Preposizioni "a", "in", "per", "tra". L’italiano L2 di parlanti polacchi

• Authors: Mosca Monica

Title variants

EN

The Prepositions "a", "in", "per", and "tra": Italian L2 of Polish Speakers

• Languages of publication: IT

Abstracts

IT

L’articolo verte sull’apprendimento di alcune preposizioni spaziali in italiano L2 di apprendenti polacchi con diversa competenza della lingua obiettivo. Il quadro teorico adottato è quello della linguistica cognitiva e del “(re-)thinking for speaking”. Secondo alcune ricerche, la distanza tipologica tra L1 e L2 condiziona il processo di apprendimento sia a livello grammaticale sia a livello cognitivo, in quanto implica la proiezione di un sistema concettuale su un altro. Quest’aspetto produce interferenza linguistica tra la lingua sorgente e la lingua obiettivo. Italiano e polacco differiscono in almeno secondo due parametri; il polacco esprime le relazioni sintattiche con un esteso sistema di casi, mentre l’italiano dispone solo delle preposizioni. Inoltre, secondo la classificazione di Talmy, il polacco è una lingua satellite-framed mentre l’italiano è verb-framed. Studi successivi hanno, però, dimostrato che queste categorie non sono mutamente esclusive ed i confini tendono ad essere sfumati. Nell’apprendimento delle preposizioni entrano in gioco tre elementi, una progressione naturale da quelle più semplici a quelle più complesse, la concettualizzazione dell’evento in cui le preposizioni sono impiegate e la categorizzazione semantica dei partecipanti all’evento. I campioni, scritti e orali, sono stati raccolti con varie tecniche di elicitazione. L’influenza che la tipologia del “motion event” esercita sul processo di apprendimento si rivela scarsa, probabilmente perché il polacco, come altre lingue slave, appaiono meno satellite-framed delle lingue germaniche, dal momento che il preverbo è dotato di meno autonomia. L’uso di preposizioni non appropriate conferma la progressione naturale della complessità.

EN

This article deals with the learning of some spatial prepositions in Italian L2 by Polish learners. Italian and Polish differ in at least two ways, as Polish expresses syntactic relations by a full case system, while Italian relies only on prepositions. More importantly, according to Talmy’s classification, Polish is a satellite-framed language while Italian is verb-framed, but later studies have shown that these categories are not perfectly binary but fuzzy. In the learning of prepositions, three elements are in play: a natural progression from simpler to more complex prepositions; the conceptualisation of the event in which the prepositions are used to express spatial relations; and the semantic categorisation of the participants into the event, in particular the basic one, Ground. By means of different elicitation techniques (questionnaires, frog story, and written tasks), many oral and written texts have been collected from Polish learners of Italian of different levels of competence. It has been revealed that the influence of the motion-event typology affects the learning of the motion expressions in an irrelevant proportion; this is probably due to the fact that Polish, like other Slavic languages, appears to be less satellite-framed than Germanic languages, being characterised by the weak autonomy of the verbal prefixes. The inappropriate uses of prepositions confirm the natural progression of complexity, and the semantic categorisation of the Ground also exerts an influence. In any case, the interplay of these different forces gives rise to different personal idiosyncrasies.

Keywords

IT

acquisizione della lingua seconda; italiano L2 di apprendenti polacchi; "motion event" in polacco; preposizioni italiane; preposizioni polacche

EN

second-language acquisition; Italian L2; Polish motion event; Italian prepositions; Polish prepositions

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek
• Journal: Italica Wratislaviensia
• Year: 2018
• Issue: 9.2
• Pages: 195-218

Dates

published

2018-11-30

received

2018-02-05

accepted

2018-10-11

Contributors

author

Mosca Monica

• Università di Scienze Gastronomiche

References

• Bernini, G. (1987). Le preposizioni nell’italiano lingua seconda. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica e di letterature comparate, 3 (1987 [ma 1988]), 129-152.
• Cadierno, T. (2004). Expressing motion events in a second language: A cognitive typological perspective. In M. Achard, S. Niemeier, S. (eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 13-49). Berlino: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Cadierno, T. (2008). Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language. In P. Robinson, N–C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 239-275). Londra: Routledge.
• Cadierno, T., Hijazo–Gascón, A. (2013). Cognitive approaches to second language Spanish. A focus on thinking–for–speaking. In K. Geeslin (ed.), The Handbook of Spanish Second Language Acquisition (pp. 96-110). New York: Wiley.
• Cadierno, T., Ruiz, L. (2006). Motion events in Spanish L2 acquisition. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, n. 4, 183-216 (doi: 10.1075/arcl.4.o8cad).
• Cadierno, T., Ibarretxe–Antuñano, I., Hijazo–Gascón, A. (2016). Semantic Categorization of Placement verbs in L1 and L2 Danish and Spanish. Language Learning, n. 66/1, 191-223.
• Comrie, B. [1981] (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Comrie, B. (1984). Why linguists need language acquirers. In W.R. Rutherford (ed.), Universals and second language acquisition (pp. 11-19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Croft, W., Barđdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V., Taoka, C. (2010). Revising Talmy’s Typological Classification of Complex Event Constructions. In H.C. Boas (ed.), Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar (pp. 201-236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Eckman, F.R. (2010). Linguistic Typology and Second Language Acquisition. In J.J. Song (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology (pp. 618-633). Oxford: Oxford University.
• Filipović, L. (2002). Verbs in Motion Expressions: Structural Perspectives, PhD Dissertation. University of Cambridge.
• Filipović, L. (2007). Language as a witness: Insights from cognitive linguistics. International Journal of speech language and law, vol. 14, n. 2, 245-267.
• Filipović, L. (2017). Applying language typology. Pratical applications of research on typological contrasts between languages. In I. Ibarretxe–Antuñano (ed.), Motion and Space across Languages (pp. 399-418). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Filipović, L, Vidaković, I. (2010). Typology in the L2 classroom: Second language acquisition from a typological perspective. In M. Pütz, L. Sicola (eds.), Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 269-283). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Finck, F.N. (1910). Die Haupttyupen des Sprachbaus. Lipsia: Teubner.
• Giacalone Ramat, A. (1994). Il ruolo della tipologia linguistica nell’acquisizione di lingue seconde. In A. Giacalone Ramat, M. Vedovelli (eds.), Italiano lingua seconda/lingua straniera (pp. 27-43). Roma: Bulzoni.
• Giacalone Ramat, A. (ed.). (2003). Verso l’italiano. Percorsi e strategie di acquisizione. Roma: Carocci.
• Giacalone Ramat, A. (2009). Typological universals and second language acquisition. In S. Scalise, E. Magni, A. Bisetto (eds.), Universals of language today (pp.253-272). Berlin: Springer.
• Greenberg, J.H. (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J.H. Greenberg (ed.). Universals of grammar (pp. 73-113). Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
• Hijazo–Gascón, A. (2015). Acquisition of motion events in L2 Spanish by German, French and Italian speakers. The Language Learning Journal (doi: 10.1080/09571736.2015.1046085).
• Iacobini, C. (2008). Presenza e uso dei verbi sintagmatici nel parlato dell’italiano. In M. Cini (ed.). I verbi sintagmatici in italiano e nelle varietà dialettali: stato dell’arte e prospettive di ricerca. Atti delle giornate di studio, Torino 19–20 febbraio 2007 (pp. 103-119). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
• Iacobini, C., Masini, F. (2007). Verb–particle constructions and prefixed verbs in Italian: typology, diachrony and semantics. In G. Booij, L. Ducceschi, B. Fradin, E. Guevara, A. Ralli, S. Scalise (eds.). On–line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (pp. 157-184). Bologna: Università degli studi di Bologna.
• Jarvis, S., A. Pavlenko (2008). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cogntion. New York: Routledge.
• Kopecka, A., & Narasimhan, B. (eds.). (2012). Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1, theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Lewandowski, W. (2012), The locative PP constructions in Polish: a third lexicalisation pattern? In L. Filipović, K.M. Jaszczolt (eds.), Space and Time in Languages and Cultures (pp. 437-458). Amsterdam/Philadeplphia: John Benjamins.
• Lewandowski, W. (2016). Thinking for translating and intra–typological variation in satellite–framed languages. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association, Vol. 14, Issue 1, 185-208.
• Malinowska, M. (2013). La preposizione IN e i suoi corrispettivi polacchi – Uno studio cognitivo. Romanica Cracoviensia, n. 13, 59-70, (doi:10.4467/20843917RC.13.006.1391).
• Malinowska, M. (2014). Insegnamento delle preposizioni IN, SU, A a discenti di madrelingua polacca (Livelli C1 E C2) – Uno Studio Cognitivo. Romanica Cracoviensia, n. 14, 125-137.
• Marotta, G., Meini, L. (2012), Spatial Prepositions in Italian L2: Universal and Language–Specific Features. In L. Filipović, K. Jaszczolt (eds.), Space and Time in Language and Culture. Vol. I: Linguistic Diversity (pp. 289-323). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Mayer, M. (1967). A Boy, A Dog, and a Frog. New York: Dial Press.
• Meini, L. (2009). Dimensioni dello spazio nelle preposizioni. Uno studio empirico sull’italiano L2 (Collana Studi Linguistici Pisani IV). Pisa: PLUS.
• Mosca, M. (2007). Spatial Language in Spoken Italian Dialogues. A cognitvie linguistics perspective, PhD Thesis. University of Pisa.
• Mosca, M. (2010). L’evento di moto in italiano tra sintassi e semantica (Collana Studi Linguistici Pisani V). Pisa: PLUS.
• Mosca, M. (2012). Italian Motion Constructions. Different functions of ‘Particles’. In L. Filipović, K. Jaszczolt (eds.), Space and Time in Languages and Cultures. Vol.I: Linguistic diversity (pp. 373-393). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Mosca, M. (2013). Compiti narrativi di apprendenti polacchi di italiano L2. Italica Wratislaviensia, n. 4, 59-84.
• Mosca M. (2017), Chapter 5. Latin to Ancient Italian motion constructions. A complex typological shift. In I. Ibarretxe–Antuñano (ed.), Motion and Space across Languages: Theory and applications (pp. 151-176). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Human Cognitive Processing, 59).
• Przybylska, R. (2002). Polisemia przyimk.w polskich w świetle semantyki kognitywnej. Kraków: Universitas.
• Robinoson, P., Ellis, N.C. (2008). Conclusion: Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and L2 instruction – issues for research. In P. Robinson, N.C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 489-545). Londra: Routledge.
• Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt Brace.
• Schwarze, C. (1985). Uscire e andare fuori: struttura sintattica e semantica lessicale. In A. Franchi De Bellis, L.M. Savoia (eds.), Sintassi e morfologia della lingua italiana d’uso. Teoria ed applicazioni descrittive. SLI XXIV (pp. 355-371). Roma: Bulzoni.
• Schwarze, C. (2008). In luogo di conclusione: Prospettive di ricerca. In M. Cini (ed.), I verbi sintagmatici in italiano e nelle varietà dialettali: stato dell’arte e prospettive di ricerca. Atti delle giornate di studio, Torino 19–20 febbraio 2007 (pp. 209-223). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
• Simone, R. (1997). Esistono verbi sintagmatici in italiano? In T. De Mauro, V. Lo Cascio (eds.), Lessico e grammatica. Teorie linguistiche e applicazioni lessicografiche (155-170). Roma: Bulzoni.
• Simone, R. (2008). I verbi sintagmatici come costruzione e come categoria. In M. Cini (ed.), I verbi sintagmatici in italiano e nelle varietà dialettali: stato dell’arte e prospettive di ricerca. Atti delle giornate di studio, Torino 19–20 febbraio 2007 (pp. 13-30). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
• Slobin, D.I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J.J. Gumperz, S.C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity. Studies in the social and cultural foundationa of language (pp.70-96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Slobin, D.I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. Hickman, S. Robert (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 5-81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins (doi: 10.1075/lia.3.2.05s0r).
• Slobin, D.I. (2017). Typologies and language use. In I. Ibarretxe–Antuñano (eds.), Motion and Space across Languages (pp. 419-445). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Slobin, D.I., Bowerman, M., Brown, P., Eissenbeiss, S., Narasimhan, B. (2011). Putting things in places. In J. Bohnemeyer, E. Pederson (eds.), Event representation in language and cognition (pp. 134-165). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Squartini, M. (2006). Saperi per insegnare. Formare insegnanti di italiano per stranieri. In F. Bosc, C. Marello & S. Mosca, S. (eds.), L’insegnante di fronte alle “lingue” degli allievi, saperi per insegnare – formare insegnanti di italiano per stranieri. Un’esperienza di collaborazione fra università e scuola (pp. 70-85). Torino: Loescher.
• Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen, (ed.), Language typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. In L.A. Sutton, C. Johnson & R. Shields (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on The Grammar of Event Structure (pp. 480-519). Barkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
• Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. I: Concept Structuring Systems; Vol. II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
• Vedovelli, M., Villarini, A. (2003). Dalla linguistica acquisizionale alla didattica acquisizionale: le sequenze sintattiche nei materiali per l’italiano L2 destinati agli immigrati stranieri. In A. Giacalone Ramat (ed.), Verso l’italiano (pp. 270-304). Roma: Carocci.
• Vidaković, I. (2006). Second Language Acquisition of Dynamic Spatial Relations, PhD Dissertation. RCEAL, University of Cambridge.
• Vidaković, I. (2012). ‘He walked up the pole with arms and legs’. Typology in second language acquisition. In L. Filipović, K.M. Jaszczolt (eds.), Space and Time in Languages and Cultures. Linguistic diversity (pp. 233-262). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Identifiers

DOI

10.15804/IW.2018.09.23