METADISCOURSIVE MARKERS IN A CORPUS OF ITALIAN MIGRANTS IN MUNICH - MARIAGRAZIA PALUMBO & ANNA DE MARCO
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
54th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea
30 August – 3 September 2021
METADISCOURSIVE MARKERS IN
A CORPUS OF ITALIAN
MIGRANTS IN MUNICH
MARIAGRAZIA PALUMBO & ANNA DE MARCOResearch aims ´ The research attempts to verify how the use of DMs, in terms of their functional space and their forms, varies across three generations of Italian migrants in Germany ´ Research is restricted to metadiscoursive functions ´ Most frequent functions ´ DMs performing each function ´ Number of DMs’ types for each group ´ Data have been analysed considering the sociocultural background of participants.
Theoretical framework: DMs in
migration varieties
´ The variation in the use of DMs is largely interlocutor based and the use
of DMs in migration varieties is often correlated both to social factors
such as generation, level of education and to the linguistic pressure of
L2 (Clyne 2003 p. 215, Krefeld 2004).
´ In a bilingual context DMs are perceived as a distinct category and they
are often transferred when they are used with a DMs function but they
are not when they are used with a propositional meaning (Macshler
1997)
´ Data have shown that the functional and formal similarity of DMs in some
languages leads to transfer processes as it happens with the German
“also” and the Italian “allora” (De Marco, 2017)DMs are characterized by some contrasting
forces
Independence from propositional
content makes them easy to
They belong to the pragmatic
transfer in contact contexts
level, which is less permeable to
(Matras 1998)
transfer in L2
Pervasiveness of use in
Their polyfunctionality makes them
conversation: easy to acquire and
more difficult to acquire
to transfer from one language to
the otherHypotheses
´ In dependence with sociocultural variables we assume that:
´ Among the various functions held by DMs, the
metadiscoursive function is the most used in the three
generations and it is the one which is more preserved in
the first generation of migrants
´ Throughout the generations the number of DMs types with
a metadiscoursive function gradually decreases due to
the stronger interpersonal relationships with native
speakersGeneral characteristics of metadiscoursive DMs ´ They gather together all the functions related to text building and production and facilitate the process of receiving or otherwise planning the speech. ´ They mark the order of different topics in the text, marking out the introduction, change and closing of discursive topics, inserting digressions, topic resumption and summing-up, marking the opening and closing of interactions, focusing relevant information and adding new information about a settled topic. ´ They represent all the functions related to the linguistic formulation of the text which includes also the reformulation function (Borreguero 2018, p. 21)
Metadiscoursive Functions (Bazzanella 2006 , Borreguero 2018)
Functions Subfunctions
Demarcative • Articulation in parts: Topic introduction, topic transition, topic change,
addition, topic continuation, conclusion, digression (beginning and
conclusion)
Allora “then”, vabbé “ok”, ma “but”, comunque, “however”
• List
Cioè, “that is”
• Marking a reported speech
Dicono “ they say”, mi fa “he/she says”
Focalizers • At a local level, at a global level
Ecco, “so”, proprio “just”, solo “just”
Riformulation markers • Paraphrasing
Cioè, “that is”, diciamo “let’s say”, voglio dire, “I mean”
• Indicator of correction
O meglio, “better to say”, voglio dire, “I mean”, come si dice, “how do
you say it”
• Exemplification/ explanation
Cioè, “that is”, diciamo così, “let’s say so”
Other functions • Fillers
Non so, “I don’t know”, insomma, “you know”
• General extenders
E cose così “and things like that”, via di seguito, “and so on”
• Metalinguistic uncertainty/ difficulty indicators
come dire, “how do you say”, cioè “that is”
• Self-confirmation
Sì, “yes”Demarcatives
´ Related to the organization of textual information (Bazzanella 1995,
Jafrancesco 2015, Borreguero 2018)
´ Introducing, changing, reordering, explaining, closing a topic in the
text:
(1) Allora era il segretario della Cisnal (Bazzanella 1995, p. 246)
(introducing)
“At that time he was the Cisnal secretary”
´ Marking out a reported speech:
(2) Dice lì è tutta gente che viene o in treno o in aereo (Sansò 2020,
p. 25)
“He says: there are all people who come either by train or by plane”Focalizers
´ Underline the most relevant part of the speech (proprio ‘really’, ‘quite’,
‘exactly’, appunto ‘precisely’, ecco “well, so, here” )
(3) Volevo proprio cominciare con la storia perché è un pochino….
(Sansò 2018, p. 24)
“I really wanted to start with the story because it's a little bit…”
(4) Dico ma non capite in che periodo siamo? (Bazzanella 1995, p. 247)
“I say but you don't understand what period we are in?”Indicators of reformulation ´ Involve two sentences E1 and E2, E2 clarifies E1 using a paraphrase, (metalinguistic) correction, exemplification ´ (5) Ho comprato gli ingredienti per la torta cioè farina, latte, uova (Sansò 2020, p. 26) “I bought the ingredients for the cake i.e/ that is flour, milk, eggs”
Fillers
´ Reflect the «difficulties to keep on track with the online planning»
(Borreguero 2018, p. 47)
(6) Ma l’Italia è BELLA non è che… l’Italia è bella l’Italia.. un po’ incasinata
ma… cioè non …io sono sono orgoglioso di essere italiano.
(E2M37A)
«But Italy is beautiful, it is not that… Italy is beautiful Italy…a little bit
chaotic but that is not I am proud of being Italian”
(corpus, II generation informant)General extenders
´ They introduce a hypothetical list conforming to a category created ad hoc
by the speaker (Borreguero,2015)
´ The alternatives are non-exhaustive and partially implicit, assuming the
value of ‘and (other) things of this type’, ‘etc.’, ‘and so on’)
(7) “I don’t know I’ve always liked university and things or studying and so on” (Aijmer
2015, p. 211)The research
Methodology Participants
- a corpus of about 13 ´ 35 southern Italian migrants belonging to three
hours of audio recordings generations of Italian speakers living in Munich with
are investigated using an different socioeconomic and cultural background
onomasiological
´ I generation: 21 participants, aged between sixty and
approach looking at the eighty instruction in Italy, do not regularly keep contacts
functions DMs entail in with German people, they speak mainly in Italian
conversation ´ II generation: 9 participants, aged between ten and fifty,
- data have been elicited instruction in Germany, they do maintain regular relations
through semi-structured with German people and with Italian people. They speak
interviews (Topics: mainly in Italian
migration, Family, ´ III generation: 5 participants, aged between eight and
identity, job, Italian thirteen, instruction in Germany, they do maintain regular
relations with German people, they do not have regular
politics) and tasks (pictures contacts with Italian people except in the familiar domain.
description) They speak mainly in GermanFunctions of DMs in the corpus through the generations:
quantitative data
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
I Gen. II Gen. III Gen
Metadiscoursive Interactional CognitiveI Generation
filler
topic continuation
topic closure
3%
3%
7% 20%
7% focusing device
Metadiscoursive functions 5% reformulazion
19%
13% introducing an explanation
4% general extender
19%
marking reported speech
topic introduction
other functions
II Generation filler
III Generation filler
topic continuation
topic closure
topic continuation
focusing device
13% 13%
2% reformulazion 27% 28% topic closure
8%
20% introducing an
1% explanation
general extender consequential
15% 9%
2%
1% marking reported
16% 9% 27%
9% speech 0% focusing device
topic introduction
other functions
reformulationMetadiscoursive functions
other functions
topic int roduction
general extender
introducing an explanation
reformulation
focusing device
marking reported speech
topic closure
t opic continuation
filler
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
III Gen II Gen. I Gen.Quantitative data: the most represented functions
thought the generations
I Generation 17% Filler 17% Topic 16% Focalizers 12% Reformulation
continuation
II Generation 20% Topic 16% Focalizers 15% introducing an 13% filler
continuation explanation
III Generation 28% filler 27% Topic 27% introducing an 9% Focalizers
continuation explanationFillers: DMs types
also
vabbé
cioè
comunque
proprio
si
magari
dico
così
cioè
vediamo
ma
sì
non lo so
ecco
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
I generation II generation III generationTopic continuation: DMs Types
insomma
allora
ma
dico
quindi
comunque
cioè
così
Niente
ecco
sì
allora
però
vabbé
poi
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
III generation II generation I generationFocalizers: DMs Types
si
però
mica
solo
guarda
voglio dire
insomma
dico
Proprio
ecco
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
I generation II generation III generationFirst generation
´ Topic continuation
(8) Che ho cresciuto, sì ho cresciuto a mio fratello, a mia nipote
(E1FLL56A)
That I have raised, yes I have raised my brother, my niece
´ Selfconfirmation
(9) E allora una fermata prima. abitiamo noi a piedi dieci minuti. No uno e si due alla seconda alla
seconda ja
(E1FLLIA)
And then a stop before. We live there, on foot ten minutes. No one and yes two at the second at the
second, ja (yes)
´ Fillers
(10) Mio marito dopo 6 7 mesi di lavoro è caduto malato però non malattie dell’ernia del disco dove
oggi also ha dovuto avere già tre interventi per l’ernia del disco però ringraziando dio adesso sta bene
(E1F53A)
My husband after 6/7 months working got ill but non deseases such as hernia where today also (well) he
had tre operations for the hernia but thanks to God now he is wellSecond generation
´ Reformulation
(11) È pesato quando ero ragazza c’erano un attimino queste interferenze tra le due culture
perché ehm son cresciuta ecco sono stata educata in un modo molto italiano
(E2F40A)
«It was hard when I was a little girl there were these interfernces between the two cultures
because I grew up welI have been raised in a very Italian way»
´ Explanation
(12) Il tedesco sì l’ho imparato già dall’inizio ecco da quando andavo all’asilo
(E2F40A)
«German yes I learned it right from the start that is since I went to kindergarten»
´ Focalizers
(13) Penso che se avessi qualche handicap linguistico forse sarei ecco no urtata da qualche parte
avrei avuto qualche barriera però fortunatamente queste barriere non le ho dovute affrontare
(E2F40A)
«I think that if I had some linguistic handicap maybe I would be just bumped somewhere I would have
had some barriers but fortunately I didn't have to face these barriers»Third generation ´ Reformulation: (14) Hm perché loro c’hanno così un furgone, e lui si chiama Friz. I: Loro chi? Lu - also La famiglia sua (E3MLV12) Because they have a van and his name is Fritz I: They who? he – also his family ´ Introducing an explanation (15) E poi non c’è questo(1) (also) (1) quando- qua sempre- piove a- in Italia se- c’è sempre il sole (E3MLV12) «And then (also) here it’s always raining in Italy there is always the sun» ´ Fillers (16) Un bambino, c’ha mh non so ma cos’è, qua è un cane, questo qua un gatto no E3MLV12 «a child, (1) he has mh I don’t know but what is it, here it is a dog, this here a cat no
Conclusions: main differences and similarities The sociocultural
background plays
an important role
I Generation II Generation III Generation
• The number of metadiscoursive forms (types) and functions is higher than the interactional and
cognitive ones
• The most stable functions in the three generations are: fillers, focalizers and topic continuation
• Higher number of DMs due to • The metadiscoursive functions are realized by a lower number
a greater exposition to the of DMs
linguistic input
• Insertion of German DMs into • Italian DMs are used in the • Insertion of German DMs into
Italian utterances (especially context of German and Italian utterances (especially
at the utterance’s periphery) Italian respectively since they at the utterance’s periphery)
have a more balanced
competence of both
language
• Use of reformulations due to • More balanced use of • The third generation shows
a greater competence in functions more difficulties in the online
Italian planning and therefore
informants use a greater
number of fillersResearch limits ´ The number and the age of participants is not homogeneous for the three generations ´ The corpus should have included a higher number of recordings ´ The number of DMs has not been related to the total number of types and tokens in the entire corpus Future research ´ Increase the number of informants for the three groups ´ Improve the quantitative analysis taking into account the number of functions per each DMs type
REFERENCES
´ Aijmer K. (2015). General extenders in learner language. In Groom N., Charles M., Suganthi J. (Eds.), Corpora,
Grammar and Discourse, John Benjamins Publishing Company.
´ Bazzanella C. (1995). I segnali discorsivi. In L. Renzi, G. Salvi, Cardinaletti . A. (Eds.). Grande grammatica italiana
di consultazione (225-257), Il Mulino.
´ Bazzanella C. (2006). Discourse markers in Italian: towards a ‘compositional’ meaning. In K. Fischer (ed.)
Approaches to discourse particles, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 449.
´ Borreguero M. Z., Pernas Izquierdo P., Gillani E. (2018). Metadiscursive functions and discourse markers in L2
Italian, https://doi.org/10.14195/978-989-26-1446-5_1.
´ Clyne M. (2003). Dynamics of language contact. English and immigrant languages, Cambridge University
press.
´ De Marco A. (2017). I segnali discorsivi nel parlato di emigrati italiani in Germania, Rassegna Italiana di
Linguistica applicata, Vol. 1 pp. 69-89.
´ Jafrancesco E. (2015). L’acquisizione dei segnali discorsivi in italiano L2, Italiano Lingua Due, n. 1.
´ Krefeld T. (2004). Einfühung in die Migrationslinguistik. Von der Germania italiana in die Romania multipla,
Gunter Narr Verlag.Mashler 1997
´ Maschler, Yael. (1997). Discourse Markers at Frame Shis in Israeli Hebrew Talk-In-Interaction, Pragmatics, 7(2),
183–211.
´ Matras Y. (1998). Utterance modifiers and universal grammatical of borrowing, Linguistics 36 (2), pp. 282 – 331.
´ Sansò A. (2020). I segnali discorsivi, Carocci.Thanks Contacts
anna.demarco@unical.it
mariagrazia.palumbo@unical.itYou can also read
