Cover not available
Article published In:
Discourse Markers in Second Language Acquisition / Les marqueurs discursifs dans l’acquisition d’une langue étrangère: Studies on Italian and French as L2 / Études en italien et en français langues étrangères
Edited by Margarita Borreguero Zuloaga and Britta Thörle
[Language, Interaction and Acquisition 7:1] 2016
► pp. 67–88

The use of discourse markers in L2 Italian

A preliminary investigation of acoustic cues

| University of Calabria
This exploratory study intends to investigate the use of discourse markers (DM) in Italian L2 by learners with different L1s and different levels of competence (three at A2/B1 level and two at B2/C1 level). The analysis aims to describe the functions, the distribution, and some acoustic features of three DMs (però ‘but’, allora ‘then’, quindi ‘therefore’) in semi-spontaneous conversations between the learners and two native speakers. The purpose is to determine the possible uses and the relationship between the forms and functions of the DMs in native and non-native speakers distinguishing three main macro-functions (interactional, cognitive and metadiscursive) activated by speakers on the basis of the characteristics of the cotext (acoustic profiles), the context and the communicative situation. Such an analysis suggests a possible sequence in the emergence of DMs in the speech of L2 learners with different levels of competence in the target language. This exploratory study adopts a functional approach (Bazzanella 1995a, b; 2006; Fisher 2006). The outcomes of the analysis show that learners use a variety of DM forms and functions, and that some functions only emerge in more proficient speakers. The structural context and, to a lesser degree, the acoustic profile prove to be reliable indicators of the spectrum of functions performed by DMs in verbal interaction.
Keywords: discourse markers, functions, acoustic cues, communicative competence, L2 learners
Published online: 30 August 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.7.1.03dem
References (24)
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bardel, C. (2004). La pragmatica in italiano L2: l’uso dei segnali discorsivi. In F. Albano Leoni, F. Cutugno, M. Pettorino & R. Savy (eds.), Il parlato italiano. Atti del Convegno Nazionale (Napoli, 13-15 febbraio 2003). Napoli: D’Auria, [CD-Rom].Google Scholar
Bazzanella, C. (1995a). Le facce del parlare. Un approccio pragmatico all’italiano parlato. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
. (1995b). I segnali discorsivi. In L. Renzi, G. Salvi & A. Cardinaletti (eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione (225–257). Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
. (2006). Discourse markers in Italian: towards a ‘compositional’ meaning. In K. Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (449–464). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, C. & Borreguero Zuloaga, M. (2011). ‘Allora’ e ‘entonces’: problemi teorici e dati empirici. In E. Khachaturyan (ed.), Discourse markers in Romance languages, OSLO 31 (7–45). Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Borreguero Zuloaga, M. (2009). Connettivi avversativi nei testi scritti da apprendenti ispanofoni di italiano per il corpus VALICO. In E. Corino & C. Marello (eds.), VALICO: Studi di linguistica e didattica (51–69). Perugia: Guerra.Google Scholar
Cresti, E. (2005). Enunciato e frase: teoria e verifiche empiriche. In M. Biffi, O. Calabrese & L. Salibra (eds.), Italia linguistica: discorsi di scritto e di parlato. Scritti in onore di Giovanni Nencioni (249–260). Siena: Prolagon.Google Scholar
Cresti, E. & Gramigni, P. (2007). Per una linguistica corpus based dell’italiano parlato: le unità di riferimento. In F. Albano Leoni, F. Cutugno, M. Pettorino & R. Savy (eds.), Il parlato italiano, Atti del Convegno Nazionale (1–23). Napoli: D’Auria Editore.Google Scholar
De Marco, A., & Leone, P. (2013). Discourse markers in Italian as L2 in face to face vs. computer mediated settings. In L. Bradley & S. Thouësny (eds.), 20 Years of EUROCALL: Learning from the past, looking to the future. EUROCALL Conference, Évora, Portugal, Proceedings (71–77). Dublin, Ireland; Voillans, France: Research- publishing.net. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. (ed.). (2006). Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 181, 299–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Götz, S. (2013). Fluency in native and nonnative speakers of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansson, P. (1999). Prosodic and lexical correlates of Swedish discourse markers in spontaneous dialogue. In Ohala J. (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Science (1533–1536). University of California.
Jafrancesco, E. (2015). L’acquisizione dei segnali discorsivi in italiano L2. Italiano LinguaDue 11, 1–39.Google Scholar
Matei, M. (2010). Discourse markers as functional elements. Bulletin of the Transilvania, University of Braşov 31, 119–126.Google Scholar
Nigoević, M. & Sučić, P. (2011). Competenza pragmatica in italiano L2: l’uso dei segnali discorsivi da parte di apprendenti croati, Italiano LinguaDue 31, 92–114.Google Scholar
Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics 291, 1139–1171.Google Scholar
. (2006). Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transitions. In K. Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (339–348). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. (2016). Prosodic modeling and position analysis of pragmatic markers in English conversation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, (aop). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, L.C. (1983). Common discourse particles in English conversation: Like, well, y’ know. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Vaughan, E. & Clancy, B. (2013). Small corpora and pragmatics. In J. Romero-Trillo (ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics (53–73). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

De Cristofaro, Elisa, Linda Badan & Adriana Belletti
2024. Discourse markers in L1 and L2 Italian: A cartographic analysis of the sentence-internal position. Second Language Research 40:3 ► pp. 643 ff. DOI logo
Deng, Delin, Fenqi Wang & Ratree Wayland
2023. The pitch contour of the French discourse markerdonc: A corpus-based study using generalized additive mixed modeling. Journal of French Language Studies 33:3 ► pp. 324 ff. DOI logo
Ferroni, Roberta & Marilisa Birello
2022. L’insegnamento dei segnali discorsivi allora, dunque e beh: riflessioni metapragmatiche di studenti di italiano LS. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 29 ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo
Borreguero Zuloaga, Margarita & Anna De Marco
2021. The Role of Immersion and Non-immersion Contexts in L2 Acquisition: A Study Based on the Analysis of Interactional Discourse Markers. Corpus Pragmatics 5:1 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Borreguero Zuloaga, Margarita, Kathrin Siebold & Britta Thörle
2021. Methodological Approaches to Studying Discourse Particles in L2. Corpus Pragmatics 5:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
De Cristofaro, Elisa & Linda Badan
2021. The Acquisition of Italian Discourse Markers as a Function of Studying Abroad. Corpus Pragmatics 5:1 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.