|Tipo di tesi||Tesi di dottorato di ricerca|
|Autore||DELLA PUTTA, PAOLO ANTONIO|
|Titolo||I diversi effetti di una tecnica di input enhancement su due tratti tipici dell’interlingua italiana di ispanofoni: i risultati di uno studio di glottodidattica sperimentale.|
|Titolo in inglese||The differential effects of Textual Input Enhancement on the acquisition of two non-parallel Italian features by Spanish speakers.|
|Settore scientifico disciplinare||L-LIN/02 - DIDATTICA DELLE LINGUE MODERNE|
|Corso di studi||Scuola di D.R. in SCIENZE UMANISTICHE|
|Data inizio appello||2015-03-27|
|Disponibilità||Accessibile via web (tutti i file della tesi sono accessibili)|
Presentiamo i risultati di uno studio empirico condotto con 68 studenti ispanofoni di italiano L2.
Research on instructed and uninstructed Spanish-speaker learners of Italian (SLI) has demonstrated that SLI complicate and simplify the Italian syntax at the same time. On the one hand, SLI omit the article before the possessive (art+poss.), such as in *ho visto mio amico; On the other hand, SLI add Spanish features to Italian, such as Differential Object Marking (DOM), as in *ho salutato a Marco (Vietti 2005, Zurlo 2009). The pre-possessive null-article and the DOM are usually highly fossilized in SLI interlanguage, as they are impervious to pedagogical intervention. Strong transfer effects (Ringbom 2007) and input-inherent features such as low saliency and low communicative relevance (DeKeyser 2005, Ellis 2006) are the reasons for these two errors. We argue that the learning path that leads SLI to the acquisition of these two features is different: On the one hand, SLI have to add art+poss. to their interlanguage; On the other hand they have to unlearn DOM, a property of their L1, i.e. they have to learn how to avoid its transfer. Unlearning seems to be more troublesome than learning because the negative evidence required to preempt illicit options is not available in the input itself, i.e. it has to be inferred by the absence and not by the presence of a linguistic item (Gass & MacKay 2002). Our purpose is to investigate if a Focus on Form enacted by Textual Input Enhancement (TIE) gives positive and similar outcomes in helping SLI learn art+poss. and DOM. We performed a trial in which we enrolled 70 beginner SLI studying Italian in Northern Italy. After having tested their previous knowledge of art+poss. and DOM through a grammatical judgment and reaction-time test, we randomly divided the subjects into two groups (A and B). Group A read, as classroom activities, 5 texts about simple topics (such as holidays and leisure time) in 5 lessons where the absence of DOM was enhanced as follows: In the same time-span, group B read the same texts where the enhanced feature was art+poss. and not DOM. No explicit explanations about art+poss and DOM were given during the lessons. The subjects underwent a grammatical judgment and a reaction-time test (around five days after the treatment) and post-test (around one month after the treatment) to ascertain if the attentional treatment had given positive outcomes. The actually ongoing statistical analysis of the results has helped us find out if: a) TIE can be an effective pedagogical device in such a similar cross-linguistic situation and for these two linguistic features b) does TIE work effectively on both the learning and the unlearning cases or is there a significant difference to be found between the test and post-test results of the two groups?