Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  auxiliary selection
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

"Essere" o "avere"? La selezione dell’ausiliare: tra teoria e didattica nell’insegnamento dell’italiano a stranieri

100%
Bozzo D.
Italica Wratislaviensia
|
2018
|
issue 9.2
55-80
EN
In the teaching of Italian L2, learners and teachers encounter difficulties when they are faced with the issue of auxiliary selection in the formation of compound tenses. If we analyse the way grammars for foreigners deal with the problem, we notice—between hypertrophic classifications and lists of exceptions—the lack of a model that is able to explain the phenomenon in a systematic and exhaustive manner. Looking at the source, i.e., the Italian L1 grammars, the syntactic model based on the distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs, both in its traditional and non-accusative version, is not suitable for application in L2 teaching, especially in the case of learners from countries where little room during class time is given to metalinguistic reflection. This paper aims to suggest an alternative semantic model that is capable of representing an orientation tool for learners and finding a balance between theoretical and teaching needs, as well as between learning and acquisition. According to our model—which moves the attention from government to diathesis and starts from the meaning of the auxiliaries as autonomous verbs—avere is used when the effects of the action expressed by the verb are directed towards the external world. Meanwhile, essere is used when such effects are directed towards the subject itself, that is, when the syntactic subject of the sentence represents the semantic object of the event, and it therefore assumes the role of the patient, typical of passive and middle diathesis.
IT
Nell’ambito della didattica dell’italiano L2 è nota la difficoltà in cui si imbattono insegnanti e apprendenti quando si trovano ad affrontare la questione dell’alternanza degli ausiliari nella formazione dei tempi composti. Esaminando il modo in cui il problema è trattato nelle grammatiche per stranieri, si nota, tra ipertrofiche classificazioni e teorie di eccezioni, la mancanza di un modello esplicativo capace di dare ragione in maniera organica ed esaustiva del fenomeno. Volgendo lo sguardo alla fonte, ossia alle grammatiche di italiano L1, il modello sintattico fondato sulla distinzione tra verbi transitivi e intransitivi, sia nella sua variante tradizionale sia in quella inaccusativa, risulta ben poco adatto a trovare applicazione nell’ambito della didattica L2, soprattutto nel caso di apprendenti provenienti da paesi nella cui tradizione scolastica si dà poco spazio alla riflessione metalinguistica. Questo contributo si propone di suggerire un modello alternativo di natura semantica capace di rappresentare uno strumento di orientamento per gli apprendenti e di trovare un punto di equilibrio tra esigenze teoriche e didattiche, così come tra apprendimento e acquisizione. Secondo tale modello, che sposta l’attenzione dalla reggenza alla diatesi e muove dal significato degli ausiliari in quanto verbi autonomi, si usa avere quando gli effetti dell’azione espressa dal verbo sono rivolti verso il mondo esterno, essere quando tali effetti sono rivolti verso il soggetto stesso, ossia quando il soggetto sintattico della frase rappresenta l’oggetto semantico dell’evento, assumendo così il ruolo di paziente proprio della diatesi passiva e media.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Grammaticalization of auxiliary verb constructions: The case of Italo-Romance mixed perfective auxiliation systems and the ‘MIXPAR’ project

100%
Štichauer P.
Linguistica Pragensia
|
2022
|
vol. 32
|
issue 1
59-81
EN
This paper deals with auxiliary verb constructions in Romance, in particular with those that exhibit two auxiliary verbs ‘have’ and ‘be’ which alternate, in many Italo-Romance varieties, within one and the same paradigm. It is argued that such an intra-paradigmatic distribution represents a special kind of grammaticalization, traditionally referred to as morphologization. Two aspects are discussed. First, a morphological approach to such ‘mixed paradigms’ is advocated, the main claim being that in order to explain the distribution of the two auxiliaries within the paradigm, one has to make essential reference to paradigmatic structure rather than to the intrinsic featural composition of the auxiliaries (along the lines of paradigmatic approaches reviewed in Blevins 2016). Second, it is shown that these mixed systems, although they often represent “delicate transitional stages” (Loporcaro 2014: 56, n. 8), also display interesting diachronic convergence typical of various stem alternation patterns, famously referred to as morphomes (cf. Maiden 2018). The paper draws on a dataset that is currently being put together in order to become, in the future, a large database of mixed perfective auxiliation systems. Some space is thus devoted to the description of the main parameters of this project, called ‘MIXPAR’.
3
Content available remote

Ohrožená komplexita : smíšené systémy perifrastického časování v některých italských dialektech

80%
Štichauer P.
Slovo a slovesnost: časopis pro otázky teorie a kultury jazyka (Slovo a slovesnost: A journal for the theory of language and language cultivation)
|
2019
|
vol. 80
|
issue 4
285-305
EN
This paper deals with the typologically interesting phenomenon of mixed perfective auxiliation systems, attested in some of the Italo-Romance dialects. In these varieties, two auxiliary verbs, outcomes of the Latin HABERE and ESSE, alternate within one and the same paradigm, thus giving rise to mixed paradigms of different degrees of complexity. After a brief survey of the sociolinguistic situation in contemporary Italy, an overview of the different intraparadigmatic distributions of the two auxiliaries is given. This overview is divided into four main levels of differentiation: complete vs. partial systems; different modotemporal systems; systems with free variation of the two auxiliaries; and motivated vs. unmotivated distributions. I briefly describe three main approaches which have gained some currency in recent research: lexical, syntactic and morphological accounts which all attempt to explain this phenomenon by highlighting different aspects of the problem. In conclusion, the endangered status of these mixed paradigms is underlined as they are part of strictly local varieties probably deemed to disappear within a few generations.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.