Email this article The construction of textual cohesion in Spanish and Italian, as mother tongues and as second languages
Abstract
This paper analyses 80 narrative texts concerned with Italian and Spanish as L1s and L2s. We shall compare the way both native speakers and learners build textual cohesion when faced with a narrative task involving several referential restrictions: contrasts of entity and polarity; maintenance of the same predication; temporal shifts; etc. The stimulus used to collect the data is The Finite Story by Dimroth (2006). Our work adds to the debate about the learners’ tendency to establish anaphoric linkage according to the specific grammaticized or lexicalized (readily encodable) concepts of their mother tongue even when their competence in L2 is advanced and their L1 is typologically and genetically very close to the L2. Nevertheless, our native and acquisitional data show that grammatical and lexical facts cannot exhaustively explain the speakers’ choices with respect to textual cohesion and the construction of perspective in a given language; an integrative explanation is therefore necessary. We propose to combine the Quaestio model with an enunciative framework. Finally, we will offer some reflections about the functioning of languages in general, which will contribute to general linguistic theory as well as to the domain of second language acquisition.
References
Andersen B. 1983, Transfer to somewhere, in Gass S. and Selinker H. (eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning, Mouton de Greyter, Berlin, pp. 177-201.
Andorno C. and Benazzo S. 2010, Discourse cohesion and topic discontinuity in native and learner production: changing topic entities on maintained predicates, in “EUROSLA Yearbook” 10, pp. 92-118.
Andorno C. and Benazzo S. 2015, L’acquisition L2 de langues proches : expression de la continuation et de l’itération en français et italien L2, in Borreguero Zuloaga M. and Gómez-Jordana Ferary S. (eds.), Marqueurs de Discours dans les Langues Romanes: Une Approche Contrastive, Limoges, Lambert-Lucas, pp. 424-448.
Adamczewski H. and Gabilan J.P. 1992, Les clés de la grammaire anglaise, Armand Colin, Paris.
Benazzo S, Andorno C., Interlandi G. and Patin C. 2012, Perspective discursive et influence translinguistique. Exprimer le contraste d’entité en français et italien L2, in “Langage, Interaction et Acquisition” 3 [2], pp. 173-201.
Carroll M., Murcia J., Watorek M. and Bendiscioli S. 2000, The relevanced of information organisation to second language acquisition studies: the perspective discourse of advanced adult learners of German, in “Studies in second language acquisition” 22, pp. 87-129.
Carroll M., von Stutterheim C. and Nüse R. 2004, The thought and language debate: a psycholinguistic approach, in Pechman T. and Habel C. (eds), Multidisciplinary Approaches to Language Production, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 184-218.
Carroll M. and Lambert M. 2005, Crosslinguistic analysis of temporal perspectives in text production, in Hendricks H. (ed.), The Structure of Learner Variety, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 203-230.
Carroll M., Lambert M., von Stutterheim C. and Rossdeutscher A. 2008, Subordination in narratives and macrostructural planning: taking a comparative point of view, in Fabricius Hansen C. and Ramm M. (eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘Coordination’ in Sentence and Text, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 161-184.
Carroll M. and von Stutterheim C. 2003, Typology and information organisation: perspective taking and language specific effects in the construal of events, in Giacalone Ramat A. (ed.), Typology and Second Language Acquisition, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 365-402.
Carroll M. and Lambert M. 2005, Crosslinguistic analysis of temporal perspectives in text production, in Hendricks H. (ed.), The Structure of Learner Variety, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 203-230.
Carroll M. and Lambert M. 2006, Reorganizing principles of information structure in advanced L2s: a study of French and German learners of English, in Byrnes H., Weger-Guntharp H. and Sprang K. (eds), Educating for Advanced Foreign Language Capacities, Georgetown University Press, Washington D. C., USA, pp. 54-73.
Culioli A. 1986, Stabilité et déformabilité en linguistique, in “Etudes de Lettres, Langages et Connaissances”, Losanne, Université de Losanne, pp. 127-134.
Dimroth C. 2006, The Finite Story. Max Planck Institut for Psycholinguistics: http://corpus1.mpi.nl/ds/imdi_browser?openpath=MPI560350%23 (7.12.2017)
Dimroth C., Andorno C., Benazzo S. and Verhagen J. 2010, Given claims about new topics. The distribution of contrastive and mantained information in Romance and Germanic languages, in “Journal of pragmatics” 422, pp. 3328-3344.
Höhle T. 1992, Über verum-fokus im Deutschen, in “Linguistische Berichte” 4, pp. 112-141.
Gagliardelli G. 1999, Elementi di grammatica enunciativa della lingua inglese, Bologna, CLUEB.
Giuliano P. (2012a), Contrasted and maintained information in a narrative task: analysis of texts in English and Italian as L1s and L2s, in “EUROSLA Yearbook” 12, pp. 30-62.
Giuliano P. (2012b), The construction of textual cohesion in narrative texts: evidence from different tasks by Italian children from 4 to 10 years old, in “Linguistica e Filologia” 32, pp. 7-49.
Giuliano P. and Di Maio L. 2008, Abilità descrittiva e coesione testuale in L1 e L2: lingue romanze e lingue germaniche a confronto, in “Linguistica e Filologia” 25, pp. 125-205.
Gleitz D. and Von Stutterheim C. (eds.) 2003, Linguistics [Perspectives in language production] 41[5].
Höhle T. 1992, Über verum-fokus im Deutschen, in “Linguistische Berichte” 4, pp. 112-141.
Klein W. and von Stutterheim C. 1989, Referential movement in descriptive and narrative discourse, in Dietrich R. and Graumann C.F. (eds.), Language Processing in Social Context, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, pp. 39-76.
Klein W. and von Stutterheim C. 1991, Text structure and referential movement, in “Sprache und pragmatik“ 22, pp. 1-32.
Leonetti M. 2009, Fronting and verum focus in Spanish, in Dufter A. and Jacob D. (eds.), Focus and Background in Romance Languges, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 155-204.
Matte Bon F. 1997, Criterios para el análisis de la lengua desde la perspectiva de la comunicación, Llengua espanyola III, Universitat Oberta de Catalanya, Barcelona.
Perdue C., Benazzo S. and Giuliano P. 2002, When finiteness gets marked: the relation between morpho-syntactic development and use of scopal items in adult language acquisition, in “Linguistics” 40 [4], pp. 849-890.
Perdue C. 2007, L’espressione della finitezza nel bambino e negli apprendenti adulti di L2: una prospettiva interlinguistica, in Chini M., Desideri P., Favilla M. E. and Pallotti G., Atti del VI Congresso Internazionale dell’Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, Napoli 9-10 febbraio 2006, Perugia, Guerra, pp. 43-63.
Slobin D.I. 1987, Learning to think for speaking, in “Pragmatics” 1 [1], pp. 7-25.
Slobin D.I. 2003, Language and thought online: cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity, in Gentner D. and Goldin-Meadow S. (eds), Advances in the Investigation of Language and Thought, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 157-192.
Solís García I. 2013, La toma de posición del enunciador por medio de los operadores claro, desde luego y por supuesto, in “ARCHIVUM” LXIII, pp. 348-349.
Turco G., Dimroth C. and Braun B. 2012, Intonational means to mark verum focus in German and French, in “Language and Speech” 56, pp. 460-490.
Turco G., Dimroth C. and Braun B. 2015, Prosodic and lexical marking of contrast in L2 Italian, in “Second Language Research” 31, pp. 465-491.
Von Stutterheim C. 1999, How language specific are processes in the conceptualiser?, in Klabunde R. and von Stutterheim C. (eds), Conceptual and Semantic Knowledge in Language Production, Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 153-179.
Von Stutterheim C. 2003, Linguistic structure and information organisation. The case of very advanced learners, in “EUROSLA Yearbook” 3, pp. 183-206.
Von Stutterheim C. and Klein W. 2002, Quaestio and l-perspectivation, in Graumann C.F. and Kallmeyer W. (eds), Perspectivity and perspectivation in discourse, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 59-88.
Von Stutterheim C., Nüse R. and Murcia Serra J. 2002, Crosslinguistic differences in the conceptualisation of events, in Hasselgård H., Johansson S., Behrens B. and Fabricius-Hansen C. (eds), Information Structure in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Rodopi, Amsterdam/New York, pp. 179-198.
Von Stutterheim C., Carroll M. and Klein W. 2003, Two ways of construing complex temporal structures, in Lenz F. (ed.), Deictic Conceptualization of Space, Time and Person [Cognitive Linguistics Research], Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 97-133.
Von Stutterheim C. and Nüse R. 2003, Processes of conceptualisation in language production, in “Linguistics” Special Issue: Perspectives in language production, p. 851-881.
Von Stutterheim C. and Carroll M. 2006, The impact of grammatical temporal categories on ultimate attainment in L2 learning, in Byrnes H., Weger-Guntharp H. and Sprang K.A.(eds), Educating for Advanced Foreign Language Capacities, Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C., USA, pp. 42-53.
Umbach C. 2004, On the notion of contrast in information structure and discourse structure, in “Journal of sematics” 21, pp. 155-175.
Full Text: PDF
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
