The paper deals with discourse cohesion in descriptive texts focusing both on Germanic and Romance languages. Each language is investigated as L1 as well as L2 with respect to Italian thanks to a large data base. The informants described a picture to a listener who couldn’t see it. My assumption is that the information structures a language involves with respect to different types of texts represent an extremely complex acquisitional task for L2 learners, since even at a very high level of L2 competence learners’ linguistic production keeps on showing problems in the domain of discourse cohesion. My cross-linguistic comparison demonstrates, in agreement with Carroll et al. (2000), that the options found in the expression of reference maintenance in a static spatial task reflect distinct unifying principles of typological nature, which are associated with patterns of grammaticisation: a. Germanic languages share some adverbial means of discourse cohesion (Engl. here/ there..; Ger. hier/da/dort/daneben..; Swed. då/där/här/här/bredvid..) that are not exploited by Romance languages native speakers, although they too have some equivalent means at their disposal in the lexical repertoire of their L1s (It. qui/qua/lì/là/lì vicino..; Fr. ici/là/là dessous.. ; Sp. aquí/acá/ahí/allí/allá/aquí cerca..); b. structures in language which reflect core principles in information organisation are difficult to acquire since learners have to recognize clusters of form-function relations which range over different domains; c. learners tend to employ L1 cohesive means, which proves the enormous difficulty they have in reviewing their L1 “perspective”. L1 data show that Germanic languages focus on the concept of “space” via the selection of the means quoted above in contrast with the Romance speakers, who seem to pay attention to “objects” by marking the reference maintenance by full prepositional phrases. L2 data show, instead, that learners shape the selection of information and cohesive linguistic means by the “space oriented” or “object oriented” perspective imposed by their L1.
Textual cohesion in descriptive texts: a comparison between Germanic and Romance Languages as L1s and L2s / Giuliano, Patrizia. - (2007). (Intervento presentato al convegno The Comparative Approach of Learner Varieties tenutosi a Università degli Studi di Bergamo nel 13-14 aprile 2007).
Textual cohesion in descriptive texts: a comparison between Germanic and Romance Languages as L1s and L2s
GIULIANO, PATRIZIA
2007
Abstract
The paper deals with discourse cohesion in descriptive texts focusing both on Germanic and Romance languages. Each language is investigated as L1 as well as L2 with respect to Italian thanks to a large data base. The informants described a picture to a listener who couldn’t see it. My assumption is that the information structures a language involves with respect to different types of texts represent an extremely complex acquisitional task for L2 learners, since even at a very high level of L2 competence learners’ linguistic production keeps on showing problems in the domain of discourse cohesion. My cross-linguistic comparison demonstrates, in agreement with Carroll et al. (2000), that the options found in the expression of reference maintenance in a static spatial task reflect distinct unifying principles of typological nature, which are associated with patterns of grammaticisation: a. Germanic languages share some adverbial means of discourse cohesion (Engl. here/ there..; Ger. hier/da/dort/daneben..; Swed. då/där/här/här/bredvid..) that are not exploited by Romance languages native speakers, although they too have some equivalent means at their disposal in the lexical repertoire of their L1s (It. qui/qua/lì/là/lì vicino..; Fr. ici/là/là dessous.. ; Sp. aquí/acá/ahí/allí/allá/aquí cerca..); b. structures in language which reflect core principles in information organisation are difficult to acquire since learners have to recognize clusters of form-function relations which range over different domains; c. learners tend to employ L1 cohesive means, which proves the enormous difficulty they have in reviewing their L1 “perspective”. L1 data show that Germanic languages focus on the concept of “space” via the selection of the means quoted above in contrast with the Romance speakers, who seem to pay attention to “objects” by marking the reference maintenance by full prepositional phrases. L2 data show, instead, that learners shape the selection of information and cohesive linguistic means by the “space oriented” or “object oriented” perspective imposed by their L1.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.