Primerjalna študija o besedotvorju in morfološkem procesiranju besedotvornih pripon pri enojezičnih italijanskih in dvojezičnih slovensko-italijanskih govorcih

Chissich, Roberta (author), Manouilidou, Christina (mentor)

Študija raziskuje procesiranje besedotvornih pripon pri eno- in dvojezičnih italijanskih govorcih. Da bi lahko obravnavali prepoznavanje jezikovnih struktur, ki so manjše od besed moramo domnevati, da lahko besede razgradimo na manjše dele. Predpostavljati moramo torej morfološko dekompozicijo, tj. proces razgradnje besede na (potencialne) morfeme. Svoje hipoteze smo zasnovali na dveh osnovnih predpostavkah. Naša prva predpostavka je bila, da lahko besede morfološko razgradimo, npr. na koren in dve besedotvorni priponi. Na osnovi tega bomo zapisali zaporedje pripon kot binarne kombinacije tipa SUFF1-SUFF2. Druga predpostavka je bila, da se vse pripone, čeprav so v različnih jezikih organizirane na različne načine, obnašajo na točno določen oziroma na predvidljiv način (Bagasheva in Manova 2013; Manova 2011, 2015; Manova in Talamo 2015). V raziskavi nas je zanimalo, ali imajo govorci implicitno znanje o mogočih in nemogočih zaporedjih priponskih obrazil. Da bi lahko odgovorili na to vprašanje, moramo uvesti pojem mentalnega slovarja (angl. mental lexicon). Kot so namreč že nakazale predhodne študije v drugih jezikih (Brzoza in Manova 2015; Medvešek in Manova, 2017; Manova 2015a), smo tudi v tej študiji pričakovali, da bodo imeli italijanski enojezični govorci v primerjavi z večjezičnimi govorci bistveno boljše znanje o tem, ali določeno zaporedje pripon obstaja. Če bi ta napoved držala, bo razlika med eno- in dvojezičnimi govorci potencialna motivacija za pričakovane razlike. V eksperiment je prostovoljno sodelovalo 54 udeležencev (med temi je bila italijanščina materni jezik ali so bili slovensko-italijansko dvojezični udeležencev, 17 žensk in 3 moške, ki so bili povprečno stari 37 let (M = 37,25; SD = 13,72). Šlo je za pripadniki slovenske manjšine iz Trsta in okolice). Naša hipoteza je bila torej, da je dvojezičnost relevanten faktor pri prepoznavanju priponskih zaporedij, zato smo se ob napakah, ki jih je naredil vsak dvojezični udeleženec, vprašali, ali obstaja kakršna koli povezava z dejstvom, da so udeleženci dvojezični govorci. Hkrati nas je zanimalo, kako pomembna je aktivna raba italijanščine, tj. ali je bila dvojezična oseba, ki pozna in vsak dan aktivno uporablja oba jezika – pa čeprav bi to pomenilo, da uporablja italijanščino v manjši meri od enojezičnih udeležencev – pri nalogi manj natančna. Trenutno zbrani rezultati kažejo, da sta obe skupini skoraj enako uspešni pri prepoznavanju obstoječih kombinacij (približno 2% razlike), dvojezični govorci pa imajo več težav pri razlikovanju neobstoječih kombinacij (skoraj 4%), kar bi lahko razložil tako učinek pogostosti kot tudi »količina« rabe jezika. Zaenkrat se rezultati študije skladajo z našimi hipotezami.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: morfološka dekompozicija
• Work type: Master's thesis/paper
• Typology: 2.09 - Master's Thesis
• Organization: PEF - Faculty of Education
• Year: 2021
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-127986
• COBISS.SI-ID: 64736259
• Publication date in RUL: 17.08.2021

Secondary language

• Language: English
• Title: A comparative study of word formations and morphological processing in Italian native speakers and Italian-Slovenian bilinguals

Abstract

The central aim of this study is to investigate the processing of derivational suffixes in the Italian language by using the combination of two suffixes (SUFF1 and SUFF2) we investigated how accurate Italian monolinguals and Italian-Slovenian bilinguals can be when dealing with derivational suffixes. In other words, whether they are capable to successfully distinguish between non-existing and existing combinations of suffixes; and whether there is a difference in accuracy between monolinguals and bilinguals. We based our hypotheses on two underlying assumptions. First, suffix order is handled as binary combinations of SUFF1-SUFF2 type, depending on their position to the root morpheme (Manova, 2015; Brzoza & Manova, 2015). Second, although it seems that suffixes are not organized in the same way throughout different languages, it is understood that SUFF1 relates to SUFF2 in a fixed or predictable way (Manova, 2011, 2015; Brzoza & Manova, 2015). A combination is fixed, when a SUFF1 can combine with only one particular SUFF2 within a major lexical category (noun, adjective, verb); as it is, for example, with the Italian SUFF1 -ific(are) and SUFF2 -bil(e). It is predictable, if a SUFF1 can combine with more than one SUFF2, but only one SUFF2 by default derives a majority of words in a major lexical category; as it is, for example, with the SUFF1 -ific(are) and SUFF2 - zion(e). Our two hypotheses about native speakers’ intuition on the derivational suffixes are that if SUFF1 is fixed, i.e. tends to combine with only one SUFF2 +, speakers should know them intuitively. And if so, they should also differentiate with a higher accuracy between existing and non-existing combinations, and also between productive and unproductive combinations. In order to examine this, native-speaking Italian participants were asked to decide whether standalone SUFF1-SUFF2 type combinations exist or not in a psycholinguistic experiment using a lexical decision task. This experiment was conducted with 30 native Italian participants and 24 Italian-Slovenian bilinguals. 30 existing and 30 non-existing suffix combinations were selected for the testing (based on Medvešek & Manova, 2017). The accuracy of their categorization was examined according to the productivity and fixed status of the existing suffix combinations. By investigating monolingual and bilingual speakers’ intrinsic knowledge on existing and non-existing combinations, we expected they would be more accurate in recognizing productive existing combinations than unproductive existing or non-existing. As the results showed, both Italian native speakers and Italian-Slovenian bilinguals could intuitively distinguish between existing and non-existing suffix combinations, and they were better at recognizing productive combinations, affirming the hypotheses.

• Keywords: derivational suffix