Read more about comparing languages
Linguistic comparison
Linguistic comparison valorizes the plurilingual repertoire of the class group and develops metalinguistic reflection capability: children are encouraged to reflect on how their own languages and those of their companions function through comparing the different languages, their sounds and pronunciations, writing systems, linguistic structures, highlighting similarities and differences.
This process ensures that, by discussing concrete examples, the children acquire fundamental skills for language learning and study.
Comparison processes can involve all levels of linguistic structuring.
For example:
• It may be interesting to note that alphabets have very different characteristics from one language to another: individual signs (or letters) do not always correspond to a sound (as they do in English, Italian, Spanish, ...); there are alphabets where each sign corresponds to an entire word (for example, in Chinese).
• On the semantic and lexical level, comparison highlights how there is not always a "precise" translation of words betwen languages. Sometimes the meaning of the two words can partially differ. An example: in English there is no a single word for the Italian “azzurro”; so we must use the "nearest" word: “blue”, qualifying it with the adjective “light” to modify its semantics (azzurro = light blue).
• On the morphological plane, comparison can show how the same meaning can be conveyed in a synthetic way (i.e. using a single word) or analytically (i.e. using multiple words). For example, in Western Greenlandic, the phrase "he is at home" can be translated into one word, "illuminiippuq".
Another interesting example for comparison is Arabic. Unlike what happens in many languages (eg Italian and English, ...), to make a singular word plural in Arabic, the final part of the word is not changed (eg. libro → libri, book → books) but the word changes "internally": the singular KITAB, changes vowels to become KUTUB.
• Concerning syntax, comparing different languages shows how words can be placed in different orders in different language phrases. For example, in Italian and English the most frequent way of arranging words in the subject subject-verb-object (Gianni eats the apple). In many languages, however, such Turkish in Pashtu, the most widespread order is subject- object-verb (Gianni the apple eats). In other languages (less common), such standard Arabic, the verb is placed at the beginning and the most frequent order is the verb-subject-object (Mangia Gianni la mela).
Furthermore, linguistic comparison favors awareness of the relativity of some linguistic categories. Each of us tends to unconsciously think that the characteristics of our mother tongue are present in all languages, but this is not the case. A good example is gender: Italian speakers know that a language can have two genders (i.e. masculine and feminine). Comparison with other nearby languages shows there is one more gender, the neutral one (i.e. in English, German and Romanian for example). By expanding the range of comparison, we can see that many languages do not have gender (e.g. Turkish and Vietnamese), that some even have four (e.g. Dyirbal, an Australian aboriginal language) or even more ways (e.g. Fula, a West African language) to express the gender category. Furthermore, we can note that in some languages, the attribution of gender to words has no connection with (or is not only determined by) the values masculine and feminine, but is linked to other semantic criteria. For example, in the Dyirbal language, words are classified in 4 genders according to these semantic criteria:
Gender I: human males, animated non-human beings
Gender II: human females, water, fire, things related to combat
Gender III: food (except meat)
Gender IV: everything else
References:
Theoretical Sources (linguistic comparison, linguistic typology, acquisitive linguistics, language teaching):
o General comparison framework:
o Arcodia, G. F. e C. Mauri, 2016, La diversità linguistica, Roma, Carocci.
o Masini, F. e N. Grandi, 2017, Tutto ciò che hai sempre voluto sapere sul linguaggio e sulle lingue, Bologna, Caissa Italia.
o Language teaching:
o Berretta, M., 1984, “La competenza metalinguistica nella scuola di base”. In: AA. VV., L’educazione linguistica dalla scuola di base al biennio della superiore, Edizioni scolastiche B. Mondandori, Milano (pp. 148-161).
o Bettoni, C., 2001, Imparare un’altra lingua. Lezione di linguistica applicata, Bari, Laterza.
o Chini, M., 2005, Che cos’è la linguistica acquisizionale, Roma, Carocci.
o Chini, M., 2014, Fondamenti di glottodidattica. Apprendere e insegnare le lingue oggi, Roma, Carocci.
o Robinson, P., 2002, “Attention and memory”. In: Doughty, C. e M. Long (a cura di), Secondo language acquisition. Theory and research, Blackwell, Oxford (pp. 631-678).
o Sordella, S. e C. M. Andorno, 2017, “Esplorare le lingue in classe. Strumenti e risorse per un laboratorio di ‘éveil aux langues’ nella scuola primaria”. In: Italiano lingua due 2(2017), https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/promoitals/article/view/9875.
o Tomlin, R. S. e V. Villa, 1994, “Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition”. In: Studies in second language acquisition 16 (pp. 183-203).
o Vedovelli, M., 1990, “Competenza metalinguistica e formazione del sistema temporale dell’italiano L2”. In: Bernini, G. e A. Giacalone Ramat (a cura di), La temporalità nell’acquisizione di lingue seconde, Milano, Franco Angeli (pp. 177-198).
Sources to support activities:
o www.wals.info (qui però i contenuti forse sono troppo complicati, alcune mappe però possono essere interessanti anche a un livello più “ingenuo”)
| Site: | Isotis |
| Course: | Promoting multilingualism in the classroom |
| Book: | Read more about comparing languages |
| Printed by: | Guest user |
| Date: | Saturday, 22 February 2025, 11:52 PM |
1. Linguistic comparison
Linguistic comparison valorizes the plurilingual repertoire of the class group and develops metalinguistic reflection capability: children are encouraged to reflect on how their own languages and those of their companions function through comparing the different languages, their sounds and pronunciations, writing systems, linguistic structures, highlighting similarities and differences.
This process ensures that, by discussing concrete examples, the children acquire fundamental skills for language learning and study.
2. About comparison processes
Comparison processes can involve all levels of linguistic structuring.
For example:
• It may be interesting to note that alphabets have very different characteristics from one language to another: individual signs (or letters) do not always correspond to a sound (as they do in English, Italian, Spanish, ...); there are alphabets where each sign corresponds to an entire word (for example, in Chinese).
• On the semantic and lexical level, comparison highlights how there is not always a "precise" translation of words betwen languages. Sometimes the meaning of the two words can partially differ. An example: in English there is no a single word for the Italian “azzurro”; so we must use the "nearest" word: “blue”, qualifying it with the adjective “light” to modify its semantics (azzurro = light blue).
• On the morphological plane, comparison can show how the same meaning can be conveyed in a synthetic way (i.e. using a single word) or analytically (i.e. using multiple words). For example, in Western Greenlandic, the phrase "he is at home" can be translated into one word, "illuminiippuq".
Another interesting example for comparison is Arabic. Unlike what happens in many languages (eg Italian and English, ...), to make a singular word plural in Arabic, the final part of the word is not changed (eg. libro → libri, book → books) but the word changes "internally": the singular KITAB, changes vowels to become KUTUB.
• Concerning syntax, comparing different languages shows how words can be placed in different orders in different language phrases. For example, in Italian and English the most frequent way of arranging words in the subject subject-verb-object (Gianni eats the apple). In many languages, however, such Turkish in Pashtu, the most widespread order is subject- object-verb (Gianni the apple eats). In other languages (less common), such standard Arabic, the verb is placed at the beginning and the most frequent order is the verb-subject-object (Mangia Gianni la mela).
3. Linguistic comparison and the awareness of the relativity of linguistic categories
Furthermore, linguistic comparison favors awareness of the relativity of some linguistic categories. Each of us tends to unconsciously think that the characteristics of our mother tongue are present in all languages, but this is not the case. A good example is gender: Italian speakers know that a language can have two genders (i.e. masculine and feminine). Comparison with other nearby languages shows there is one more gender, the neutral one (i.e. in English, German and Romanian for example). By expanding the range of comparison, we can see that many languages do not have gender (e.g. Turkish and Vietnamese), that some even have four (e.g. Dyirbal, an Australian aboriginal language) or even more ways (e.g. Fula, a West African language) to express the gender category. Furthermore, we can note that in some languages, the attribution of gender to words has no connection with (or is not only determined by) the values masculine and feminine, but is linked to other semantic criteria. For example, in the Dyirbal language, words are classified in 4 genders according to these semantic criteria:
Gender I: human males, animated non-human beings
Gender II: human females, water, fire, things related to combat
Gender III: food (except meat)
Gender IV: everything else
4. References and sources to support activities
Theoretical Sources (linguistic comparison, linguistic typology, acquisitive linguistics, language teaching):
o General comparison framework:
o Arcodia, G. F. e C. Mauri, 2016, La diversità linguistica, Roma, Carocci.
o Masini, F. e N. Grandi, 2017, Tutto ciò che hai sempre voluto sapere sul linguaggio e sulle lingue, Bologna, Caissa Italia.
o Language teaching:
o Berretta, M., 1984, “La competenza metalinguistica nella scuola di base”. In: AA. VV., L’educazione linguistica dalla scuola di base al biennio della superiore, Edizioni scolastiche B. Mondandori, Milano (pp. 148-161).
o Bettoni, C., 2001, Imparare un’altra lingua. Lezione di linguistica applicata, Bari, Laterza.
o Chini, M., 2005, Che cos’è la linguistica acquisizionale, Roma, Carocci.
o Chini, M., 2014, Fondamenti di glottodidattica. Apprendere e insegnare le lingue oggi, Roma, Carocci.
o Robinson, P., 2002, “Attention and memory”. In: Doughty, C. e M. Long (a cura di), Secondo language acquisition. Theory and research, Blackwell, Oxford (pp. 631-678).
o Sordella, S. e C. M. Andorno, 2017, “Esplorare le lingue in classe. Strumenti e risorse per un laboratorio di ‘éveil aux langues’ nella scuola primaria”. In: Italiano lingua due 2(2017), https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/promoitals/article/view/9875.
o Tomlin, R. S. e V. Villa, 1994, “Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition”. In: Studies in second language acquisition 16 (pp. 183-203).
o Vedovelli, M., 1990, “Competenza metalinguistica e formazione del sistema temporale dell’italiano L2”. In: Bernini, G. e A. Giacalone Ramat (a cura di), La temporalità nell’acquisizione di lingue seconde, Milano, Franco Angeli (pp. 177-198).
Sources to support activities:
o www.wals.info (qui però i contenuti forse sono troppo complicati, alcune mappe però possono essere interessanti anche a un livello più “ingenuo”)