Cross Linguistic Influence From

Empirical Evidence to Classroom

Practice M. Juncal Gutierrez-Mangado
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/cross-linguistic-influence-from-empirical-evidence-to-
classroom-practice-m-juncal-gutierrez-mangado/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Professionalism and Teacher Education Voices from

Policy and Practice Amanda Gutierrez

https://textbookfull.com/product/professionalism-and-teacher-
education-voices-from-policy-and-practice-amanda-gutierrez/

New Perspectives of Profit Smoothing Empirical Evidence

from China Domitilla Magni

https://textbookfull.com/product/new-perspectives-of-profit-
smoothing-empirical-evidence-from-china-domitilla-magni/

Commands : a cross-linguistic typology First Edition

Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald

https://textbookfull.com/product/commands-a-cross-linguistic-
typology-first-edition-alexandra-y-aikhenvald/

Management Controlling and Governance of Family

Businesses: Theoretical Insights and Empirical Evidence
from Italy Antonio Leotta

https://textbookfull.com/product/management-controlling-and-
governance-of-family-businesses-theoretical-insights-and-
empirical-evidence-from-italy-antonio-leotta/
Compliance with Planning Standards Related to the
Setbacks around Domestic Buildings Empirical Evidence
from Kenya 2nd Edition Dr. Wilfred Ochieng Omollo

https://textbookfull.com/product/compliance-with-planning-
standards-related-to-the-setbacks-around-domestic-buildings-
empirical-evidence-from-kenya-2nd-edition-dr-wilfred-ochieng-
omollo/

Elementary Classroom Management Lessons from Research

and Practice 8th Edition Molly Romano

https://textbookfull.com/product/elementary-classroom-management-
lessons-from-research-and-practice-8th-edition-molly-romano/

Spanish Heritage Learners Emerging Literacy Empirical

Research and Classroom Practice Routledge Advances in
Spanish Language Teaching 1st Edition Belpoliti Flavia
Bermejo Encarna
https://textbookfull.com/product/spanish-heritage-learners-
emerging-literacy-empirical-research-and-classroom-practice-
routledge-advances-in-spanish-language-teaching-1st-edition-
belpoliti-flavia-bermejo-encarna/

Teaching Struggling Students Lessons Learned from Both

Sides of the Classroom Laura M. Harrison

https://textbookfull.com/product/teaching-struggling-students-
lessons-learned-from-both-sides-of-the-classroom-laura-m-
harrison/

Maintenance Time and the Industry Development of

Patents Empirical Research with Evidence from China 1st
Edition Yongzhong Qiao (Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/maintenance-time-and-the-
industry-development-of-patents-empirical-research-with-evidence-
from-china-1st-edition-yongzhong-qiao-eds/
Second Language Learning and Teaching

M. Juncal Gutierrez-Mangado
María Martínez-Adrián
Francisco Gallardo-del-Puerto Editors

Cross-Linguistic
Influence: From
Empirical Evidence
to Classroom
Practice
Second Language Learning and Teaching

Series Editor
Mirosław Pawlak, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz
University, Kalisz, Poland
The series brings together volumes dealing with different aspects of learning and
teaching second and foreign languages. The titles included are both monographs
and edited collections focusing on a variety of topics ranging from the processes
underlying second language acquisition, through various aspects of language
learning in instructed and non-instructed settings, to different facets of the teaching
process, including syllabus choice, materials design, classroom practices and
evaluation. The publications reflect state-of-the-art developments in those areas,
they adopt a wide range of theoretical perspectives and follow diverse research
paradigms. The intended audience are all those who are interested in naturalistic
and classroom second language acquisition, including researchers, methodologists,
curriculum and materials designers, teachers and undergraduate and graduate
students undertaking empirical investigations of how second languages are learnt
and taught.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10129

M. Juncal Gutierrez-Mangado •

María Martínez-Adrián •

Francisco Gallardo-del-Puerto
Editors

Cross-Linguistic Influence:
From Empirical Evidence
to Classroom Practice

123
Editors
M. Juncal Gutierrez-Mangado María Martínez-Adrián
Department of English and German Department of English and German
Philology and Translation Philology and Translation
and Interpreting, Faculty of Arts and Interpreting, Faculty of Arts
University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU
Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

Francisco Gallardo-del-Puerto
Department of Philology
University of Cantabria
Santander, Cantabria, Spain

ISSN 2193-7648 ISSN 2193-7656 (electronic)

Second Language Learning and Teaching
ISBN 978-3-030-22065-5 ISBN 978-3-030-22066-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22066-2
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To Balentin, for the pleasure of flying
by his side
To Adriana, my inspiring diamond
To Inés, for there’s so much of her in me
Foreword

A major challenge when investigating the acquisition of a new target language

(TL)1 concerns the determination of the role of other languages known in the
developmental process. Attempts to quantify this so have a long history. One early
approach, contrastive analysis (CA) (Fries, 1945; Lado, 1957) claimed that the
learning of a new TL, like the first language (L1) acquisition, consisted of the
learning of a fixed set of language “habits” over time. In TL acquisition, it was
argued that the learner attempts to “transfer” the linguistic habits from the L1 to the
TL. Where the L1 and TL match, the positive transfer takes place and facilitation in
learning occurs. Where the linguistic habits between the L1 and the TL do not
match, there is a negative transfer of habits. This results in the disruption in
learning and interference (see extended discussions in Flynn, 1987; Flynn &
O’Neil, 1988; Epstein, Flynn, & Martohardjono, 1996). In order to remedy the
disruption, the learner must acquire the new habits of the TL through modification
of the L1 habits, for example, by addition or deletion (see early discussions in Gass
(1988), Newmeyer and Weinberger (1988) and Rutherford (1988)). This approach
was articulated within a behaviorist framework for language learning. As noted by
Flynn and O’Neil (1988, p. 6), “stripping away (this approach) from its behaviorist
foundations, we can see that it captured an important aspect of the L2 [TL]
acquisition process—the role of the L1 knowledge in L2 [TL] acquisition”. Yet, as
we all know, this approach failed to provide an explanatory theory of the TL
acquisition process. It failed to reliably predict when “interference” would occur
and when “facilitation” would occur although it did have “some” relative success
when dealing with cross-linguistic influence (CLI) phonologically. Another major
problem concerns the use of the metaphor of “transfer”. Even though Fries and
Lado did attempt to empirically quantify this notion, it essentially remains as a very
weak and unfortunate metaphor used to describe the processes underlying the
acquisition of a new TL. What does it mean to essentially delete the habits of the L1

1
This target language may be the second (L2), the third (L3), the fourth (L4), etc. The papers in
this chapter, as will be noted, focus primarily on L2 and L3 acquisition by monolingual and
bilingual speakers.

vii
viii Foreword

when there is negative transfer from the L1 to the TL? Does the L1 grammar lose
these language structures in that it then becomes less of a language itself? How
exactly is the TL grammar constructed? Is it constructed piecemeal with some L1
habits and/or with modified L1 habits? What does such a TL grammar generate?
We all know that “transfer” cannot be taken literally as an essential process in the
construction of a new TL grammar; yet, such terminology persists. CLI as used in
this book is a far more acceptable and descriptively accurate manner at this point in
time to capture what was traditionally known as “transfer”. It is important to note
once again that while CA failed to provide a wholly explanatory model of TL
acquisition, it did capture some aspect of the TL learning process but what this is
precisely continues to elude the field. We know, for example, that the acquisition of
English as a TL by a Japanese speaker and a Spanish speaker, all else being equal,
is not identical at all levels. The Spanish speaker has a developmental advantage
over the Japanese speaker in terms of the “match” of certain deep abstract properties
of the grammars of English and Spanish, and most notably they match in head
direction (head-initial) structure, while that of Japanese (head-final) does not (see,
e.g., Flynn, 1987, 2018). This match benefits the Spanish speaker and allows the
speaker to not to have to redundantly represent a head-initial complement structure
in the mind/brain. It already exists. However, the Japanese speaker learning English
must represent the head-initial complement structure for English for the first time in
much the same way that a young child learning English as an L1 must do.
An alternative model offered in 1974 concerned the development of the creative
construction (CC) theory of L2 acquisition (Dulay & Burt, 1974). This approach, as
documented widely in many other sources, attempted to capture the fact that much
of the L2 or TL acquisition process shared certain fundamental properties noted in
the L1 acquisition process. That is, many of the developmental patterns isolated in
L1 acquisition were consistent with those noted for TL acquisition. For early work
in this regard, see Bailey, Madden and Krashen (1974), Flynn (1987, 1988),
Mazurkewich (1988), Epstein, Flynn and Martohardjono (1996) among many
others. Such findings led researchers at the time to hypothesize that both L1 and TL
acquisition follow from a set of common principles unique to the language learning
process. It was argued that the principles were, by and large, cognitively unique—
i.e., linguistic in nature—in that both children and adults evidence them. Children
are still developing cognitively in many ways, and adults have supposedly reached
a level of steady-state cognition. Thus, the common, unifying factor for both
children and adults is the developing language grammars. Both children and adults
uncannily resembled each other in acquisition. This development cannot be inex-
tricably tied to the development of general cognitive processes, as we would not
expect then to see the similarities across the two populations as the adults have
reached a steady state in other domains of cognition. The CC argued that the role of
other languages known would emerge in only very superficial ways. What this
actually meant was never entirely developed. While it did capture an aspect of the
TL acquisition process, namely that L1 and TL acquisition derive from a common
Foreword ix

set of principles in many ways and at many levels, it still failed to account in an
explanatory manner for any form of CLI when it seemed to occur.
What emerges from all this early research is that there was a need to understand
in a principled and explanatory manner ways in which there might be some role for
other languages known and at the same time ways in which both L1 and L2 are
fundamentally the same. Universal grammar–generative linguistics was proposed as
a possible solution or way to unify both the CA and the CC properties of the
language learning process (see Flynn, 1987, 2018). Although my purpose here is
not to develop this theory, I simply note that the debates continue to this day in
terms of attempting to quantify in a principled manner ways in which other lan-
guages known emerge in the language acquisition process and this is where this
book enters into the debates.
This book entitled Cross-Linguistic Influence: From Empirical Evidence to
Classroom Practice attempts to deal with the issues of CLI in very unique and
promising ways. The papers in this volume seek to determine the role of
“cross-linguistic influence” in both the classroom and the naturalistic settings in
distinct domains.
The areas of study covered in this book are broad and are ones that are not
always reported on together in one volume: phonology (Elvin & Escuerdo; Calvo
Benzies), lexical access (Agustín Llach), pragmatic influences (Celaya, Panelli &
Barón), syntax (Bardel; Azpilicueta Martinez; Jichoshvili & Gutierrez-Mangado),
classroom learning (Maillo & Pladevall Ballester; Lindquist), child TL acquisition
(Azpillicueta Martinez; Millán Maillo & Pladevall Ballester), adult TL (Escudero &
Elvin; Calvo Benzies; Agustín Llach; Jichoshvili & Gutiérrez-Mangado; Bardel;
Celaya, Panelli & Barón; Arratibel-Irazusta & Martínez-Adrián; Jarvis, Alonso &
Crossley), L3 learning (Bardel) to name a few. The range of languages covered is
also wide ranging: Catalan, Spanish, Swedish, Finnish, Russian, Galician, English,
etc. In addition, the range of proficiency levels investigated is broad.
Similarly, there are experimental and non-experimental papers with the majority
being empirical studies. And, the empirical papers are based on distinct experi-
mental tasks: grammaticality judgment task (GJT), rater-based judgments of written
text, etc.
Importantly, however, in addition to the discussion of CLI in TL acquisition,
each chapter discusses the results presented in terms of their pedagogical
implications.
While the papers are not generally articulated within a particular framework with
the exception of Escudero and Elvin’s and Bardels’s, they provide important new
empirical evidence that ultimately must be incorporated into some theory or
explanatory framework.
One of the most striking characteristics of this edited volume is the fact that
overall, the empirical results reported are mixed both across the studies reported and
even within a particular study. For example, Escudero and Elvin report CLI in TL
acquisition, at least at initial stages, and Llach does not. And within the word order
results reported here, both CLI and non-CLI in the acquisition of new TLs are
x Foreword

indicated. Word order acquisition did not pose a problem for the bilinguals sug-
gesting a bilingual advantage as hypothesized by the authors.
More specifically, this book consists of 11 chapters, each dealing with a question
or hypothesis concerning some aspect of CLI in either the classroom or in an
experimental context. To begin, in Chapter “Cross-Linguistic Influence in Second
Language Speech: Implications for Learning and Teaching”, Escudero and Elvin
seek to determine the extent to which the Second Language Linguistic Perception
(L2LP) model can account for the perception, comprehension and production of the
sounds of a new target language. The authors argue that because “phonemic
inventories differ across languages and dialects, cross-linguistic difficulty is not
uniform”. Depending upon the match/mismatch of the phonemic inventories of the
languages or dialects known by a learner, some aspects of the TL may be more
difficult for some learners and not others depending on the L1. The central claim is
that “learners will initially perceive and produce the sounds of the L2 and recognize
L2 words in the same way that they do in their own native language”. The authors
predict that problems in TL acquisition will be learner-specific dependent on the
“phonetic properties of the native and target language dialects”. They present a
review of studies to support their model. The review is extensive although limited
to those that support the model. What is important with this study is the claim that
the results will be learner-specific depending upon the prior linguistic experience
and knowledge of the learner. Each learner could potentially present with a unique
constellation of prior knowledge that must be taken into consideration. I do not
believe the authors would argue that there is no systematicity in patterns of
acquisition. The patterns must be understood and considered in light of the
match/mismatch of the properties of the specific languages that the learner presents
with.
In Chapter “/ðə ˈmusɪk ɪnˈdustrɪ jas esˈtarted teikin leˈgal akˈʃɒn/*. A
Preliminary Study on the Nature and Impact of Phonological and Orthographic
Transfer in the English Speech of Bilingual Speakers of Spanish and Galician”,
Calvo Benzies presents a preliminary study on the nature and impact of phono-
logical and orthographic transfer in the language of bilingual speakers of Spanish
and Galician. The paper aims to describe instances of phonological and ortho-
graphic CLI in the spoken language of Galician and Spanish speakers in their
acquisition of English. Three spoken language tests were employed; both high
school- and university-level participants were tested. The author notes significant
CLI in either phonological or orthographical “interference” from the speakers’
native languages. However, not every phonological or orthographic contrast
between English and the participants’ native languages presented problems. The
“interferences” were very focused and specific. This is one study in which the
results were mixed; i.e., the author reports both CLI and non-CLI in acquisition.
In Chapter “CLI in Lexical Accessibility”, Agustín Llach seeks to evaluate “the
role of L1 [CLI] when completing a lexical availability task”. The participants were
Spanish pre-university students learning English as a new TL. This paper raises
important issues concerning what is available to the L2 learner and what is used in
Foreword xi

the essential construction of a new TL. Negative CLI is very rare as reported. The
authors propose models for which their data are compatible. Important discussion
ensues concerning implications for the classroom.
In Chapter “Cross-Linguistic Influence at the Level of Word Order in L3 English
by L1 Georgian/L2 Russian Speakers”, Jichoshvili and Gutierrez-Mangado inves-
tigate word order concerning the OV/VO alternation in main and embedded clauses
by Georgian (OV word order) and Russian (VO word order) speakers learning L3
English (VO word order). Three groups of learners were tested: Georgian children
and adults and L1 Georgian/L2 Russian bilingual children. All participants were at
an A2 proficiency level. The learners were administered a grammaticality test and a
translation task involving affirmative and negative stimuli. Results indicate no
statistically significant differences among the groups on either task. The authors
argue that there were no signs of transfer at the A2 level. Monolingual and bilingual
speakers have acquired the word order pattern of the L2/L3; this was not a source of
difficulty for the learners. However, there seemed to be a bilingual advantage in that
the L1 Georgian speakers were not as good at rejecting ungrammatical sentences as
accepting grammatical sentences in the GJTs. The L1 Georgian/L2 Russian were
equally accurate on both types of sentences suggesting some form of a bilingual
advantage given their knowledge of two different languages. If so, this result is
consistent with those results reported by Berkés and Flynn (2017) and Flynn (2018)
in which knowledge of multiple languages known can positively influence the
subsequent language development.
In Chapter “Didactic Challenges in the Multilingual Classroom—The Case of
French as a Foreign Language”, Lindqvist investigates the multilingualism of
Swedish learners of French (an L3 for most of the participants aged 12–16 years
old). Many of these participants in the study may also have studied other foreign
languages as well, viz., Spanish or German. In written retellings of a story by the
Swedish pupils, the results indicated that some of the other languages known or
studied formally by the students were used when the participants wrote in French.
Lindqvist argues that these students may be undergoing “learning processes in
several languages simultaneously”. The author raises important questions and
highlights the importance of these results in terms of challenges faced by educators
in the modern-day multilingual classroom.
In Chapter “Syntactic Transfer in L3 Learning. What Do Models and Results
Tell Us About Learning and Teaching a Third Language?”, Bardel notes that
investigation into L3 acquisition is a relatively new area of study that has grown in
interest and importance. Results of L3 investigations can provide insights about the
acquisition process that the study of L1 or L2 acquisition alone cannot provide (see
discussion in Flynn, Foley, & Vinnitskaya, 2004 as well as, e.g., 2017). The review
of the models presented here indicates, as argued elsewhere, that both the L1 and
the L2 can play a role in subsequent L3 acquisition. However, the precise nature of
which structures play a role in CLI in L3 learning “remains unsolved”. Critically,
much more research is needed in terms of replication and confluence of results
across both comparable and distinct future studies. This chapter concludes with an
xii Foreword

important discussion of the possible pedagogical implications of each of these

models.
In Chapter “What Lies Beneath: L1 Morphosyntax Seeping in Through Young
Learners’ EFL”, Azpilicueta Martínez addresses the question concerning the notion
of negative correlation between proficiency and lexical CLI. Twenty L1 Spanish
speaking children aged 8;00 learning English were investigated in a content and
language integrated learning (CLIL) program. The learners carried out a task first
with an expert speaker of English and subsequently with a level-matched peer.
Overall, results revealed “an extremely low rate of explicit L1 use, yet revealed the
existence of more pervasive CLI in the form of structural transfer, particularly so
when children interacted with their peers”.
In Chapter ““I’m Jealous but I Am Very Happy”: Congratulating in an EFL
Context”, Celaya, Panelli and Barón tackle an issue that has received little empirical
attention in traditional CLI studies: speech acts concerning congratulations. The
study seeks to analyze the effects of age, and proficiency and “the influence of
pragmatics of the L1 in the production of this speech act (congratulations) by
learners of English as a foreign language in a school context with no instruction on
pragmatics”. Participants were administered a written discourse completion task
consisting of four different situations in which the participants had to congratulate
the interlocutor. Results indicate that young and less proficient learners tend to use
“units around the actual congratulation chunk that involve a focus on themselves
rather than on the interlocutor”. Older more proficient learners used categories
“such as offers of good wishes and hopes” as well as statements suggesting actions
and encouragements. The authors argue that these expressions directly involve the
interlocutor as would be expected in this speech act. The differences between the
two groups are discussed in terms of age and proficiency level. Results suggest that
more systematic study is needed to understand CLI in the acquisition of
language-specific pragmatics.
In Chapter “The Use of Communication Strategies in L3 English CLIL Learners”,
Arratibel-Irazusta and Martínez-Adrián focused on “the use of communication
strategies in an oral narration task and its correlation with general proficiency and
knowledge of receptive vocabulary in two different age/proficiency CLIL groups
of the third language (L3) English learners”. Results indicate that proficiency level
does not play a major role in the use of communicative strategies as very few
differences are found among the groups analyzed. Correlational results indicate that
although previously known “language-based strategies do seem to go hand in hand
with the level of proficiency and receptive vocabulary, this does not seem to apply
to the use of TL-based strategies”. It is also not the case that the use of TL-based
strategies implies a “lower use of prior linguistic experience”. The use of previously
known languages is still important as the L3 learners “seem to use it to scaffold L3
production”.
In Chapter “Explicit Plurilingualism in Co-taught CLIL Instruction: Rethinking
L1 Use”, Millán-Maillo sought to answer the question about whether “use of the L1
in L2 settings can facilitate L2 learning” as is often claimed. Catalan/Spanish
bilingual primary school learners were investigated in English co-taught CLIL
Foreword xiii

science sessions. The main findings indicated that “this specific co-teaching model
did not fulfill the objectives of CLIL approaches but L1 use was shown to be a
beneficial tool serving the purpose of coping with CLIL linguistic and cognitive
demands”.
In Chapter “Native Language Identification by Human Judges”, the authors,
Jarvis, Alonso and Crossley, report the results of “two studies involving native
language identification by human judges”. The first study involved six Finnish
speakers who were given 16 texts written in L2 English. Half the texts were written
by Finnish speakers and half by Swedish speakers. The raters were asked to read
each text and make a judgment about whether it was written by a Finnish or a
Swedish speaker. The second study includes the same six Finnish speakers and an
additional group of ten Spanish speaker raters. Results indicate that some of the
raters were accurate above 80% for top Finnish and 90% for top Spanish.
Implications of these results are discussed in terms of their meanings for the
classroom. In addition to a discussion concerning the pedagogical implications
of these results, the authors also focus on isolating those features of the texts that
resulted in such high-accuracy scores.
In conclusion, this book is a very important one as it provides a fresh look at CLI
in new contexts. It contributes to our growing knowledge concerning the role of
CLI in the TL development. It replicates at a very general level the fact that in some
cases CLI emerges and in others it does not. This book provides multiple frame-
works for continued empirical testing. It offers a “breath of fresh air” to classical
CLI investigations, and it is innovative in the range of papers chosen for publica-
tion. At another level, the results reported in this book highlight the fact that we are
still a long way from understanding the human cognition for language. This is a
very challenging task to take on as it is well known that in behavioral investigations
of the language development, we must always make inferences from what we
observe with the performance data collected—which itself is fraught with problems
in terms of understanding the underlying developing competence for language.
Subsequent studies must consider and acknowledge the fact, as isolated here
with these studies, that CLI is not a uniform phenomenon that emerges uniformly in
all linguistic domains and under all conditions. There are multiple factors that
influence the outcome of the studies. Some of these factors concern the
match/mismatch of the languages known by the learners as suggested by studies in
this book and elsewhere, the domain of study investigated, and all aspects of the
experimental design, viz., the proficiency levels of the participants and the nature
of the investigative tool, the stimulus items and their controls. Moving forward,
careful attention must be paid to replication of the studies in CLI and, importantly,
not just for CLI studies but for all acquisition studies as is done in all science.
Finally, this book offers a unique set of studies all focused on determining the
role of other languages known in the acquisition of subsequent new target lan-
guages. The breadth of languages and studies is new and interesting. This book
provides a mixture of experimental studies and classroom-based studies that are
important and allow immediate comparisons across the different forms of investi-
gation. Results provide new ways to look at CLI; they also raise new questions.
xiv Foreword

Clearly, the results do not satisfy the requirements of a strict CA approach to TL

learning nor do they completely satisfy a CC model. The fundamental question
remains, “How does the learner construct the grammar of the new TL(s)”?
Understanding this has consequences for theories of cognition generally and lan-
guage acquisition specifically. Knowledge of how this is accomplished allows us to
know what has to be taught to our students and what does not. It essentially allows
us to know what we can assume about the language knowledge bases of our
language learners and what we cannot. Many questions remain, but it is important
to once again state that this innovative set of papers makes an important and unique
contribution to the field of TL learning, especially with respect to CLI in this
process.

Cambridge, MA, USA Suzanne Flynn

MIT Linguistics and Philosophy
sflynn@mit.edu
Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all the authors who have generously contributed to this volume:
without their commitment, this book would not have seen the light. Special thanks
to Suzzane Flyn who kindly agreed to write the foreword. We also want to thank all
the reviewers whose insightful comments and suggestions have contributed to this
book: Tania Angelovska, Anna Balas, Peter Ecke, Ana Fernández Dobao, Evelyn
Gandón Chapela, María del Pilar García Mayo, Britta Hufesien, Carol Jaensch,
Amparo Lázaro Ibarrola, Angel Lin, Cristobal Lozano, Natalia Shervin Malmasi,
Natalia Mitrofanova, Jean Carles Mora, Mireia Ortega Durán, Simone Pfenninger,
Jorge Pinto, Eloi Puig-Mayenco, Lucrecia Rallo Fabra, Pilar Safont, Gila Schauer,
Marit Westtergaard, John Witney and Magdalena Wrembel. We are also grateful to
the Springer Second Language Learning and Teaching Series Editor Miroslaw
Pawlak, Ravi Bengadachalam and Arulmurugan Venkatasalam for their support and
help in the process of editing this book.
We would also want to thank the financial support provided by the Department
of Education, Universities and Research of the Basque Government (IT904-16),
University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU (Grant UFI 11/06) and the Spanish
Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO FFI2016-74950-P;
MINECO FFI2012-32212 and MINECO FFI2012-34214).

xv
Introduction

Bi-/multilingual speakers are by definition those speakers who have knowledge of

more than one language. Accommodating more than one language in the brain
means that at any time the bi-/multilingual speaker can potentially access these
languages whenever he/she needs to make use of one of them in order to understand
or convey a message. Research has shown that the languages in the bi-/multilingual
individual are not isolated from each other and consequently may interact in a
myriad of ways as has been observed in speakers who are highly competent in all
the languages they know (e.g., in cases of code-switching). Interaction between
languages can also take place when a speaker is in the process of acquiring an
additional language, that is, when the knowledge of the additional language is not
complete. This type of interaction is known as cross-linguistic influence (CLI) and
is the topic of this book. This term has been widely used as a theory-neutral term to
encompass notions such as “transfer”, “interference”, “avoidance”, “borrowing”
and aspects of language loss (Sharwood-Smith & Kellerman, 1989, p. 1).2 CLI has
been viewed as either a learning or a communication strategy and can potentially
have a big impact on any aspect of language, from phonetics/phonology to mor-
phosyntax, semantics and pragmatics. CLI can be constrained by a series of factors
ranging from proficiency in the L1 and or L2/Ln, similarities/differences between
the L1 and the L2/Ln, age of acquisition of the L1/Ln, recency, among others.
Interesting and necessary as research on CLI is, the knowledge obtained about
CLI needs to be ultimately accessible to language teaching practice, and this is an
area where advances have been profusely lacking. The reasons for this unsatis-
factory situation are numerous, as the authors in the volume make clear: Research
findings are mostly targeted toward specialized audiences, rarely toward language
teachers, which makes the formal language used difficult to access for the latter. The
lack of trained teachers to teach pronunciation and the lack of classroom-oriented
research (most research is laboratory-based) also make the findings obtained not
fully generalizable to the rest of the population.

2
But see Gonzalez Alonso and Rothman (2017) for differences between notions such as transfer
and CLI.

xvii
xviii Introduction

In any case, L2 teaching and learning practices which take into account how CLI
in particular language combinations can influence the process of acquisition will
undoubtedly prove to be more effective than when this knowledge is lacking.
Practitioners who have knowledge of CLI will be able to gear their teaching
practice more effectively toward learners whose language combinations are known,
as every chapter in the volume makes explicit in different linguistic domains. The
need to reduce the differences that separate theory and practice has been voiced by
numerous researchers in the past but has met with limited responses, and this book
is an attempt to remedy this situation.
The idea for a book on CLI has long been in our minds, but it was only after the
success of the workshop organized by the LASLAB research group (http://wwwl.
laslab.org) in Vitoria-Gasteiz on April 27, 2016, that the idea began to take real
shape. In addition to the pedagogical implications offered in light of the empirical
findings obtained in each study included in the book, another goal has been to
incorporate studies depicting a wider array of contexts and scenarios (i.e., L2 and
L3 learning situations, CLIL), a wider range of topics and perspectives (i.e., per-
spective of the speaker and the listener, directionality effects between unrelated
languages, task effects), as well as language levels, so as to offer a better picture
of the complexity of multilingualism, which is more the norm than the exception
nowadays. In addition, taking into account the need of research with children and
the increasing popularity of early foreign language teaching programs (García
Mayo, 2018), we have included studies targeting child as well as adult learners.
This book is divided into eleven chapters, and each chapter finishes with a
section where the authors make explicit reflections on how the results
presented/discussed can be of use to teachers in the classroom.
This book is intended for SLA researchers, graduate students in SLA research
and applied linguistics (MA, Ph.D.) as well as language teachers, as the various
chapters provide the state-of-the-art research results on different areas of CLI
together with explicit and research-informed pedagogical implications which can be
taken up by educators to make the most of CLI.
We hope that the chapters presented will call the attention of language practi-
tioners and that the pedagogical implications depicted in the different chapters see
the light in the daily classroom life in the near future.

Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain M. Juncal Gutierrez-Mangado

Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain María Martínez-Adrián
Santander, Spain Francisco Gallardo-del-Puerto
Contents

Cross-Linguistic Influence in Second Language Speech:

Implications for Learning and Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Jaydene Elvin and Paola Escudero
/ðə ˈmusɪk ɪnˈdustrɪ jas esˈtarted teikin leˈgal akˈʃɒn/*. A Preliminary
Study on the Nature and Impact of Phonological and Orthographic
Transfer in the English Speech of Bilingual Speakers of Spanish
and Galician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Yolanda Joy Calvo-Benzies
CLI in Lexical Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
María del Pilar Agustín-Llach
Cross-Linguistic Influence at the Level of Word Order in L3 English
by L1 Georgian/L2 Russian Speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Gvantsa Jichoshvili and M. Juncal Gutierrez-Mangado
Didactic Challenges in the Multilingual Classroom—The Case
of French as a Foreign Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Christina Lindqvist
Syntactic Transfer in L3 Learning. What Do Models and Results Tell
Us About Learning and Teaching a Third Language? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Camilla Bardel
What Lies Beneath: L1 Morphosyntax Seeping in Through Young
Learners’ EFL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Raúl Azpilicueta-Martínez
“I’m Jealous but I Am Very Happy”: Congratulating
in an EFL Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
M. Luz Celaya, Laura Panelli and Júlia Barón

xix
xx Contents

The Use of Communication Strategies in L3 English

CLIL Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta and María Martínez-Adrián
Explicit Plurilingualism in Co-taught CLIL Instruction:
Rethinking L1 Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Iris Milán-Maillo and Elisabet Pladevall-Ballester
Native Language Identification by Human Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Scott Jarvis, Rosa Alonso Alonso and Scott Crossley
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Contributors

María del Pilar Agustín-Llach Universidad de La Rioja, Logroño, La Rioja,

Spain
Rosa Alonso Alonso Facultad de Filología y Traducción, Departamento de
Filología Inglesa, Francesa y Alemana, Universidad de Vigo, Vigo, Spain
Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta Department of English and German Philology and
Translation and Interpreting, Faculty of Arts, University of the Basque Country
UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
Raúl Azpilicueta-Martínez Departamento de Ciencias Humanas y de la
Educación, Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA), Pamplona, Spain
Camilla Bardel Institutionen för Språkdidaktik, Stockholms Universitet,
Stockholm, Sweden
Júlia Barón Institute for Multilingualism at the Universitat Internacional de
Catalunya, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Yolanda Joy Calvo-Benzies Departamento de Filología Española, Moderna y
Clásica, University of the Balearic Islands, Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Scott Crossley Department of Applied Linguistics/ESL, Georgia State University,
Atlanta, GA, USA
Jaydene Elvin Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno,
CA, USA
Paola Escudero The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development
and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Dynamics of
Language, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia
M. Juncal Gutierrez-Mangado Department of English and German Philology
and Translation and Interpreting, Faculty of Arts, University of the Basque Country
UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

xxi
xxii Contributors

Scott Jarvis Department of Linguistics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah,
USA
Gvantsa Jichoshvili University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Vitoria-
Gasteiz, Spain
Christina Lindqvist Department of Languages and Literatures, University of
Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
M. Luz Celaya University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
María Martínez-Adrián Department of English and German Philology and
Translation and Interpreting, Faculty of Arts, University of the Basque Country
UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
Iris Milán-Maillo Department de Tecnologies de La Informació I Les
Comunicacions, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
Laura Panelli Council on International Educational Exchange in Barcelona
(CIEE), Barcelona, Spain
Elisabet Pladevall-Ballester Departament de Filologia Anglesa I de
Germanística, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain
Abbreviations

CAH Contrastive analysis hypothesis

CCLI Competence CLI
CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
CEM Cumulative Enhancement Model
CLI Cross-linguistic influence
CT Content teacher
D/P Declarative/procedural (model)
DCT Discourse Completion Test
EFL English as a foreign language
FFFH Failed Functional Feature Hypothesis
FL Foreign language
FTFA Full Transfer Full Access Hypothesis
GJT Grammaticality judgment task
GLA Gradual Learning Algorithm
HVPT High variability phonetic training
ICLE International Corpus of Learner English
IFID Illocutionary force indicating device
ILP Interlanguage Pragmatics
L1 First language, mother tongue
L2 Second language
L2LP Second Language Perception Model
L2SFH L2 status factor hypothesis
L3 Third language
Ln Additional language
LPM Linguistic Proximity Model
LT Language teacher
NLI Native Language Identification
NNS Non-native speaker
NP Noun phrase
O Object

xxiii
xxiv Abbreviations

OT Optimality Theory
PAM Perceptual Assimilation Model
PCLI Performance CLI
POS Parts of speech
PP Prepositional phrase
QPT Quick Placement Test
S Student
SLA Second-language acquisition
SLM Speech Learning Model
T Teacher
TLL Third language learning
TOT Tip of the tongue
TPM Typological Primacy Model
TT Translation task
V Verb
V2 Verb second
VLT Vocabulary Level Test
WC Whole class
WDCT Written discourse completion task
YLs Young learners
ZPD Zone of proximal development
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Second
Language Speech: Implications
for Learning and Teaching

Jaydene Elvin and Paola Escudero

Abstract Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) is a commonly observed phenomenon

that influences an individual’s ability to perceive, comprehend and speak in a second
language (L2). As phonemic inventories differ across languages and dialects, cross-
linguistic difficulty is not uniform. According to the Second Language Linguistic
Perception model (L2LP), learners will initially perceive and produce the sounds of
the L2 and recognise L2 words in the same way they do so in their own native lan-
guage. As a result, predictions of L2 difficulty will be learner-specific and dependent
on the specific phonetic properties of the native and target language dialects. This
chapter presents an up to date and comprehensive description of the L2LP model
and the studies that support it. We explain how the model accounts for CLI in L2
speech development, with particular attention to how the model accounts for the
effect of L1-based CLI on L2 speech and the differences in learner performance due
to dialectal variation. We will conclude by discussing the implications that this model
has on language learning and teaching. Specifically, we will highlight the need for
L2 teaching to be geared toward a detailed profiling of learners’ native language
backgrounds and their individual learning needs and strategies.

Keywords Cross-linguistic influence · L2LP model · Individual variation ·

Dialectal differences · L2 speech perception · L2 spoken word recognition · L2
production

J. Elvin (B)
Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno, 5245 North Backer Avenue M/S
PB92, Fresno, CA 93740, USA
e-mail: jaydene@mail.fresnostate.edu
P. Escudero
The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development and the Australian Research
Council Centre of Excellence for Dynamics of Language, Western Sydney University, Locked
Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia
e-mail: paola.escudero@westernsydney.edu.au

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1

M. J. Gutierrez-Mangado et al. (eds.), Cross-Linguistic Influence: From Empirical
Evidence to Classroom Practice, Second Language Learning and Teaching,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22066-2_1
2 J. Elvin and P. Escudero

1 Introduction

Proficiency in second language (L2) speech requires learners to be able to listen,

comprehend and speak effectively in the L2. When an L2 is acquired in adulthood,
the L1 is already in place and as a result, whether consciously or subconsciously,
learners will rely on their knowledge of their L1 to acquire the new language. Given
that the L1 and L2 can operate at the same time, it is not unusual to find that the two
languages interact with one another. This phenomenon is known as cross-linguistic
influence (CLI) and its effects have been observed in many studies of second language
acquisition, including L2 speech research. In particular, studies have shown that the
differences in the type and number of phonemes in the L1 and L2 may affect a
learner’s ability to acquire the sounds of the L2 (e.g., Iverson & Evans, 2007, 2009).
Cross-linguistic difficulty is not uniform among speakers of different languages and
dialects. This is due to the fact that the similarities and differences between the native
and target phonemic inventories influence development in L2 speech acquisition, and
consequently, some individuals may find some aspects of the L2 more difficult to
acquire than individuals from different L1 backgrounds.
The influence of the native language on L2 performance is a core feature of many
theories and studies that investigate a learner’s ability to perceive L2 speech sounds.
For example, the Speech Learning Model (SLM, Flege, 1995) and the extension of the
Perceptual Assimilation Model to PAM-L2 (Best & Tyler, 2007) are two theoretical
models of speech perception that claim that L2 sounds are filtered and categorised
according to the learner’s native language. In particular, SLM posits that L1 and L2
sounds occur in the same phonological space and sounds which are similar in the L2
to an existing L1 category should be more difficult to acquire than those which do not
closely resemble any existing L1 category as the learner must form new categories
for those L2 sounds (Flege, 1995). However, PAM-L2 deals with CLI effects by
predicting that L2-perceptual difficulties can be explained by articulatory-phonetic
similarities between the L1 and L2. The authors claim that we attune to the gesture
combinations of our L1 and when the target L2 does not use the same gestures in the
combination, learners may have difficulties perceiving those speech sounds.
CLI has also been shown to affect learners’ ability to recognise words in speech.
The spoken word recognition process can be described as follows: a learner will hear
the incoming acoustic signal and a number of possible word forms are activated.
The listener must then select one of the activated words as the lexical representa-
tion of the spoken word, based on the likelihood of it being correct (Auer, 2009;
McQueen, 2007). CLI may affect the number of activated candidates, which results
in more competition between words, thus leading to more difficulties and slower
spoken word recognition (Vroomen & de Gelder, 1995; Weber & Cutler, 2004). The
increased activation and competition in spoken word recognition can be caused by
a number of factors resulting from CLI, including (but not limited to) lexical stress
(Cutler & Pasveer, 2006; Soto-Faraco, Sebastián, & Cutler, 2001), language experi-
ence (Escudero, Broersma, & Simon, 2013), orthographic influences (Hayes-Harb,
Nicol, & Barker, 2010; Taft, Castles, Davis, Lazendic, & Nguyen-Hoan, 2008), neigh-
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Second Language Speech … 3

bourhood density (Luce & Pisoni, 1998) and dual activation or similarity between
L1 and L2 vocabularies (Dijkstra, Timmermans, & Schriefers, 2000; Dijkstra, Van
Jaarsveld, & Brinke, 1998; Weber & Cutler, 2004).
Our ability to perceive and recognise speech also has an effect on how we pro-
duce sounds in an L2. For example, the Articulatory Settings Theory (Honikman,
1964) investigates cross-linguistic influences and the effect of previously acquired
languages on L2 speech production. Honikman (1964) proposes that all languages
are characterised by a series of general articulatory positions that involve the lips,
tongue, cheeks, jaw and pharynx. Speaking in the L2 may be complicated for learners
when the native and target language do not share the same articulatory setting, thus
requiring the learner to acquire a new articulatory setting. Furthermore, the Marked-
ness Differential Hypothesis (Eckman, 1977) proposes that target language struc-
tures which differ from the L1 and are more implicationally marked will be difficult
to acquire in comparison to those which are less marked or considered a univer-
sal, namely those structures widely used cross-linguistically (Colantoni, Steele, &
Escudero 2015, p. 64; Eckman, 1977). A target language structure that is considered
“unmarked” is one that is typical or commonly occurs across a number of differ-
ent languages, whereas a “marked” language structure is one that is less typical or
occurs less among languages. For example, Eckman (2008, p. 96) describes voiced
obstruents, oral vowels and open syllables as relatively unmarked in comparison to
their marked counterparts—voiceless obstruents, nasalized vowels and closed syl-
lables because the latter language structures occur less frequently across different
languages.
The aforementioned theories and studies show that CLI indeed affects an
individual’s ability to perceive, recognise and produce speech. In this chapter, we
will present a review of a theoretical model that accounts for CLI in L2 speech
development, namely the Second Language Linguistic Perception model (henceforth
L2LP, Escudero, 2005, 2009; Van Leussen, & Escudero, 2015). The main difference
between L2LP and the previously discussed models is that L2LP’s foundation is on
phonological theory (using Stochastic Optimality Theory: Boersma, 1998) and it
accounts for learners at varying developmental stages (beginner, intermediate and
advanced competence) and across three speech abilities (perception, spoken word
recognition and production). Importantly, the L2LP model focuses on individuals
and its descriptions, predictions and explanations are tailored to each learner, which
allows for learner profiling at the lab and classroom. We will first provide a detailed
explanation of the model and its predictions. We also present a review of the studies
that support the L2LP framework and also show the effects of CLI on non-native and
L2 speech perception, spoken word recognition and production. We will conclude
this chapter by discussing the implications that both the model and the reviewed
studies have on language learning and teaching.
4 J. Elvin and P. Escudero

2 The Second Language Linguistic Perception

Model—a Framework for L2 Learning and Teaching

The Second Language Linguistic Perception model (L2LP; Escudero, 2005, 2009;
van Leussen & Escudero, 2015) aims to predict, explain and describe L2 performance
in three logical states: the initial state (onset of learning), the developmental state and
the end state (ultimate attainment). L2LP is a theoretical and computational model
that grew from Boersma’s (1998) Functional Phonology model. The computational
implementation of the model was originally conducted using Stochastic Optimality
Theory (OT) and the Gradual Learning Algorithm (GLA)1 (Boersma & Escudero,
2008; Escudero, 2005, 2009; Escudero & Boersma, 2004), but has also been imple-
mented using neural-networks (Van Lesussen & Escudero, 2015). Stochastic OT
combined with GLA can be used to make very specific predictions regarding indi-
vidual learning trajectories (Escudero, 2009; Escudero & Boersma, 2004; Yazawa,
Whan, Kondo, & Escudero, 2019). The L2LP model contains five key theoretical
ingredients for successful L2 speech development (shown in Fig. 1.1) which the
author explains are also methodological phases that “allow for a thorough handling
of L2 sound perception” (Escudero, 2005, p. 5). The L2LP model thus accounts for
individuals from the time they are not yet learners, to the time they start learning the
L2 and all the way through to their final stage of L2 learning.

Fig. 1.1 The five ingredients of L2 speech development in the L2LP model

1 In the following sections we provide a brief explanation of the incorporation of Stochastic Optimal-

ity Theory and the Gradual Learning Algorithm in the L2LP. However, for an in-depth discussion
of these two concepts in relation to the L2LP model, we recommend that readers refer to Escudero
(2009) and Yazawa et al. (2019).
Cross-Linguistic Influence in Second Language Speech … 5

2.1 Ingredients 1 and 2: The Initial L2 State

Within the L2LP model, the initial state, also known as the onset of learning, refers
to the time at which a learner decides to learn a new language, but has not yet
had any training in the target language. Individuals that are in the initial state of
learning are often called “naïve” learners of the target L2. To establish the initial
state, ingredient 1 of the L2LP model advises to thoroughly describe the optimal
perception of each of the languages involved (Escudero, 2009). According to the
L2LP model and its optimal perception hypothesis, an ‘optimal listener’ (or native
speaker) has a perception grammar which is shaped by the acoustic properties of
their production of native sound categories (Escudero, 2009). Therefore, in order to
establish the initial state, the acoustic properties of the native and target language
need to be described. The optimal perception hypothesis states that the perception of
a given speech category is determined by the stochastic ranking of cue constraints that
refer to the relevant auditory information. Escudero (2009) explains that optimal L1
perceivers will prefer certain auditory cues that will allow them to differentiate speech
sounds (e.g., F1, F2, F3, and duration). And this preference for certain auditory cues
(known as cue-weighting) will differ across dialects and languages. Escudero (2009,
p. 156) goes on to explain that if two languages differ in the way cues are used to
produce L1 speech categories, then “optimal listeners of these languages will have
different ways of perceiving these languages”. For example, L1 Japanese speakers
show a preference for duration as a cue for differentiating their /i/-/ii/ contrast in
perception and production (Yazawa et al., 2019). Likewise, Escudero (2001) found
that speakers of two different English dialects used different cues to distinguish the
English /i/-/I/ contrasts. In particular, Scottish English listeners relied on F1, whereas
Southern British English listeners made use of both F1 and duration to distinguish the
vowels. Thus, we see that listeners will differ in their weighting of certain auditory
cues to distinguish speech sounds. Therefore, in order to establish the initial state
of learning, we must first establish the optimal perception in both the L1 and target
language and this can be done by presenting a comprehensive description of the
acoustic properties of each language.
The second ingredient in the L2LP model proposes that the initial state is a copy of
the properties of the native language, known as the full copying hypothesis. In other
words, the first thing that a learner will do to begin their process of acquiring the
speech sounds of the L2 is to create a duplicate of their L1 perception grammar and
assign that to their L2 grammar (van Leussen & Escudero, 2015).2 That is, a learner’s

2 Here we explain that the initial L2 perceptual grammar is a duplicate copy of the learner’s L1.
However, we do acknowledge that there are many students who are bilingual and begin to learn a
third language. This may raise the question of which language gets copied? The L1 or L2? Studies
in L3 speech perception have found that listeners can selectively choose the vowels of their native
(or other) languages that are most relevant to their L3 task. For example, Escudero et al. (2013)
suggested that L2 proficiency might influence L3 word recognition if the L2 and the L3 have similar
sound inventories. They explain that if learners have learned to use additional cues in the L2 that
allow them to distinguish L2 contrasts (e.g., duration and specific formant values), they may be able
to use these cues when learning an L3 with a similar sound inventory. Thus it seems that learners
6 J. Elvin and P. Escudero

perception and production of the L2 sounds will look exactly the same as their
perception and production of their L1 sounds (see ingredients 1 and 2 in Fig. 1.1). This
duplicate thus becomes the L2 perception grammar that gradually modifies itself as it
receives perceptual input in the L2, leaving the L1 perceptual grammar intact (Yazawa
et al., 2019). A number of studies (e.g., Escudero & Boersma, 2004; Escudero &
Chládková, 2010; Escudero, Simon, & Mitterer, 2012; Escudero & Vasiliev, 2011;
Escudero & Williams, 2011, 2012; Gilichinskaya & Strange, 2010) have shown
through detailed comparisons of acoustic similarity that listeners initially perceive
the L2 according to their L1 sounds. For example, Escudero and Vasiliev (2011)
tested monolingual Peruvian Spanish listeners’ perception of Canadian French and
Canadian English /2/ and /æ/. The authors found that the acoustic similarity between
native and target vowels was a very good predictor of context-specific perceptual
mapping. Studies such as Escudero, Sisinni and Grimaldi (2014) also show that
learners whose languages share similar vowel inventories (such as Salento Italian
and Peruvian Spanish) perceive the target L2 differently. This is because the acoustic
realisations of vowels will differ in each language, despite the shared vowel inventory.
Thus, the copy of their L1 perception grammar that learners make to perceive the L2
will differ, resulting in differences in non-native vowel perception between the two
groups.
Most previous studies focused on L2 perception but more recent evidence further
shows that individuals will initially produce L2 sounds in the same way as they pro-
duce acoustically close L1 sounds. In Elvin, Williams and Escudero (2016), eight
European Spanish monolinguals were asked to perceive and produce six Brazilian
Portuguese (BP) contrasts (/a/-/2/, /a/-/O/, i/-/e/, /e/-/2/, /o/-/O/, /o/-/u/). The authors
successfully predicted that the participants would have difficulties producing sta-
ble categories for the non-native vowel contrasts that were perceptually difficult to
perceive (e.g., /i/-/e/ and /o/-/u). The vowel contrasts that were perceptually easy to
discriminate (e.g., /a/-/2/) were produced as separate vowel categories in novel BP
words, however these separate categories were still heavily influenced by their L1. A
similar study was conducted in Elvin, Escudero, Williams and Best (2016), but with
monolingual Australian English speakers. The authors had the speakers discriminate
and categorise BP vowels and used those results to predict their non-native produc-
tion. As with the aforementioned study on Spanish speakers, the Australian English
participants also had difficulties producing separate vowel categories for those BP
contrasts that were difficult to discriminate. Likewise, their production of BP closely
resembled the acoustic properties of Australian English. An example of one male
Australian speaker’s non-native BP vowel production compared against the target
BP vowels and his own native vowel production is shown in Fig. 1.2.
In this figure we can see that the speaker’s F1 and F2 values of their non-native
BP vowels (in blue) fall in the area of his native Australian vowel productions (in
black), and are quite different from the target BP vowels (green, with circles). In

will rely on the language that has similar acoustic properties to the target language when learning
L3 speech sounds. However, we do acknowledge that the L2LP implementation of the selective use
of sound inventories with the respective perception grammar is yet to be investigated.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 M . CLAVDIO . M . F . MARCELLO
PATRONO [264].

veniamo a conoscere il nome d’un altro patrono o protettore della

città, forse lo stesso Marco Claudio Marcello, che nella guerra civile
avendo seguito le parti di Pompeo, questi riuscito vinto, temendo l’ira
di Cesare esulò a Mitilene, dove visse nello studio delle buone arti
per alquanto, finchè Lucio Pisone, Claudio Marcello fratello di lui e il
Senato ne supplicarono il perdono, che fu concesso; onde Cicerone
ne rese publiche grazie a Cesare in quella splendida orazione che ci
è ancor conservata.
Una curiosa particolarità ci addita un emiciclo che fu scoperto nel
1765, il qual riguarda alla marina. Su di esso è un quadrante solare,
od orologio, statovi del pari che la banchetta semicircolare, o schola,
come latinamente appellavasi, a proprie spese collocato da Lucio
Sepunio Sandiliano, figlio di Lucio, e da Marco Erennio Epidiano,
figlio di Aulo, duumviri di giustizia, secondo suona l’iscrizione
seguente:
L . SEPVNIVS . L . F . SANDILIANVS
M . HERENNIVS . A . F . EPIDIANVS
DVOVIR . S . D . SCHOL . ET . HOROL .

Sono i medesimi duumviri dei quali parla l’iscrizione da me recata

nel parlar del tempio di Venere, e nella quale Bréton, diversamente
interpretando le ultime sigle, credette leggere la menzione della
collocazione in quel tempio d’un altro quadrante solare. Su di che, a
tutta risposta, si potrebbe chiedergli: perchè allora que’ duumviri
invece delle sigle D. S. P. F. C. non si servirono dell’eguale dicitura
usata in questa iscrizione scolpita nel Foro triangolare, dove la
parola Horol spiega la cosa senza lasciar dubbio di sorta?
Fin dall’anno di Roma 499, cioè 254 avanti Cristo, come consente la
più parte degli scrittori ed a testimonianza eziandio di Plinio [265],
Lucio Papirio Cursore collocava il primo quadrante solare, che avea
portato dalla Sicilia, presso il tempio di Quirino. In seguito si
moltiplicarono; ma non si creda tuttavia che si chiamassero tutti
contenti del trovato e di questa divisione delle ore del giorno. Gli
epuloni, cui pareva che di tal guisa si fosse lor messa addosso una
importuna, comunque tacita censura, maledivano l’istituzione; ed
anche un secolo dopo di Lucio Papirio (l’anno 535 circa), Plauto così
la fa lamentare in una sua commedia, che andò sciaguratamente
perduta, e che ebbe per titolo Bis compressa seu Boeotia, da un di
costoro:

Ut illi Dii perdant, primus qui horas reperit

Quique adeo primus qui statuit solarium.
Qui mihi comminuit misero articulatim diem.
Nam me puero uterus hic erat solarium
Multo omnium istorum optumum et verissumum.
Ubi iste monebat esse: nisi cum nihil erat.
Nunc etiam quod est, non est, nisi soli lubet
Itaque adeo jam oppletum est oppidum solariis.
Major pars populi aridi reptant fame. [266]

Questo è l’unico frammento di quella produzione smarrita e

racchiude di per sè uno storico documento.
Marco Antonio pare tuttavia non si preoccupasse, come l’epulone di
Plauto, più che tanto dell’orologio, perocchè avesse provveduto che
la cucina propria rimanesse pronta a tutte l’ore del giorno ed a’
capricci del proprio stomaco; singolarmente curando che lo spiedo
mantenesse sempre a disposizione di lui il porcellino da latte, di cui,
si narra, fosse egli assai ghiotto.
La Basilica in Pompei. Vol. I. Cap X. La Basilica.
 CAPITOLO X.
La Basilica.

Origine della denominazione di Basilica — Sua

destinazione in Roma — Poeti e cantanti — Distribuzione
della giornata — Interno ed esterno delle Basiliche —
Perchè conservatone il nome alle chiese cristiane —
Basiliche principali cristiane — Basilica di Pompei —
Amministrazione della giustizia, procedura civile e penale
— Magistrati speciali per le persone di vil condizione —
Episodio giudiziario di Ovidio — Giurisprudenza criminale
— Pene — Del supplizio della croce — La pena
dell’adulterio — Avvocati e causidici.

Il significato affatto diverso che al tempo nostro si dà alla parola

basilica, che si adopera per indicare le chiese più cospicue del culto
cattolico, reclama che per me qui si fornisca alcun cenno sul
significato e valore che si aveva in antico, e quindi a che servisse
codesta di Pompei, della quale è ora giunto l’argomento.
Come di moltissime istituzioni e cose, e per quelle ragioni che,
trattando della lingua parlata in Pompei e in tanta parte dell’Italia
romana, ho ricordato; così avvenne pure che questa parola di
Basilica avessero i Romani a dedurla dal greco nella lingua latina di
Βασιλικὴ farne basilica, significando tal voce letteralmente regia,
cioè edificio regale. I Romani vi annetterono egual senso, perchè
infatti nel seguente passo di Stazio, invece di basilica, si trovò usata
la parola Regia, che è per l’appunto l’esatta traduzione del detto
vocabolo greco:

At laterum passus hinc Julia templa tuentur,

Illinc belligeri sublimis regia Pauli [267].

Siffatta denominazione greca venne attribuita ai luoghi in cui

specialmente rendevasi d’ordinario giustizia, perocchè questa fosse
il precipuo diritto dalla regalità e venisse esercitata in edifizi
dipendenti della reggia. Rimasto quel diritto anche in Roma presso i
capi della republica dapprima, come dopo passò negli imperatori,
nulla di più naturale che la denominazione venisse confermata. È
forse l’egual ragione che fece assegnare anche ne’ tempi moderni,
in cui sempre presso tutte le nazioni vien giudicato in nome del
sovrano, il nome di Corte ai tribunali superiori, come l’Appello e la
Cassazione.
D’ordinario nel mezzo di questi antichi edifizj, che si chiamavano
basiliche trovavasi un fanum, o delubro, od oratorio come il diremmo
adesso, e venivano consacrati a differenti usi dell’antica vita esterna,
e quindi compendiavano in sè quel che ai dì nostri in Italia la Sala
dei Duecento della Camera elettiva, l’antisala del Senato, la Borsa, i
Tribunali, le sale dei passi perduti, i clubs, e quegli altri publici ritrovi,
in cui si trattano affari, si conchiudono contratti e si discutono
interessi pur d’ordine publico e politico.
Stando a Publio Vittore, in Roma, allora la prima città e signora del
mondo, si annoveravano fin diciannove basiliche, e Onofrio Panvinio
le fa ascendere a ventuna.
Ciascuna aveva quattro tribunali, e fra questi tribunali il popolo
romano poteva passeggiare riparato dal sole e dalla pioggia.
Sovente nelle Basiliche i filosofi tenevano i loro sapienti
ragionamenti, ed Apulejo nell’Apologia ce lo conferma, dicendo
avervi pronunciato una publica dissertazione al cospetto di
numerosa moltitudine: ingenti celebritate basilicam (qui locus
auditorii erat) confluentes.
I poeti vi traevano a leggere i loro versi, e parlando in un seguente
capitolo delle Terme, mostrerò come venissero anche in siffatti
luoghi alla medesima bisogna, non nuova adunque essendo e non
de’ nostri giorni soltanto, l’importunità de’ poeti di recitare le loro
composizioni ad ogni occasione, volenti o nolenti gli ascoltatori, onde
a ragione Orazio avesse a satireggiarli:

.... in medio qui

Scripta foro recitent sunt multi, quique lavantes;
Suave locus voci resonat conclusus [268];

e Petronio, nel suo Satyricon, ci presentasse Eumolpione fatto

segno alle sassate de’ monelli e della plebe per la sua interminabile
smania di declamare ad ogni tratto de’ versi; a un di presso come de’
cantanti di tutti i tempi, che, pregati, ricusano cantare, e non pregati
vi cantano al fastidio, alla sazietà, e perciò il medesimo Orazio li
avesse a così riprendere:

Omnibus hoc vitium est cantoribus, inter amicos

Ut nunquam inducant animum cantare, rogati,
Injussi numquam desistant [269]

Il Venosino accennò la recitazione de’ versi nel foro, perchè la

Basilica era parte del foro; onde nel tutto comprendeva la parte; lo
che avverto sì che non paja men propria l’autorità di lui in questo
lavoro invocata.
La qual ricreazione poetica non avveniva che nelle ore del vespro e
dopo la decima ora, corrispondente alle ore quattro dell’orologio
francese; perocchè saviamente avessero i Romani del tempo della
republica distribuita la loro giornata.
La prima ora del giorno, che era segnata dal levar del sole,
consacravasi da essi a’ doveri di religione, accedendo a’ templi, e
supplicando privatamente i numi, come suppergiù è il costume
cristiano odierno; onde Virgilio nel suo poema, assegnando anche ai
tempi favolosi del suo eroe la medesima consuetudine dell’epoca
sua, fa dal Tebro ammonire Enea d’innalzar di buon mattino le sue
preghiere a Giunone:

Surge, age, nate Dea, primisque cadentibus astris

Junoni fer rite preces [270],

e Giovenale, sentenziando come un santo padre, ne fornisce la

ragione:

Orandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano [271].

I clienti, gli adulatori e gli eterni postulanti traevano invece mattinieri

alle case de’ patroni, de’ ricchi e de’ magistrati per augurare loro il
buon dì e cominciar la loro corte, e queste pratiche però appella
Plinio il giovane officia antelucana.
La terza ora era data dagli uni agli affari nel foro e dagli altri a’ proprj
commerci. La sesta, ch’era il meriggio, imponevasi fine al lavoro, e
così cessava la parte che il giureconsulto Paolo chiamava la migliore
del giorno: Cujusque diei melior pars est horarum septem, primarum
dies, non supremarum [272]; non altrimenti che la giudicava Virgilio:

Nunc adeo melior quoniam pars acta diei est,

Quod superest læti bene gestis corpora rebus
Procurate viri [273].

Ed era l’ora del modico desinare.

Dopo questa, abbandonavansi a’ passatempi, come al giuoco della
palla o del pallone, quando, invece come da Orazio e da Virgilio, non
si fosse preferito di concedersi al sonno, a seconda che il primo ci fa
sapere in questo passo:

Lusum it Mecœnas, dormitum ego, Virgiliusque,

Namque pila lippis inimicum et ludere crudis [274].

Altri invece andavano al passeggio, ambulatio o gestatio, a seconda

fosse a piedi, nella basterna [275] o nella lettiga, ovveramente nella
più elegante carpenta. All’ora ottava d’estate, alla nona d’inverno,
cioè alle tre pomeridiane nostre, traevano alle terme pei bagni, di
che comune e frequentissimo era l’uso, come a suo luogo più
innanzi vedremo, e lo lasciò ricordato nelle sue lettere Plinio il
giovane: ubi hora balnei nunciata est, est autem hieme nona, æstate
octava [276].
Poi seguivano alternati gli esercizi ginnastici, il maneggio dell’armi,
l’equitazione; e sulla nona o decima ora imbandivasi la cena
equivalente al nostro pranzo, succeduta da qualche altra
passeggiata o dalla recitazione di poeti delle opere loro nelle
basiliche, o dalle cure domestiche, e così finiva la giornata.
Marziale memora a un di presso allo stesso modo la divisione delle
occupazioni della giornata de’ Romani nel seguente epigramma:

Prima salutantes atque altera conterit hora.

Exercet raucos tertia causidicos:
In quintam varios extendit Roma labores:
Sexta quies lassis, septima finis erat.
Sufficit in nonam nitidis octava palæstris,
Imperat excelsos frangere nona toros.
Hora libellorum decima est, Eupheme, meorum,
Temperat ambrosias cum tua cura dapes [277].

Era nelle basiliche che solevano trattar all’amichevole tutti i negozi di

interesse generale o particolare prima di portarli alla publica,
clamorosa od officiale discussione nel Foro, come nella Historia Fori
Romani ci fa sapere Francesco Polleto: Illic enim, et nundinæ
mercium, et proxenetica contractuum, prologi nuptiarum, colloquia
transactionum [279].
All’infuori delle grandi cause di publico interesse, che si trattavano e
giudicavano nel foro, era nelle basiliche che si rendeva giustizia.
Così l’interno di esse, essendo d’ordinario distinto in tre navate da
due fila di colonne, come pur oggi si può, a cagion d’esempio,
averne la testimonianza nelle rovine della basilica trajana nel foro di
Trajano in Roma, all’estremità di quella di mezzo era riservato un
emiciclo in capo del quale sedeva il giudice, collocandosi gli
assessori su de’ banchi addossati al muro. Era codesto emiciclo che
si chiamava tribunale, d’onde venne il nome di tribuna a quella parte
corrispondente che si riscontra nella assai congenere architettura
delle chiese cristiane, la quale più volgarmente si denomina coro, a
causa dei canti che vi si intuonano; non che il nome odierno
consacrato di tribunali a tutti que’ luoghi in cui si amministra la
giustizia.
L’esteriore delle basiliche differenziava nella architettura dai templi
propriamente detti, non avendone tutta la solennità e ricchezza.
Esse per consueto non avevano nè frontone, nè colonne, nè
sontuosi vestiboli; ma presentavano sole e nude muraglie con grandi
finestre nell’alto.
Come ognun vede adunque, convertendosi le basiliche di poi in
templi cristiani, la transizione non fu difficile, leggiero essendone
stato il cambiamento nelle disposizioni architettoniche; come anche
oggidì scorgesi che nella erezione delle chiese se ne segue
volontieri il piano.
Dalla poco dissimile architettura, o fors’anco dall’avere impiegate le
antiche basiliche romane o l’area loro, convertendovi o fabbricandovi
chiese, restò a queste il primitivo nome, e valse esso di poi a
designare i più venerabili ed importanti templi cristiani.
In Roma venne questo nome accordato a cinque grandi templi in
memoria dei cinque patriarchi della chiesa primitiva di Roma,
Costantinopoli, Alessandria, Antiochia e Gerusalemme, e sono
quelle di San Giovanni Laterano, San Pietro, San Paolo fuor dalle
mura, Santa Maria Maggiore e San Lorenzo pur fuor dalle mura,
giusta questo cattivo distico:

Paulus, Virgo, Petrus, Laurentius atque Johannes

Hi patriarchatus nomen in urbe tenent [280].

Più tardi in Roma e altrove della cristianità venne esteso il nome di

basilica anche ad altre chiese di minor importanza.
Come nel Foro Romano, detto oggi Campo Vaccino, in Roma,
sorgevano la Basilica Giulia e la Basilica Emilia, alla quale hanno
tratto i versi di Stazio superiormente da me riferiti; così anche nel
Foro di Pompei eravi la Basilica, della quale ora favello.
Incominciatosi a sterrare nel 1813 in prossimità del tempio di Venere
da cui non lo separa che una viuzza, davanti ad essa, dai frammenti
che si raccolsero, si conobbe che sorgesse una statua equestre di
bronzo dorato; ma nulla indicò chi potesse essa rappresentare e in
onore di chi eretta. Giova ricordare che pur davanti alla basilica in
Ercolano si rinvennero le statue equestri dei Nonnii, quantunque
fossero di marmo.
L’edificio era isolato da tre lati e la fronte volta ad oriente. Vi si
accedeva per cinque porte, o come con linguaggio d’allora
appellavansi, cataractæ, chiuse con saracinesche nel modo stesso
delle barriere esterne, come già notai a suo luogo. Al di fuori di una
di queste cataractæ era scolpita la indicazione dell’edificio nella
parola Bassilica (sic).
Questo doveva essere già stato guasto e deformato dal tremuoto del
63, perchè trovavansi atterrate colonne e muraglie e sconvolgimenti
nel pavimento. Dovendosi così nel descriverlo ricorrere alle
congetture, Bréton, da valoroso architetto ch’egli è, afferma che la
basilica di Pompei si scosta assai da quella regola che Vitruvio ha
tracciato nel Lib. V. c. I, della opera sua, che più volte ho pur io
citata, per le basiliche ch’ei sopra tutto avrebbe voluto di tre navi,
formanti un parallelogramma rettangolo, terminato da un emiciclo e
diviso da due fila di colonne sormontate da un secondo ordine
formante galleria.
La Basilica pompejana invece, secondo la di lui opinione, ha bensì
tre navi, ma quella di mezzo egli reputa essere sempre stata
scoperta, e però non potervisi ravvisare che un’area o un impluvium.
Di quest’ultima denominazione di parte d’edificio farò conoscere il
valore nel Capitolo che tratterà delle Case. Altre differenze egli
constata; ma noi che abbiamo altri intendimenti in quest’opera che
non sieno più specialmente gli architettonici, tiriamo innanzi.
Le due navate laterali costituite da portici coperti, ornati di statue di
marmo ed erme in bronzo, con bagni e fontane, hanno due ordini di
colonne l’uno jonico, corintio l’altro, e forma un secondo piano aperto
sulla navata di esso, da dove era dato vedere i magistrati in tutti i
punti della Basilica. Era quivi che si definivano dai giudici cause di
minor rilievo, che gli avvocati tenevano consultazioni, che i giovani
oratori si addestravano a declamare e che da altri si facevano
publiche letture.
Nel fondo, a sette piedi di altezza, era la tribuna ove sedevano i
magistrati o duumviri di giustizia, e davanti ad essa stava sovra ad
alto piedestallo una statua equestre.
Sotto la tribuna, vedesi ancora una cameretta alla quale si
discendeva per due piccole scalette tuttavia sussistenti. Era un
momentaneo carcere, in cui durante il giudizio restava l’accusato in
attesa della sentenza e disposto alle interrogazioni che gli sarebbero
state mosse durante il publico giudizio. Le muraglie vi sono assai
grosse, le finestrelle o spiragli sono munite d’inferriate, e dallo
spiraglio aperto nella vôlta vuolsi che si facesse pervenire al
condannato a morte la sua sentenza. Tutto ciò vi dà ancora una viva
stretta al cuore.
A questo punto non sarà discaro qualche cenno sul modo con cui
veniva, come in Roma, anche in Pompei, amministrata la giustizia.
Il vedere che in Pompei si rendeva giustizia dai duumviri, i quali
erano, come i consoli in Roma, la prima magistratura, ognuno
certamente avrà dedotta la conseguenza legittima che dunque i
Romani, come ho anche superiormente narrato, avessero deferita
l’amministrazione di essa a’ capi della Republica. Nondimeno,
siccome i consoli erano anche i supremi condottieri dello esercito, e i
Romani trovavansi quasi sempre in guerra, onde giuocoforza fosse
che i consoli non rimanessero sempre nella città, nè così potessero
incombere a’ giudizj, ne nacque il bisogno di affidarli ad un apposito
magistrato, che fu chiamato pretore, cioè qui præiret jure (che
precedesse pel diritto) e che in dignità tenesse tosto dietro ai
consoli. Tale istituzione rimonta al 389 dalla fondazione di Roma, e
Spurio Furio Camillo, figlio del grande Camillo, ne fu pel primo
investito.
Nel 510, crescendo ogni dì il numero de’ forestieri, i pretori furono
due, uno de’ quali detto prætor urbanus, che aveva giurisdizione sui
cittadini di Roma; l’altro prætor peregrinus che l’aveva ne’ conflitti fra
cittadini e forestieri.
Aumentate le conquiste, si crearono altri quattro propretori, i quali
non solo amministravano la giustizia, ma anche tutti gli altri uffici
esercitavano ch’erano proprii de’ proconsoli.
Nello assumere la carica, il pretore faceva in Campidoglio preghiere
e voti (vota noncupabat) e prestava il giuramento d’osservare la
legge, e quindi publicava un bando (edictum) in cui stabiliva la
procedura che nella sua amministrazione avrebbe seguito; a meno
che non si fosse riferito ad editti precedenti, ned era da quel punto
più lecito dipartirsi dalle discipline in essi sancite.
La raccolta degli editti dei pretori, costituenti il jus honorarium, detto
anche diritto pretorio, ed aventi forza di legge, venne, sotto
l’imperatore Adriano, fatta per opera del giureconsulto Salvio
Giuliano, e si denominò edictum perpetuum.
Le cause di minor importanza si esaminavano e giudicavano dal
pretore senza formalità e in qualunque luogo: quelle di maggiore si
discutevano avanti il di lui tribunale publicamente, osservandosi tutte
le formalità volute dalla legge.
I processi erano o di ordine privato o di ordine publico: i primi
designavansi colla denominazione di judicia privata; i secondi con
quella di judicia publica.
Soli trentotto giorni durante l’anno era vietato render giustizia e però
dies fasti erano i giorni in cui la si rendeva, quod fari licebat; nefasti
quelli in cui era vietato il renderla, quod non licebat fari; ed intercisi
quei giorni, nei quali la mattina, durante il tempo de’ sagrificj, non si
teneva ragione, ma tener la si poteva nel rimanente della giornata.
Ovidio così vi accenna nel suo libro dei Fasti:
Ille nefastus erit, per quem tria verba silentur
Fastus erit, per quem lege licebit agi.
Neu toto perstare die sua jura putaris;
Qui jam fastus erit, mane nefastus erat.
Nam simul exta Deo data sunt, licet omnia fari;
Verbaque honoratus libera prætor habet [281].

Ho già detto più sopra che fosse all’ora terza, corrispondente alle
nostre nove antimeridiane, che incominciavano i giudizj. Giovenale
scrisse nella Satira IV di qual modo avessero essi principio:

. . . . . clamante Liburno,
Currite jam sedit [282],

e con ciò ne fa sapere che Liburnus si chiamasse l’usciere del

tribunale, incaricato di proclamare, come si fa a un di presso anche
oggidì, l’aprimento dell’udienza e come ora si grida: entra la Corte, o
il Tribunale, la udienza è aperta; il pretore, e più tardi il principe,
siede. Forse liburni detti que’ messi curiali, perchè di preferenza
eletti fra quella gente del litorale superiore adriatico detto appunto
liburnico.
Sedeva il pretore sul tribunale, o posto più elevato detto suggestum,
in sedia curule; in sedili più bassi, per ciò chiamati subsellia, i giurati,
assessores; i testimoni, testes; gli avvocati, advocati, e gli scrivani, o
cancellieri, o anche notai, scribæ, che tenevano processo verbale
degli atti giudiziarj. Orazio aveva acquistato uno di questi posti di
scriba: nella VI del lib. II delle Satire, così se ne mostra in funzione:

Ante secundam
Roscius orabat sibi adesses ad puteal cras....
De re communi scribæ magna atque nova te
Orabant hodie meminisses, Quincte, reverti...
Imprimat his, cura, Mæcenas signa tabellis...
Dixeris, «experiar, si vis, potes» addit et instat [284].
Se falliva il tentativo dell’amichevole componimento, l’attore, actor,
citava con publica intimazione, detta edictum, l’avversario, reus, a
comparire in giudizio, in jus vocare, a che se questi rifiutava, l’attore
volgendosi ad uno degli astanti, interrogava: licet antestari? se
voleva, cioè, valergli di testimonio; al che assentendo porgevagli a
toccare l’estremità dell’orecchio, auriculam opponebat, perchè
nell’orecchio si riteneva fosse la sede della memoria. In questo caso
l’attore poteva trascinare a forza il reo in giudizio, in jus rapere,
afferrandolo persino per il collo, obtorto collo, come Plauto notò nella
scena quinta del terzo atto del Pænulus e nella sesta del terzo atto
della Rudens. Tali formule conservò il poeta e scriba Orazio testuali
nella Satira IX del lib. I:

Fugit improbus, ac me
Sub cultro linquit. Casu venit obvius illi
Adversarius, et: quo tu turpissime? magna
Inclamat voce, et: Licet antestari? Ego vero
Oppono auriculam. Rapit in jus: clamor utrinque [285].

L’attore allora esponeva la petizione di quanto voleva condannato il

reo, ciò che dicevasi actionem edere e poteva essere azione reale,
actio in rem, se riguardava un diritto sopra una cosa; personale,
condictio, se il suo obbiettivo era una personale prestazione
incumbente all’avversario, come l’adempimento d’un contratto; e
penale, actio pœnalis, se avea tratto a querele di furto, rapine, danni
ed offese personali.
Il Pretore, se trovava fondata la domanda sul genere dell’azione,
emetteva la formola della domanda, e l’attore esigeva allora dal
convenuto che questi mallevasse la sua comparsa in giudizio,
vadatus est reum, e se tal malleveria non avesse potuto prestare,
veniva tratto in giudiziario arresto ed aveva principio la causa.
Se poi senza legittimi motivi, sine malo vel causa sontica, alcuna
parte non fosse comparsa, pronunziavasi, contro di essa, ciò che
oggi direbbesi condannare in contumacia. Comparendo il reo,
chiedeva all’attore: sei tu che mi citasti? Ubi tu es, qui me vadatus
es? Ecce me tibi sisto: ecco io ti sto contro. E l’attore rispondeva:
son qui, Adsum! Quindi intentava l’azione. Rispondeva il reo e l’atto
suo dicevasi exceptio; l’attore dava la replica, replicatio, ed il reo
ancora la duplica, duplitatio, denominazioni che nel processo civile
austriaco, non ha guari dalle provincie lombardo-venete smesso,
vennero conservate.
Il Pretore, ultimato ciò, nominava i giurati, judices dabat, cui
delegava assumere i testimonj che reputava convenienti, a sè
riserbando sempre la suprema direzione del processo, ciò che fece
luogo al proverbio, tuttavia vivo tra noi: de minimis non curat prætor,
cioè delle minime cose non s’occupa il pretore.
I giudici potevano essere o arbitri, se pronunciavano secondo equità,
quando la legge non istatuisse chiaramente; recuperatores se
aggiudicar dovevano una proprietà, e centumviri se avevano a
decidere cause di eredità e testamenti; così chiamati perchè
rappresentanti delle tribù, ed erano suddivisi in quattro comitati,
concilia, e venivano convenuti da una deputazione di dieci individui,
perciò chiamati decemviri.
Ricevuta costoro la formola dell’ufficio loro dal Pretore, le Parti o i
loro procuratori promettevano riconoscere ed eseguire la sentenza
che sarebbe stata resa, ciò che dicevasi judicatum solvi et rem
ratam haberi.
Aveva luogo allora l’esposizione del fatto e la deduzione delle prove
reciproche, e ciò finito, il giurato togliendo una pietra in mano così
imprecava: si sciens fallo, tum me Diespiter, salva urbe, ex bonis
ejiciat, ut ego hunc lapidem [286], d’onde trasse origine la frase:
Jovem lapidem jurare. I giudici sedevano poscia sui subsellii, o
panche inferiori al Pretore, e lasciavasi la parola agli avvocati, che
tenevano quelle arringhe, splendide di eloquenza, di cui ci rimasero
nobilissimi esempj nelle opere di Cicerone. E siccome non fosse
lecito ad essi l’abusare del tempo, questo limitavasi alla durata di
una clessidra, od orologio ad acqua, salvo per altro a chiedere la
rinnovazione della clessidra.
Perorata la causa da ambe le parti, ritraevasi il Pretore co’ giudici
per lo scrutinio e dopo il mezzogiorno, a pluralità di voti, rendevasi la
sentenza; a meno che l’importanza e la difficoltà della causa non
esigessero o un più maturo esame, od una ulteriore discussione. Nel
primo caso chiedevasi dilazione; nel secondo indicavasi una nuova
trattazione, che si diceva actio secunda. Ne abbiamo pur l’esempio
nelle Verrine del suddetto Cicerone.
Giudicata la lite, chi perdeva era tenuto ad eseguire il giudicato, e in
difetto, non offrendo un mallevadore, sponsor, o vindex, il Pretore
consegnavalo schiavo al suo avversario.
Era per altro ammesso appellarsi a giudice superiore; od in caso di
errore, error, od inganno, dolus, il Pretore cassava la sentenza e
rimetteva le parti in intero: in integrum restituere.
Erano deferiti ad uno speciale magistrato i giudizi che avevano
attinenza alla polizia e repressione delle persone di vil condizione,
come gli schiavi, le cortigiane e, non parrà vero, anche i poeti, che il
vecchio Catone, a ragion di disprezzo, chiamava miserabili servitori
dei grandi, grassatores. Il campano poeta Cneo Nevio, che si conta
fra’ migliori comici latini dagli storici di quella letteratura, è un
esempio delle ingiurie fatte alle lettere dagli antichi Romani, che pur
osavano appellar barbari gli altri popoli. Imperocchè da questo
magistrato, per accusa di maldicenza contro i maggiorenti della città,
venne messo in ceppi, nè vi potè esser tolto che dai tribuni della
plebe, dopo d’essersi fatto perdonare colla umiliazione di disdirsi
nelle due commedie Ariolo e Leonte da lui scritte in prigione.
Questo magistrato erano i triumviri capitales, e li veggiam menzionati
nell’Asinaria di Plauto, appunto nel caso in cui un amante minaccia
di trascinare ai magistrati la cortigiana che ha rotto fede al chirografo
di fedeltà (syngraphum), che gli ha rilasciato. Che fosse codesto
chirografo di fedeltà, vedremo, narrando della romana prostituzione
altrove.

Ibo ego ad tresviros vestraque ibi nomina

Faxo erunt [287].
E poichè m’accade parlare di questo speciale magistrato e degli
strani processi che vi si agitavano innanzi, rallegrerò questi cenni di
arida procedura col racconto d’un aneddoto intervenuto allo stesso
Ovidio e nel quale ei medesimo figura siccome testimonio e siccome
attore. I suoi versi racchiudono inoltre tecniche indicazioni delle
forme processuali quali testè ho riferite; onde sono, in tal riguardo,
un vero documento storico per la forense giurisprudenza.
Si sa ch’egli aveva fatto più d’una volta professione di non redigere
le differenti parti della sua amorosa didattica, che per le donne
escluse dalla società a causa di lor condizione, per quelle cui le
foggie delle vestimenta distinguevano dalle donne, e per fanciulle di
libera condizione, e cui

Nec vitta pudicos

Crines alba tegit, nec stola longa pedes. [288]

Or udiamo lui stesso cantare questo episodio curioso, che del resto
ritrae una delle abitudini romane, infiltratasi nella vita di questi fieri
conquistatori, da che per le guerre d’Africa, di Grecia e d’Asia,
accresciutesi le ricchezze loro, i costumi presero a mutarsi e non in
meglio sicuramente.

Turpe vir et mulier, juncti modo, protinus hostes.

Non illas lites Appias ipsa probat.
Sæpe reas faciunt, et amant; ubi nulla simultas
Incidit, admonitu liber aberrat amor.
Forte aderam juveni; dominam lectica tenebat.
Horrebant sævis omnia verba minis.
Jamque vadaturus; lectica prodeat, inquit.
Prodierat; visa conjuge, mutus erat.
Et manus, et duplices manibus cecidere tabellæ,
Venit in amplexus, atque: Ita vincis, ait,
Tutius est aptumque magis discedere pace,
Quam petere a thalamis litigiosa foro.
Munera quæ dederis habeat sine lite jubeto [289]
Questo era il procedimento civile e quello che or direbbesi
correzionale: mi resta ora di trattare sotto l’egual brevità della
giurisdizione criminale, distinta in giudizj publici straordinarj ed in
giudizi publici ordinarj.
Dove taluno si fosse reso colpevole di un delitto contro lo stato,
veniva deferito al Pretore, che istituiva un processo criminale, a
seconda della pena che pel reato fosse comminata; ma se legge
positiva non vi fosse contro un determinato reato, veniva l’accusato
rimesso a’ comizj. I primi erano i surriferiti judicia publica ordinaria,
detti anche quæstiones perpetuæ, e gli altri judicia publica
extraordinaria, o judicia ad populum. È ultroneo il dire come i più
importanti fossero quelli ne’ quali discutevasi della vita e della libertà
de’ cittadini.
Al tribunale criminale non potevansi citare d’ordinario che i privati, la
franchigia dell’esenzione da tal pericolo dovendo solo esistere per
coloro che coprissero publiche cariche, i quali unicamente potevano
esser citati quando fossero usciti d’impiego.
L’accusa veniva data da un magistrato dinanzi al popolo, asceso sui
rostri, col dichiarare di volere in determinato giorno promuovere
l’azione criminale contro alcuno pel reato che designava, che però
invitava a comparire. Intanto veniva l’imputato sostenuto in carcere,
fuor del caso avesse egli prestato un mallevadore per sè medesimo.
Non comparendo, condannavasi in contumacia all’esiglio:
diversamente, presentavasi squallidamente vestito. L’accusatore
procedeva allora all’accusa formale, replicata in tre giorni differenti e
suffragavala di prove, testimonj, o documenti, colla proposta della
relativa pena corporale od ammenda.
Compiuta la terza accusa, in tre giorni consecutivi di mercato
publicavasi la rogatio o bando, in cui si esprimeva il delitto e la pena
proposta, e il giudizio comiziale che ne conseguitava veniva detto
mulctæ pœnæve certatio. Nel terzo giorno di mercato, previa una
quarta ed ultima ripetizione da parte dell’accusatore dell’atto di
denunzia, l’accusato, o di per sè, o col mezzo di un avvocato
(patronus) con una arringa, oratio judiciaria, difendevasi, nulla
lasciando d’intentato per eccitare la compassione del popolo e
cattivarsi il favore di lui. Abbiamo già veduto di qual modo
adoperasse Publio Silla, il capo della colonia pompejana, quando
venne accusato, seco avendo condotto perfino il suo tenero figliuolo.
Ai prossimi comizj, il popolo veniva chiamato a votare nel modo che
ho già spiegato nel capitolo precedente, parlando de’ giudizj penali
deferiti ai comizj.
Se per avventura sfavorevoli riuscissero gli auspicj, se taluno fosse
stato incolto da epilessia, la qual però designavasi anche col nome
di morbus comitialis, o se fosse stata involata la bandiera dal
Gianicolo, ciò impedendo di mettere a partito l’accusa, questa non
potendo più essere rinnovata, veniva l’accusato dimesso.
Di tali straordinarj giudizi publici, sono esempj ricordati dalla storia:
quello contro M. Orazio sotto i Re, pel commesso sororicidio; e quelli
contro Coriolano, Tito Manlio, Publio e Lucio Scipione, Tito Annio
Milone, Sergio Catilina e M. T. Cicerone per tradimento o turbazione
dello stato, o come dicevasi perduellione, ai tempi della republica.
Ma siffatto modo di procedere ne’ casi criminali non poteva, come di
leggieri ognuno vede, camminare spedito, quando i reati, per
l’aumento della popolazione, vennero proporzionalmente crescendo,
e quindi i giudizj si dovettero deferire a commissarj o inquisitori,
inquisitores, che, a seconda del loro numero, si nomarono duumviri
o triumviri.
In progresso di tempo furono di esclusiva competenza del Pretore i
delitti de repetundis, o d’estorsione; de ambitu, o broglio, nel
concorso alle supreme cariche; de majestate, contro la sicurezza e
dignità dello stato; de peculatu, o di malversazione del publico
denaro; de falso vel crimine falsi, ossia di falsificazione di monete e
di documenti; de sicariis et veneficiis, ovvero di assassinio od
avvelenamento, e finalmente de parricidiis, di parricidio.
I relativi giudizj chiamavansi adunque, come notai più sopra, judicia
publica ordinaria, o quæstiones perpetuæ.
Assisteva il Pretore un collegio di giudici o d’uomini giurati, il capo
de’ quali appellavasi judex quæstionis, o princeps judicum, e
costituivasi prima di soli senatori, poi anche di cavalieri, scelti d’anno
in anno fra i 30 e i 60 anni, suddivisi in decurie.
Ogni cittadino romano poteva essere accusatore: pare che in Roma
vi fossero anche accusatori publici, come sarebbe in oggi quella
istituzione che è nota sotto il nome di Publico Ministero.
Il restante della processura era suppergiù il medesimo che ho testè
riferito: solo finita l’arringa dell’oratore, che chiudevasi colla parola
dixi, ho detto, il banditore annunziava la chiusura del dibattimento
colla parola dixerunt. Dopo di che, il Pretore invitava i giudici a
ponderare il tutto: ed essi ritraevansi, discutevan fra loro e poi
davano il loro voto. Dapprima questo espressero con pietruzze
bianche e nere, che deponevano nell’urna, poi colle tre tavolette
distinte colle sigle che ho già rammentate.
Intanto l’accusato prostravasi a’ piè de’ giudici e prostravansi con lui
gli amici, invocandone la misericordia.
Se i voti erano eguali, se ne aggiungeva allora uno, detto calculus
Minervæ, ed era in favore dell’accusato, che perciò si dichiarava
assolto. Se i giudici dichiaravan la dubbiezza del giudizio rimettevasi
la decisione ad altro giorno: causa ampliata erat.
L’accusato che veniva assolto, ripigliava le sue consuete vestimenta;
ma se veniva condannato, veniva assoggettato alla dovuta pena.
Otto erano le specie di pene, cioè:
1.ª Mulcta vel damnum, ammenda pecuniare.
2.ª Vincula, carcere con catene, ceppi a’ piedi, compedibus, e
manette, manicis.
3.ª Verbera, battiture con bastoni, fustibus; verghe, virgis; o sferze,
flagellis.
4.ª Talio, taglione, per cui infliggevasi al reo il danno ch’egli aveva ad
altri recato.