DOCSLIB.ORG

Non-Standard Italian Dialect Heritage Speakers' Acquisition of Clitic Placement in Standard Italian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Non-Standard Italian Dialect Heritage Speakers' Acquisition of Clitic Placement in Standard Italian City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2-2014 Non-standard Italian Dialect Heritage Speakers' Acquisition of Clitic Placement in Standard Italian Lionel Chan Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/24 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] NON-STANDARD ITALIAN DIALECT HERITAGE SPEAKERS’ ACQUISITION OF CLITIC PLACEMENT IN STANDARD ITALIAN by LIONEL CHAN A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Linguistics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2014 © 2014 LIONEL CHAN All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Linguistics in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Dr. Gita Martohardjono ________________________ ____________________________________ Date Chair of Examining Committee Dr. Gita Martohardjono ________________________ ____________________________________ Date Executive Officer Dr. Gita Martohardjono, Chair Dr. Hermann W. Haller Dr. Christina Tortora Supervisory Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii Abstract NON-STANDARD ITALIAN DIALECT HERITAGE SPEAKERS’ ACQUISITION OF CLITIC PLACEMENT IN STANDARD ITALIAN by Lionel Chan Adviser: Professor Gita Martohardjono This dissertation examines the acquisition of object clitic placement in Standard Italian by heritage speakers (HSs) of non-standard Italian dialects. It compares two different groups of Standard Italian learners—Northern Italian dialect HSs and Southern Italian dialect HSs—whose heritage dialects contrast with each other in clitic word order. The syntactic constructions tested include restructuring contexts (i.e., constructions in which clitic climbing can take place), and negative first- and second-person informal imperatives. The overarching research question guiding this pilot study is to determine what influences non-standard Italian dialect HSs’ clitic placement when learning these constructions in Standard Italian. Three possible sources that may motivate these speakers' clitic placement in Standard Italian are considered: heritage non-standard Italian dialects; universal principles and dominant language transfer (English). A secondary research question of this study investigates whether there is a universal preference for encliticization. Participants completed two experimental tasks. The first was an Oral Elicited Imitation task that focused HSs’ usage of clitics, whereas the second was a Grammaticality Judgment task that examined HSs’ explicit knowledge of this property. The overall findings of this pilot study suggest that HSs parallel their heritage dialect clitic word order in their usage of Standard Italian, even though they are aware that another structure is possible in the standard dialect. The results also show only weak evidence to support a universal preference for encliticization, as suggested by the data gathered in previous studies (Bruhn-Garavito & Montrul 1996; Duffield & White 1999; Montrul 2010a; 2010b). A pedagogical implication based on this pilot study’s findings is that when teaching standard dialect syntax, pedagogues should differentiate instruction based on learners’ heritage non-standard dialectal background. iv Acknowledgments The writing of this dissertation has been an arduous, yet very rewarding task. I take this opportunity to thank the many people who supported me on this journey. First, I am grateful to Professor Gita Martohardjono for agreeing to serve as Chair of this project, for her expertise in Second Language Acquisition, and for her dedication to helping students stay on track. Under her knowledgeable and supportive direction, I was able to design an innovative experimental study with a strong methodology. Since the emerging stages of this project, Professor Martohardjono was willing to take the time to meet with me every two weeks. This consistent scheduling helped me make very steady progress and led to my project’s timely completion. It is evident that Professor Martohardjono truly invests a great deal in her students’ success. Next, I am grateful to Professor Christina Tortora for her expertise in theoretical syntax, for her guidance, and for always “saving the day.” Professor Tortora is a brilliant syntactician whose savvy critical thinking skills and detailed guidance enabled me to conceptualize the strong underpinnings of this project. She was flexible in agreeing to meet with me even on days when she was not in Manhattan; I will miss our productive and enlightening meetings at the College of Staten Island. Moreover, I feel so fortunate that Professor Tortora was willing to step in and lend a hand during some tough moments. This, of course, attests to her commitment as a strong mentor to her students. Additionally, I am grateful to Professor Hermann W. Haller for his expertise and guidance. I feel privileged to have studied with him at Queens College and that he found the time out of his busy schedule to collaborate with me on this project. Professor Haller is a well-known scholar and a man of many talents. For example, his expertise spans across various fields, including linguistics, Italian-Americans, and Italian teacher training, just to name a few. Drawing on his vast knowledge and experience, Professor Haller’s detailed feedback throughout various stages of my dissertation left “no stone unturned” and tremendously strengthened my work; he always pointed me in the right direction. He was flexible in agreeing to meet with me even on days when he was not at the Graduate Center; I will miss our productive conversations up in his office on the seventh floor of Kiley Hall at Queens College. Needless to say, Professor Haller’s commitment to detail and to the overall development of his students’ work was very valuable to me. I also want to acknowledge and thank the participants of my study. They took time out of their busy schedules to take part in my experiment. v Finally, I am grateful to my family and friends, without whose support this dissertation would have never been possible. I am thankful to everyone for always “pitching-in” whenever and wherever they could while I was fulfilling my responsibility as a doctoral student and candidate. There were even some uncertain moments, and without their support and encouragement, I would not have reached this incredible milestone. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1 Introduction ….………………………………………………………………………….. 1 2 Heritage Grammars ….………………………………………………………………… 6 2.1. Heritage Language Acquisition: Between L1 and L2 Acquisition ……………. 6 2.2. Source of divergence from the baseline ………………………..………………. 7 2.2.1. Attrition ………………………………………………………………………… 7 2.2.2. Incomplete Acquisition ………………………………………………………..9 2.2.3. Unique grammars vs. divergence from the baseline ……………………... 12 2.3. Heritage speakers’ reanalysis of baseline grammars ………..……………….. 13 2.3.1. “External” motivations: Cross-linguistic influence ………………………… 13 2.3.1.1. Dominant language transfer ……………….………………………… 13 2.3.1.1.1. Syntactic structures at linguistic interfaces ……………….…… 13 2.3.1.1.2. Syntactic structures within the core-domain of syntax ……….. 17 2.3.1.2. Heritage non-standard dialectal input ……………….……………… 20 2.3.1.3. Cross-linguistic influence for learners acquiring a third system ….. 21 2.3.1.3.1. A psycholinguistic perspective on cross-linguistic influence … 22 2.3.1. “Internal” motivations: Universal principles …………………………………26 2.4. Sociolinguistic Considerations …………………………………………………… 27 2.5. Chapter Summary ………………………………………………………………… 30 3 Sociocultural Factors in the Learning of Italian as a Heritage Language ………... 31 3.1. The Italo-Romance dialects in Italy and in the U.S. …………………………... 31 3.2. Non-standard Italian dialect HSs who are learning Standard Italian ……...... 36 vii 3.3. Second Dialect Acquisition ……..................................................................... 38 3.4. Second Dialect Acquisition educational programs ……................................. 42 3.4.1. Second Dialect Acquisition educational programs in Italian …………….. 45 3.4.1.1. Non-standard Italian dialects in language courses ………………... 45 3.4.1.2. Non-standard Italian dialects in literature & linguistics courses …. 47 3.4.1.3. Awareness programs for teachers of Standard Italian ……………. 49 3.5. Chapter Summary ………………………………………………………………… 51 4 Italian Clitics and Word Order ….…………………………………………………….. 52 4.1. Clitics and clitic climbing in Standard Italian …………………………………... 52 4.2. Clitics and clitic climbing in Italian dialects …………………………………..... 55 4.3. Analysis of clitic climbing …………………………………................................ 57 4.4. Clitic placement in imperatives …………………………………....................... 60 4.4.1. Clitic placement in Standard Italian …………………………........................ 61 4.4.2. Clitic placement in regional Italian dialects …………………………………..67 4.4.3. The Null Modal approach …………………………………….……………….. 69 4.5. Chapter Summary ………………………………………………………………… 73 5 Acquisition of Clitics and Clitic Climbing ….……………………...………………….. 74 5.1. L1 Acquisition of clitics ………………………………….................................... 74 5.2. Heritage speakers’ Acquisition of clitics and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Attitudes Towards the Safeguarding of Minority Languages and Dialects in Modern Italy
    ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE SAFEGUARDING OF MINORITY LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS IN MODERN ITALY: The Cases of Sardinia and Sicily Maria Chiara La Sala Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds Department of Italian September 2004 This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. The candidate confirms that the work submitted is her own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. ABSTRACT The aim of this thesis is to assess attitudes of speakers towards their local or regional variety. Research in the field of sociolinguistics has shown that factors such as gender, age, place of residence, and social status affect linguistic behaviour and perception of local and regional varieties. This thesis consists of three main parts. In the first part the concept of language, minority language, and dialect is discussed; in the second part the official position towards local or regional varieties in Europe and in Italy is considered; in the third part attitudes of speakers towards actions aimed at safeguarding their local or regional varieties are analyzed. The conclusion offers a comparison of the results of the surveys and a discussion on how things may develop in the future. This thesis is carried out within the framework of the discipline of sociolinguistics. ii DEDICATION Ai miei figli Youcef e Amil che mi hanno distolto
    [Show full text]
  • Debunking Rhaeto-Romance: Synchronic Evidence from Two Peripheral Northern Italian Dialects
    A corrigendum relating to this article has been published at ht De Cia, S and Iubini-Hampton, J 2020 Debunking Rhaeto-Romance: Synchronic Evidence from Two Peripheral Northern Italian Dialects. Modern Languages Open, 2020(1): 7 pp. 1–18. DOI: https://doi. org/10.3828/mlo.v0i0.309 ARTICLE – LINGUISTICS Debunking Rhaeto-Romance: Synchronic tp://doi.org/10.3828/mlo.v0i0.358. Evidence from Two Peripheral Northern Italian Dialects Simone De Cia1 and Jessica Iubini-Hampton2 1 University of Manchester, GB 2 University of Liverpool, GB Corresponding author: Jessica Iubini-Hampton ([email protected]) tp://doi.org/10.3828/mlo.v0i0.358. This paper explores two peripheral Northern Italian dialects (NIDs), namely Lamonat and Frignanese, with respect to their genealogical linguistic classification. The two NIDs exhibit morpho-phonological and morpho-syntactic features that do not fall neatly into the Gallo-Italic sub-classification of Northern Italo-Romance, but resemble some of the core characteristics of the putative Rhaeto-Romance language family. This analysis of Lamonat and Frignanese reveals that their con- servative traits more closely relate to Rhaeto-Romance. The synchronic evidence from the two peripheral NIDs hence supports the argument against the unity and autonomy of Rhaeto-Romance as a language family, whereby the linguistic traits that distinguish Rhaeto-Romance within Northern Italo-Romance consist A corrigendum relating to this article has been published at ht of shared retentions rather than shared innovations, which were once common to virtually all NIDs. In this light, Rhaeto-Romance can be regarded as an array of conservative Gallo-Italic varieties.
    [Show full text]
  • Representations of Italian Americans in the Early Gilded Age
    Differentia: Review of Italian Thought Number 6 Combined Issue 6-7 Spring/Autumn Article 7 1994 From Italophilia to Italophobia: Representations of Italian Americans in the Early Gilded Age John Paul Russo Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.library.stonybrook.edu/differentia Recommended Citation Russo, John Paul (1994) "From Italophilia to Italophobia: Representations of Italian Americans in the Early Gilded Age," Differentia: Review of Italian Thought: Vol. 6 , Article 7. Available at: https://commons.library.stonybrook.edu/differentia/vol6/iss1/7 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Academic Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Differentia: Review of Italian Thought by an authorized editor of Academic Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. From ltalophilia to ltalophobia: Representations of Italian Americans in the Early Gilded Age John Paul Russo "Never before or since has American writing been so absorbed with the Italian as it is during the Gilded Age," writes Richard Brodhead. 1 The larger part of this American fascination expressed the desire for high culture and gentility, or what Brodhead calls the "aesthetic-touristic" attitude towards Italy; it resulted in a flood of travelogues, guidebooks, antiquarian stud­ ies, historical novels and poems, peaking at the turn of the centu­ ry and declining sharply after World War I. America's golden age of travel writing lasted from 1880 to 1914, and for many Americans the richest treasure of all was Italy. This essay, however, focuses upon Brodhead's other catego­ ry, the Italian immigrant as "alien-intruder": travel writing's gold­ en age corresponded exactly with the period of greatest Italian immigration to the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • What the Dialects Can Teach Us About Italian: the Case of Irpino
    What the Dialects Can Teach Us About Italian: The Case of Irpino Aniello De Santo Department of Linguistics Stony Brook University [email protected] Center for Italian Studies Feb 23, 2017 Italian Dialects Raddoppiamento Sintattico Irpino Experiments Language as a Tapestry Italian Dialects Raddoppiamento Sintattico Irpino Experiments Language as a Tapestry Italian Dialects Raddoppiamento Sintattico Irpino Experiments Outline 1 Why a study of Dialects? 2 Raddoppiamento Sintattico 3 The Irpino Dialect 4 Field Experiments Italian Dialects Raddoppiamento Sintattico Irpino Experiments Languages of Italy Image cc @ Wikipeda 2 Italian Dialects Raddoppiamento Sintattico Irpino Experiments Languages of Italy Table: From Sabatini, F. (1978) English Better an egg today than an hen tomorrow Standard Italian Meglio un uovo oggi che una gallina domani Friulan Mior un of ui che une gialine doman Piedmontese A l'e mej 'n euve ancheuj che na galin-a doman Emilian L'e mei un ov incu che la galeina edmeng Tuscan Megl'un ovo oggi he una gallina domani Corsican Medu ogji l'ou che dumane a jadina Romanesque Mejjo l'ovo oggi ch'a gallina domani Campanian Meglie ll'uove ogge c'a jalline rimane Salentine Megghiu i'd osce cca la caddina crai Calabrian Miegliu oje un 'uovu ca dumani ca dumani a gaddina Sicilian Megghiu oji un 'ovu ca rumani a jaddina Sardinian Menzus unu ou oje chi no una pudda crasa 3 Italian Dialects Raddoppiamento Sintattico Irpino Experiments Languages vs Dialects A common misconception Dialects are a corrupted version of the Standard
    [Show full text]
  • The Morphosyntax of Kinship Terms and Enclitic Possessive Constructions in the Dialect of Ardore Superiore
    THE MORPHOSYNTAX OF KINSHIP TERMS AND ENCLITIC POSSESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE DIALECT OF ARDORE SUPERIORE Sonia Masi University of Western Ontario Introduction From a linguistic point of view, Italy is considered one of the most heterogeneous and diverse countries in Europe, as there are still hundreds of regional, non-standard varieties spoken by over half of Italy’s population (Coluzzi 2009). These non-standard varieties (often inaccurately referred to as ‘Italian dialects’) are widely considered to be separate varieties from Standard Italian, despite the fact that they all descended from the Vulgar Latin spoken in Italy during the period of the Roman Empire (Clivio et al. 2011). Thus, it is unsurprising that they differ from one another and from Standard Italian with respect to certain morpho-syntactic phenomena. Significant variation among the dialects can be seen, for instance, in the area of possession, especially in the possession of inalienable nouns (Cardinaletti and Giusti 2018, Trionfera 2018, Ledgeway 2016, etc.). In the dialects spoken in northern Italy (roughly the regions of Valle D’Aosta, Piedmonte, Liguria, Lombardia, Emilia-Romagna, Veneto, Friuli-Venezia Giulia and Trentino-Alto Adige), pre- nominal possessive adjectives are generally used in the possession of kinship nouns, a subclass of inalienable nouns (Cardinaletti and Giusti 2018). Conversely, in the dialects spoken in southern Italy and in parts of central Italy (roughly the regions of Molise, Abruzzo, Campania, Basilicata, Apulia and Calabria), the use of enclitic possessives (henceforth EPs) is widespread and preferred over possessive adjectives in the possession of kinship nouns, especially with 1SG and 2SG possessors (Trionfera 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • Italian Courses Offered
    Department of Modern Languages Italian Courses 82-161 Elementary Italian I (fall) 12 units A two-semester course sequence (82-161, 82-162) for beginning students emphasizing the development of communicative language proficiency: oral practice, aural comprehension, reading, writing, structural analysis, and work with audio tapes and DVDs. Also a study of cultural aspects of Italy. The elementary level is designed to help students learn to reflect upon and draw upon strategies used by good language learners in their second language study. Note: Prerequisite: None. 82-162 Elementary Italian II (fall) 12 units A two-semester course sequence (82-161, 82-162). The elementary level is designed to help students learn to reflect upon and draw upon strategies used by good language learners in their second language study. Prerequisite: 82-161, 82-163 or approved equivalent. 82-163 Directed Language Study: Elementary Italian I or II (fall or spring) 12 units A self-paced version of 82-161/162, for highly-motivated students, capable of working independently. Weekly practice session, language laboratory work with audio and DVDs, periodic achievement tests, and individual consultation. Students are permitted to take only one semester of 82-163. Prerequisite: None. 82-261 Intermediate Italian I (fall) 9 units An integrated approach to the study of the Italian language and culture by means of grammar review, literary and cultural readings and analysis, and intensive practice in written and spoken Italian. This course explores definitions of culture and analyzes the dynamic role of language in culture and culture in language, with an aim to foster cross-cultural awareness and self-realization while developing proficiency in Italian.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Policy and Politics: the Central State and Linguistic Minorities in Spain and Italy, 1992-2010
    Language Policy and Politics: The Central State and Linguistic Minorities in Spain and Italy, 1992-2010 Naomi Amelia Stewart Wells Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds School of Modern Languages and Cultures July 2013 i The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his/her own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. © 2013 The University of Leeds and Naomi Amelia Stewart Wells The right of Naomi Amelia Stewart Wells to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. ii Acknowledgements I would like to first thank my supervisors, Professor Brian Richardson and Dr Angel Smith, for their invaluable help throughout my research, and for ensuring that the PhD process was both enjoyable and rewarding. Thank you to Brian for supervising me from MA to PhD and for his continued support throughout. I would also like to thank the University of Leeds for its generous funding and specifically the School of Modern Languages and Cultures. I am particularly grateful to Dr Gigliola Sulis and the staff in Italian for their academic and professional support. Fieldwork would not have been possible without the willing participation of the interviewees who generously gave up their often limited time. Particular thanks to Giuseppe Corongiu, José Manuel Pérez Fernández, Oskar Peterlini and Tiziana Sinesi for their additional assistance in locating sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Italian Language, Dialects and Foreign Languages Years 2015
    27 December 2017 Use of Italian language, dialects and foreign languages Years 2015 In 2015, 45.9% of people aged six years and over (about 26 million and 300 thousand individuals) used to speak more frequently in Italian at home, 32.2% used to speak both Italian and dialect. Only 14% (8 million 69 thousand people) used, instead, predominantly dialect. 6.9% is used to speak another language (approximately 4 million individuals, in 2006 there were around 2 million 800 thousand individuals). The spread of languages different from Italian and dialect in the family context recorded a significant increase, especially among people of 25-34 year-olds (from 3.7% in 2000, to 8.4% in 2006, to 12.1% % of 2015). At every age the exclusive use of dialect decreases, even among the oldest, among whom it continues to be a usual practice: in 2015, 32% of people aged 75 and over spoke exclusively or prevalently the dialect in the family (the same percentage was 37.1% in 2006). The prevalent use of dialect in their family and with friends was more common among people with low educational levels, even at the same age. 24.8% of those who carried out at most the middle school (or lower) dto speak almost exclusively the dialect in the family and 33.7% with the friends (against respectively 3.1% and 2.7% of those who hold the degree or a higher degree). In 2015, 90.4% of people aged 6 years and over was Italian mother tongue. Compared to 2006, the estimate of those who declared a foreign mother tongue increased (from 4.1% to 9.6% in 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • The Friulian Language
    The Friulian Language The Friulian Language: Identity, Migration, Culture Edited by Rosa Mucignat The Friulian Language: Identity, Migration, Culture Edited by Rosa Mucignat This book first published 2014 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2014 by Rosa Mucignat and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-5817-X, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5817-5 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Illustrations ................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments ................................................................................... viii Introduction ............................................................................................... ix Rosa Mucignat Part I: History and Status Chapter One ................................................................................................ 2 History, Language and Society in Friuli (Thirty Years Later) Fulvio Salimbeni Chapter Two ............................................................................................. 15 Laws for the Protection of the Friulian Language William Cisilino Part II: Language and Culture
    [Show full text]
  • 224 the New Language Invented by Italian
    224 THE NEW LANGUAGE INVENTED BY ITALIAN IMMIGRANTS IN AMERICA Italians who visit the United States, when they come in contact with the second or third generation of descendants of immigrants, are often puzzled, stunned and sometimes horrified by the language used by people they consider Italian like themselves. It is the same reaction experienced by the visitors, journalists and consular employees who arrived here decades ago. The language they heard was not Italian, was not a dialect of Italian and certainly was not English, but a hodge-podge that contained a bit of Italian and a bit of dialect (which varied with the geographical origin of the individual), built over a foundation of English pronounced the Italian way, with a rounded vowel at the end of each word. Examples: contrattore (contractor), tracca (track), picco (pick), grosseria (grocery), bordante (boarder). Their surprise grew when they found the written version of this lingo1 (often with many variations) in restaurant menus, classified ads in newspapers and even in official documents drafted by American authorities who wanted to make sure they were understood by Italian immigrants. A couple of examples are scalloppini (it should be scaloppine) and tailors of cotti (coats). The language of Italian Americans, therefore, is composed of a series of distortions of English more than the anglicization of Italian. This was clearly the result of an effort by a mass of poor, ignorant peasants who wanted to communicate with foreign-language workmates and the bosses their livelihood depended on. It wasn't a spontaneous, 1 The author uses the word gergo which normally is translated with jargon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Representation of Central-Southern Italian Dialects and African-American Vernacular English in Translation: Issues of Cultural Transfers and National Identity
    THE REPRESENTATION OF CENTRAL-SOUTHERN ITALIAN DIALECTS AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN VERNACULAR ENGLISH IN TRANSLATION: ISSUES OF CULTURAL TRANSFERS AND NATIONAL IDENTITY A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Adriana Di Biase August, 2015 © Copyright by Adriana Di Biase 2015 All Rights Reserved ii Dissertation written by Adriana Di Biase Ph.D., Kent State University – Kent, United States, 2015 M.A., Università degli Studi di Bari “Aldo Moro” – Bari, Italy, 2008 M.A., Scuola Superiore per Interpreti e Traduttori, Gregorio VII – Rome, Italy, 2002 B.A., Università degli Studi “Gabriele D’Annunzio” – Chieti-Pescara, Italy, 2000 Approved by ______________________________, Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Françoise Massardier-Kenney ______________________________, Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Brian J. Baer ______________________________, Carol Maier ______________________________, Gene R. Pendleton ______________________________, Babacar M’Baye Accepted by ______________________________, Chair, Modern and Classical Language Studies Keiran J. Dunne ______________________________, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences James L. Blank iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • English As a Dialect of Italian
    CHAPTER 1 English as a Dialect of Italian “We don’t speak Italian,” my mother used to say, “we speak dialect.” Everything we spoke, English included, was a dialect of Italian. We had a clear sense that we did not speak any national language at all. As far as we were concerned, national standard Italian was exactly what Dante had meant it to be when he first proposed it: an imperial tongue—that is, a language whose speakers were by definition cos- mopolitans. My grandparents were all immigrants, which means they were transnationals, to be sure, but no one would have called them cos- mopolitan. National standard Italian was a language for them to respect, to talk about, to read in the Italian papers, to hear on the radio, to tell us to learn, but not for them to speak. And as for English, that was another imperial tongue, and still something to conquer. “Learn English!” My mother was determined that we should master this lan- guage as well as possible. It was not something she thought we could take for granted. As a girl in school, she had felt much as Maria Mazz- iotti Gillan remembers feeling: Miss Wilson’s eyes, opaque As blue glass, fix on me: “We must speak English. We’re in America now.” I want to say, “I am American,” but the evidence is stacked against me. My mother scrubs my scalp raw, wraps My shining hair in white rags To make it curl. Miss Wilson drags me to the window, checks my hair for lice.
    [Show full text]