Address pronouns in Italian CMC exchanges: a "good example" for L2 learners?
Rebelos, Margareta ; Strambi, Antonella
1. Introduction
Selecting the appropriate form of address when interacting with
Italian native speakers is among the many concerns of second language
(L2) learners, who, in addition to overcoming linguistic difficulties,
face the problem of getting to know and understand sociopragmatic norms
(Thomas, 1983) regulating interaction in the target language and
culture.
Unfortunately, the pedagogical materials and grammars available to
L2 learners often do not provide sufficient information concerning this
topic, partly because they tend to overlook pragmatic aspects in
general, and partly due to the complexity of norms regulating address
pronoun choice (Danesi & Lettieri, 1983; Musumeci, 1991; Nuessel,
1995; Belz & Kinginger, 2002; Parkinson & Hajek 2004).
On the other hand, according to Kasper (1997), pragmatic competence
is best developed through learners' exposure to a variety of
naturalistic data, and through active engagement in observation,
inferencing and hypothesis testing (see also Balboni, 1999). However,
classroom interaction offers limited opportunities to observe and select
appropriate address forms in authentic settings (Musumeci, 1991).
Information technology, and especially Computer-Mediated
Communication (CMC) can facilitate either direct interaction with native
speakers (NS) or observation of NS-NS interactions in a variety of
contexts, since geographical distance and time differences are easily
overcome. Furthermore, CMC interactions leave a written record that can
be accessed for analysis purposes.
Several studies have indeed suggested that CMC can provide learners
with opportunities to develop communicative skills in the target
language (for Italian, see e.g. Negretti, 1999; Tudini, 2002, 2003,
2004). However, research on the potential role of CMC in promoting
learners' understanding of norms regulating address pronoun choice
in Italian is scarce. It is not known, for example, whether there is a
high incidence of explicit pronouns in CMC texts, and whether formal
pronouns are used at all, given the widely recognised informality of
much CMC communication, as will be further discussed below.
In this study, we examine address pronoun selection and use by NS
of Italian in the context of CMC, through analyses of a small corpus of
on-line interactions recorded from both synchronous and
asynchronous media. Our aim is to evaluate the potential contribution of
CMC to the process of development of learners' sociopragmatic
competence in the area of personal address in Italian.
2. Personal address in Italian
The Italian address system presents a linguistic dimension, which
is the set of morphosyntactic rules concerning person pronouns and verb
forms associated with them, and a sociolinguistic dimension, which
includes the 'social behaviour' rules agreed on by the
linguistic community (Musumeci, 1991).
As Renzi (1995) explains, pronouns are not always expressed
phonetically in Italian, but are inherent in the verb conjugation, in
the form of a suffix pertinent to the grammatical person. Therefore, the
grammatical person is explicit even when the pronoun is omitted, because
the pronoun is implicit in the verb, as in the following example, where
the suffix -i indexes 2nd person singular:
a) 'Prendi vino bianco o preferisci vino rosso?' [would
you like red or white wine?]
The Italian address pronoun system is traditionally described (e.g.
Sobrero, 1993; Sensini, 1997) as offering three options when addressing
one interlocutor, and two options when addressing two or more
interlocutors, as summarised in Table 1, below. When approaching one
interlocutor, the choice is between the 2nd person singular tu, 3rd
person singular Lei, or 2nd person plural Voi. Similarly, when
addressing two or more interlocutors, one has a choice of either 2nd
person plural voi or 3rd person plural Loro.
While it is commonly observed that Voi is used only in a limited
range of contexts, and mainly in Southern Italy (e.g. Bates &
Benigni, 1977; Sobrero, 1993, Sensini, 1997), a recent study (Parkinson
& Hajek, 2004) has pointed to a more widespread usage of Voi.
Therefore, we have retained this option for the purpose of this study.
When addressing two or more interlocutors, speakers have a choice
between two plural forms. The 3rd person plural pronoun Loro, used as a
polite, or V form, according to Brown and Gilman's (1960)
classification, is considered archaic and limited mainly to very formal
or ritual social situations, whereas the 2nd person plural pronoun voi
can function both as a V and as a T address form (Renzi, 1995, Sensini,
1997). Since Loro is still indicated in language texbooks as the correct
option for addressing two or more interlocutors formally, especially in
the imperative form, we decided to retain this form as an available
option for this study.
As can be seen from the above observations, the system is
undergoing a process of simplification in the direction of a four-option
configuration that simply discriminates between informal tu-voi for the
singular, and formal Lei-voi for the plural (Sobrero 1993). However,
there is wide variation when it comes to pronoun selection and use, both
at the diatopic and diastratic level (Sobrero, 1993), which makes it
difficult for learners to understand NS choices.
Address form selection is influenced by a number of contextual
factors, including: degree of intimacy between two interlocutors, their
social status, age, education, gender, situational context and the
desired social identity of interactants (Belz & Kinginger, 2002).
Therefore, address forms allow interactants to establish and maintain
their social roles (Benigni & Bates, 1977).
To further complicate the matter, address forms may not be used
reciprocally. As Brown and Gilman (1960) argued, a solidarity
relationship or a power relationship between two interlocutors determine
whether the pronouns are used reciprocally or non-reciprocally,
respectively. In a relationship based on solidarity both interlocutors
perceive each other to be on the same social scale (e.g. work colleagues
in similar positions). Solidarity can also be determined by shared
interests, similar age, educational background, or profession, and
results in interlocutors selecting the same form to address each other.
In a power relationship, on the other hand, where the relationship
itself is defined by the superiority or inferiority of social roles
(e.g. employee and her supervisor) interlocutors may use different forms
of address--the subordinate using a formal pronoun, and being addressed
with an informal pronoun.
Some authors (Benigni & Bates, 1977; Renzi, 1995) have argued
that in modern Italian, this non-reciprocal use of pronouns is becoming
limited only to some relationships within a family, especially to show
respect to the elderly. However, a study conducted by Danesi &
Lettieri (1983), which included a wide range of Italian speakers,
questioned this view, as the non-reciprocal use of pronouns was found to
be more widespread than expected.
The mixed results obtained by research investigating Italian
address pronoun usage point to a complex reality in which it is
difficult to identify clear-cut 'rules', since social
relationships evolve, they are renegotiated and reshaped through
interaction, and this is both reflected and influenced by linguistic
behaviour (for similar observations in the French context, see
Gardner-Chloros, 1991, Liddicoat, 2006).
Unfortunately, language textbooks (e.g. Lazzarino et al., 2004;
Danesi, 1997; Lazzarino & Moneti, 1996) tend fo present L2 students
with simplified explanations, which fail to provide sufficient
opportunities for learner training in dealing with the subtleties of
sociopragmatic norms, while at the same time encouraging in students a
false sense of confidence in their ability to select address pronouns
appropriately when interacting with Italian speakers. It is therefore
necessary to provide learners with exposure to a variety of input
sources, so that address pronoun use by NS can be observed in different
contexts, and sociopragmatic norms inferred and discussed in the
classroom. The teacher's task, in this context, is to "make
explicit the types of choices which underlie pragmatic
decision-making" (Thomas, 1983:98), so that learners develop their
ability to assess social distance and to select the appropriate
linguistic behaviour in the target language and culture.
3. The role of CMC
The Internet represents an invaluable source of data on
interactions between Italian NS. However, the language of CMC presents
some peculiarities that must be taken into account. In general, it is
observed that CMC can be described as an intermediate stage of spoken
and written language (e.g. Collot & Belmore, 1996). While
interlocutors employ a language that presents features typical of the
spoken varieties, the communicative event takes place in a written form.
On the other hand, CMC often does not entail as much planning and
editing as traditional written texts. This factor adds to the dynamism
of the language and approximates it to spoken interaction.
Another important feature of CMC is the reduced availability of
visual and auditory cues that are normally present in face-to-face
interaction. As a result, information on the interlocutor's age,
gender, social or racial background may be unavailable. An important
consequence is that the established social hierarchy that is perceptible
through social conventions in spoken language is weakened and simplified
in the electronic language (Pistolesi, 1998). Thus, relationships tend
to present a more egalitarian character in on-line communities, which
leads us to expect that on-line relationships will be based on the
notion of solidarity, leading to a high degree of informality in address
forms. A study conducted by Gastaldi (2002), investigating the
linguistic features of chat exchanges between native Italian speakers,
indeed found a high incidence of the familiar tu pronoun between
interlocutors.
The language of on-line chat has attracted significant attention in
recent years. In fact, much research on the language of CMC in Italian
(e.g. Maggi, 1995, Pistolesi, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003) has focused
predominantly on Internet Relay Chat (IRC). IRC is a synchronous
communication medium that features on-line dialogue, usually in a
written form, and in real time. Each participant receives messages sent
by others, which scroll quickly from the bottom to the top of the
screen, until they are replaced by subsequent messages. This ephemeral
character of IRC interaction resembles the temporary nature of spoken
language (Pistolesi, 2000b, p.438), and has several implications.
IRC dialogue includes typical colloquial and informal features that
are observable in spoken language. The limited time available for
reaction requires language economy, which translates, for example, into
minimal subordination of clauses, non-standard spelling, condensed forms
(k for ch), and abbreviation of words (msg for message, prg for program)
(Pistolesi, 1997, p.231).
Non-verbal content is often expressed through the use of emoticons
(faces represented by alphanumeric characters and punctuation marks),
recourse to exaggerated use of question marks and exclamation marks, and
simulation of other paralinguistic cues, such as capital letters to
represent loud speech, simulation of echo with repeated last letter, as
well as description of actions through the use of an asterisk followed
by an action verb conjugated in 3rd person (Pistolesi, 1998), such as
"*ali di_speranza dice ciao a Tutti. [ali_di_speranza says hello to
everybody]" (user ID ali di speranza, 26/03/2004).
The features discussed so far in relation to synchronous
communication are often found in asynchronous communication as well, for
example in discussion boards, electronic letters and private e-mail.
However, there are important differences. Discussion board messages or
letters posted by participants are often linked in a thread according to
the order in which they were posted, and remain available for later
access, sometimes for many months or even years. This explains why
asynchronous CMC is more often likened to written, rather than to spoken
communication (Herring, 1996), as contributors are aware that their
messages have a more durable nature than chat turns and, as a result,
they tend to post more elaborate texts.
Language practitioners have claimed that learners'
participation in chat exchanges with native speakers may be beneficial
for the development of communicative competence (e.g. Tudini, 2002,
2003, 2004). Moreover, Belz & Kinginger (2003) have argued that
students' engagement in synchronous CMC with their NS peers does
provide them with opportunities to develop an awareness of norms
regulating personal address in the target language. However, the
solidarity character of student-student interaction and the overall
informality of CMC tend to place greater emphasis on the use of informal
forms of address, while failing to provide data on the appropriate use
of formal pronouns. This is especially unfortunate when the needs of
English-speaking learners are considered, since, in general, it is the
use of the polite Lei form that causes difficulties in developing
address competence in Italian.
Before learners of Italian as a L2 are encouraged to engage in CMC
exchanges with NS, therefore, it is important to ascertain whether
formal pronouns are used at all in CMC, and if they are, whether there
are any differences in their frequency across different forms of CMC, as
can be expected given the differences between synchronous and
asynchronous media previously discussed.
Furthermore, it would be interesting to observe whether any
negotiation or discussion on pronoun choices takes place between
interactants, since this may assist learners in gaining insight into
NS' rationales behind address form selection. These are the
questions that guided the design of the present study.
4. Methodology
As previously mentioned, the aim of this study is to examine
address pronoun usage by NS of Italian in the context of CMC, in order
to explore the potential role of CMC as a source of data for observation
by learners of Italian as a L2. Through quantitative and qualitative
analyses of our corpus, we aim to test the following hypotheses:
1. The observed informality of CMC will manifest itself in the data
through a predominant use of informal pronouns, however:
2. Due to the observed differences between asynchronous and
synchronous forms of communication, there may be differences in terms of
personal address, with asynchronous communication providing some
examples of formal address forms.
3. Due to the widespread informality of much CMC communication,
there will be limited opportunities for learners to observe negotiation
of address forms (e.g. through codified expressions such as
"Possiamo darci del tu?").
The corpus of data for this study consists of:
--6 chat sessions (458 turns)
--2 discussion board threads (103 messages)
--108 electronic letters for a total of 669 turns.
For the purpose of this study, a "turn" is either a turn
in a chat session, a message in a discussion thread or a whole
electronic letter. If a turn included more than one occurrence of one
pronoun, i.e. if a pronoun was used in the same text more than once,
either explicitly or implicitly in the verb conjugation, it was counted
as one instance (e.g. "... io mi licenzio e mi mantieni tu."
[I am going to quit my job and you are going to support me] user ID spy
nopvt, 10/07/2004). However, there were also instances in which the
speakers addressed two different interlocutors in the same turn, and
therefore the turn included two different forms of personal address.
These were counted as two occurrences, or tokens, of pronoun use.
Also, for the purpose of this study, "identifiable address
form" refers to pronouns expressed phonetically, or to verb endings
clearly indexing address choice. When a form of greeting was used (e.g.
the informal greeting "Ciao a tutti!"), but no explicit
pronoun or verb ending was present, this instance was not included in
the count, as these are not examples that would provide a language
learner with a clear explanation of the address pronoun system, although
they do provide an indication of formality in the relationship.
On-line chat was chosen as an example of synchronous communication.
Discussion boards and electronic letters to the editors were selected as
samples of asynchronous communication. Obviously, there are other forms
of CMC, for example personal e-mail communication, that could be
extremely useful to learners. While email is a valuable source of input
and provides opportunities for learners to receive feedback, it is
private communication and therefore not readily available to external
observers. Thus, it is outside the scope of this study (for studies on
email use by students of Italian, see Tudini & Rubino, 1998,
Pais-Marden & Absalom, 2003).
The basic criteria for website selection as data sources can be
summarized as follows:
* Ease of access to observers (for example, we excluded websites
that require the payment of subscription fees or approval by a
moderator);
* Ease of navigation and use of the webpage (including use of the
actual communication system);
* Wide range of topics covered;
* Wide range of participants in the exchange.
* Likelyhood of access by Italian L2 learners due to content/
popularity of the site;
The selection of different sites, which feature diverse topics, and
which are used by a wide range of participants, would provide learners
with opportunities to observe NS behaviour in a variety of contexts. For
example, it can be expected that there would be differences in terms of
age range and purpose between chat users and authors of electronic
letters to the editors. These differences would be reflected in the
communicative styles employed in the CMC texts.
According to the general criteria listed above, the following
websites offering chat rooms were selected:
http://www.it.chat.yahoo.com/ and
http://www.virgilio.it/home/index.html. Both Yahoo and Virgilio are
directories to the Internet, which provide varied information on diverse
topics, and can be used to search for other websites based on number of
categories. Due to their popularity they are likely fo be accessed by
learners of Italian from Australia and other parts of the world.
Data was collected through a log of consequent turns, randomly
selected, recorded on three different occasions (accessed 23/06/04,
25/06/04, 10/07/04), during the week and weekend, at different times of
the dayo The time of access was carefully selected to ensure that a wide
range of native Italian interlocutors would be participating. On each
occasion, two chat rooms were visited, one for each website, and between
64 and 86 turns were saved as conversation logs (see Table 2 for
details).
The discussion boards observed for this study were accessed at the
following Internet addresses: http://www.forums.about.com and
http://www.corriere.it. Il Foro Romano (The Roman forum) was a
discussion board hosted by the popular wwwoabout.com website and the
forum Italians is hosted by a leading Italian newspaper, Il Corriere
della Sera, therefore they could be easily found by any Italian L2
learner. Both sites host discussions on various topics, including a
general discussion, where the interlocutors are free to comment on any
topic.
Discussion boards do not represent a problem from the point of view
of time differences, as the communication is asynchronous and all
messages posted in the threads are available at all times. Two logs
(accessed 16/06/04 and 25/06/04) of randomly selected threads on each
site were recorded, containing approximately 50 messages, or turns,
each. The topics of the threads and the number of messages recorded are
listed in Table 4:
Table 3. Discussion thread data
Number of
Discussion thread messages
Di dove siamo (Where we are from) 49
Sms della Presidenza del Consiglio 54
(Sms of the office of the Premier)
Electronic letters used as data in this study are slightly
different from discussion board messages. Letters are a form of written
one-to-one communication, unlike discussion boards, which are primarily
a form of one-to-many communication. The letters included in this corpus
are electronic versions of the traditional "Letters to the
Editor", often found in printed newspapers, and they are extracted
from two websites. The first is hosted by Italian journalist and writer
Beppe Severgnini, and can be found at http://www.beppesevergnini.com.
This site introduces Severgnini's well known publications and
includes letters by readers, which are easily accessible. In most cases,
the letters are reactions to Severgnini's publications, but other
topics are also treated.
The second website selected for this study is the online version of
a leading Italian magazine, Panorama, accessible at
http://www.panorama.it. The letters are addressed to Italian public
figure Sergio Romano. The thread of letters is called Opinioni and is
open for discussion on current affairs. Access and navigation are very
easy and the letters are available to be viewed by any user. These two
figures, Beppe Severgnini and Sergio Romano, were selected due to their
popularity and also because their style and status are rather different,
which could be expected to influence the overall formality of CMC
exchanges and therefore choices of personal address.
Similarly to discussion board messages, electronic letters are also
accessible on the websites at all times. Two logs of letters were saved
from the two sites, for a total of 108 letters, or turns (accessed on
16/06/04 and 30/09/04), as shown in Table 5, below:
Table 4. Electronic letter data
Number of
Website featuring electronic letters letters
www.beppesevergnini.com 53
www.panorama.it/opinioni/ 55
5. Results
Chat Rooms
The corpus of chat interactions includes 458 turns, of which only
84, or 18.4%, contain an identifiable form of address (see Table 6,
below). Throughout the chat sessions, no formal pronouns were observed.
The participants addressed each other exclusively with informal
pronouns, 78 times in the singular tu form and 6 times in the plural voi
form.
This result is very important, given that, as previously observed,
chat is often promoted by language practitioners as a useful tool for
learners to develop communication competence. The complete absence of
formal address forms suggests that synchronous CMC alone may not be
helpful in promoting sociopragmatic competence in the area of personal
address.
Discussion Boards
Discussion threads presented a higher frequency of explicit forms
of address. Out of a total number of 103 messages, 44 included
identifiable address forms. However, two of these messages appeared to
have been posted by a speaker of Italian as a L2, who alternated between
address forms. Therefore, these address forms were excluded from the
count of frequencies. A total of 42 turns containing identifiable
address forms remained, which accounted for 40.7% of turns (see Table 7,
below). Informal pronouns were observed 27 times in the singular and 12
times in the plural form. The only formal pronoun used, Lei, was
observed on 3 occasions.
Interestingly, the three tokens of Lei represent a special use of
the formal pronoun, to signal opposition and social distance in
conflict. They were observed in an exchange recorded in the bulletin
board hosted by Il Corriere della Sera. Here users were discussing an
event related to a recent election campaign in Italy, during which the
Office of the Prime Minister used the Short Message System on mobile
phones to send a reminder to participate in the election to the whole
Italian population. One of the users reacted to a previous posting,
which was judged as irreverent:
"Caro signor Zio, a parte gli insulti (ma non era un forum
moderato?) ad essere poco aggiornato--tanto per non scendere al suo
livello insultando--pare essere lei: la privacy e tutelata in molti modi
... Ah, a proposito, si informi!" (user ID Felice Franchi,
11/06/2004, emphasis added)
(Dear Mr Zio, insults aside (wasn't the forum moderated?)--so
that I don't stoop down to your level by insulting you- it seems
that you are the one who is not very up to date: privacy is protected in
many ways ... Oh, by the way, make sure to be better informed!)
As noted by Dewaele, selecting a formal address form is not only a
demonstration of respect, but also a way to index "social distance
between the interlocutors and the superiority of one of them"
(2004:384). In this case, the second function is obviously prominent.
This special use of address pronouns would provide and interesting basis
for discussion of sociopragmatic issues in the classroom.
Overall, however, the most common address forms observed in the
selected discussion boards are by far the informal pronouns tu and voi.
As with chat, there were no instances of negotiation of address forms in
this section of the corpus.
Electronic Letters
Electronic letters presented interesting features, which point to
different patterns of personal address, compared to the other types of
CMC. Here, out of a total of 108 letters, identifiable address forms
were observed in 69.4% of turns. However, results vary across the two
sites, as in Beppe address forms were identified in 92.5% of all turns
while in Opinioni this accounts for 47.3% of turns (see Table 8).
Also, as shown in Figure 1, below, a difference was noted in terms
of address form selection, with Opinioni recording no tokens of informal
pronouns, while in Beppe the informal tu pronoun was recorded 17 times,
or in 34.7% of turns containing an identified address form. In other
words, the formal Lei pronoun was observed 32 times, or in 65.3% of
cases in Beppe, while in Opinioni it comprises as much as 100% of
address form usage, with 26 tokens.
Evidently, the perception of formality of the exchange varies among
users of Severgnini's website, whereas it is very consistent when
it comes to writing to Sergio Romano. Interestingly, in Beppe there was
one instance of negotiation of pronoun choice, as a participant felt the
need to justify his choice of an informal pronoun when addressing an
interlocutor whom he did not know "personally". In such case,
the formal pronoun Lei might have been more appropriate; however, the
writer explained that his familiarity with Severgnini's work had
encouraged him to use a more informal style:
"Caro Beppe, scusa il "tu", ma ormai sono al tuo
secondo libro e ti considero uno di casa. Se potessi scrivere a Cocco
Bill (1) o a Charlie Brown (ma anche a Scexpir) darei del tu anche a
loro, avendo la casa piena delle loro storie." (user ID, Andrea
Mereu, accessed 16/06/04)
(Dear Beppe, sorry about the "tu", but I am at your
second book already and I consider you part of my family. If I could
write to Cocco Bill or Charlie Brown (or Shakespeare, too) I would use
"tu" as well, since my home is full of their stories.)
As suggested by Dewaele (2004) with reference to French speakers,
age and especially status and familiarity are fundamental factors in
selecting address forms, with older, high-status and unfamiliar
interlocutors being most often addressed with a formal pronoun. Physical
appearance and personality are also important variables in the process
of selection of address forms (Gardner-Chloros, 1991). Severgnini (48)
is much younger than Romano (75), and he is well known for his humorous
publications, written in a rather informal style. He has appeared on
several TV programmes and may be a more familiar figure to the wider
public. On the other hand, Sergio Romano is an important social figure,
a journalist and a diplomat, who in the 1980s represented Italy at NATO,
and was the Italian ambassador in Moscow. Therefore, Romano is more
likely to be attributed a high status, which in turns calls for a higher
degree of formality.
The overall greater formality observed in letters, compared to chat
and discussion boards, may also be related to the topics discussed.
While in on-line chat and discussion boards the topics are mainly of a
recreational nature, the issues treated in electronic letters tend to be
more serious current affairs. This may have influenced the perception of
formality of the interactional context by the participants.
Summary
A total of 669 turns were analysed for this study. Out of these,
201, or 30% of turns, included identifiable address forms. However,
there were important differences between the three types of CMC, with
the highest proportion of identifiable address forms per number of turns
found in letters (69.4%), followed by discussion threads (40.7%), and
chat sessions (18.4%).
As can be seen in Figure 3, below, overall the most commonly
observed form of address in the selected corpus is the informal tu,
which accounts for 61% of identified address forms. |t was the only
pronoun observed in the chat sessions and the most commonly found in the
discussion threads. Used predominantly in electronic letters, the formal
pronoun Lei comprised 30% of identified address forms. No other
instances of formal pronouns, in the singular Voi form, or in the plural
Loro form, were recorded.
Figure 4, below, summarises the detailed results obtained for each
type of CMC in relation to pronoun choice.
The informal tu pronoun was used across the three types of CMC,
although at varying degrees, while the formal Lei pronoun was limited to
electronic letters and, in much smaller proportion, to discussion
boards. The formal pronouns Voi and Loro were totally absent from the
data. The pronoun voi in the plural was observed, though in small
proportion, in chat and discussion boards.
Chi-Square, calculated on a frequency table in which the results
were collapsed to include only the three address forms that had been
observed in the corpus, revealed that the differences recorded are
statistically significant ([chi square]=139.6, 4df, p<.0001).
Finally, explicit discussion or negotiation of pronoun choice was
observed only on one occasion, in a letter. In this case the participant
felt that his choice of an informal pronoun when addressing a stranger
could be perceived as inappropriate and he stated the reason for his
choice.
6. Discussion
As expected based on the reviewed literature, not all forms of
Italian address pronouns were observed in our corpus. Two address forms
were completely absent: the formal Voi pronoun used to address a single
interlocutor, and the formal Loro pronoun used to address two or more
interlocutors. As previously discussed, Loro is used only in very
formal, ritualised situations, which are rarely found in the context of
CMC. This would explain its absence from the data. Similarly, Voi is
normally used to address elderly people as a sign of respect (Danesi
& Lettieri, 1983). Since the Interner is accessed prevalently by
younger users, and especially by those in the 20 to 24 age range
(Morrone, 2002, p. 89), the absence of Voi to address one interlocutor
is not surprising.
Thus, when addressing two or more interlocutors, only the informal
pronoun voi was used on all occasions. When addressing one interlocutor,
the most common form of address used across all types of CMC was the
informal tu pronoun. This confirmed our hypothesis that the observed
informality of CMC would manifest itself in the data through a prevalent
use of informal pronouns. The predominance of tu was especially
noticeable in synchronous communication--the chat rooms--although
bulletin boards also showed a very high incidence of informal pronouns.
Therefore, we can conclude that both on-line chats and discussion boards
appear to be informal spaces for communication, even though (or,
perhaps, because) on most occasions there is no history of personal
contact between interlocutors, and there are no paralinguistic cues to
predict the social status of others.
In the case of electronic letters, however, a considerable
proportion of Lei forms was found. In the first part of this paper, it
was observed that there are linguistic differences between synchronous
and asynchronous communication in terms of the complexity and
elaboration of the texts produced. It was also suggested that since
asynchronous communication is similar to written text, it can be
expected to be more formal. Indeed the results of this study lend
support to these observations, but with some caveats. In particular, we
observed interesting differences between the asynchronous genres of
discussion board postings and electronic letters.
Electronic letters included in this corpus are considerably longer
and more elaborated in comparison with other forms of CMC. They appear
to conform to the conventional structure of letters, as opposed to the
segments often observed in chats, and as a result they are more similar
to written than to spoken language. The degree of elaboration of the
text and the degree of correspondence to the traditional letter genre
seem to influence choice and usage of address forms since, in the
corpus, occurrences of the formal pronoun Lei are limited mainly to this
form of CMC. On the other hand, discussion thread messages appear closer
to chat turns with regard to address pronoun use, and despite their
slightly more complex textual structure.
Therefore, features of the medium used for communication appear to
influence the overall level of formality of the text, and consequently
the address forms selected by users. However, CMC users' attitudes
toward, and perception of, the message recipient are also an important
factor. As can be expected, the perceived social distance between
contributor and recipient of electronic messages plays a role in the
process of selection of personal address forms. In the literature review
it was suggested that in on-line communities, traditional social
differences are less relevant than in face-to-face conversation. Due to
the lack of physical co-presence, the participants in the exchange do
not have paralinguistic and nonverbal cues to infer information on their
interlocutors' background. Thus social differences become blurred
and norms that regulate address in face-to-face conversation are no
longer applicable. This is not entirely true of electronic letters. Here
the readers are aware of the status, age, gender, perhaps social and
educational background of their interlocutors, the columnists to whom
the letters are addressed.
In general, therefore, the level of formality observed in texts
seems to depend on a number of contextual variables, which include
features of the medium, topic discussed and perception of the
receivers' status, age, gender, and overall social and cultural
background. Whether users perceive the exchange as one-to-one or
one-to-many also plays a role. All of the observed interactions took
place in a public space accessible by the on-line community. Even if two
interlocutors choose to communicate one-to-one, while they are operating
within a system that provides one-to-many communication, such as
discussion boards, other participants can observe the interaction and
join in. Thus the communication can be between an infinite number of
interlocutors, and often the plural address pronoun voi is used to
reflect this. However, when interacting directly--and publicly--with a
well-known figure of high social standing, the perceived formality of
the exchange leads to a more frequent use of the formal pronoun Lei.
Finally, only one instance of explicit reference to or discussion
of address form was found in the data, when a participant explained his
choice of an informal pronoun in addressing an interlocutor whom he did
not know personally. It should be noted that the observed lack of overt
negotiation of address forms could reflect NS behaviour in face to-face
interaction. A study conducted by Gardner-Chloros (1991), for example,
suggested that NS of French rarely engage in open discussion of pronoun
choice. This is because the switch from a formal to an informal pronoun,
for example, must be 'felt', based on the development of the
relationship. Also, NS sensitivity in selecting address forms is based
on deeply internalised sociocultural norms. As part of the NS cultural
system, such norms operate mainly on a subconscious level (Trompenaars,
1994), which makes it difficult for L2 learners to observe the cognitive
processes underlying pronoun choices. However, class discussion, guided
by a competent speaker of the target language, may bring address
selection processes to the surface through observation, hypothesis
generation and testing, and assist learners in understanding NS choices.
7. Conclusion
The aire of this study was to contribute to clarifying the
potential role of CMC for the teaching and learning of sociopragmatic
norms regulating selection and use of Italian address pronouns.
Overall, the data analysed for this study confirms the findings of
previous research reviewed in this paper, in relation to the informality
of CMC. In our corpus, the most commonly observed address form was the
informal tu pronoun. Thus, CMC provides some input from which the use of
informal address forms can be observed. However, since it is the use of
formal address pronouns that causes difficulty to students of Italian as
a L2, observing or engaging in chat conversations is insufficient to
promote learners' sociopragmatic competence in this area.
Furthermore, the fragmented nature of chat may result in a very low
incidence of identifiable address pronouns, only a minority of chat
turns in our corpus contained explicit address forms.
On the other hand, exposure to a variety of CMC texts, especially
if electronic letters are included, may provide a wider basis on which
sociopragmatic rules can be inferred. In the case of electronic letters
to one interlocutor, in fact, we observed a significantly more frequent
use of the formal Lei pronoun and the highest proportion of identified
address forms across the three systems. Although electronic letters do
not reflect conversational language use, since they are longer and more
elaborated than chat, they provide ample opportunities for learners to
observe the use of the formal Lei pronoun in authentic settings.
Finally, only one instance of negotiation of personal address was
found in our corpus. This suggests that the process underlying NS
address selection may not become accessible to learners simply by
observing CMC interactions.
In conclusion, our results suggest that CMC can indeed provide some
opportunities for students of Italian to observe NS selection and use of
address pronouns. However, if is important that learners are exposed to
a variety of CMC texts, since some forms of synchronous and asynchronous
communication do not offer adequate input on norms regulating personal
address in Italian. Furthermore, observations must be supported with
reflection and discussion under the guidance of competent speakers of
the target language, in order to facilitate access to the underlying
cultural norms applied by NS in their selection of address forms during
interaction. Even so, observation and analysis can only serve as a
starting point to further learners' awareness and understanding of
sociopragmatic norms, and should be complemented by other activities,
including participation in authentic interaction.
WORKS CITED
Balboni, P. E. (1999). Apprendere e insegnare la comunicazione
interculturale. In Parole comuni, culture diverse. Guida alla
comunicazione interculturale. Venezia: Marsilio Editore. Retrieved
October, 2004, from http://venus
unive.it/aliasve/materiali/apprendereeinsegnarelacomunicazioneinter
culturale.htm
Belz, J. A., & Kinginger, C. (2002). The cross-linguistic
development of address form use in a telecollaborative language study:
Two case studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(2), 189-214.
Belz, J. A., & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse Options and the
Development of Pragmatic Competence by Classroom Learners of German: The
Case of Address Forms. Language Learning, 53(4), 591-647.
Benigni, L., & Bates, E. (1977). Interazione sociale e
linguaggio: Analisi pragmatica dei pronomi allocutivi italiani. In
Simone & Ruggiero (Eds.), Aspetti sociolinguistici dell'Italia
contemporanea (Vol. 1, pp. 141-165). Roma: Bulzoni.
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The Pronouns of Power and
Solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in Language (pp. 253-276). New
York/ London:
The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology &
John Willey & Sons.
Coleman, L. M. (1988). Language and the Evolution of Identity and
Self-Concept. In F. S. Kessel (Ed.), The Development of Language
Researchers: Essays in Honor of Roger Brown (pp. 319-338). Hove/London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collot, M., & Belmore, N. (1996). A New Variety of English. In
S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 14-28).
Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Danesi, M. (1997) Adesso! A functional Introduction to Italian, 2nd
Edition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Danesi, M., & Lettieri, M. (1983). The Pronouns of Address in
Italian: Sociolinguistic and Pedagogical Considerations. Studi Italiani
di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata, 12, 323-333.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2004). Vous or tu? Native and non-native speakers
of French on a sociolinguistic tightrope. IRAL, 42, 383-402.
Gardner-Chloros, P. (1991). Ni tu ni vous: principes et paradoxes
dans l'emploi des pronoms d'allocution en francais
contemporain. Journal of French Language Studies, 1, 139-155.
Gastaldi, E. (2002). Italiano digitato. Italiano e oltre, 17(3),
134-137.
Herring, S. C. (Ed.). (1996). Computer-Mediated-Communication:
Linguistic, Social and Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Herring, S. C. (1996). Two variants of an Electronic Message
Schema. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication (pp.
81-108). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can Pragmatic Competence Be Taught? Second
Language Teaching & Curriculum Centre(6). Retrieved February, 2004,
from http:// www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/
Lazzarino G., Peccianti, M., Aski, J., & Dini, A. (2004) Prego!
An Invitation to Italian, 6th Edition, Boston: McGraw-Hill
Lazzarino, G. & Moneti, A. (1996) Da Capo, 4th Edition. Fort
Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Liddicoat, A. J. (2006) Learning the culture of interpersonal
relationships: Students' understanding of personal address forms in
French. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(1), 55-80.
Morrone, A. (2002). I cittadini e le tecnologie della
comunicazione. Indagine multiscopo sulle famiglie "I cittadini e il
tempo libero"--Anno 2000: ISTAT.
Musumeci, D. (1991). Ciao, professoressa! A study of Forms of
Address in Italian and its Implications for the Language Classroom.
Italica, 68(1), 434-456.
Niculescu, A. (1974). Strutture allocutive pronominali reverenziali
in italiano. Firenze: Olschki.
Nuessel, F. (1995). Pragmatic Competence: A review of Selected
Italian Grammars. Retrieved May, 2003, from
http://tell.fll.purdue.edu/RLA-archive/1995/ Italian-html/Nuessel,
Frank.htm.
Pais Marden, M., & Absalom, M. (2003). L'email per
imparare l'italiano: aspetti linguistici e contenutistici della
comunicazione telematica in italiano L2. FULGOR, 1(2), 23-45.
Parkinson, A., & Hajek, J. (2004). Tu, Lei and Voi: Keeping it
all in the family. Descriptive and pedagogical observations about
address pronoun use in Italian. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics, 18, 99-114.
Pistolesi, E. (1997). Il visibile parlare di IRC (Internet Relay
Chat). Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica, 8, 213-246.
Pistolesi, E. (1998). IRC (Internet Chat Relay): Una nuova
tecnologia della parola. Guida storica, linguistica e tecnica. Retrieved
April, 2004, from www.italica.rai.it
Pistolesi, E. (2000). La simulazione del parlato nello scambio
dialogico delle chat. Paper presented at the Convegno internazionale
"Tradizione e innovazione", Duisburg University.
Pistolesi, E. (2000). L'italiano nella rete. Paper presented
at the conference Italia linguistica anno mille / Italia linguistica
anno duemila, Firenze.
Renzi, L. (1995). La deissi personale e il suo uso sociale. In L.
Renzi, Salvi & Cardinaletti (Eds.), Grande grammatica italiana di
consultazione (Vol. 3, pp. 350-375). Bologna: il Mulino.
Renzi, L. (1997). Expression of allocutionary distance. In Maiden
& Perry (Eds.), The dialects of Italy (pp. 113-115). London-New
York: Routledge.
Sensini, M. (1997). La grammatica della lingua italiana: guida alla
conoscenza e all'uso dell'italiano scritto e parlato. Milano:
Mondadori.
Sobrero, A. A. (1993). Pragmatica. In A. A. Sobrero (Ed.),
Introduzione all'italiano contemporaneo: Le strutture (pp.
403-450). Bari: Laterza.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied
Linguistics, 4, 91-112.
Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the Waves of Culture. Understanding
Diversity in Global Business. Chicago: Irwin.
Tudini, V. (2002). The role of on-line chatting in the development
of competence in oral interaction. Paper presented at the Innovations in
Italian Teaching, Griffith University. Retrieved May, 2004,
http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/ italian
Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning
& Technology, 7(3), 141-159.
Tudini, V. (2004). Virtual Immersion: Native Speaker Chats as a
Bridge to Conversational Italian. Using and Learning Italian in
Australia. Special Issue of the ARAL, Series 5(18), 63-80.
Tudini, V., & Rubino, A. (1998). Connecting language Students
Through E-mail. Babel, 33(1), 18-21, 32-33, 37-38.
Electronic sources
http://www.beppesevergnini.com, accessed 16/06/04
http://www.corriere.it, accessed 16/06/04 and 25/06/04
http://www.forums.about.com, accessed 16/06/04 and 25/06/04
http://www.italialibri.net/autori/romanos.html, accessed 20/10/2004
http://www.it.chat.yahoo.com/, accessed 23/06/04, 25/06/04,
10/07/04
http://panorama.it, accessed 30/09/04
http://www.virgilio.it/home/index.html, accessed 23/06/04,
25/06/04,10/07/04
Margareta Rebelos
margareta.rebelos@adelaide.edu.au
The University of Adelaide (Australia)
Antonella Strambi
Antonella.strambi@flinders.edu.au
Flinders University (Australia)
NOTES
(1) More traditional descriptions include a fourth option, the
third-person pronoun Ella, which is considered obsolete, and is
disappearing even from the most formal written texts (Sobrero, 1993;
Sensini, 1997)
(2) Cocco Bill is a popular cartoon character created by Italian
artist Jacovitti.
Table 1. Italian Address System
Addressing one interlocutor Addressing two or more interlocutors
2nd sing. tu 2nd pl. voi
3rd sing. Lei 3rd pl. Loro
2nd pl. Voi
Table 2. Chat room data
Session Number Number
time Chat rooms of of
(Italian accessed at turns: turns:
time): www virgilio.com Chat rooms
accessed at
www.it.chat.
yahoo.com
Morning Incontri: Salotto 86 Caffe Romantico 80
(weekend) dell'Amore
(Meetings:
Love lounge)
Afternoon Sport 84 La cripta 70
(week) (The crypt)
Evening Sapere e libri 64 Loggia Filosofi 74
(week) (Knowledge (Philosopher's
and books) Loggia)
Table 5. Combined on-line chat results
Chat Number Total to Lei
of turns address
forms
Sapere e libri 64 15 12 0
Sport:Benvenuto 84 19 19 0
Incontri: Salotto 86 13 12 0
dell'Amore
Loggia Filosofi 74 19 19 0
Ca f fe Romantico 80 9 8 0
La Cripta 70 9 8 0
Totals
458 84 78 0
(18.4%
of turns)
Percentages 100 93 0
Chat Voi Loro voi
(sing.) (pl.)
Sapere e libri 0 0 3
Sport:Benvenuto 0 0 0
Incontri: Salotto 0 0 1
dell'Amore
Loggia Filosofi 0 0 0
Ca f fe Romantico 0 0 1
La Cripta 0 0 1
Totals
0 0 6
Percentages 0 0 7
Table 6. Combined discussion thread results
Discussion Number Total to Lei
thread of turns address
forms
Di dove siamo? 49 28 24 0
Sms delta 54 14 3 3
Presidenza del
Consiglio
Totals 103 42 27 3
(40.7%
of turns)
Percentages 100 64 7
Discussion Voi (V) Loro voi (T)
thread sing. pl.
Di dove siamo? 0 0 4
Sms delta 0 0 8
Presidenza del
Consiglio
Totals 0 0 12
Percentages 0 0 29
Table 7. Combined electronic letter results
Total
Number address
Website of turns forms Percentage
Beppe 53 49 92.5%
Opinioni 55 26 47.3%
Totals 108 75 69.4%
Figure 1. Comparison of Pronoun Usage in Electronic Letters
Beppe Opinioni
tu 34.70% 0%
Lei 65.30% 100%
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Figure 2. Percentage per Pronoun (Combined Results)
Lei 30%
voi 9%
tu 61%
Voi 0%
Loro 0%
Note: Table made from pie chart.
Figure 3. Combined Results of Communication Systems
On-line chats Discussion boards Electronic letters
tu 78 27 17
Lei 0 3 58
voi 6 12 0
Note: Table made from bar graph.
