1993. Journal of Pragmatics 4: 341-350. 1997. Roma: Bulzoni. 1994. S. Antifrasi. Claudia. I1 concetto di coinvolgimento nella linguistica pragmatica. 1980. Edmondson. Zielgerichtetes Handeln. New York: Braziller. Blum-Kulka. 70/71. The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. 1992. Conversational mitigation. Claudia. Ludwig yon. Reprinted in 1966 in: Probl~mes de linguistique g6n6rale. ed. Brown. L'appareil formel de 1'6nonciation. 169-199. Fairclough. MUnchen: Urban. Wolfgang and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. eds. Ramat. A. Sprachtheorie. Morphopragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. and C. Duranti and C. Frijda. Claudia and Richard W. Modulazione. London: Longman. Ehlich. Milano: Bompiani. London: Sage... In: E. In: R. Let's talk and talk about it: A pedagogic interactional grammar of English. Alex Black. 29 may . Caffi. La linguistica pragmatica: Atti del XXIV Congresso della Socie~ di Linguistica Italiana. L'6nonciation. Conte.. 267-297. Caffi. Janney. Discourse and social change. Bergmann. Milano: Angeli. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fraser. Per una prospettiva pragmatica sull'italiano parlato: La mitigazione. atto illocutorio. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. 1989.. Paris: Gallimard. Karl. Janet. The interpenetration of communicative contexts: Examples from medical encounters. Berlin: De Gruyter. Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four major tragedies. The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Watts.L.. Ide and K. 1994. Goodwin. von Cranach. litote. ironia. 1968. Brown. Drew. 1991. Mario.. P. Asher and J. NJ: Erlbaum. George. Scherer and H.. 161-227. Fact and inference in courtroom testimony. Ehlich. Cole and J. 1935. Psychiatry 22: 321-332. 1989. Hrlker. Zur Analyse von Markern. Algirdas J. code and context: Essays in pragmatics. Stephen. 1977. In: F.. 1973.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Imagearbeit im Gespr/~chen. In: G. Kerbrat-Orecchioni. Heritage. eds. eds. Klaus R. . Activity types and language. Scherer and Donald M. Goodwin.K. Labov. Morgan. House. Halliday: System and function in language. Drew and J. ed. Hickey. Heinrich. Robin. John J. Coulmas. William and David Fanshel. Stephen. Logic and conversation. 1994.J. HiJbler. Gumperz. Dictionnaire de srmiotique. 1992. S. Howard. 41-58. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation.. 1985. Werner. Irvine. Whose language: A study in linguistic pragmatics. Frank. Katherine. eds. Jacob L. Pragmatics. Politeness in linguistic research. 1976. L'homme communiquant. 66-100. 1992. Michael.Gumperz. Juliane and Gabriele Kasper. Haverkate. ed. 1992. 1979. In: A. Radio talk-show therapy and the pragmatics of possible worlds. 1987. Miinster: Nodus. Stuttgart: Steiner. Jacob L. Gudrun. Hillsdale. Oxford: Blackwell. Footing. John J. On clinicians co-implicating recipients' perspective in the delivery of diagnostic news. Heritage. An interactional description of schizophrenia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. Halliday. Mey. 331-358... Douglas W. Holly. 1992. eds.. Hill. 1992. New York: Academic Press. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Jay. Jane H. Mind. Hagrge. Goffman. Wootton. eds. 1992. Lakoff. 1975. Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik. 163-195.. Langner. 1985.. Les interactions verbales. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 Gaik. 1967 [1949]. 1991. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Watts. eds. How to look as if you aren't doing anything with words. Ervin. In: P. London: Longman. Lakoff. Drew and J. L'homme de paroles. Paris: Colin. Kurt. 1979. London: Oxford University Press.. ed. 3 vols. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1993. 1988. Talmy.1981.. Journal of Philosophical Logics 2: 458-508. Politeness markers in English and German. Speech Acts. Givrn. Stephen. Drew and A. 1977. eds. 189-213. Miinchen: Hueber. 2 vols. and Joseph Courtrs. 1979. Deictic categories as mitigating devices. Contextualization and understanding. Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse. Kress.. Semiotica 25: 1-19. Language and social identity. Giles. Interaction ritual: Essays on the face-to-face behavior. London: Routledge. Duranti and C. Modality and modulation in English. Axel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 131-153. Leo. Zur kommunikativen Funktion von Abschw~ichungen. 1982. In: J. New York: Doubleday. 1979. Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order. Michael A.. Mey. 1993. 1983. Goffman. The Hague: Mouton. Goodwin. 1983. 1986. Greimas. 229-252. In: A. 271-289. Maynard. Ghiglione~ Rodolphe. In: R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In: P. Understatements and hedges in English. Paris: Hachette. Haley.. Semantics.L. 1989. Levinson.. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Paul H. eds. Leech. Claude. John. In: P. Versus 26/27: 29-47.. Cambridge: Polity. Principles of pragmatics. Conversational routine. Lewin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Geoffrey.. In: K. A dynamic theory of personality. The pragmatics of style.. Social markers in speech. Giles. Levinson. 1988. Paris: Colin. 1990-1994. Howard and Nikolas Coupland.. T0bingen: Narr. Ide and K. New York: Academic Press. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Henk. 1967. Levinson. Gumperz. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Speech act qualification. Duranti and C. Speech markers in social interaction. Klaus. Lyons. 157-185. Grice. Giles. In: P. eds. Taylor. 343-381. Pragmatics 2(4): 505-522. 1959. 1980. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman's concepts of participation. Language: Contexts and consequences. and Judith T. Held. Ervin.. Lausberg.908 C. Paris: Fayard. interazione.J. she has been one of the editors of the Journal of Pragmatics (review editor for Continental Europe 1983-1993. where she also got a postgraduate degree in epistemology. ed. 1992. ed. her research work has been devoted to pragmatics. Charles and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. Paul. Ide and K. Since her thesis in semiotics on J. Sbisa. 1983 [1906]. Claudia Caffi got her tenure at the University of Genoa. MN: Minnesota University Press. A.. eds. 1989. Koerfer. A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. since 1993.. Ehlich. In: L. von Raffler-Engel. Searle. Journal of Pragmatics 22: 375-408. with Richard W. Selting. April 1967: 494-504. David. 344-369. 242-252. where she teaches in the fields of pragmatics and applied linguistics. Verbal and non-verbal communication in a family practice consultation: A focus on the physician-patient relationship. Janney. Weingarten.. Detering. in Schriften zur Soziologie. Janet Beavin. Since 1981. 70-71 (Milano.. 1989. Janet Beavin and Don Jackson. Carlos E. and 'Pragmatic presupposition' (in: Asher and Simpson. Riidiger. Medizinische und therapeutische Kommunikation. Pragmatics as a theory of linguistic adaptation. Language within language: Immediacy. New York: Appleton Century-Crofts.C. Sucharowski. Bompiani. Social relations in the clinic. Diskursanalytische Untersuchungen. rhetoric. Silverman. New York: International Universities Press. 228-240. In: K. Currently she is working on a book on mitigation. psycholinguistics. 1982. Jef. . 1994. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. especially doctor-patient and psychotherapeutic dialogues). ragione. In: K. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1994). 109-157. Psychologie der Diskretion. a channel in verbal communication. Thomas. a field in which she has widely published. Jenny A. In: K. In: W. Communication and medical practice. New York: Norton. Doctor-patient interaction. Transactional disqualification: Research on the double bind. Donald W.. Redder and R. 1958. Mitchum. 1967.. London: Sage. Italy. Archives General Psychiatry 16. 'Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication' (in: Journal of Pragmatics 22(3-4). Austin discussed in 1976 at the University of Pavia. Caffi / Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1999) 881-909 909 Meyer-Hermann. von Raffler-Engel. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.. Bice. A.. Ehlich. eds. Reformulierung in der Gespr~ichspsychotherapie. Zur Interpretation und interaktiven Funktion von Abschw~ichungen in Therapiegespr~chen. Marina. Alejandro Tarnopolsky and Eliseo Veron. applied linguistics (institutional interaction. J. Minneapolis. a special double issue of Versus. Gunderson.. S. ed. W. Pragmatics of human communication. which she co-edited with Richard W. 1987. editor). Sprache erkennen und verstehen. Reinhard and Rtidiger Weingarten. ed. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science VII. Retorica e analisi del discorso. Simmel.with special focus on the prosodic signalling of heightened emotive involvement in conversation. 1989. Lingua e stile 15(3): 495-507. Verschueren. The maturational processes and the facilitating environment. 1990. Trait6 de l'argumentation: La nouvelle rhrtorique. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 1965. Hickey. 1987. Janney) and Examples. Schmidt-Radefeldt and W. 1995) which she co-edited with Klaus Htilker. R. Emphatic speech style . IPrA Working Document 1. Sluzki. Morton and Albert Mehrabian.L. Watts. Wiener. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.. Georg. Margret. Winnicott. Perelman. Discourse control in confrontational interaction. Patricia A.. eds. Linguaggio. 1975. 1968. Politeness in language. Bologna: I1 Mulino. Watzlawick. Her main research interests are: pragmatics. 1990. 1967.. Weingarten. 133-156. 1989. Mortara-Garavelli.. John. Ttibingen: Niemeyer. Her recent publications in English include: 'Metapragmatics'.