Estrategias de atenuación en español L1 y L2 : estudio contrastivo en hablantes españoles y suecos

摘要: This dissertation is an empirical investigation of mitigation strategies in spoken Spanish between L1 speakers and advanced Swedish L2 learners. The first aim our study a pragmalinguistic analysis description the mitigating functions number linguistic elements corpus. second comprehends three contrasts, namely, use (a) two speaker groups: vs. speakers; (b) discourse types: semi-spontaneous discussion negotiation role play; (c) cultural contexts: intra- intercultural context. Our couched within framework face (Goffman 1967) politeness theory (Brown Levinson 1987), which assumes existence Face Threatening Acts (FTAs), human beings, interaction, strive to mitigate. However, by contrast with traditional view mitigation, following Briz (e.g. 1998, 2007), Hernandez Flores (2002), Bravo (2003) Albelda (2005), among others, we assume that need not imply protection hearer’s (H) face, i.e., it does necessarily express politeness, but can just as well stem from speaker’s (S) own concerns only. In proposal, therefore distinguish allocentric (H S politeness) autocentric (S without politeness). data selection 34 conversations Corpus AKSAM (Fant et alii 1996), split four subcorpora six (1) intracultural discussions; (2) (3a) (3b) (4a) (4b) negotiations. material has total duration about 20 hours comprises around 232 000 words. On basis previous studies, present quantitative hypotheses, according expect find more frequent expressions: than Spanish; discussion; (3) context chapter 4, investigate 28 different expressions shape single words or word like units, called markers (or mitigators). These are divided into main categories: epistemic mitigators, approximative, generalizing limitative mitigators (approximators). Through detailed qualitative analyses contextualized corpus examples, account for these each group. Chapter 5 provides deeper examination strategy goes beyond unit, so concessive moves. moves have parts, conjoined adversative conjunction (‘pero’), out part mitigates potentially face-threatening content part. concessions major categories depending on their orientation terms protection: chapters 4 complemented statistic (ANOVA), order accomplish contrastive test hypotheses. findings show significant differences aspects, partially corroborating hypotheses pointing other directions expected. general level, group (L1/L2) type conversation (intra- negotiation) shown influence both (Less)