In this work we attempt a systematic evaluation of the usage of minimal pairs to favor natural language acquisition. The method under analysis is the Logogenia method (Radelli 1998): under this approach, working activities are totally based on written interactions during which the operators prompt the children with pairs of linguistic expressions minimally different for just one specific morphosyntactic aspect (inducing semantic/pragmatic substantial differences) under study. Such a minimal pair methodology is used to form commands (e.g. “colorala!” color+clobj_fem vs “coloralo!” color+clobj_mas) and grammaticality judgments (e.g. “l’ho colorato il naso” (I) clobj_mas have colored the nose vs “gli ho colorato il naso” (I) cldat_mas have colored the nose); the relevant oppositions might be modifications of the morphosyntactic form (as in the examples before), substitutions (Gianni ha/è una penna, G. has/is a pen) and absence/presence of a relevant functional item (Lo zio (di) Gianni, the uncle (of) G.). No explicit grammatical rule/discussion is provided to the children during each working session; only a yes/no feedback on his/her performance is delivered by the operator.

Minimal pairs as triggers for clitics acquisition in hearing-impaired children

Cristiano Chesi
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
;
Giorgia Ghersi
Writing – Review & Editing
;
2019

Abstract

In this work we attempt a systematic evaluation of the usage of minimal pairs to favor natural language acquisition. The method under analysis is the Logogenia method (Radelli 1998): under this approach, working activities are totally based on written interactions during which the operators prompt the children with pairs of linguistic expressions minimally different for just one specific morphosyntactic aspect (inducing semantic/pragmatic substantial differences) under study. Such a minimal pair methodology is used to form commands (e.g. “colorala!” color+clobj_fem vs “coloralo!” color+clobj_mas) and grammaticality judgments (e.g. “l’ho colorato il naso” (I) clobj_mas have colored the nose vs “gli ho colorato il naso” (I) cldat_mas have colored the nose); the relevant oppositions might be modifications of the morphosyntactic form (as in the examples before), substitutions (Gianni ha/è una penna, G. has/is a pen) and absence/presence of a relevant functional item (Lo zio (di) Gianni, the uncle (of) G.). No explicit grammatical rule/discussion is provided to the children during each working session; only a yes/no feedback on his/her performance is delivered by the operator.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12076/5782
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact