Poesie 'n lombàrtModifega
Racòlta Noèmber 2009Modifega
G'ho catàt sö en pó de poezìe 'n dialèt per analizà quàla che l'è la tendènsa piö comùne per rènder i suòni [s] e [z].
El rezültàt l'è catalogàt en chi che g'ha sciglìt la convensiù s/z, chi che g'hà catàt fò la convensiù ss/s e chèi che g'ha mes·ciàt sö en pó töt.
Clelia Montani Inzerillo – Brescia (Röza, ondezàa, sterlüzènt / crisìda, sfüsürà, angöse)
Velise Bonfante - Rivoltella (rezènte, piànze / iselà, sgusulà)
Lina Bazzoni (fantazie, deluziù / misà)
Adelio Finulli - Brescia (Uzàe, bizògn, pianzìt)
Pierino Pini - Montichiari (brasa, strüsiàt, lisìa, gamisèl / nazà)
Dario Tornago – Brescia 2003 (sbüza, lezér, bizìga, balòsa/ sbàsa, nàser, emusiù) 2008 (caresa Vestése gusine brasa contentèsa vinàsa schisat pasàcc / bazì‘mprizùna
Pietro Treccani – Calvisano (bazàs)
Resy Pescatori Lucchini - Zanano (tàzer)
Anna Teresa Celeste - Brescia (tresandèl)
Marco Rossini - Ospitaletto (smüsürada)
situasiù mìa definìdeModifega
Pietro Sinico – Montichiari ([s] spasa / [z] cusina)
Raffaello Spagnoli – Bovezzo ([s] gosse / [z] brüzat)
Albina Belsenti – Brescia ([s] spèsa / [z]] bechèsa)
Maria Rosa Bertellini – Brescia ([s] stremesse, issé, sgussula tristèssa carèssa / [z] abelaze, lüzur, ventezèl fantasie )
Luciano Bocchi ([s] emusiù prése / [z] case)
Mery Chiarini Savoldi - Ghedi ([z] uza, abelase)
Dario Tornago – Brescia 2002 ([s] sussiegùse, cussulì, disperassiù. lasa, carèse / [z] lezér, piazér belàze ventezèl lizimbrina e dispetùza)
Sö chèsto campiù la scèlta prevalènte l'è chèla de la convensiù s/z. Gh'è però apò dèi autùr che par doperà convensiù diferènte (per ezèmpe la Maria Rosa Bertellini la somèa adotà 'na convensiù ss/z) o sedenò i fà sö cazì e i fà mìa 'na scèlta definìda.
De notà apò che chèi che gh'è stat onserìt endèla categorìa ss/s en realtà i g'ha talmènte póch ocorènse che se sarès püdìt mitìi apò a 'ndèi càzi döbe. Stès discórs apò a per en pér de autùr che gh'è insrìt endèla categorìa s/z.
El Dario Tornago l'è stat inserìt en dò categorìe perchè endèl 2002 el g'ha 'na situasiù mìa ciàra, ma dòpo 'l pàr ìga ciapàt la stràda de la convensiù s/z.
s/z = 8 autùr
ss/s = 2 autùr
óter = 7 autùr
Mète ché le poezìe de le quàle g'hó ciapàt i ezèmpe. 'Na bùna part i è òpere che g'ha partecipàt ai concors organizàcc de dipende.it e publicàcc söl Giornàl del Garda.
Dal Giornale del Garda, numero 123 - aprile 2004
poesia Premio di Poesia
Dipende Lago di Garda
VINCITORI VI edizione
sezione in Haiku dialettale
1° premio Haiku dialettale
Fòje per tera
vènt che spasa le strade
òja de dórmer.
Pietro Sinico – Montichiari
2° premio Haiku dialettale
Ciacular di undi
veli chi sgòla sal lach.
S’à livà ‘l vent.
Grazia Binelli – Torbole
3° premio Haiku dialettale
ve zo töte le fòje
Raffaello Spagnoli – Bovezzo
Sera de nebia
söl föc de la cusìna
cös le castégne.
Pütì che zöga
col caritì de lègn
contentàs de poch.
Pietro Sinico– Montichiari
‘N dadàl di luna
chi s’ dondola sal lac.
‘N insoniu bagnà.
Föi chi planc
tacadi a ‘n ram söc.
L’è già aftùn.
Grazia Binelli – Torbole (TN)
Le prime gosse
de aiva dopo mess
le fa za magù.
El tep del sul
postàt söi cop ross
el s’è brüzàt.
Raffaello Spagnoli – Bovezzo
Sóta al me tèt
gh’è turnàt la rondéna
per scaldàm el cör.
Pietro Treccani – Calvisano
Söi viài dei zardì
i camina abelaze
nóni e niudì.
Maria Rosa Bertellini – Brescia
le bechèsa möte
Fò dei mür
spére de sul
dèter nèbia spèsa.
Albina Belsenti – Brescia
El va sul sulènt
sö e zó dal tresandèl
e ‘l rit töt contènt.
Poeta el lach.
De nòt el cönta stèle
Anna Teresa Celeste - Brescia
Segnalazione Haiku dialettale 2003
G’ho est i nigoi
nà a bazàs bel bel nel cél
per fa piöer.
Pietro Treccani – Calvisano
Segnalazione Haiku dialettale 2003
I rundù i bàla
vàlser de primaéra
‘ntùren al castèl.
Maria Rosa Bertellini – Brescia
i uza l’istà
nel mar zalt.
El dé abelase
el va via. Me salüda
Vula la néf,
cambia ‘l panorama
de la matina.
Mery Chiarini Savoldi - Ghedi
El tàzer del cör
el smorsa i ensòme
de la tò vita.
Dopo la guèra
el sul de la speransa
el nina amò töcc.
Resy Pescatori Lucchini - Zanano
Nìnol en tèra
el sangiotà de pütì
creèla el cör.
Le rüghe del tèmp
e cai a le mà.
Marco Rossini - Ospitaletto
IV premio poesia dialettale
La mà la sa ‘ntórcia de per lé
e la sa léa, agramènt,
grìma dal sfórs,
dicc che sbüza dal fósch,
che i sgària ‘n dei ensòme,
che i se ‘ngrópa,
per brancà chèi pelümì che bala, lezér,
‘nmaciàcc nel ciàrös dei rifletùr.
Có e bras i sa möv, spèrcc, del stès culùr.
che bizìga le öciàde surtìe de l’umbrìa,
scarpèi che scolpés éne
sö chèi dicc de atùr.
Pó la mà la sa sbàsa,
i dicc j-è rampì che mör
per fa nàser en pögn grév de emusiù,
che de bòt el sa tìra ‘ndré,
el va söl cör, e la Maschera,
con de ‘n salamelèch striàt
la sa porta vià ‘l telù.
Us möte, nasìde da bóche amò ciarìde,
calùr de öcc che sterlüs
e ‘l ciocà de sènto mà
Dario Tornago – Brescia
SURA LA ME SPALA DESTRA
Sura la me spala destra
Angilì car, falìa del Signùr
che sintìa de scrocànte e prima név!
Röza de sés la tò istìna
recamàda ‘n Paradìs
sufiù d’or i tò caèi
che ondezàa sensa vènt.
Angilì! Che mèscol co’ la boca
e ‘l trimùr del barbusì
se tinzìe le tò piöme
de mur négher paciarì!
Sura la me spala dèstra
miga crisìda asé
per tignìt an pilinghina
sente pö ‘l strüscià de le tò ale.
an del gös dei me pensér
an del cöcalì de la me mènt.
con de ‘n neènt
ta pödet sfüsürà la me scórsa
e zlongà zó e derver föra amó
le tò ale culur de brina
an de ‘n gran süsür sterlüzènt
e catà sö
le angöse del me respìr
che nüsü sènt.
Clelia Montani Inzerillo – Brescia
Sura pensér, quan che ghe l'ho 'n mà
la lae mia zó ma la rezènte apena
la me cafetierina e pó dòp sena
la fó en tre tòch e la mète a sgusulà.
Par che la piànze e dal sò cantunsì
bötàda iselà de göst e spès
la ghe nà al mal e la me àrda sbiès
con chèl négher, ridicol capilì.
A pensàga dre be, so 'n pó catìa:
tratala isé! En castìgh ne la cuzìna
la crèd de valì niènt ma la sa mia
che prim de töt el rèst ogne matina
quand amó 'ndormènsa dèrve el dé
apena desedàda pènse a lé.
Velise Bonfanti - Rivoltella
A FA EL MÉL
SENSA LA MÉL
Se g'ha de catà sö giös.cc giös.cc 350
fiùr de chèi zalcc che se cata empertöt.
Pó se ciapa i fiùr, en lìter e mès de acqua
e tre limù a tòch e se fa bóer töt per n'ura
giösta-giösta a föch bas. Se cula e se
filtra, pó se ghe zónta en chilo e mès de
söcher e se fa bóer amó el töt per atre dò
ure, semper a föch bèl bas, me
racomande. Ed èco che s'è fat el mél
sensa la mél de le àe.
Velise Bonfanti - Rivoltella
LA TÒ FÀCIA
sercàe la tò facia,
quant i t'ha portàt via
me amò gnarèl.
E sèmper l'ho pensàda,
specialmènt nei döbe
e nei bizògn de pö grandèl.
la ghìa de rasegnàs,
ma só mia dìt le ólte
che sula e de scundù
la gà pianzìt
fin a sfügüras.
co 'l tèmp
che sopravìver a l'amùr
de la pròpria vita
l'è mörer lostès.
Adelio Finulli - Brescia
FALÌE DE PRÀT (2002)
Sgrégne 'n fiur le embastés ön oradèl
al riàl che 'l spartés i cióss,
a möt de 'n sgrafignù.
Le slöcia de sa e de là,
sussiegùse le nina i có,
balìne de bombàs,
s-ciöma de mar,
stimaröle de ste cussulì lezér,
le rit sota i barbiss
e le sègna — poer slambròt — 'l furmintù,
che l'ia dré a fas nòbil
co le sìme a möt de curunsìne,
e che adès, sota la trebia 'l cucia zó la gròpa
e 'l lasa 'ndré söl ciós nomösta 'n quach melgàs.
Ma i sa la rìt financh de chèl formènt
che quant che sa fa zögn 'l sa crèt Mida,
e dopo le carèse del fiochèl
no 'l làsa 'ndré che 'na quach ströpia de vangà.
I sa la rit amo che l'è 'n piazér
quand che 'l ria — a belàze — ön ventezèl,
a caresà stépoi e melgàss
per cunsulài de la disperassiù.
Öna bàa de ste vènt, lizimbrina e dispetùza,
la sópia sö chèi có de nev:
falìe de prat che ùla, 'a per dispèt.
Stéi, nücc nüdèncc, i sa pö come quarciàs.
PRIMA CHE ‘L FIÒCHE (2008)
Söméa deleguàs, i nigoi,
per scapà da la caresa dela nòt.
El ciocà semper enguàl
l’è ‘n relòi che ‘l consa ‘l sbucunà
töcc i momencc che ma cór via.
Vestése ‘l védre de mostàs
e sgarie ‘l vöt,
che sübit el sa sgiónfa
de töt el grév che gh’è ‘n del cör.
La par stimas, chela ﬁnestra,
con endòs chele gusine.
Àch dai mé öcc öna cuculìna
la cór envèrs de lure,
la ja brasa, ‘n de ‘n bazì de contentèsa
e pò la biösca zó de bas.
E le sa té per mà.
Ma spècie ‘n ste alambich
che ‘l ma ‘mprizùna,
che ‘l ma distìla l’ànema.
Só compàgn de ‘na vinàsa,
schisat dala ùs dei dé pasàcc.
Söi làer g’hè amó ‘n reciòch de eséna
e ghe öl tastàl,
prima che ‘l ﬁòche.
L’è ché che vòi restà,
denacc al laurà che ‘l temp
el s’è pirmitìt de fa
e lü che töt el pöl
el g’ha mia sbagliàt,
granda la belesa
che ‘l g’ha dat
Vularès mia éser
en de l’orolòi del temp,
portà endré le lancète de le stagiù,
mitìm sö el vistìt de la prima età.
Amò pütilì córer;
en de na scatula de cartù
sarà sö caaöcc e farfale.
Töt südàt, endormentàm
a l’umbria che ta brasa sö de le piante,
po’ córer amò sota ‘l sul
col cà dedrè …
Scaà la tèra, scundìm,
nazà l’aria per enduinà
l’udùr del chisöl …
Sènter la mà del me bubà
prima de tacà via la ranza al mür
dopo el bòt de l’Ave Maria.
La us tènera de me mama
quand che nas el dé
e quan che ria la nòt
vardala a rimbocàm i lensöi
profumàcc de lisìa.
ma el ﬁl de paradèi e papàer
strapàcc al camp
el s’è strüsiàt en del gamisèl de j-agn.
Gh’è restàt sö ‘na scagna despajàda
apena la fügüra de me bubà
che ‘l varda lontà.
Pierino Pini - Montichiari
Si è svolta di recente a Brescia,
per iniziativa del circolo dei sar-
di, la cerimonia finale del con-
corso letterario “Su Contixeddu. Il
Raccontino”, che era alla sua quinta
edizione. L’iniziativa del “Centro
Ventade de lüzur sö mür de föm
le scancèla döbe a stremésse.
Issé ’l nèta l’amur la so tèra,
èl càta sö i fiur soncàcc, la gèra,
èl la ’nsòrna, èl cónca, èl carèssa.
El pèsca e’l sbréga nìgoi de tristèssa,
el ména a bria deèrta fantasie
al cör pié de cansù e de alegria.
El zöga coi piö bei culur del mond,
èl sgussùla vers dóls dènter le éne
come fa ’l ventezèl del mar söl fond.
L’è töt en bisbolà de tè e de mé
nel nà e vegnèr de stèle e de pensér
ne la fórsa de piéne söi sentér.
Maria Rosa Bertellini
ÒIE DE TEP ’INDRÉ
Orès che i mé pì
i fòs amò ché
a agiunfà de fantazie
e misà de deluziù
gerbe la fudrighète,
e a ’mpiastrà-so
i mür de èstri.
sota i lèc e i tàui
a trà so zugatì
e scarpe sénsa las,
grundanà sui föch
e spartì vigùr
a smanie de crisì.
Orès el tep
ras de fadìghe
e de fastide
per mia lagàl vulà,
svödat, col vèt,
e le nocc a raspà
nel pos di penser…
ME RESTE CHÉ
Quater case ’n po’ fora mà,
dré a na strada che ména nei ciós;
gnà ’n cartèl che tà ’nsegne a riàga.
Sö na preda picàda nel mür el so nom.
Na borgada ’n do invèren trop long
i da ’l cambe al calùr dei estàcc,
’n do stagiù ogni olta löstese
le compagna i mé agn
e na ùs, come ’n ciód nel servél,
la ma ’nvida a scapà.
Ma ’l cör no!
Lü ’l völ mia destacàs.
bé ’mpiantàde zó ’n tèra,
le strèns, per mia fas portà vià,
emusiù sensa prése
che ’n de gó pröat,
ché, ’n do ghè ignìt grancc i mé fiöi,
’n do m’è mort la mama e ’l bubà.
PREMIO BROLETTO CITTA’ DI BRESCIA “GIOVANNI SCARAMELLA” 2007Modifega
La convensiù adotàda l'è la stèsa per töcc i autùr e la dopèra la -ş- per /s/ intervocàlich, -s- per /z/ intervocàlich.
Gh'è apò 'n pér de ocorènse co la -z-: rizòt e mazù. Dàto che se tràta de 'na pozìa de 'n autùr de la Al Camònega pòde dì negót perchè 'l dialèt de la al camòneca 'l conóse mìa.
Le sette poesie premiate
La cönta de l’amùr
« Gh’era ‘na ólta,
ma gh’è anche adès e ghe sarà »
me e te scundìcc, murùs
nei reşoi dela nòt, sóta le grate
ne l’erba a süşürà
con chèle mà che per sò cönt
le paşa sö la pèl barbèle de suspìr,
‘l sang ‘l bói, ‘l cör ‘l g’ha la mata
e j-öcc ne j-öcc a sterlüzà le stèle.
Gambe ‘ngropade come trape,
‘l fiàt che cór söi làer de ua
e gh’è ‘l respìr che raspa
‘l va zó ‘n fónd, ‘ndó fenés
e ‘ndóe comincia ‘l mónd,
söla röda del tèmp e de l’amùr
gh’è la cönta che gira, la gira, la gira
e la sa ferma pö, come ‘l tornèl
« gh’era ‘na ólta,
ma gh’è anche adès e ghe sarà ».
LA CONTA DELL’AMORE – “C’era una volta / ma c’è anche adesso e ci sarà” / io e te nascosti,
morosi / nei riccioli della notte sotto i grappoli / nell’erba a sussurrare / con quelle mani che per
conto loro / passano sulla pelle farfalle di sospiri, / il sangue bolle, il cuore è impazzito / e gli occhi
negli occhi a brillare le stelle. / Gambe annodate come tralci, / il fiato che corre sulle labbra d’uva /
e c’è il respiro che raspa / va giù in fondo, dove finisce / e dove comincia il mondo, / sulla ruota del
tempo e dell’amore / c’è la conta che gira, gira, gira / e non si ferma più, come l’arcolaio / “c’era
una volta / ma c’è anche adesso e ci sarà”.
Armando Azzini di Rezzato
1° Premio Assoluto dedicato a “Giovanni Scaramella”
Vittoria alata offerta dal Sindaco e assegno di 500 euro
Ecia ustarìa de paés
‘L se ‘ntumpèla le óre
sö l’üs de la sera
e Cuma ‘n ròcc de gròle
le trèsca cu le föe.
‘N del ciel culór calèzem
‘na cultrina de niule
le se straaca vèrs
e le cimósse di móncc
le strica söi i paés
‘n de ‘na grant büssaca.
Vèntre de l’ustarìa
satimane sante de paşiù;
odór de mundine
füm de rae scutade
e ‘l camì ‘l sbulséga
‘n mazaròt de miseria.
La rènga lagnosa
de ‘n verticàl
la ghe scurlìs
i fianch a le matèle
e a ‘n gremişèl de òm,
‘n gubì sö ‘n de ‘na ciuna,
‘l ghe se descacia ‘l sanch
a mastegà tòşech
la sguara sö ‘l tàol
‘n vì mazènch
la butiglia ferìda
da ‘l delirium tremens.
Pàes strach de rucole
‘l treşèt e la móra
per negà ‘n de ‘n bicér
de chi che mèna sèmper
I struşéga pietà
i pòr cristi:
ognün ‘l g’ha ‘na piaga
e ‘l vì ‘l ghe sdröcia
I liter i va e i vé,
pache sö le spale,
pügn sö la tàola.
Palco de paés
‘n du che i sbrìndui
i deènta farsa.
VECCHIA OSTERIA DI PAESE – Inciampano le ore / sulla soglia della sera / e, come uno stormo
di cornacchie, / ballano con le foglie. / Nel cielo caliginoso / una coltre di nubi / affluisce verso il
conclave / e le cime dei monti / stringono i paesi / in un grande sacco scuro. / Ventre dell’osteria / a
novembre: / misteri dolorosi, / settimane sante di passione; / odore di caldarroste, / fumo di rape
bruciate / e il camino tossisce / un tanfo di miseria. / La cantilena lamentosa / di un organino / agita
i fianchi delle ragazze / e un gomitolo d’uomo / curvo su un bastone / scioglie il sangue / a
masticare il veleno / del soffrire: / spande sul tavolaccio / un vino vigoroso / la bottiglia ferita / dal
delirium tremens. / Paese stanco di contese / il tresette e la morra / per affogare in un bicchiere / la
superbia / degli sfruttatori. / Strisciano pietà / i poveri cristi: / ognuno ha una croce / ben nascosta /
e il vino spazza via / i malanni. / I litri vanno e vengono, / pacche sulle spalle, / discussioni
affannose, / pugni sulla tavola. / Palcoscenico di paese / dove i frammenti di storie / diventano farsa.
Dino Marino Tognali di Vione
Premio Angelo Albrici
assegno da 300 euro offerto da Antichità Antonio Albrici
El mé bósch
Che frèd èn de ‘l mé bósch.
Riarà la név
e ‘l-è zamò töt prónt.
Le fòje j’è ‘nmöciade
ai pè del fó.
Scheràcc e surighì
i tribüla aşé,
aanti e ‘ndré,
a tra ‘nsèma
mìgole de cà.
Gh’è piö gna ‘n uzilì
‘n de l’aria fina
a brüzà i làer.
Sul el mé pas
en d’el mé bósch.
No vula fòja,
pare töt piö picinì,
no gh’è piö póra
e pöde ardà de lóns.
Gna quàter góşe
a cunsulàm col so rósare.
Sul el mé pas
en de’el mé bósch.
A sbrego sö ‘n óter lönare.
IL MIO BOSCO – Che freddo nel mio bosco. / Arriverà la neve / ed è già tutto pronto. / Le foglie
sono ammucchiate / ai piedi dei faggi. / Scoiattoli e topolini / lavorano assai, / avanti e indietro, / a
riunire / briciole di casa. / Non vi è neppure un uccellino / nell’aria fine / che brucia le labbra. / Solo
il mio passo / nel mio bosco. / Non vola foglia, / pare tutto più piccolo, / non c’è più paura / e posso
guardare lontano. / Neppure quattro gocce (di pioggia) / a consolarmi con il loro rosario. / Solo il
mio passo / nel mio bosco. / A stracciare un altro calendario.
Marco Gatti di Brescia
Premio Luciano Spiazzi
assegno da 300 euro offerto dalla famiglia Spiazzi
Deanti al bósch
L’è deanti al bósch che sa g’ha póra,
póra dei pas de fa sènsa ‘ndritüra,
che j-ensòme i reste ‘ndré sö le carpìe,
che ‘l fósch el ta quarce ‘n del braşàt,
dele pansàneghe che ciciara sotaùs.
Ma l’è dènter al bósch che sa crès, dé dopo dé,
endóe sa laşa careşà del vènt
che ‘l mögia ne l’engobà le similine,
endóe mila perföm i sa fa giü, per töt,
e i ta ‘mbreàga de ‘na vita nöa.
Dènter al bósch i sa dà del té el paghér co’ la maöla,
el sul el vé a ‘nsonnàs abelazì tra ram e umbrìe,
el piöisnà l’è ‘l batès dóls de ‘n prét
che ‘l càa la sét ai culùr smórcc,
j-è lagrime de magù e de contentèşa.
E me so ‘na ucia de pì. Che spóns.
DAVANTI AL BOSCO - E’ davanti al bosco che si ha paura, / paura dei passi da fare senza via
maestra, / che i sogni restino indietro sulle ragnatele, / che il buio ti copra nell’abbracciarti, / delle
favole che chiacchierano sottovoce. // Ma è dentro il bosco che si cresce, giorno dopo giorno, / dove
ci si lascia accarezzare dal vento / che muggisce, nel piegare le cime degli alberi, / dove mille
profumi diventano uno solo, per ogni cosa, / e ti inebriano di una vita nuova. // Dentro il bosco si
danno del tu l’abete rosso con la fragola, / il sole viene a seminarsi lento tra rami ed ombre, / il
piovigginare è il battesimo dolce di un sacerdote / che toglie la sete ai colori pallidi, / sono le
lacrime di tristezza e d’allegria. // Ed io sono un ago di pino. Che punge.
La canta al batès!
e l’è delegrèthza tel bósch e so i
mucc. Brons e òmign
i vif el de braciacià a murùs;
maitì a la sera, polsà te la nòt.
A la prima cominiù la i cór dré ai
matèi dal dusèl a la césa e
la canta, la canta. Le bronze pricìs.
Le ure le canta
i fa mia deferènsa col dé de le crésme;
e a mesdé l’è udùr de galber
che cór te le viè.
Ai spus la concét cansù che s’ha proprio
da majà col rizòt par che l’è ‘nsé
che la fa festa a ina nöa famìa.
L’è la mazù ‘l sito plö gajàrt al mè paìs,
‘ngo il cito ‘l permèt al pater de dì la so!
‘L löch ‘n go ‘s canta al nàşer
quan che ‘s mör.
I-ho süntü da ghèrp a cantà!
Conosio le cansù; e le sarà tute par me
quan che ‘l vis ‘l se placarà söl cuşì
coi cavèi bianch comà le paré,
po a lure a
cantà, i dé, i més, i agn…in’àtem…
VOLO – Canta al battesimo! / ed è allegrezza nel bosco e sui / greppi. Sacri bronzi ed uomini / si
abbandonano al giorno in un amplesso d’amore; / con lodi serali, riposo alle tenebre. / Alla prima
eucaristia accompagna i / fanciulli dalla piazza alla chiesa e / canta, canta…così le martinelle. / I
rintocchi ad ore cantano / non fa differenza nel giorno del crisma; / e a mezzodì è il profumo dei
ravioli / che si rincorre per le strade. / Per gli sposi innalza canzoni da / gustare col pranzo perché è
così / che festeggia una nuova famiglia. / E’ la stanza da letto il sito più importante al mio paese, /
dove il silenzio attinge forza dalla preghiera! / Dove si canta ad una nuova vita, / alla conclusione di
quella terrena. / Ho ascoltato il canto da bambino! / Conosco le canzoni; e saranno tutte per me /
quando il viso si abbandonerà al guanciale / immacolato di capelli come le pareti, / anche loro a /
cantare i giorni, i mesi, gli anni…un attimo…/ un volo!
Giovanni Trotti di Monno
Premio Fondazione ASM
assegno da 300 euro offerto dalla Fondazione
Pèl postada ensèma a j-òs
nensöl bianch sura le scagne
öcc de preda, cör de sabia
mà zelade pès del gias.
No gh’è fórsa en dei tò bras
né sveltèşa en dele gambe
quat tribülà le nasale
a tègner vif ‘n bris de fiàt.
Chèl bugiù rotónt l-è piàt
i caèi töcc sbaröfécc
àer che tira piö dal rider
réce strache de scultà.
I relòi j-è lé a spetà
cönsömàt l-è ‘n mestér pégher
ta salüda ‘l prét co’ l’òio
amò ‘n momènt…pò vé töt négher.
CI SIAMO – Pelle appoggiata sulle ossa / un lenzuolo sopra le sedie / occhi di pietra, cuore di
sabbia / mani gelate peggio del ghiaccio. // Non c’è forza nelle tue braccia / né sveltezza nelle
gambe / quanto faticano le narici / a tenere vivo un briciolo di fiato. // Quel pancione rotondo è
piatto / i capelli tutti sparpagliati / labbra che non sorridono più / orecchie stanche di ascoltare. // Gli
orologi sono lì ad aspettare / consumarti è un lavoro lento / ti saluta il prete con l’olio / ancora un
attimo…e poi si fa tutto nero.
Gianluigi Zanola di Gavardo
Premio Speciale dell’Associazione Arnaldo da Brescia
all’autore giovane più meritevole
assegno di 100 euro offerto dall’Associazione
La baraónda la s’è ambiada issé:
öna matina èl Comandant dè Piazza
(l’era la fi dè marz, ai vintitré),
èl manda ‘n Municìpio a bàter cassa.
Èl comanda dè dàga lé pèr lé
sentrentamila svànzeghe. - Gran razza
dè cani! – diz la zènt – Ghè ‘n-hóm assé
dè pagà mülte a sté gran bröta razza! -
Èn chèla ria i cariaz chè ‘ndàa ‘n Castèl
co’ le proïste pèr la guarnigiü,
e giü ‘l-éra cargat dè saradèl:
ùlega adòs, treaca i caratù,
àrmes töcc quancc d’ön tòc dè maranèl,
e zó le prime bòte a sté Sücù.
E ‘ntat chè sté Sücù j-è dré ch’i fila
vé zó sóta la Lòza i Com’issare,
chè j-éra ignic pèr fàs mondà la pila
e ghè sbrüsàa d’hì miga fat ‘l-afare.
- A sé?!, ‘n vulìev amò sentrentamila?
- usa la zènt – canàe dè üsürare!
sanguète, tirapè! volóm finìla! –
E j-éra dré pèr dàga ‘l bene-stare,
quand èl Maràfio, èl capo dèi bechér:
- Òho, s.cècc - èl dis – fóm miga dèle bèrle!
Sté du siòr-ché i va bé pèr prizunér.
Endré, vè dic, o vula fiur dè sbèrle!
Sté du siòr-ché vè-i méne mé a polér:
chèscc-ché i va consegnaci al prét dè Sèrle. -
Entat èl Capitane dèl Castèl,
chè ‘l vèd a turnà ‘ndré i so òm pestaci
e ‘l sènt chè ‘l Municìpio nó ‘l dà ‘n ghèl,
èl dis: - Vè ‘l daró mé ‘l castigamacc. -
Difati vèrs le do, pròpe ‘n dèl bèl
chè töcc i faa comènti sö ‘n sté facc,
sé sènt buhm… bruhm…, e sübit ön bordèl
cóme dè cóp e védre sfracassacc.
A parlà co’ la bóca dèl canù
èl Capitane ‘l ghìa cridit chè Brèssa
la sé sarès bötada ‘n zünüciù;
ma ‘l-ha duit capì piö prèst chè ‘n frèssa
chè la pégora adès la faa debù
e ché la ghia dèi dèncc dè leonèssa.
Pènsa dóca sé ulìem mocàla lé
pèr hì sintit a tra quac canunada;
quand turna, a mezanòt, i s’è mèscc dré
e bombardà, tè dise chè l’è stada
‘na spécie dè ‘na fèsta. Salta ‘n pé
töcc quancc, tö sö i füzìi e cór èn strada…
Gh’éra scür… sé ciamàem: “Él Lü… Sét tè?...
Nómi ‘n Castèl?...”. Èn chèla la Palada
La taca a scampanà, e din dòn rispónd
èl Pégol e campane e campanù
dè someà vignit la fi dèl mónd.
Miga però a noàlter, ma ai Sücù:
pèr nó l’éra ‘na fèsta: l’éra ‘n fónd
la nostra Pasqua dè Rissurezziù.
From The University of Derby : Independent Study for a BSc ( Hons ) Degree in Applied Psychology by Dario Salvi Alpine Dialect and Italian Language: Do different generations have different levels of knowledge of both languages ? A Lexical Decision Task experiment on language traditions.
Abstract Bilingualism it is a subject which has been widely studied and examined in the past. Bilinguals have been studied from linguistic, cultural, social and psychological points of view. Bilingualism in Northern Italy has not been studied, to date, from a psychological point of view. The aim of this study is to find whether older generations and younger generations have different levels of knowledge of Eastern Lombard Dialect and Italian. A lexical Decision Task was used to examine Italian – East Lombard Dialect bilinguals competence with their languages, analysing the differences between younger and older generations. Participants were asked to recognise accurately and as quickly as possible strings of letters as Italian words or non-words and Dialect words or non words. For accuracy the pattern of results showed that both younger and older participants performed better in recognising Dialect words and non words than Italian ones, with older participants making less mistakes. For reaction times younger participants were faster is giving answers in both Dialect and Italian trials than older participants and were faster giving answers to Italian related stimuli than dialect. Findings suggested that age had a significant effect on accuracy in the LDT but no significant influence on reaction times.
The Historical and Geographical Background
During the History of the Alps centuries of invasions and migration have created an heterogeneous blend of cultures, traditions, races and languages. The institutional language since Italy was united under a central Government – The Kingdom Of Italy - ( 1861 ) is the Italian language but every valley, region and sometimes every town or village has its own language ( dialect ) with frequently very different roots from the Italian language itself. Eastern Lombard dialect is the focus of this research. Eastern Lombard dialect has common roots with the more widely spoken Lombard dialect and its original grammatical structure differs from the Italian one and its vocabulary presents different phonemes from Italian ( vowel with umlaut for example cannot be found in Italian language whereas are very common in Lombard dialect). Lombard dialect belongs to the gallo-italic group within the romance languages: it is natively spoken in Lombardy, Southern Switzerland ( Graubünden and Ticino ) and in some neighbouring geographical regions like Trentino and Piedmont ( Spiess 1956). It can be divided in two sub-groups, Eastern and Western Lombard. Genealogically Italian and Lombard are not closely related and French, Romansh and Franco-Provençal are more closely related to Lombard than Italian. Because of a cultural widespread of the Italian language within the national borders in the last 50 years, since the introduction to the masses of TV, and because of the massive immigration of Southern Italians in the 50's and 60's, coming to the North is search for a job, dialect has become more and more a second language .In 1993 Lombard became one of the endangered European languages included in the UNESCO Red Book (Salminen 1993). In 2006 the Italian National Institute of Statistics reported that nearly all Lombard speakers could speak Italian and everyone could understand it. Their ability to use it though changes according to their geographical position ( where large towns citizens more often use Italian and valleys or countryside citizens prefer using dialect ) and their socio- economic and educational situation. The very same study reported that the best predictor of what language is preferred in the speaker's age ( ISTAT 2007). Almost all Lombards can understand dialect ( sometimes can understand more than one version of dialect ) but many old words and sayings are lost in time, with only older generations who can still remember and use them in everyday life. The most difficult phonetic sounds tend to be “Italianised” nowadays ( pronounced in an Italian RP ) sometimes giving dialects a funny sounding pronunciation. Eastern Lombard ( EL ) in particular, which is the language at the central focus of our research and experiment, is spoken in Eastern Lombardy and Western Trentino, which are the areas where the experiment was conducted. Valley Sabbia climbs from the Plain Padana and the banks of Lake Garda up to the Brenta Dolomites, changing name while changing administrative Province – Valley Sabbia ( pic. 1) within the Province of Brescia and Chiese Valley and Giudicarie Valleys (pic. 2 ) within the Province of Trento. The language itself tends to slightly change from the lower part of the valley to the ending part, with a particular form of dialect, Bagoss, only spoken in a village near Lake Idro called Bagolino, but in general, apart from small differences from village to village, the dialect remains the same along the valley and shares the same vocabulary and grammatical rules, and belongs to the Eartern Lombard Family.. Almost all Lombard can understand it because its roots are common to the rest of Lombard dialects but, as it is happening for most regional languages, many old words of Eastern Lombard Dialect ( EL ) too are lost in time, with only older the generations who can remember and use them ( Grohovaz, 2006), for example the old word burnis, from the old Saxon word birnan ( to be on fire ) meaning ash, is commonly substituted by the more Italian sounding term zener ( ita. cenere ). All this is especially true in large towns and densely populated areas whereas in the Alpine Valleys, our area of interest, and in the open countryside the situation is still very much the same that it was in the 19th century, where dialect was ( and still is) the language of choice in everyday life ( Coluzzi, 2007). As Keller ( 2006 ) explained in Bahtia and Richie (2006), throughout the 19th century in a great part of Europe, minority language speakers found themselves in the condition of becoming more or less bilinguals in the State language and in their local language. What happened was that the education, the increasing influence of administration solely based on the standard State language ( Italian in our case ),and the fast development of town with a mixed population accelerated the takeover by the state language not considering what Schiffman (1996) said about language, that is that it is through language that cultures and local traditions are maintained and transmitted from a generation to the next. This helped creating a new type of bilinguals. Grosjean (1997) explained how bilinguals are characterised by a series of general traits that make them an heterogeneous group. It is interesting to note how they are more often than not influenced by what he called the complementary principle: bilinguals usually acquire and use their languages for diverse purposes, in different areas of their lives and with different people. This is very true for the group of participants invited to take part in this experiment: EL speakers use dialect in the most familiar and private domains of their lives, like having a chat with their family, commenting on a football game, hanging out with friends in a pub, telling the tales of an early Sunday morning out in the mountains picking mushrooms whereas switch to Italian when they have to deal with authorities or address to non-locals ( Coluzzi, 2007). EL bilinguals have to interact with both EL bilinguals or Italian monolinguals, and more rarely EL monolinguals, and have therefore to adapt their language behaviour accordingly, just as Grosjean (1997) reported to be the case for all bilinguals. Past research, as reported by Grosjean in 2006, presents very different participants because of the variability of options researches can decide to focus on to assess the level of bilingualism of their participants. Some point to the fluency and use scales to describe it , some stress language use in the different domains of life, some others stress on how the languages were learnt and in what context. Past research does not therefore provide a precise line of action to follow, but draws the borders within which researchers in bilingualism should move, and within which, using Grosjean's own questions and guidelines, this experiments tends to move. Bilingualism it is a well documented field of language studies, but as reported in Coluzzi (2007), it is very well documented all other Europe except in Italy. This gives an interesting prospect to this research since it is going to be one of the very first conducted in Northern Italy and especially original and unprecedented since focusing on Eastern Lombard Dialect ( preceded only by Coluzzi (2007) research on Friulan dialect, a language spoken in an area distant 200 miles from our area of interest ). Coluzzi explained how the national project of creating an Italian speaking people was highly intensified by Fascism ( 1920's and 30's) and reinforced by industrialisation and the post war economic boom and mass migration from the South, all of which put a tremendous pressure on Lombard people, society and language. Iacobini ( 2009) noted how the presence of more phrasal verbs in modern Italian than any other Romance language is explained well as a phenomenon due to the borrowing by Italian of a Germanic pattern coming from Northern dialects ( were for example 'to go out' is literally translated in Dialect as 'nà fó ' ( again from the old Saxon gān ) while in standard Italian as 'uscire' and modern“contaminated” Italian as 'andare fuori, a literal translation borrowed from Alpine Dialects grammar. This shows how even if Italian is gaining foot as a national language it is being constantly modified by the strong influence of Northern Dialects ,a deeply rooted presence in Northern Italy.
Lexical Decision Task ( LDT)
The present experiment used a Lexical decision Task (LDT) ( Landauer et al 1968), were strings of letters are presented to a participant who has to decide if they form a real word or they do not and form what is defined as a non word, that is a string of letters, pronounceable and morphologically correct, but not belonging to the vocabulary of the particular language in question. The LDT belongs to the category of Visual recognition of words and previous research has reported how visual recognition can be influenced by different factors. Whaley (1978) showed how frequency of a word in common use in the single most important factor influencing the speed of responding to a LDT. Harley (2008), expanding Whaley's findings, explained how the effect of frequency in a LDT is not just present between less common words and frequent words, but also for example between frequent and very frequent words or common and less common words. Therefore Whaley suggested that in a psycholinguistics experiment frequency of word should be the first feature to be controlled for when designing a stimuli ( list of words). This research confirmed also Howes and Solomon (1951) findings where common words were reported to be more easily recognisable and are usually responded to more quickly in visual experiments. Gough (1972) explained how during a word recognition task letters were taken out of a short term visual buffer one by one and an approximate rate of 15 milliseconds per word, making longer words harder to recognise than short words. He also noted how poor readers tend to have a slower transfer rate than good readers. Once again Harley (2008) confirmed Gough's findings and reported how common words in most languages tend to be shorter and therefore more easily recognised ( and read ). Length of a word in a LDT was also analysed by Chumbley and Balota ( 1984) who showed that a length effect both in words and non words was found even when both were matched for regularity of pronunciation and length , meaning that in their experiment they built or constructed non words just as morphologically correct and pronounceable as the words used in the same test. A slightly different finding was reported by Weekes in 1997: he found out that word length had just a minor effect in a LDT when other properties of words were controlled for. What he meant was that controlling for similarity between non words and words in terms of spelling and pronunciation ,for example, reduced the influence of the length of the string of letters. But surprisingly he found out that length played a more important role in reading non words than words, giving therefore some sort of relevance to meaning as playing a role in reading, and especially in non words ranging from 5 to 12 letters in length. This confirmed a previous research conducted by Eriksen and Rohrbaugh in 1970 where it was reported how the number of syllables was directly proportional to the time necessary to name and recognise a string of letters. Bhatia and Richie (2006), building on all this previous research summarised very well what characteristic of words and non words played what role in a LDT. First of all they explained how words are generally recognised faster than non words because of the role of memory which help the reader recognising the word also thanks to its meaning or occurrence in the reader's past life. They then explained how less plausible ( with very uncommon pairings of letters in a given language ) non words ( in support to Coltheart 1977) are more quickly rejected than more plausible ones, stressing once again the importance of morphology and pronounce-ability of non words. The best non words to be used are those called Pseudowords which are those non words that follow the rules of word formation of a given language and do not include of course illegal strings of letters ( for example CK in Italian). Considering all this particular importance was given in picking the right words in both Italian and Dialect and for this study particular attention was given to non words creation. All real words were common-frequent words because they were picked from an everyday language, no technical or unusual words were picked ( according to Dell'Acqua et al. (2000) norms of standardised Italian) , whereas non words were tested as readable by presenting them to five people ( different from the experiment participants) and asking them to read them aloud without caring of their meaning. Some of them seemed so real that the experimenter had to use a dictionary to prove they were not real words in both languages. Rubin and Annamalai (1980) very well summarised what can influence a LDT: frequency, emotionality and pronounce-ability of the strings of letters, all considered as the best predictors of performance, all of which were considered in designing and picking both non words and words. Emotionality was controlled using names of very common objects, which are almost daily met or used and therefore gain a low level of emotionality ( meaning that people who are very often in presence of an object tend to consider it as given, always present part of their life and tend not to even notice if it is there unless they need to use it or they are asked for it ( Candland et al. (2009) ). LDT was picked as the chosen method even if the experimenter was well informed on the possible biases and confound that it could include. For example Neely et al (1989) criticised it because they said that it reflects too much the participants' strategies rather than the sheer automatic processes of lexical access. The same supported by Chumbley and Balota (1984) finding that reported how LDT measures participants decision making times together with pure lexical access. Bhatia and Richie (2007) also stressed the fact that in using a LTD results are biased by the effects of the measurement task, meaning that the task itself interacts with the subject of the study. Of course, knowing all this, and applying this to a bilingual situation and test as in the present study what was thought was that even if decision times and participants' strategies were measured by the LDT they were measured in both Dialect and Italian and therefore they cancelled themselves. Also, being this a comparative test between two languages, the very same confounds could be measured in both language conditions and therefore do not bias the final comparative analysis . However LDT was used in this particular condition because it controlled for cross-language priming when using speeded responses. This was reported by Keatley and deGelger (1992) who explained how separate-store of languages, meaning that words from one language were store separate from words of the other language, could bias a LDT if participants were not told to give their answers as accurately and an fast as possibly, being therefore not well informed that their response fast rate was recorded. They discovered how knowing that responses were timed reduced the priming effect of knowing that the test would have been conducted in a language or another, a fact clear to the participant from the first slide of each trial: the first slide bearing the first string of letters in one language or the other would cue the participant that all the following trials of that session would have been in the same language. Therefore the goal of the present study was to test weather results found by past research ( Coluzzi, 2007; Grohovaz, 2006) in other languages and bilingual situations could be applied to Eastern Lombard Dialect – Italian bilinguals and more specifically test if the age of the speaker could be considered a good predictor of proficiency in Eastern Lombard Dialect.
In a typical LDT ( Landauer et al 1968) , probably the single most widely task used in experimental psycholinguistics ( Seidenberg 1990 ), strings of letters are presented per trial, such as GIORNO ( word) and TRUFLI ( non -word ) and the participant must decide as accurately and quickly as possible whether the letters string is a word or not .
Design The design of the experiment was a 2 (Age) by 2 (Language Type) mixed factorial design. With the factor levels of young versus old for the between subjects factor ‘Age’, and the factor levels Italian versus Dialect for the repeated-measures factor Language Type. There were in fact two Dependent Variables (DVs), i.e. response time ( RT) and accuracy ( measured using percentages of correct responses in both languages).
Apparatus Stimulus strings of words or non words were displayed one at a time in lowercase letters on a computer ( Geneva Font size 96) screen ( Macbook Pro 13”). Letters were black on a white background. A Mac compatible program, Superlab Pro 45 ( Cedrus Inc. USA ) controlled the experiment and the presentation of the stimulus strings and recorded both correct and wrong responses and response times, up to a hundredth part of a millisecond . The response buttons consisted of the Macbook Pro keyboard with three selected buttons, the space bar for initiating the experiment after the briefing and introductory slide, letters A and D buttons for the LDT responses.
The experiment involved 40 bilingual ( 24 males and 16 females )speakers of Italian and Eastern Lombard Dialect with an age included between 18 and 60 years of age ( mean age = 33.425 , SD = 14.21427 ). Inclusion criteria were being a native Northern Italian( preferably from Brescia or Trento admnistrative provinces) and exclusion were of course being native of other regions and not having an age included in the range of interest. Participants were recruited as an opportunity sample, including friends and acquaintances of the experimenter, students and villagers living in the area the experiment took place. None of the participants had any learning, language, seeing or hearing disability and all of them were treated in accordance with British Psychological Ethical Principles for Conducting Research with Human Participants.
(a) The briefing session Participants were invited to take part in the experiment and given a sheet of paper ( appendix 2) bearing a brief description of the experiment and why they had been chosen to take part in it (belonging to a particular bilingual group ). They were told in advance that they could have withdrawn from the experiment at any point in time and that their data were strictly confidential and would have not diffused and recognisable by anyone but the experimenter. On entering the test room ( a spacious, comfortable and well lit room ) participants were invited to sit down at the desk where the presentation Macbook Pro 13” was already set up for the experiment. They were briefed on the experiment as well as shown with a presentation slide onscreen ( appendix 3) bearing instructions on how to do the test. Each of them was given a personal code number so to respect they anonymity. They were then instructed to start the experiment pressing the space bar on the Macbook keyboard and left alone in the room. Before of the actual experiment participant took a pre-task session, including 10 string of letters on which they had to do exactly as in the experiment but without having results recorded ( they were of course told that what they were doing was an introductory session), at the end of which they were allowed some minutes to ask any question on how to do the experiment in case they had found problems or doubts during the introductory session. As suggested by Grosjean (2006) participants where screened on the basis of different language domains. The briefing questions they were asked helped us drawing a more complete profile of the participant and his or her language skills and history. They were both questions taken from Grosjean (2006) guidelines on how to conduct a language experiment and from the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire ( LEAP-Q) ( Marian et al 2007). From the LEAP-Q guidelines these open questions were asked : Please list all the languages you know in order of dominance: All 40 participants listed Italian as the language they knew best followed by Dialect. Other languages, coming third or fourth in the order of dominance were English ( 28 participants ), German ( 12 participants ), Dutch ( 3 participants) and French ( 2 participants ).
Please list all the languages you know in order of acquisition (your native language first): All 40 participants listed Italian as the language they acquire first ,followed once again by Dialect. Many participants, especially those belonging to the group of age ranging from 30 to 60, expressed their doubt in answering the question saying they the do not recall a language used more frequently than the other during their childhood. They also reported how very often their parents used Dialect while speaking with each other . When choosing a language to speak with a person who is equally fluent in all your languages, what percentage of time would you choose to speak each language? Please report percent of total time. (Your percentages should add up to 100%):
Here below , in Table 1, are reported the results of the question with numbers indicating the percentage a participant would choose to speak a language and not the other in the second and third column, and age in the third. This question was fundamental in understanding the perception of what language a participant felt more comfortable with in an everyday social environment and what language he or she would prefer using. Participant Italian (%) Dialect (%) Age 1 70 30 19 2 85 15 21 3 50 50 18 4 80 20 24 5 90 10 21 6 90 10 19 7 60 40 18 8 55 45 20 9 85 15 18 10 85 15 18 11 75 25 24 12 70 30 29 13 90 10 26 14 100 0 27 15 95 5 18 16 50 50 18 17 75 25 22 18 70 30 18 19 90 10 19 20 80 20 23 21 45 55 40 22 50 50 58 23 60 40 31 24 45 55 40 25 30 70 60 26 30 70 60 27 50 50 42 28 40 60 55 29 50 50 33 30 50 50 44 31 30 70 53 32 45 55 47 33 50 50 54 34 50 50 43 35 50 50 44 36 40 60 45 37 40 60 44 38 60 40 32 39 50 50 41 40 50 50 51 N=40 Mean % ( Italian) = 61.5 , SD = 19.91 Mean % ( Dialect ) = 38.5 , SD= 19.91 Mean age = 33.425 , SD = 14.21427
- Table 1. Percentages indicating the choice of language when addressing a bilingual person
Questions were used to see if the participant considered him/herself more proficient in one language than the other and allocate him/her to the Dialect or Italian experimental group. For the results of the questions above it was decided to split participants in two groups, namely Younger Group and Older Group, which also reflected, quite interestingly, not only their fluency and confidence with one language or the other but also their age. An analysis of the results in Table 1 indicated how people of age included between 18 and 29 presented similar results as well as people between 30 and 60 did. Following Grosjean ( 2006), further questions were asked, as a double check on the LEAP-Q questions, to see if the formation of groups following a difference in age could be confirmed :
Grosjean ( 2006 ) questions used in the experiment were: Which languages did you acquire, when and how and was the cultural context same or different for each language? This question was asked so to understand how they learnt the two languages and what was the first one the used and how they learnt the second one. All of the 40 participants answered that they acquired both Dialect and Italian at home, during their childhood but that the cultural context of Dialect was their village, family and workplace whereas the cultural context of Italian was provided by the media ( television, radio, newspapers), having to deal with central institutions, having to talk with non indigenous people. This question therefore did not either supply a support or raised a problem in forming the groups divided by age. Can you both speak, understand, write and read both languages ? If not what can you and can't you do ? This question was asked so to have a good picture of the participant language skills. All of the 40 participants answered that they could speak both languages with a good level of fluency, they all said that they could better read and write Italian than Dialect because they had been educated in Italian and not in Dialect, but reported how they could speak Dialect just as fluently as Italian. Answers to this question too did not put forward any problem to an age-based groups formation. Do you ever switch automatically from a language to the other or use words of a language while speaking the other ?If so how often ? This question was used to analyse if the participant finds himself in bilingual mode or he/she just is in a monolingual mode when he speaks a language. Most of the 40 participants answered that they switched from a language to the other continually, sometimes using Dialect words and Dialect grammatical constructions while speaking Italian and vice versa. Just 2 participants answered that they hardly ever switched automatically from a language to the other, but when further asked if they ever did it, switching, on purpose, voluntarily, they answered that they often happened to use dialect words or dialect grammatical constructions in Italian because they loved how doing so made Italian sound better or more understandable in their perception. No difference was noted between the age groups. Therefore all of Grosjean ( 2006) questions pointed to the fact that there was no particular point against forming groups as suggested by the results of the LEAP-Q guidelines. A final question was then asked: What is your age, sex , occupation and educational status ? This question was asked in order to draw a more complete profile of the participant.
All of the 40 participants had an age included between 18 and 60, with a mean age of 33.425 ( sd = 14.21427 ), of which 27 were educated at a college level, 6 had a secondary school education and 7 had a degree. 25 participants were males and 15 were females. Their occupation varied : there were 15 students ( university or high school), 4 company managers, 2 housewives, 6 technical employees, 3 musicians, 4 military personnels, 5 iron workers and 1 general practitioner.
(b) The experiment
Materials The experimental stimuli consisted of 60 strings of letters as in Appendix 1( 30 words and 30 non words) . For the non words they were all pronounceable and orthographically legal ( Lima et al 1997 ). Italian words had a mean M=6.3 (sd=1.28), range =4-9 number of letters while Dialect words had a mean M=5.9 (sd= 1.73), range= 3-10, number of letters. Both Italian and Dialect words included 14 nouns and 1 verb taken from and everyday language ( taking in consideration the geographical position ( by an Alpine lake) , some of those words would be less common in a different environment ) as shown in appendix 1, so to avoid the problem raised by Whaley (1978) ,already explained in the introduction to the report, where the frequency of use of a word is the single most important factor in influencing reaction times in a LDT. Using all very common and every-day words frequency is controlled for. Italian words were taken from Dizionario della Lingua Italiana 2010 ( Zingarelli, 2009) and double checked with it for their correct spelling. Dialect words were taken from Vocabolario Bresciano – Italiano ( Melchiori,1817) and spelled with the same accents and umlauts as the dictionary indicated.
Procedure At the start of each trial, after the briefing slide, a fixation large PLUS sign ( + ) appeared at the centre of the screen and the same preceded every single string of letters ( trial ). To initiate a trial the participants used the space bar on the keyboard, after having read the presentation slide, so to make the + sign appear for 500ms ( as indicated by Cepstral Inc, the company who designed and produced Superlab Pro 45, as the best time for a cue to appear on the screen during a LDT run on their software ) followed by the first string of letters that remained on screen until participants made a response pressing the response buttons, namely letters A and D, the former for WORD answers and the latter for NON WORDS. Participants were instructed beforehand to use the index finger and middle finger of their dominant hand to press the keys. Instructions stressed both accuracy and speed. The experiment was designed so to have 3 fillers to be presented at the beginning of each trial ( always the same 3 string of letters for each participant) to allow participants to settle in to the task before starting the actual experiment. Reaction times and responses of the fillers were not recorded. Each participant completed 30 trials ( 30 different strings of letters ) in one language before proceeding to the next 30 trials in the other language. Language order was randomised for each participant by Superlab Pro 45. Participants were given 1 minute break halfway through the experimental lists, between the first and second trial. Trials order was randomised by the program itself as well as the order of the string of letters within each of the two trials so that each participant got a different order of stimuli presentation. For reaction time, time from the onset of the string of words on screen to the precise moment the participant clicked an assigned key was measured in milliseconds and recorded by the presentation software. At the end of the experiment participants were shown a debriefing slide bearing a more detailed description of the experiment ( appendix 4) and contact details in order to be able to contact the experimenter if willing to withdraw their data or receive a final copy of the report.
We used a between subjects design to examine the influence of age on accuracy and reaction time in performing a task in Eastern Lombard Dialect and Italian . Reaction time (RT) analysis showed that participants belonging to the Younger Group were faster (measured in milliseconds) in giving answers ( both correct and incorrect ) when presented Italian related stimuli ( mean=1389.13, SD=463.11) than those belonging to the Older Group ( mean= 1471.79, SD=861.48). Reaction time was derived from the experimental software’s output. Data were analysed using a 2 (age: younger vs. older) x 2 (language: Italian vs. Dialect) Analysis of Variance ( ANOVA) which showed this difference not to be significant (F(1,38) = 0.455, p > 0.50). There was no significant main effect of age on reaction times in both languages. For accuracy the Younger Group scored an overall of 976 correct answers and 224 incorrect ones, while the Older Group scored an overall of 1033 correct answers and 167 incorrect as shown in Chart 1 here below:
Participants belonging to the Younger Group scored less correct dialect words ( mean=25.35, SD 3.083) than those belonging to the Older Group ( mean=26.45, SD=1.468). Data were analysed using a 2 (age: younger vs older) x 2 (language: Italian vs Dialect) ANOVA. There was a significant main effect of age (F(1, 38) = 5.08, p < 0.050). More correct responses were given by Older group participants than younger groups. Language too had a significant effect on correct answers ( F(3,76) =7.950, p<0.050) and calculated using a multivariate mixed ANOVA with a newly coded Dependent Variable ( language ) A further analysis of collected data, this time using for different one-way ANOVAs, was conducted to see the influence of factor age ( with two levels: younger and older ) on each individual set of data. The results of the first ANOVA pointed to the fact that age had no significant effect on correct dialect answers ( F(1,38)=2.076, p < 0.50 ) per se .A second ANOVA revealed that age had an highly significant effect on correct Italian answers ( F(1,38)=5,528, p < 0.05). Other two ANOVAs were used to see the influence of age on reaction times in one language first and on the other next. What was found was that age had no significant effect on reaction times for Dialect strings of letters ( F(1-38) = 0.816, p < 0.50) and not significant effect on reaction times for Italian strings of letters as well ( F(1-38)=0.143, p > 0.50).
Collected data ( Table 2) showed that in the Younger Group participants were faster (in milliseconds) in giving correct answers both with Italian stimuli ( mean=1336.72, SD=408.86) and Dialect stimuli ( mean=1581.99, SD=538.61) than in giving incorrect answers ( Italian: mean=1671.06, SD = 828.98; Dialect: mean= 1605,95, SD=580,24). Within the Older Group the same phenomenon happened, with correct Italian stimuli related answers recording the fastest reaction times (mean=1406.15, SD=716.04) (in milliseconds), followed by correct Dialect answers ( mean=1702.07, SD=858.80), incorrect Italian answers ( mean=1957.25, SD= 1842.82) and incorrect Dialect answers recording the slowest reaction time of the experiment ( mean = 2531.61, SD=1828.99). Table 2: Group Statistics
Group N Mean ( milliseconds ) Standard Deviation Standard Error Mean RT Correct Ita Young 20 1336.7205 408.85518 91.42280
Old 20 1406.1490 716.03626 160.11058 RT Incorrect Ita Young 20 1671.0645 828.98535 185.36676
Old 20 1957.2550 1842.82336 412.06783 RT Correct Dial Young 20 1581.9955 528.61246 118.20134
Old 20 1702.0695 858.79598 192.03262 RT Incorrect Dial Young 20 1605.9510 580.23998 129.75
Old 20 2532.6145 1828.99304 408.97528 RT Correct Ita: reaction time of correct answers ( Italian Stimuli) RT Incorrect Ita: reaction time of correct answers ( Italian Stimuli) RT Correct Dial: reaction time of correct answers ( Dialect Stimuli) RT Incorrect Dial: reaction time of incorrect answers ( Dialect Stimuli)
Younger Group participants were faster in answering Italian related questions ( mean=1389.13, SD=463.11) than Dialect related questions in general ( mean=1591.67, SD=518.89). Also Older Group participants were faster in answering Italian related questions ( mean= 1471.78, SD=861.48) than Dialect related questions ( mean=1813.4, SD=965.56). Independent measures t-test showed that age had no significant effect on reaction times on language (t(38)=0.904, p=0.372 for Dialect and t(38)=0.378, p=0.708 for Italian ).
To summarise, when speaking of Eastern Lombard and Italian bilinguals , older generations showed a better grasp of not only Dialect but also Italian even if they displayed slower reaction times during the test they were submitted. We first discuss performance between bilinguals in both languages, then we examine the similarities and difference between the groups . While doing this we discuss the theoretical and methodological implications of this study and suggest how this study could be improved by future research. In a Lexical decision task ( LDT ) experiment two groups of participants, divided depending on their age, were tested in recognising strings of letters as words or non words in both Eastern Lombard Dialect and Italian. Findings suggested that the accuracy, measured in correct answers, of answering such a test was influenced by age but reaction times in giving the answers in both languages were not influenced by age One possible explanation to this is those who took part in this experiment were all recruited from a small geographical area which lays far from big towns or cities. Coluzzi (2007) and a research conducted by the Italian National Institute of Statistics ( ISTAT, 2007) describe how less populated, rural or decentralised geographical areas were inhabited by a population which still used Dialect more frequently than Italian in comparison with urban areas. Dialect as an everyday language is still a reality in those areas and the sample of participants in our study was composed in its entirety by people coming from such an area. The age of the participants was found to have a significant influence on the knowledge of both languages, and therefore in the resulting better recorded accuracy in doing the LDT. Older participants scored better than younger ones in both Dialect and Italian, displaying how Grosjean (2006) method of participants screening could be a predictor of language knowledge. What was expected, after having conducted Grosjean's screening questions though, was to find an higher level of confidence ( again measured in correct answers ) of older people in Dialect and of younger people in Italian, since all of the above 30 yo participants indicated EL Dialect as their language of choice when addressing to another bilingual person and all of the 20 under 30 yo participants indicated Italian as their language of choice. Results proved that despite whatever their answer to the Grosjean question was, age, and specifically belonging to the Older group, influenced not only the knowledge of Dialect but of Italian as well. These findings gave a different perspective to Coluzzi's (2007) findings. What he said, that older generations had better knowledge of Dialect and had Dialect as their language of choice in a bilingual situation, as we have already seen analysing our experimental participant screening questions, where older people indicated Dialect as their language of choice in such a situation, is partly supported here. It is very true that Dialect is the language of choice for older generations, in fact our 20 participants with an age included between 30 and 60 preferred Dialect to Italian in 54.25% (SD=8.626) of the situations whereas younger participants ( age between 18 and 29, N=20 ) decided to use dialect in only the 22.75% ( SD=14.73) of the bilingual situations. It is also true that our results pointed to the fact that despite preferring Dialect, older generations, not only knew it better than younger generations but also scored better in Italian. This data is a surprising one, because it has never been reported or even hypothesised in past research on bilingualism ( Grohovaz, 2006; Coluzzi, 2007) that a group scored better than the other in both languages despite their language of choice, whereas what was commonly reported was that bilinguals had a significant better knowledge of their language of choice than the other. In our study this would have meant that Older generations scored better with Dialect related stimuli and Younger generations with Italian Related Stimuli. Appendix 5 shows the actual data for each group. As can been seen both groups had better accuracy in giving answers in Dialect, with the Older groups scoring 87.83% of correct answers and the Younger group 84.5%, than Italian, where the Older group scored 84.33% of correct answers and the Younger group scored 78.17%. A further analysis of these data showed how age had an effect on correct answers in Italian but not in Dialect. We could speculate therefore that age plays a greater influence on Italian than Dialect. What it seems evident from our results is that age is positively related to a better grasp of both languages, but less so on dialect. Dialect seems to be the language which maintains a constant role during the lifespan of a person whereas Italian tends to increase and improve with age. This is a fascinating discovery because puts Eastern Lombard – Italian bilinguals under a different light and perspective. Dialect seems to be the language which is rooted in the bilingual person, the one that stays the same and does not significantly improve during a person's life. Language has been seen to have had a significant effect on accuracy ( F(3,76) =7.950, p<0.050) in our Lexical Decision Task. Dialect, the language of everyday life, has proved to be just that. A solid base on which bilinguals can build their social life in a bilingual society. This results supports Coluzzi's (2007) research and gives further evidence to the fact that ,despite the age of the speaker , rural areas citizens still have dialect as the main language ( usually defined L1) and Italian as L2 ( second language). It is interesting to note that, although younger generations report Italian as their perceived language of choice in a bilingual situation, it is Dialect the language in which their score best and which already they know better. Italian is the language that improves with age, and at a significant level too, as can be seen by the results obtained by the between groups one way Analysis of Variance ( F(1,38)=5,528, p < 0.05) of age and Italian correct answers. An interpretation of this could be given reporting past research. Bahtia an Richie (2006) explained how not only education but also the influence of central administration based on the State ( Italian ) language and mass immigration brought the takeover by the state language. This takeover has happened in a fascinating way. Instead of replacing Dialect with Italian, EL bilinguals have built their Italian around the basic rock of the Dialect they speak. Italian is not a substitute of Dialect. Italian is needed in order to live in a central state. Having to deal with central administration for example is a prerogative of older people. Seldom young people have to deal with bureaucracy at an high level and often. It is when someone has his/her own activity, family,job,house and so on that one has to start dealing with state offices and it is then that she/he needs Italian. Italian has to be improved in order to deal with the endless papers or interviews one has to do with local authorities or offices. This would well move what Bahtia and Richie (2006) reported for Europe to Northern Italy. All this could give further support to Iacovini (2009) findings. Iacovini reported how Italian is changing towards a more modern language which incorporates typical traits of Northern Italian dialects ( the use of phrasal verbs of Germanic origin for example). If Dialect and Italian were experienced by bilinguals as subordinate to one another, with Italian as the dominant language, because the language of media, tabloids, institutions, immigrants, it would have been Dialect and only Dialect to adapt itself to the new dominant language. A small part of this is happing for sure, with the most difficult and less used Dialect words getting italianised ( made more Italian sounding ), probably for an easier use of easiness of pronunciation, but what is interesting to note is that the state language, spoken by million of people not only in Northern Italy but all over the Italian Peninsula and islands is undergoing a grammatical revolution. Simple words are not what is changing. What is changing is the construction of verbs, and the reason is that Dialects, not only Eastern Lombard, but most of the Saxon-Germanic influenced Northern Dialects (Iacovini ,2009), are contaminating Italian. Dialect bilinguals have exported from Dialect the construction of verb from a single word verb ( to exit for example) to a phrasal construction ( to go out). Linking our results to this is interesting to do. If dialect is the solid base upon which bilinguals build their linguistic experiences it is natural that whatever new language which they encounter gets contaminated. It could be true for English or German, commonly studied at school, but since Italian is being contaminated by Dialect since the first years after World War 2, and since it is Italian the most widely spoken language in the area after dialect, it is Italian which is being changed by Dialect: from few to many. Education, as we will see later for reaction times as well, could have played an important role in the influence of age on Italian accuracy rather than Dialect accuracy. Dialect remains constant throughout the lifespan of a person, or at least from 18 yo up, as shown by our results. Italian improves, and education can be responsible for that. Analysing Reaction times on the other hand showed that younger generations recorded shorter Reaction Times in giving answers in the LDT for both Italian and Dialect presented stimuli. Even if age was not found to be significant in RT measurements, it is interesting to note how all of the 20 Younger group participants had an occupation directly linked to memory and recognition of stimuli, or where memory played an important role: 15 of them were students, 3 musicians and 2 military personnel. All of them are constantly presented with tests of exercises to do and therefore can be considered to be better trained and to do tests than those belonging to the Older group. As reported by Bhatia and Richie (2006) memory plays an important role in a LDT, more in RT than in accuracy results. The language chosen by a participant during the screening session played a relevant role in giving correct answers to the stimuli but not, as we will see here below in a moment, on the speed of giving such answers. This dissociation between Reaction time and language can help us introduce the concept of a separate-store model of bilingual memory. We remember how Keatley and deGelger (1992), in conducting a LDT, found that priming in a language or the other could activate the single separate store of one language or the other, and therefore influence the hole testing session. Priming happened in our experiment, since participants were informed that they would have been tested in language ( random ) first and the other one next . Of course the first string of letters would play the role of the priming factor. It it was in Dialect for example all the following slides of stimuli would have been in Dialect for that session and logically the following session would have been in Italian.What was found here was the language could well influence the accuracy of the answers, as was expected by the activation of the specific separate memory store for that particular language, but did not influence the reaction times in giving the answers ( analysed in details here below). These results are particularly interesting since completely support Keatley and deGelger's findings: a participant who is informed that his/her answers will be times does not activate his/her separated store but works using his memory as a whole and not as separate clusters. To support this the present experiment needed to record that Language influenced accuracy ( as it did ) but not reaction times ( as it did ). Gough (1972) noted how poorer readers and less educated ones scored higher reaction times in a Lexical Decision Task. This could be a bias of our study, since the level of education was higher in the Younger Group participants than in the Older Groups ones. Education should have been a confound to be controlled for and more homogeneous levels of educations should have been taken in consideration when forming groups. But since the main aim of the present study was that of assessing the influence of age in bilinguals knowledge of their languages, and reaction times were only considered to see if not only accuracy but also reaction speed could be influenced by age, this possible confound was not taken in consideration with the attention it should have been given. Therefore we suggest that future research should reduce the confounding variable of education in the two different age groups. One of the main reasons the present study would not have had the possibility of controlling for that variable, i.e. level of education, even if the authors had realised in the planning stage how an important confound education would have been . The reason for this is very simple. ISTAT (2007) reported not only that older generations had Dialect as a language of choice, but also how the choice of that language was influenced by their socio-economic and educational situation. ISTAT reported how younger generations have an higher level of education than older generations especially in rural areas and are therefore more trained in reading. We remember that Gough (1972) found that poor readers scored higher reaction times. This must be the case of our experiment. Despite all this a within group analysis found that RTs varied within each group depending on the language of the stimuli, but no significance of type of language was proved, meaning that what was found was that it was not language that had an influence on reaction times. Since both the between-groups 2x2 Anova and the within-groups t-tests could not find a significant relationship between language type or age and reaction times, we speculate that level education is a variable that future research not only should control for when looking at other variable but also a variable which needs to be tested and analysed in relation with both bilingual ability and reaction time. It was Grosjean (2006) that explained how bilingual research has collected a varied and wide collection of participants during its existence. This study could not but underline Grosjean point of view and suggest the use of the present study as a further note on what variables must be controlled for in choosing participants. We remember how past research focused on the fluency of their participants, or on language use in different domains of life or still in what context a language is learnt. He was right is saying that past research cannot be used to draw the borders or describe a line of action in screening participants, but what we can add to that is that using Grojean's (2006) guidelines in screening participants did not control for any possible confound. Having considered order of dominance and order of acquisition or self reported levels of language awareness did not allow us to make participants representative of the bilingual EL – Italian population. Also it was Keller ( 2006 ) that said that education in a central language, different from the local one, lead minority language speakers to find themselves in the condition of becoming more or less bilinguals in the State language and in their local language. The more educated people were the better educated in the State language they became. The more educated people in our experiment were all in the Younger goup. As described above more confounds, such as education and socio-economic status should be controlled for and studied. To draw a ethnological conclusion, and citing once again Schiffman (1996) who said that is that it is through language that cultures and local traditions are maintained and transmitted from a generation to the next we can well speculate that Dialect is keeping Eatern Lombard culture well alive in the new millenium. Despite the ever growing influence of the central language Dialect has proved to be well rooted in bot younger and older generations and slightly touched or endangered by its coexistence with a dominant language like Italian. As we have seen Dialect remains the best known language across generations whereas Italian improves with the passing year, changing itself to allow Dialect to survive, and not changing dialect in the struggle to dominate. The psychological approach to this issue helped better define the borders of why and how Dialect and Italian have helped creating a new bilingual citizen. Having used a Lexical Decision Task has allowed us analysing different variables, such as the age of a participant, his accuracy in giving answers and the reaction times oh giving the answers and allowed us to give better guidelines on how to conduct future experiments of this kind. We have started all this study in order to provide an answer to the question: Do different generations have different levels of knowledge of both languages ? The answers have come unexpected: yes different generations have different knowledge of each language but it is not Italian the best known language, it is Dialect. It is Italian the language that activates a response more quickly, probably because it is the less natural and common for the speaker and increases his/her level of attention and arousal ( Marchock and Mordkoff, 2007). In answer to our hypothesis that asked whether age could be considered a good predictor of proficiency in Eastern Lombard Dialect, for all we have seen here above, we conclude that age is not a predictor of proficiency in Eastern Lombard Dialect because this language remains well known despite the age of the speaker and despite of the fact that the speaker reports it or Italian as his/her language of choice. In conclusion we advise future researchers interested in using a LDT in assessing the influence of Age and Language on accuracy and reaction time to control for more variables than we did in our experiment. Education is a variable not to be undervalued, since it can influence the knowledge of one language or the other. The priming effects of stimuli should also be controlled for, maybe specifying to the participants that sessions could include both L1 or L2 stimuli and not only stimuli from a language, so to avoid the activation of separate store models for each language. Informing participants that their answers will be timed can help controlling for this probable confound but we strongly suggest to inform all participants of a possible ( that can actually take place or not ) mixed language session, and that even if their first stimuli is in L1 the following may or may not be in L2.
Bhatia, T.K., Ritchie, W.C. (2006) – The Handbook of Bilingualism. Malden, MA & Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Candland, D.K., Nagy, Z.M., Conklyn D.H. (2009)- Emotional behaviour in the domestic chicken (white leghorn) as a function of age and developmental environment. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. Vol 56(6), Dec 1963 ( renewed 2009), 1069-1073.
Chumbley, J.I., Balota, D.A. (1984) - Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Human Perception and Performance, 10, 340-357.
Coluzzi,P. (2007) – Minority language planning and micronationalism in Italy. An analysis of the situation of Friulan, Cimbrian and Western Lombard with reference to Spanish minority languages. Contemporary studies in Descriptive linguistics, 17,Peter Lang, Bern
Coltheart, M. (1977) - Contemporary models of the cognitive processes: I. Information about input and storage. In V Hamilton & M. D. Vernon (Eds.), The development of cognitive processes (pp. 11-41). London: Academic Press.
Dell'Acqua, R., Lotto, L.,Job, R. (2000) - Naming times and standardized norms for the Italian PD/DPSS set of 266 pictures: Direct comparisons with American, English, French, and Spanish published databases . Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers , 32 (4), 588-615
Eriksen, C.W., Rohrbaugh, J. (1970) -Visual masking in multielement displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol 83(1, Pt.1), 147-154.
Gough, P.B. (1972) - One second of reading. In Kavanagh, J.F. & Mattingley, I.G. (Eds.), Language by Ear and by Eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grohovaz,V. (2006) - Produzione e circolazione del libro a Brescia tra Quattro e Cinquecento: atti della seconda Giornata di studi "Libri e lettori a Brescia tra Medioevo ed età moderna" .Life & Thought Journal. Univesrity of Brescia Press.
Grosjean,F. (1997) – The bilingual individual. Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting, 2, 163-187
Grosjean, F. (2006) - Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. In Bhatia, T. & Ritchie, W. (eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism, pp. 32-63. Malden, MA & Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hamilton,V., Vernon,M.D. (Eds.), The development of cognitive processes (pp. 11-41). London: Academic Press
Harley, T. A. (2008) - The Psychology of Language: From data to theory (3rd. ed.) Hove: Psychology Press
Howes, D.H., Solomon, R.L. (1951) -Visual duration threshold as a function of word probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 401-410.
Iacobini,C (2009) – The role of dialects in the mergence of Italian phrasal verbs. Morphology, 19, 15-44
ISTAT (2007) – La lingua italiana, dialetti e le lingue straniere. Family and Society.
Kavanagh, J.F. & Mattingley, I.G. (Eds.), Language by Ear and by Eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Keatley,C., deGelder,B. (1992), Bilingual primed lexical decision task: cross-language priming disappears with speeded responses. European Journal Of Cognitive Psychology, 4(4), 273-292.
Keller, A.T. (2006) – Bilingualism in Europe. In Bhatia, T. & Ritchie, W. (eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism, pp. 662-688. Malden, MA & Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Landauer, T.K., Freedman, J. L. (1968) – Information retrieval from long memory: category size and recognition time. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behaviour, 7, 291-295
Lima, S.D., Huntsman, L.A. (1997) – Sequential dependencies in the lexical decision task. Psychological Research 60, 264-269
Marian,V., Blumenfeld, H.K., Kaushanskaya, M. (2007) – The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire ( LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 50, 940-967
Matchock,R.L., Mordkoff, J.T. (2007) – Visual attention, reaction time and self-reported alertness upon awakening from sleep bouts of varying lengths . Experimental Brain Research, 178(2):228-239
Melchiori, G.B ( 1817) – Vocabolario Bresciano – Italiano. Arnaldo Forni Ed., Verona
Neely, J. H., Keefe, D. E., & Ross, K. L. (1989) - Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: Roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retrospective semantic matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1003-1019.
Rubin,J., Annamalai, E. (1980) - Planning for Language Code and Language Use: Some Considerations in Policy Formation and Implementation . Language Planning Newsletter 6.3
Salminen, Tapani (1993): UNESCO Red Book on Endangered Languages: Europe. Helsinki
Schiffman, H. F. (1996) - Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. London: Routledge.
Seidenberg, M.S. (1990) – Lexical access: another theoretical soupstone? Comprehension processes in reading. 33-71. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Spiess, Federico. 1956. Die Verwendung des Subjektpersonalpronomens in den lombardischen Mundarten. Bern: A. Francke
Weekes, B.S. (1997) -Differential effects of number of letters on word and nonword naming latency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A(2), 439-45
Whaley, C.P. (1978) - Word-nonword classiﬁcation time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour.17:143 – 54.
Zingarelli, N ( 2009) – Dizionario della lingua Italiana, Lo Zingarelli 2010. Zanichelli Ed. Bologna