Vol. 5 No. 1 (2018)

Strategie discorsive in spagnolo L1 ed L2 a confronto: un’indagine su corpora dialogici

Iolanda Alfano
Università di Salerno
Renata Savy
Università di Salerno
Simona Sbranna
Università di Salerno
Loredana Schettino
Università di Salerno
Published October 10, 2018




According to previous studies on L1 Italian and Spanish, speakers prefer different pragmatic strategies and adopt specific pragmatic patterns to express their attention to the interlocutor. This study deals with communicative strategies used in dialogic speech in L1 and L2 Spanish considering both textual structure and interaction between the two interlocutors. More in detail, the aim of this research is to analyse how speakers introduce and manage Discourse Topics in order to compare the behaviour of native and non-native Spanish speakers. The study examines two corpora of task-oriented dialogues, the corpus DiESPA, of Peninsular Spanish L1 ?collected in different geographic areas? and the corpus DiELE-(I), of Spanish L2 –collected in the University of Salerno with Italian learners of a CEFR level B2-C1. The analysis of Discourse Topics introduction and management allows defining crucial textual characteristics and defining speakers’ attitudes towards interlocutors. From a qualitative and a quantitative analysis, which examines the percentage of occurrences of pragmatic moves used by native and non-native speakers, it emerges that differences in native speakers and L2 learners’ strategic choices used to complete the task are due to their limited linguistic competence, especially grammatical and lexical, rather than to pragmatic and cultural factors.


Anderson, A.H., Bader, M., Bard, E.G., Boyle, E., Doherty, G., Garrod, S., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., McAllister, J., Miller, J., Sotillo, C., Thompson, H.S. & Weinert, R. 1991. The HCRC Map Task Corpus. Language and Speech 34: 351-366.

Asher, N. 2004. Discourse topic. Theoretical Linguistics 20: 163-201.

Author 2010

Authors 2008

Authors 2009

Authors 2012

Authors in press

Bazzanella, C. 2002. Sul dialogo. Contesti e forme di interazione verbale. Milano: Guerini e associati.

Bazzanella, C. 2015. Dimensione interculturale e prospettiva pragmatica della lingua. Alcune riflessioni tra teoria e applicazione. Segno 2, 11-16.

Beyssade, C. & Marandin, J. 2002. Topic marking, discourse topic and discourse moves, in Bende Farkas A., Workshop on Information Structure in Context, Stuttgart, Germany.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Büring, D. 1997. The meaning of topic and focus: the 59th street bridge accent, London: Routledge.

Carletta, J., Isard, A., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., Doherty-Sneddon, G. & Anderson, A.H. 1996. HCRC Dialogue structure coding manual. Technical Report, 82. Human Communication Research Center, University of Edinburgh.

Carletta, J., Isard, A., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., Doherty-Sneddon, G. & Anderson, A.H. 1997. The reliability of a dialogue structure coding scheme. Computational Linguistics 23(1): 13-32.

Cerrato, L. 2007. Sulle tecniche di elicitazione di parlato semispontaneo. Technical Report, progetto CLIPS. http://www.clips.unina.it (accessed February 20, 2018).

Chang, V. 2007. A Cognitive-pragmatic Approach to Discourse Topic: A Cross-linguistic Analysis and Universal Account. Journal of Universal Language 8(1): 1-21.

Chini, M. (Ed) 2010. Topic, struttura dell’informazione e acquisizione linguistica. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

De Leo, S. 2008. La struttura topicale in dialoghi task-oriented. In M. Voghera (ed), Testi e linguaggi, Roma: Carocci, 105-129.

Gundel, J. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In M.Hammond, E. Moravcsik & J. Wirth (eds), Studies in syntactic typology, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 209-239.

Gundel, J. 2003. Information structure and referential givenness/newness. How much belongs in the grammar?. Journal of Cognitive Science 4: 177-199.

Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274-307.

House, J. 2006. Communicative styles in English and German. European Journal of English Studies 10(3): 249-267.

Isard, A. & Carletta, J. 1995. Transaction and action coding in the Map Task Corpus. Research Paper HCRC/RP-65.

Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lambrecht, K. & Michaelis, L. 1998. Sentence accent in information questions: default and projection. Linguistics & Philosophy 21(5): 477-544.

Malouf, R. 1995. Towards an analysis of multi-party discourse, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi= (accessed Genuary 3, 2016).

Péan, V., Williams, S. & Eskenazy, M. 1993. The design and recording of ICY, a corpus for the study of intraspeaker variability and the characterisation of speaking styles. Eurospeech ‘93, 3rd European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Berlin, Germany, September 22-25, 627-630.

Prévot, L. 2001. Topic structure in route explanation dialogues. Proceedings of the workshop: Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse Semantics of the 13th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information, University of Helsinki, Finland, 145-159.

Roberts, C. 1996. Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics. In J. H Yoon. & A. Kathol (eds), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49, Papers in Semantics, Ohio State University, Columbus, 91-136.

Sinclair, J.M. & Coulthard, M. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

van Kuppevelt, J. 1995. Discourse structure, topicality, and questioning. Journal of Linguistics 31: 109-47.

Weigand, E. & Dascal, M. 2001. Negotiation and Power in dialogic interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.