VERSO LO SVILUPPO DI UN SILLABO FRASEOLOGICO PER L’APPRENDIMENTO DELL’ITALIANO L2: ALCUNE PREMESSE TEORICO-METODOLOGICHE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54103/2037-3597/20398Abstract
Le combinazioni lessicali sono centrali nell’apprendimento linguistico perché possono essere elaborate velocemente (Siyanova-Chanturia, 2015) e il loro uso contribuisce a dare l’idea di fluenza in produzione (Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992). Tuttavia, l'acquisizione della competenza fraseologica in L2 è fonte di difficoltà per gli apprendenti. Nei sillabi per l’insegnamento della lingua italiana, inoltre, il lessico è generalmente presentato sotto forma di elenco di singole parole e la dimensione fraseologica risulta assente. Sarebbe quindi utile sviluppare un sillabo che tenga conto di questa dimensione. Come afferma Luoni (2016), nel sillabo gli item linguistici devono essere organizzati considerando la complessità dei processi comunicativi e dei processi di apprendimento e di acquisizione. Il sillabo fraseologico dovrebbe, pertanto, integrare funzioni comunicative e misure di complessità fraseologica. In questo contributo, presentiamo una riflessione teorico-metodologica che rappresenta la necessaria premessa per lo sviluppo di un sillabo fraseologico che tenga conto di misure di complessità fraseologica, definite tramite metodologie computazionali e psicolinguistiche, e di funzioni comunicative e argomenti caratteristici di ciascun livello di competenza.
TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PHRASEOLOGICAL SYLLABUS FOR LEARNING ITALIAN L2: SOME THEORETICAL-METHODOLOGICAL PREMISES
Lexical combinations are central to language learning because they can be processed quickly (Siyanova-Chanturia, 2015) and their use gives the idea of fluency in production (Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992). However, the acquisition of L2 phraseological competence is difficult for learners. Furthermore in Italian L2 syllabuses, vocabulary is often presented as a list of words and the phraseological dimension is usually absent. To fill this gap, a phraseological syllabus should be designed. As stated by Luoni (2016), linguistic items in the syllabus should be organized taking into account the complexity of the communication processes and the complexity of the learning and acquisition processes. Thus, the phraseological syllabus should integrate communicative functions and measures of phraseological complexity. In this article, we discuss the theoretical and methodological premises for the development of a phraseological syllabus that takes into account measures of phraseological complexity that are defined through computational and psycholinguistic methodologies and the communicative functions and topics that characterize each proficiency level.
Riferimenti bibliografici
AA. VV. ( 2011), Sillabo di riferimento per i livelli di competenza in italiano L2: livelli A1, A2, B1 e B2
https://www.unistrapg.it/sites/default/files/docs/certificazioni/sillabo-4-enti-A1.pdf
https://www.unistrapg.it/sites/default/files/docs/certificazioni/sillabo-4-enti-A2.pdf;
https://www.unistrapg.it/sites/default/files/docs/certificazioni/sillabo-4-enti-B1.pdf.
https://www.unistrapg.it/sites/default/files/docs/certificazioni/sillabo-4-enti-B2.pdf
Bini M., Pernas A., Pernas P. (2007), “Apprendimento e insegnamento collocazioni dell’italiano. Con i NUNC più facile”, in Barbera M., Corino E., Onesti C. (a cura di), Corpora e linguistica in rete, Guerra Edizioni, Perugia, pp. 323-333.
Bulté B., Housen A. (2012), “Defining and operationalising L2 complexity”, in Housen A., Kuiken F., Vedder I. (eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, pp. 23-46.
Carrol G., Conklin K. (2020), “Is all formulaic language created equal? Unpacking the processing advantage for different types of formulaic sequences”, in Language and Speech, 63, 1, pp. 95-122.
Church K., Hanks P. (1990), “Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography”, in Computational linguistics, 16, 1, pp. 22-29.
Ciliberti A. (2012), Glottodidattica. Per una cultura dell’insegnamento linguistico, Carocci, Roma.
Council of Europe (2020) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume, Strasbourg: https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4. Trad it. a cura di Barsi M., Lugarini E., Quadro comune europeo di riferimento per le lingue: apprendimento, insegnamento, valutazione. Volume complementare, in Italiano LinguaDue, 12, 2, 2020: https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/promoitals/article/view/15120.
Corder P. (1967), “The significance of learner's errors”, in International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5, 4, pp. 161-179.
Corder P. (1983). Introduzione alla linguistica applicata, trad. it. di Origlia G., il Mulino, Bologna.
Ellis, R. (1984), “Can syntax be taught? A study of the effects of formal instruction on the acquisition of WH questions by children”, in Applied linguistics, 5, 2, 138-155.
Ellis N. C., Simpson‐Vlach R., Maynard C. (2008), “Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL”, in TESOL quarterly, 42, 3, pp. 375-396:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ncellis/NickEllis/Publications_files/TQ.pdf.
Forti L. (2020a), “Phraseology in second and foreign language learning: towards an integrated view of research findings and related evidence”, in Rivista di psicolinguistica applicata, 20, 1, pp. 27-43.
Forti, L. (2020b), “L2 phraseology research at the interface between Learner Corpus Research and Psycholinguistics”, in Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata, 20, 2, pp. 19-33.
Granger S., Paquot M. (2008), “Disentangling the phraseological web”, in Granger S., Meunier F. (eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective, John Benjamin Publishings, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, pp. 27-49.
Henriksen B. (2013), “Research on L2 learners’ collocational competence and development-a progress report, in L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge and use.
New perspectives on assessment and corpus analysis”, in Eurosla Monographs Series, 2, pp. 29-56.
Housen A., Kuiken F., Vedder I. (2012), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam-Philadelphia.
Jaén M. M. (2007), “A corpus-driven design of a test for assessing the ESL collocational competence of university students”, in International Journal of English Studies, 7, 2, pp. 127-148: https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/49031.
Jarvis S. (2013), “Defining and measuring lexical diversity”, in Jarvis S., Daller M. (eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (Vol. 47), John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, pp. 13-44.
Ježek E. (2005), Lessico. Classi di parole, strutture, combinazioni, il Mulino, Bologna. Krahnke K. (1987), Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language Teaching. Language in Education: Theory and Practice, 67, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Book Distribution Center, New York: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED283385.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition, Pergamon Press Inc., Oxford.
Larsen-Freeman D., Cameron L. (2009), Complex systems and applied linguistics (Nachdr.), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lewis M. (1993), The lexical approach (Vol. 1), Language teaching publications, Hove. Lewis M. (ed.) (2000), Teaching collocation: Further development in the lexical approach, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lightbown P. M. (1986), “Great Expectations: Second-Language Acquisition Research and Classroom Teaching”, in Applied Linguistics, 6, 2, pp. 173-189.
Luoni G. (2016), “Linguistica acquisizionale e sillabo: alcune riflessioni preliminari”, in Italiano LinguaDue, 8, 1, pp. 13-29:
https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/promoitals/article/view/7561/7334.
Mel’Cuk I. A., Wanner L. (1994), “Lexical co-occurrence and lexical inheritance. Emotion lexemes in German: A lexicographic case study”, in Lexikos, 4, 4, pp. 86-161: https://hdl.handle.net/10520/AJA16844904_197.
Nattinger J. R., DeCarrico J. S. (1992), Lexical phrases and language teaching, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Norris J. M., Ortega L. (2009), “Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity”, in Applied linguistics, 30, 4, pp. 555-578.
Nunan D. (1988), The Learner Centred Curriculum, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ortega L. (2003), “Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college‐level L2 writing”, in Applied linguistics, 24, 4, pp. 492-518.
Ortega L. (2012), “Interlanguage complexity”, in Kortmann B., Szmrecsanyi B. (eds.), Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact, De Gruyter, Berlin-Boston, pp. 127-154.
Pallotti G. (2015), “A simple view of linguistic complexity”, in Second Language Research, 31, 1, pp. 117-134:
http://www.gabrielepallotti.it/pub/15Pallotti-SimpleViewComplexity-manuscript.pdf.
Paquot M. (2019), “The phraseological dimension in interlanguage complexity research”, in Second language research, 35, 1, pp. 121-145.
Pienemann M. (1984), “Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages”, in Studies in second language acquisition, 6, 2, pp. 186-214.
Prabhu N. S. (1987), Second language pedagogy (Vol. 20), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Read J. (2000), Assessing vocabulary, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
N. (1998), Complexity: A philosophical overview, Transaction, London.
Schmitt N., Underwood G. (2004), “Exploring the processing of formulaic sequences through a self-paced reading task” in Schmitt N. (ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use, pp. 173-189.
Siyanova-Chanturia A., Martinez R. (2015), “The idiom principle revisited”, in Applied Linguistics, 36, 5, pp. 549-569.
Sinclair J. (1991), Corpus, Concordance, Collocation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Spina S. (2010), “The dictionary of Italian collocations: Design and integration in an online learning environment”, in Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10), pp. 3202-3208:
http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/681_Paper.pdf.
Spina S. (dir.) (2016), Il Dizionario delle Collocazioni Italiane per Apprendenti (DICI-A), Università per Stranieri di Perugia, Perugia.
Spina S. (2018), “La competenza fraseologica in L2: spunti dalla ricerca e prospettive didattiche”, in Maratona didattica Alma Edizioni, pp. 1-56 e webinar: https://www.almaedizioni.it/it/almatv/alma-webinar/webinar-stefania-spina/.
Spina S. (2020), “The role of learner corpus research in the study of L2 phraseology: main contributions and future direction”, in Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata, 20, 2, pp. 35-52.
Spina S., Fioravanti I., Forti L., Santucci V., Scerra A., Zanda F. (2022), “Il corpus CELI: una nuova risorsa per studiare l’acquisizione dell’italiano L2”, in Italiano LinguaDue, 14, 1, pp. 116-138: https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/promoitals/article/view/18161.
Spinelli B., Parizzi F. (2010), Profilo della lingua italiana. Livelli di riferimento del QCER A1, A2, B1, B2, La Nuova Italia, RCS Libri, Firenze-Milano. VanPatten B. (1993), “Grammar Teaching for the Acquisition-Rich Classroom”, in Foreign Language Annals, 26, 4, pp. 435-450.
Wilkins D. (1976), Notional Syllabuses, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Willis D. (1990), The lexical syllabus (Vol. 30), Collins, London. Willis D., Willis J. (1988), Collins Cobuild English Course. HarperCollins Publishers, London.
Wolfe-Quintero K. (1998), “The connection between verbs and argument structures: Native speaker production of the double object dative”, in Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 2, pp. 225-257.
Wray A. (2002), Formulaic language and the lexicon, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Yalden J. (1987), Principles of Course Design for Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dowloads
Pubblicato
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
Questo lavoro è fornito con la licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Condividi allo stesso modo 4.0.
