Cover not available
Part of
Focus on Additivity: Adverbial modifiers in Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages
Edited by Anna-Maria De Cesare and Cecilia Andorno
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 278] 2017
► pp. 265–310

Chapter 9
Additive relations in L2 French

Contrasting acquisitional trends of Italian and Russian learners

| Université Paris 8, CNRS UMR 7023 SFL
| Université de Lille, CNRS UMR 8163 STL
Our study compares the expression of additive relations in oral native (French, Italian, Russian) and non-native discourse (French L2), elicited with the same visual stimulus. On the basis of a comparative analysis of native productions, we argue that, in additive contexts, Russian clearly shares the discourse perspective attested in the two Romance languages. Our French L2 data have shown that both Russian and Italian groups seem to proceed by looking for similarities with respect to their L1, but learners of a closer typological language (Italian L1) rely longer on structures that are formally (or functionally) similar and assume more similarities than there actually are, in comparison to learners of typologically unrelated language (Russian L1), thus confirming the psycho-typology effects.
Keywords: additive relations, discourse perspective, French L2 acquisition, Russian L1, Italian L1, typological relatedness, cross-linguistic influence, aussi , tože , anche
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Additive particles and discourse perspective: Some cross-linguistic differences
    • 2.2Previous research on the L2 acquisition of additive particles
  • 3.The present study
    • 3.1Objectives and participants
    • 3.2 The task: The Finite Story and its additive contexts
    • 3.3Procedure
  • 4.Additive relations in native speakers’ narratives
    • 4.1Proportion of markings and linguistic repertoire
    • 4.2Structural integration of the additive particles in the utterance
    • 4.3Comparative remarks on native productions and hypothesis on French L2 acquisition
  • 5.Additive relations in French L2
    • 5.1Proportion of markings
    • 5.2Linguistic repertoire
      • 5.2.1Italian L1–French L2: Linguistic means used
      • 5.2.2Russian L1–French L2: Linguistic means used
    • 5.3Structural integration of additive items in French L2
    • 5.4Summary and discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 August 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.278.09ben
References (42)
References
Andorno, Cecilia. 2000. Focalizzatori fra connessione e messa a fuoco. Il caso delle varietà d‘apprendimento. Milano: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Additive and restrictive particles in Italian as a Second Language. Embedding in the verbal utterance structure”. In The Structure of Learner Varieties, ed. by Henriëtte Hendriks, 405–460. Berlin: Mouton-DeGruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Accordo di genere e animatezza nell‘uso del sistema pronominale italiano: ipotesi per uno studio”. In Linguaggio e genere, ed. by Silvia Luraghi, and Anna Olita, 124–154. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Andorno, Cecilia, and Maria Grazia Interlandi. 2010. “Topics? Positional and prosodic features of Subjects in additive sentences in Italian L1”. In Topic, struttura dell’informazione e acquisizione linguistica, ed. by Marina Chini, 73–93. Milano: Francoangeli.Google Scholar
Andorno, Cecilia, and Giuseppina Turco. 2015. “Embedding Additive Particles in the sentence information structure: How L2 learners find their way through positional and prosodic patterns”. Linguistik Online 71/2, 57–79.Google Scholar
Becker, Angelika, and Rainer Dietrich. 1996. “The acquisition of scope in L2 German”. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 104, 115–140.Google Scholar
Benazzo, Sandra. 2000. L‘acquisition de particules de portée en français, anglais et allemand L2. Etudes longitudinales comparées. Unpublished PhD thesis. Université Paris 8 / Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Communicative potential vs. structural constraints: Explanatory factors for the acquisition of Scope Particles”. In Eurosla Yearbook 2, ed. by Susan Foster-Cohen, Tanja Ruthenberg, and Marie Louise Poschen, 187–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Le développement des lectes d’apprenants et l’acquisition de la portée à distance en L2”. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangère 23: 65–93.Google Scholar
Benazzo, Sandra, and Cecilia Andorno. 2010. “Discourse cohesion and Topic discontinuity in native and learner production: Changing Topic entities on maintained predicates”. In Eurosla Yearbook 10, ed. by Leah Roberts, Martin Howard, Muiris O‘Laoire, and David Singleton, 92–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Is it really easier to acquire a close-related language ? A study on the expression of iteration and continuity in French L2”. In The Expression of Temporality in L2 French and English, ed. by Martin Howard, and Pascale Leclercq, 105–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Benazzo, Sandra, Cecilia Andorno, Grazia Interlandi, and Cédric Patin. 2012. “Perspective discursive et influence translinguistique : exprimer le contraste d’entité en français et en italien L2”. Language, Interaction & Acquisition 3/2: 173–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benazzo, Sandra, and Christine Dimroth. 2015. “Additive Particles in Germanic and Romance Languages: are They Really Similar?”. Linguistik Online 71/2: 29–50.Google Scholar
Benazzo, Sandra, Christine Dimroth, Clive Perdue, and Marzena Watorek. 2004. “Le rôle des particules additives dans la construction de la cohésion discursive en langue maternelle et en langue étrangère”. Langages 155: 76–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal, Peter. 1985. “aussi et auch: deux faux amis?”. Französisch Heute 2: 144–150.Google Scholar
Carroll, Mary, and Monique Lambert. 2003. “Information structure in narratives and the role of grammaticised knowledge. A study of adult French and German learners of English”. In Information Structure and the Dynamics of Language Acquisition, ed. by Christine Dimroth, and Marianne Starren, 267–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Osten. 1969. Topic and Focus: A Study in Russian and General Transformational Grammar. Gotebörg: Elandres Botryckeri.Google Scholar
De Cesare, Anna Maria. 2015. “Additive Focus Adverbs in canonical word orders. A corpus-based study on It. anche, Fr. aussi and E. also in written texts”. Linguistik Online 71/2: 29–54.Google Scholar
Dimroth, Christine. 2002. “Topics, assertions, and additive words: How L2 learners get from information structure to target-language syntax”. Linguistics 40/4: 891–923.Google Scholar
. 2006. The Finite Story. Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics. [URL].
Dimroth, Christine, Cecilia Andorno, Sandra Benazzo, and Josje Verhagen. 2010. “Given claims about new Topics. How Romance and Germanic speakers link changed and maintained information in narrative discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 42/12: 3328–3344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimroth, Christine, and Sandra Benazzo. In press. “Developing strategies for encoding additive and contrastive relations in French and German child narratives”. In Focus Realization and Interpretation in Romance and Beyond, ed. by Marco García, and Melanie Uth. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dimroth, Christine, and Norbert Dittmar. 1998. “Auf der Suche nach Steuerungsfaktoren für den Erwerb von Fokuspartikeln: Längsschnittbeobachtungen am Beispiel polnischer und italienischer Lerner des Deutschen”. In Eine zweite Sprache Lernen ed. by Heide Wegener, 217–239. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker, and Johann van der Auwera. 2011. “Scalar Additive Operators in the languages of Europe”. Language 87: 2–54.Google Scholar
Giacomi, Alain, Nathalie Meyfren, Henriette Stoffel, Hélène Tissot, and Daniel Véronique. 2000. “Grammaire et discours en L2 : l’appropriation des phénomènes de portée en français par des arabophones”. In Appropriation du français par des Marocains arabophones à Marseille, ed. by Alain Giacomi, Henriette Stoffel, and Daniel Véronique, 245–269. Aix en Provence: Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott, and Aneta Pavlenko. 2007. Cross-linguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kellerman, Eric. 1977. “Towards a characterisation of the strategy of transfer in second language learning”. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 21: 58–145.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles. A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang, and Clive Perdue. 1997. “The Basic Variety”. Second Language Research 13/4: 301–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murcia-Serra, Jorge. 2003. “Acquiring linkage between syntactic, semantic and informational roles in narratives by Spanish learners of German”. In Information Structure and the Dynamics of Language Acquisition, ed. by Christine Dimroth, and Marianne Starren, 289–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nølke, Henning. 1983. Les adverbes paradigmatisants. Fonction et analyse. Copenhague: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
. 2001. Le regard du locuteur, Vol.2. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
Padučeva, Elena Viktorovna 1974/2009. “Tože i takže: vzaimootnošenie aktual’nogo členenija i associativnyx svjazej”. In Stat’i raznyx let, 250–259. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Perdue, Clive, Sandra Benazzo, and Patrizia Giuliano. 2002. “When finiteness gets marked: The relation between morphosyntactic development and use of scopal items in adult language acquisition”. Linguistics 40/4 : 849–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perrin-Naffakh, Anne Marie. 1996. “Aussi adjonctif : de la syntaxe à la sémantique”. Le Français Moderne 64/2: 136–154.Google Scholar
Ricca, Davide. 1999. “Osservazioni preliminari sui focalizzatori in italiano”. In Grammatik und Diskurs / Grammatica e Discorso, Studi sull‘acquisizione dell‘italiano e del tedesco / Studien zum Erwerb des Deutschen und des Italienischen, ed. by Norbert Dittmar, and Anna Giacalone Ramat, 145–163. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Linguistik.Google Scholar
Ringbom, Hakan, and Scott Jarvis. 2009. “The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning”. In The Handbook of Language Teaching, ed. by Michael H. Long, and Catherine Doughty, 106–118. London: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanell, Anna. 2007. Parcours acquisitionnel de la négation et de quelques particules de portée en français L2. Stockholm: Cahiers de la recherche 35.Google Scholar
Uryson, Elena Vladimirovna. 2005. “Materialy k opisaniju russkogo slova i”. In Jazyk, ličnost’, tekst, ed. by Vladimir Nikolaevitch Toporov, 374–390. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Véronique, Daniel. 2012. “The acquisition of Additive Scope Particles by Moroccan Arabic L1 learners of French”. Language Interaction Acquisition 3/1: 115–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watorek, Marzena, and Clive Perdue. 1999. “Additive Particles and Focus: Observations from learner and native-speaker production”. Linguistics 37/2: 297–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeevat, Henk, and Katia Jasinskaja. 2007. “‘And’ as an Additive Particle”. In Language, Representation and Reasoning, ed. by Michel Aurnague, Kepa Korta, and Jesus Mari Larrazabal, 315–340. Bilbao: University of the Basque Country Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Thörle, Britta
2020. « Et le chien aussi i’ regarde ». Language, Interaction and Acquisition 11:2 ► pp. 298 ff. DOI logo
Patin, Cédric & Sandra Benazzo
2018. La prosodie joue-t-elle un rôle dans la détermination de la portée ? Le cas d’ également. Revue française de linguistique appliquée Vol. XXIII:1 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.