ANALISI PRAGMATICA DI UN CORPUS TASK-BASED DI PARLATO SPONTANEO E DIALOGHI DIDATTICI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54103/2037-3597/22013Abstract
La letteratura dedicata all’analisi dei manuali didattici ha da tempo evidenziato una serie di lacune nei materiali input in termini di modello conversazionale suggerendo l’impiego di corpora come fonte per la costruzione di risorse didattiche. Con l’intento di contribuire al dibattito sul tema, il presente lavoro discute uno studio pilota mirato a confrontare parlato spontaneo e dialoghi didattici in interazioni task-based orientate al compito Ordinare al tavolo di un ristorante. L’analisi pragmatica dei due tipi di dialogo ha portato all’identificazione della struttura sequenziale di questo tipo di interazione, oltre che al riconoscimento dei ruoli interazionali del cameriere e del cliente nelle diverse fasi della conversazione. Il confronto ha evidenziato inoltre come i dialoghi dei manuali e le interazioni spontanee rappresentino due diversi modelli interazionali: il parlato spontaneo prevede un’agenda nascosta e rappresenta un tipo peculiare di parlato istituzionale; i dialoghi didattici trattano invece il task come una conversazione ordinaria di tipo simmetrico. Questi primi risultati, oltre ad aprire la strada ad ulteriori indagini, offrono una serie di indicazioni operative per la didattica, sia in termini di selezione degli input che di progettazione di attività.
A pragmatic analysis of a task-based corpus of spontaneous speech and instructional dialogues
The literature dedicated to the analysis of teaching materials has highlighted a series of limitations in the input materials in terms of conversational model, suggesting the use of corpora as a source for the effective planning of teaching resources. With the aim of contributing to the current debate, the present work discusses a pilot study aimed at comparing spontaneous speech and teaching dialogues in task-based interactions oriented to the task of Ordering at a restaurant table. The pragmatic analysis of the two types of data led to the identification of the sequential structure of the interactions considered, as well as the recognition of waiter and customer interactional roles at different stages of this kind of interaction. The comparison also highlighted how teaching dialogues and spontaneous interactions represent two different interactional models: spontaneous speech involves a hidden agenda and it is structured as a peculiar institutional speech; didactic dialogues instead treat the task as an ordinary symmetrical conversation. These first results pave the way for further investigations and offer a series of practical suggestions for teaching, both in terms of input selection and activities development.
Riferimenti bibliografici
Aijmer K., Rühlemann C. (eds.) (2015), Corpus pragmatics. A handbook, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Andersen G. (2011), “Corpus-based pragmatics II: qualitative studies”, in Bublitz W., Norrik N. R. (eds.), Foundations of pragmatics, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin-Boston, pp. 587-628.
Archer D., Culpeper J. (2003), “Sociopragmatic annotation: New directions and possibilities in historical corpus linguistics”, in Wilson A., Rayson P., McEnery A. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics by the Lune: A Festschrift for Geoffrey Leech, Peter Lang, Frankfurt-Main, pp. 37-58.
Bardovi-Harlig K. (2017), “Acquisition of pragmatics”, in Loewen S., Sato M. (eds.), Handbook of instructed SLA, Routledge, New York-London.
Bardovi-Harlig K., Mossman S. (2016), “Corpus-based materials development for teaching and learning pragmatics routines”, in Tomlison B. (ed.), SLA research and materials development for language learning, Routledge, New York-London, pp. 250-267.
Bardovi-Harlig K., Mossman S. (2023), “Corpora in instructed second language pragmatics”, in Jablonkai R.R., Csomay E. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpora and English Language Teaching and Learning, Routledge, New York-London, pp. 71-88.
Bardovi-Harlig K., Mossman S., Su Y. (2019), “The effect of corpus-based instruction on pragmatic routines”, in Language Learning & Technology, 21, 3, pp. 76-103.
Barron A., Schneider K. P. (2009), “Variational pragmatics: Studying the impact of social factors on language use in interaction”, in Intercultural Pragmatics, 6, 4, pp. 425-442.
Carter R., Adolphs S. (2008), “Linking the verbal and the visual: new directions for corpus linguistics”, in Language and Computers, 64, pp. 275-291.
Castagneto M. (2012), “Il sistema di annotazione Pra.Ti.D tra gli altri sistemi di annotazione pragmatica. Le ragioni di un nuovo schema”, in AIΩN. Annali del Dipartimento di Studi Letterari, Linguistici e Comparati. Sezione Linguistica, 1, pp. 105-148.
Drew P., Heritage J. (1992), Talk at Work: Interaction in institutional settings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge-New York.
Félix-Brasdefer J. C., Koike D. (eds.) (2012), Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts: Methodological issues, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Ferrari S. (2022), “Fare pragmatica alla scuola primaria. Tra teoria e pratica didattica”, in Studi di Glottodidattica, 8, 2, pp. 51-67.
Ferrari S., Castagneto M. (in stampa), “Ordinare al ristorante in italiano. Parlato spontaneo e dialoghi didattici a confronto”, in Diadori P., Troncarelli D. (a cura di), Il dialogo nei manuali didattici di italiano L2 di ieri e di oggi. Raccontare la realtà. Italia ieri e oggi, Atti del XXV Congresso dell’Associazione Internazionale Professori di Italiano AIPI, Palermo, 26-29 ottobre 2022.
Fraser B., Nolen W. F. (1981), “The Association of Deference with Linguistic Form”, in International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, pp. 93-111.
Furniss E. (2016), “Teaching the pragmatics of Russian conversation using a corpus-referred website”, in Journal of Language Learning & Technology, 20, 1, pp. 38-60.
Heritage J. (2013), “Language and Social Institutions: The Conversation Analytic View”, in Journal of Foreign languages, 36, 4, pp. 2-27.
Isihara N., Cohen A. D. (2010), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet, Longman, London.
Isihara N., Paller D. L. (2016), “Research-informed materials for teaching pragmatics”, in Tomlinson B. (ed.), SLA research and materials development for language learning, Routledge, New York-London, pp. 87-102.
Kohnen T. (2008), “Tracing directives through text and time. Towards a methodology of a corpus-based diachronic speech analysis”, in Jucker A., Taavitsainen I., Speech Acts in the History of English, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 295-310.
Kübler S., Zinsmeister H. (2015), Corpus linguistics and linguistically annotated corpora, Bloomsbury Publishing, London.
Leonardi P., Viaro M. (1983), “Insubordinazioni”, in Orletti F. (a cura di), Comunicare nella vita quotidiana, il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 147-174.
Mey J. (2001), Pragmatics: An Introduction, Blackwell, Oxford.
Orletti F. (2002 ), “L’analisi conversazionale negli anni ’90”, in Orletti F. (a cura di) Fra conversazione e discorso, Carocci, Roma, pp. 63-80.
Orletti F. (2004), La conversazione diseguale, Carocci, Roma.
Ren W., Han Z. (2016), “The representation of pragmatic knowledge in recent ELT textbooks”, in English Language Teaching Journal, 70, pp. 424-434.
Roever C. (2022), Teaching and testing second language pragmatics in interaction. A practical guide, Routledge, New York-London.
Romero-Trillo J. (2008), Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics: A Mutualistic Entente, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Rühlemann C. (2018), Corpus Linguistics for Pragmatics. A guide for research, Routledge, London.
Rühlemann C., O’Donnell M. B. (2012), “Introducing a corpus of conversational stories. Construction and annotation of the Narrative Corpus”, in Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8, 2, pp. 313-350.
Sacks H., Schegloff E., Jefferson G. (1974), “A Symplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking in Conversation”, in Language, 504, pp. 696-735.
Savy R., Castagneto M. (2009), “Funzioni comunicative e categorie d’analisi pragmatica: dal testo dialogico allo schema xml e viceversa”, in Ferrari G., Benatti R., Mosca M. (a cura di), Linguistica e Modelli tecnologici di Ricerca. Atti del XL Congresso della SLI, Bulzoni, Roma, pp. 569-579.
Schauer G., Adolphs S. (2006), “Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences and pedagogy”, in System, 34, 1, pp. 119-134.
Schegloff E. (1987), “Analyzing Single Episodes of Conversation. An Exercise in Conversation Analysis”, in Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, pp. 101-114.
Scotton C. M., Bernsten J. (1988), “Natural conversation as a model for textbook dialogue”, in Applied Linguistics, 9, 4, pp. 372-384.
Sinclair J. M., Coulthard M. (1975), Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Staples S., Fernàndez J. (2019), “Corpus linguistics approaches to L2 pragmatics research”, in Tracy-Ventura N., Paquot M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics, Routledge, New York-London, pp. 242-253.
Sykes J. M. (2013), “Multiuser virtual environments: Learner apologies in Spanish”, in Taguchi N., Sykes J. M. (eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 71-100.
Vellenga H. (2004), “Learning pragmatics from ESL and EFL textbook: How likely?”, in TESL Electronic Journal, 8, 2, pp. 1-18. Williams M. (1988), “Language taught for meetings and language used in meetings: Is there anything in common?”, in Applied Linguistics, 9, 1, pp. 45-58.
Wilson P. T. (1991), “Social Structure and the Sequential Organization of Interaction”, in in Boden D., Zimmerman D. (eds.), Talk and Social Structure, Policy Press, Cambridge, pp. 22-43.
Dowloads
Pubblicato
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
Questo lavoro è fornito con la licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Condividi allo stesso modo 4.0.
