Comunicazione bilingue di alunni immigrati presenti nelle scuole del Nord Italia: un’indagine sociolinguistica Marina CHINI (Università di Pavia), Paola Versino (Università di Milano Statale) II Seminario LRI: Lingua, regione e identità nella comunicazione in contesti scolastici Villa San Marco, Merano, 15 ottobre 2015

Bilingual communication of pupils with a migration background living in Northern Italy: a sociolinguistic survey Marina CHINI (University of Pavia), Paola Versino (University of Milan) II Seminario LRI: Lingua, regione e identità nella comunicazione in contesti scolastici Villa San Marco, Merano, 15 ottobre 2015

Outline Introduction Context Research Language use in school Bilingual communication of pupils, with a migration background, born in Italy (generation 2.0) The role of some factors Conclusion (see hand out for Tables and Figures)

The background: The sociolinguistics of migration and multilingualism in Italy Endogenous multilingualism in Italy (ML=minority language):

Italian, Italo-Romance dialects, minority languages (Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Albanian minorities; 12 historical ML are protected by the law 482/1999). See also Iannaccaro/Dell’Aquila (2011) in IJSL 210.

Exogenous multilingualism in Italy:

more than 120 migrant languages (Vedovelli/Villarini 2001), called “nuove minoranze (De Mauro 1977) or “diffused linguistic minorities” (Soravia 2002). Cf. also Chini (in IJSL 210/2011), Vietti (2013). Recent ISTAT Report on “Linguistic diversities among foreigners” (2014).

The sociolinguistic background of our research: new languages enter the Italian linguistic repertoire -> language contact, rise of ethnic varieties and learner varieties, dynamics of language maintenance/shift, language attrition, code switching. Here focus on: -> bilingualism and bilingual uses of pupils with a migration background, living in North-West Italy (Province of Pavia and Piedmont), in the school context and with their families. -> The possible meaning of such language uses in terms of identity.

Some statistical data about the Italian migration context Official ISTAT data: January 2011, in Italy 4.570.317 (regular) immigrants, over a population of 60 million = 7.5% January 2013 in Italy 4.387.721 foreigners (7,4%) January 2014 in Italy 4.922.085 (8,1%) (Caritas/ISTAT). Dossier Caritas Migrantes estimates about 5 million immigrants in Italy in 2010, among which 3 million came to Italy in the last 10 years. Cf. 150 years ago: Italy 1861, 88.639 immigrants = 0.4%. Cf. about 10 years ago: January 2003 1.515.163 foreigners.

Origin of immigrants in Italy Table 1: Immigrants with residence permit (1980-2011) (Source: Caritas/Migrantes based on ISTAT data) Year 1980 1990 2000 2003 2008 2011

Origin Europe 53.2 33.5 40.7 47.9 53.6 53.4

(%) Africa 10.0 30.5 28.0 23.5 22.4 21.6

Asia 14.0 18.7 19.2 16.8 15.8 16.8

total n.

America Oceania others 21.0 1.4 0.4 298.749 16.4 0.8 0.1 781.138 11.8 0.2 0.0 1.388.153 11.5 0.1 0.1 2.193.999 8.1 0.1 0.1 3.891.295 8.1 0.1 4.570.317

Main features of immigration in Italy - 1 Unequal distribution of the immigrants on the national territory: 35% North West; 26.3%, North East; 25.2% Center; 13.5% South and Islands. More precisely: 24% of them live in Lombardy, about 11-12% in Lazio, Veneto, Emilia Romagna, about 8% in Tuscany and Piedmont. In some regions and towns immigrants are about 10-12% of the whole population: Emilia Romagna, Lombardy and Umbria; Brescia, Mantova, Piacenza, Reggio Emilia, Prato. 78.8% of the immigrants are of working age; Low mean age: 32 years vs. 44 years of Italians; Only 2% of immigrants are more than 65 years old vs. 20% of the Italians Almost 1 / 10 of the whole working population of Italy is immigrant.

Main features of immigration in Italy - 2 frequent mixed marriages: in 2009, 1 out of 10, in 2012, 1 out of 6. growingly stable phenomenon: according to ISTAT, 600.000 have recently acquired the Italian citizenship (66.000 in 2010). growing number of minors, almost 1 million, and of second generation people, almost 650.000. 1 new-born child out of 6 has immigrant parents (2012).

Migrants with residence permit in some Italian regions Region

Migrants with residence permit - beginning 2012

Piedmont

422.000

Lombardy

1.178..000

Veneto

554.000

Friuli-Venezia Giulia

120.000

Emilia Romagna

555.000

Tuscany

398.000

Lazio

615.000

Campania

194.000

Abruzzo

85.000

Apulia

100.000

Sicily

142.000

Sardinia

39.000

ITALY

5.011.000, 23% minors, 49.5% females SOURCE: Dossier Caritas Migrantes 2012

Pupils with migration backgrounds in Italian schools Foreign pupils in Italian schools in 2011-2012 (the year of the survey): 755.939 = 8.4%. Distribution: 35.5% of the total number of foreign pupils were in primary schools, 20.7 % in preschools, 22.0% in junior high schools, 21.8% in senior high schools. Heavy growth in the last years in senior high schools: 14% in 2001-02 -> 21.8% in 2011-2012. The whole world is represented in Italian schools.

Pupils having a “non Italian” citizenship in Lombardy, Piedmont and Italy (2012/2013)

(Source MIUR: Ministry of Instruction, University and Research) “Non Italian” Pupils in:

n.

% on the total (% born in Italy)

Lombardy

191.526

13,7 (54% born in Italy)

Province of Pavia

9.662

14,0 (49% born in Italy)

Piedmont

73.914

12,5

ITALY

786.630

8,8 (47% born in Italy)

Some remarks about pupils with a migration background In 2012/2013, 5% of Italian schools are attended by at least 30% “non Italian” pupils (as the Ministry calls them). In some primary schools (n. 452 in Italy, n. 129 in Lombardy) “non Italian” pupils are more than 50% of the whole population. The figures given by the Ministery do not include pupils coming from mixed marriages (one Italian parent, the other coming from other countries) nor naturalized pupils whose parents come from abroad 190 different native countries, at least 100-120 native languages among pupils with a migration background. This is the context of our survey. We neglect here (Italian) pupils belonging to historical linguistic minorities of Italy (i.e. German speakers from South Tyrol-Alto Adige, Slovenians from Venezia Giulia, etc.)

First native countries of pupils with non Italian citizenship (2011-2012) – Main heritage languages/Languages of origin Native country

Pupils, 2011-2012

Main heritage languages / languages of origin (LO)

Romania

141.050

Romanian, Romani

Albania

102.719

Albanian (two main varieties)

Morocco

95.912

(Moroccan) Arabic, Berber

China

34.080

Putonghua (Standard Chinese), Wu Chinese

Moldova

23.103

Moldovian (=Romanian)

India

21.994

Hindi, Punjabi, Tamil etc.

Philippines

21.281

Tagalog, Ilocan, English

Ecuador

19.473

Spanish, Quechua

Tunisia

18.674

Tunisian Arabic, Berber

Ukraine

18.374

Ukrainian, Russian

Some research trends on immigration and language in Italy After studies on the acquisition of L2 Italian (Pavia Project, 1985-), in 20012002 new interest in the entire immigrants’ linguistic repertoire rose: first sociolinguistic outlines of the linguistic situation of migrants in Italy [Mioni 1998] and presumptive lists of migrants’ native languages [Cf. Vedovelli & Villarini 2001]. National CNR-Agenzia 2000 Project "Le lingue straniere immigrate in Italia" [lit. ‘The immigrated languages in Italy’], coord. by Massimo Vedovelli, University for Foreigners of Siena, with six Italian Universities [Bergamo, Cagliari, Milano Bicocca, Pavia, Stranieri Siena, Verona]. It investigates linguistic repertoires, language maintenance and shift in some Northern and Central Italy contexts: Turin, Pavia, Bergamo, Verona (Chini 2003, 2004, 2009, 2011; Massariello Merzagora 2004; Valentini 2005, 2009), and the presence of immigrant languages in the Italian linguistic landscape (Rome; Tuscany; Bagna et al. 2004). Other research trends: the structure of immigrants’ repertoires (Guerini 2006; Berruto 2009), the possible rise of ethnolects in Italy and their internal variation [Vietti 2005], lang. alternation strategies (Guerini ’06).

CNR-Agenzia2000 Project – The Pavia research Unit (2002) The Pavia research Unit, coordinated by M. Chini, with Cecilia Andorno, Michela Biazzi, Grazia Maria Interlandi, investigated some sociolinguistic aspects of migration in the Province of Pavia and in Turin in 2002: Background: some qualitative investigations [Chini 2003] Survey: a quantitative research based on a questionnaire studied the linguistic repertoire, the linguistic competence and the language uses of 414 immigrant pupils of public schools (9-20 years) and of 171 adults in the same areas, i.e. in Pavia and its Province and in Turin (Chini 2004), along with some socio-anagraphic variables. Main publication: M. Chini (a cura di/ed.), Plurilinguismo e immigrazione in Italia. Un’indagine sociolinguistica a Pavia e Torino, FrancoAngeli, Milano, 2004. See also Monographic Issue of “Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata” (38/1, 2009), ed. M. Chini.

The 2012 research

(Pavia 2012- Piedmont 2013) A quantitative research, based on the same questionnaire used in 2002, with 5 new questions: total 60 questions Province of Pavia (coord. M. Chini): data from 555 pupils with a migration background (9-14/15 years old; IV and V cl. primary school/scuola primaria; I, II, III cl. junior high school/scuola sec. I grado) Data collection by researchers (Michela Biazzi, M. Chini, Federica Da Milano, Caterina Mauri), by (PhD) students of the Dep. of Humanities and of the Section of Linguistics (mainly Univ. Pavia), sometimes by Italian L2 teachers and mediators (coop. Progetto Contatto, coord. Andrea Cerioli; Associazione Babele, M. Leone). Collaboration of school authorities (dott. G. Bonelli, Prof. C. Mosa) and teachers. Piedmont (coord. C. Andorno). Data from 972-> 956 pupils. Main collaborators: G. Baratto, S. Sordella, N. Duberti, G. Annino (Univ. Turin); M. Amisano, I. Fiorentini, C. Meluzzi (Univ. Pavia), UTSStranieri Turin; Prog. Provaci ancora Sam, Turin. Data collected mainly in: Turin (412), Bra, Fossano, Mondovì, Cuneo, Alessandria, Biella. Statistical and sociological collaboration: Paola Versino (Univ. Milan); Flavio Ceravolo (Univ. Pavia; questionnaire).

To sum up: Two surveys (2002-2012) Repeated survey at a ten-years distance - focus on language experience in several domains (family, relatives, friends, school); - eligibility conditions: at least one non Italian migrant parent, 9-15 years old; - essentially the same questionnaire; - different samples (non longitudinal data). 2002

2012

Within a national project funded by the Italian National Research Council (CNR)

Self-financed

Pavia as one out of six universities involved

Research unit formed by members of Pavia and Turin universities

309 subjects in the Pavia Province 105 subjects in Turin

555 subjects in the Pavia Province 972-> 956 subjects in Piedmont 17

Some features of the sample Two sub-samples: Province of Pavia: 39% born in Italy, 61% born abroad. Piedmont: 57% born in Italy, 43% born abroad. Total: 1508 subjects, 50,4% born in Italy, 49,6% born abroad (Table 6)

Types of “second generations” in the sample (Rumbaut 1997)

Distribution of “second generation” types in the two sub-samples

Heritage languages/Languages of origin (Prov. Pavia 2012) Besides Rumanian, Albanian, Spanish and Arabic: 33 other languages, 28 dialects or regional varieties, 6 local varieties of Arabic, 2 African dialects (without more details), 9 Italo-Romance dialects (among them 6 from Lombardy), from the country of residence. - > On the whole 80 different language varieties.

Language choices considered a) “innovative” language choices (Italian only: “solo italiano”), revealing a probable sociocultural orientation towards the country of immigration; b) “conservative” choices, oriented towards the language(s) of origin (only other languages : “solo altre lingue”); c) bilingual (or multilingual) choices (Italian and other languages, including the language of origin: “sia italiano che altre lingue”). These choices are potentially cues of a complex identity “in progress”. See Tables 3-6 about language use with teachers, schoolmates, friends in the Province of Pavia and in Piedmont. See Tables 8a, 8b about language use within the family by second generation pupils (G 2.0). See Tables about “strong” and “weak” bilingual uses of G 2.0.

Language choices at school and with friends (Province of Pavia; tabb. 3-4) 1) Italian only, mainly - with teachers and school mates (93-94%), - with Italian friends (97%). -> Communication in schools in the Province of Pavia is mainly monolingual (in Italian). 2) Bilingual uses are not frequent (6-7%) in the school; we find them with some teachers and schoolmates (24%). -

They are generally more frequent with friends coming from the same country (32%) or from other countries (11%).

3) The use of the language of origin/source language is still quite high with friends coming from the same country (32%), with whom also the innovative “Italian only” choice is in any case more frequent (37%) (ONGOING LANGUAGE SHIFT). In the other direction (same interlocutors -> pupils; Table 4) similar figures, but a little less “Italian only” and a little more bilingual choices.

Language choices at school and with friends (Piedmont; tabb. 5-6) 1) “Italian only” choice dominates, but less than in Pavia - with teachers (65%) and school mates (76%), - with Italian friends (97%). -> Communication in the schools of Piedmont is mainly monolingual (Italian), but less than in the Province of Pavia. 2) Bilingual uses in the school are more frequent in Piedmont than in Pavia, both with the teachers (35%) and with schoolmates (24%). -

Bil. uses are more frequent with friends coming from the same country (43%).

3) The use of the language of origin/source language is still important, but less high in Piedmont with friends coming from the same country (25%), with whom the innovative “Italian only” choice is as frequent (32%) as in Pavia. In the other direction (same interlocutors -> pupils; Table 6) similar figures, but a little less “Italian only” and more bilingual choices in Piedmont (51% teachers, 27% schoolmates vs. 11% and 8% in the Prov. of Pavia). -> More bilingual choices with non Italian friends in Piedmont, both friends from the same country (52% vs. 32%) and friends from other countries (15% vs. 9%). - > to investigate: Why? Different attitudes towards bilingualism?

Attitudes towards bilingualism -

There are no big differences between PV and Piedmont as for attitudes towards bilingualism: > On the whole attitudes are a bit more positive in Pavia than in Piedmont (see Table 7). Other factors play most probably a role. Among others, contextual factors such as the more dense presence of networks of immigrants in Piedmont which favours bilingual choices among friends from the same country.

Other sociolinguistic data Subjects’ language uses in the family with the parents and with brothers/sisters and language uses by the same people with the subjects:

-

> High LO/HL maintenance (also with It.) with the parents (7376% + 8-10%), lower LO maintenance with brothers/sisters (5758%+4-7%) -> Low complete shift to Italian with the parents (13-19% father, 916% mother), more significant shift with brothers and sisters (3536%) -> Important bilingual uses with every family member: 43-48%.

-

Languages use of pupils with migration background born in Italy (G 2.0): > constant “Italian only” cases (18%), > less LO only maintenance (23%), > important bilingualism (43%) (See next slide)

-

-

Language use of pupils with migration background, born in Italy (G 2.0) - Family 1) PARENTS Quite low language shift towards Italian when speaking to the parents (18%), less than 1 out of 5, in both sub-samples. A bit more frequent “conservative language choices” in LO: 23% (27% in the Prov. of Pavia). The more frequent case is the bilingual choice: 55% (43%+6%+6%=55%); a bit more frequent in Piedmont (57%). 2) BROTHERS/SISTERS Language shift towards Italian is higher than with the parents (46%; even more in Piedmont: 49%). LO maintenance is definitely lower (13%). Bilingual choices are important (40%), a bit less than language shift. (See Tables 8a, 8b for different combinations)

Language use of pupils with migration background born in Italy (G 2.0) - Friends Bilingual choices with friends from the same country in the G 2.0 are frequent (4 out of 10: 39,5% on the whole). They are higher in Piedmont (41,6%) than in the Province of Pavia (34,5%). Bilingual choices with friends are less frequent than with parents in G 2.0 (55%). - > According to our survey, bilingual uses are most probably a significative identity marker for foreigner pupils born in Italy (9-15 years old).

G 2.0 sub-sample: different rearing contexts 760 pupils born in Italy (50% of the whole sample). They come from different possible rearing contexts: A.

endogamous parental couples (81%) [red = promoting bilingualism] using only the native language of the parents ; using the latter and Italian ; speaking only Italian (unlikely).

B. exogamous parental couples (11%) using one or both the main languages of their parents; using one or both of them in combination with Italian. C. mixed parental couples (one born in Italy and one abroad) (8%) using only Italian; using both languages of the parents; not using Italian (very unlikely).

Strong and weak bilingualism in G 2.0 ‘Weak’ bilingualism within the family, IFF • they make bilingual choices with at least one parent OR with the siblings ‘Strong’ bilingualism within the family, IFF • they make bilingual choices with at least one parent AND with the siblings See Tables 9 and 10.

Linguistic competences in HL/LO Generation 2.0: 71% knows LO/HL quite good (assessed more than 7 point / 10) as far as oral comprehension and oral production are concerned (a bit more in Pavia) (self-assessment) Whole sample (G1+G2): Better oral competence than written competence (self-assessed at least 8 point / 10): Oral comprehension (82-84%) > oral production (80-81%) > written comprehension (47-56%) > written production (42-48%).

Factors of bilingual use to be verified (among G 2.0 pupils) Country of origin (see next slide) Usage of Italian by the parents: not significant for bilingual use (only for bilingual competence) Subjects’ sex: F adopt more frequently bilingual uses than M Frequent visits to the country of origin foster bilingual use (and especially bilingual competence) Studying LO in Italy fosters weakly bilingual use (and favours more clearly bilingual competence) Positive attitudes towards LO and towards living in the country of origin do not foster bilingual use (but favour bilingual competence) Regular interactions with friends of the same country of origin foster bilingual use.

Types of bilingualism among G 2.0 pupils from the three main countries of origin

An implicational relationship …an implicational relationship seems to exist 2G's bilingualism with Friends of the same Country implicates 2G's bilingualism in the family -> The family domain is fundamental for 2Gs'bilingualism, besides for L1 maintenance.

Factors of bilingualism (and of HL/LO maintenance) Clear relations of dependence exist between The languages spoken with the father and to be born in Italy or abroad The languages spoken with the mother and to be born in Italy or abroad The languages spoken with brothers/sisters and to be born in Italy or abroad The languages spoken with the mother and the subject’s sex

Factors influencing G 2.0’s bilingualism (Piedmont+Pavia) (see Chini/Versino i.p.) Clear relations of dependence exist in our G 2.0 subsample between bilingual use in the family and… …how many times are more likely to have a good bilingual competence (compared to their counterparts)?

Variables

P-value

Second generation’s pupils

Regular interactions with friends of the same country of origin

0,000

…having regular interactions with friends of the same c. of origin

2 times (o.r.=1.9)

Home as a meeting place with friends of the same country of origin

0,005

…meeting with friends from the same countries of origin at home

60% more (o.r.=1.6)

Street as a meeting place with friends of the same country of origin

0,035

…meeting with friends from the same countries of origin on the street

Almost 50% more (o.r.=1.45)

Visit to the country of origin

0,023

…going often to the country of origin

Almost 50% more (o.r.=1.45) 36

Factors influencing 2G’s bilingualism (Prov. Pavia) 1 (see Chini/Versino 2014) Clear relations of dependence exist in our 2G subsample between bilingual compet. …how many times are more likely to have a good bilingual competence (compared to their counterparts)?

Variables

P-value

Second generation’s pupils

Opinions about L1/LO

0,000***

…having mostly positive opinions about L1

Pupils’ frequency of visiting the c. of origin

0,001**

…often visiting their country of origin

3 times (o.r.=3.1)

Desire to live in the c. of origin as grownups

0,009*

…liking the idea of living in the c. of origin as grownups

2 times and a half (o.r.=2.4)

Parents’ frequency of L2 usage (=It.)

0,021*

…whose parents speak L2 only sometimes

3 times and a half (o.r.=3.5) 1 time and a half (o.r.=1.4)

Parents’ frequency of L2 usage (=It.)

0,021*

…whose fathers speak Italian more often than their mothers

Study of L1/LO in Italy

0,062

…studying their L1

Home as a meeting place with friends of the same c.of origin

0,039*

…meeting with friends from the same c. of origin at home

15 times (o.r.= 15.1)

twice (o.r.=2.0) twice (o.r.=2)

37

Factors influencing 2G’s bilingualism (Prov. Pavia) 2 Clear relations of dependence exist in our 2G subsample between bilingual use in the family and… …how many times are more likely to have a good bilingual competence (compared to their counterparts)?

Variables

P-value

Second generation’s pupils

Regular interactions with friends of the same c. of origin

0,003*

…having regular interactions with friends of the same c. of origin

3 times (o.r.=3.0)

Home as a meeting place with friends of the same c. of origin

0,007*

…meeting with friends from the same countries of origin at home

almost 3 times (o.r.=2,7)

Desire to live in the c. of origin as grownups

0,046*

…liking the idea of living in the country of origin as grownups

twice (o.r.=2.0)

38

Conclusions about bilingualism in 2G (Pr.Pavia) Using the data analysis made so far for the Province of Pavia, we could sketch four different bilingual profiles of 2G pupils with parents coming from the same native country (endogamous couples): Second generation pupils being...

characteristics

survival HP of their bilingualism

…bilingual competent AND bilingual users in the family (1/3 of the sample)

relational and attitude features listed before

has a chance to resist to monolingual pressures from the country of residence

…bilingual competent AND NOT bilingual users in the family (> 1/5 of the sample)

often living in families coming from Romania and Tunisia

could slowly lose this competence if they don’t find bilingual users as friends

...bilingual users in the family AND NOT bilingual competent (1/6 of the sample)

often living in families coming from China and Morocco

could be unstable in the long run

...NOT bilingual competent AND NOT bilingual users in the family (1/8 of the sample)

probably already becoming L2 monolinguism

39

Some references

(see also hand-out and abstract)

Berruto G., 2009, Ristrutturazione dei repertori e ‘lingue franche’ in situazione immigratoria. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 38/1 (Mongr. Issue, ed. M. Chini), 9–28. Bombi R. & F. Fusco (eds.), 2004, Città plurilingui. Lingue e culture a confronto in situazioni urbane, Forum, Udine (cf. D’Agostino, Massariello Merzagora, Chini et al.). Caritas/Migrantes, 2012, Immigrazione – Dossier statistico 2012, IDOS, Roma (and 2010, 2011, etc.). Chini M., 2003, Rapporti fra italiano e lingue d’origine nel repertorio di immigrati in area lombarda: un sondaggio qualitativo. In Ada Valentini et al. (eds.), Ecologia linguistica, 223–246. Bulzoni. Chini M., 2011, New linguistic minorities: repertoires, language maintenance and shift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 210 (eds. S. Dal Negro, F. Guerini), 47-69. Chini M., 2013, Scelte di lingua e reti amicali di ragazzi di origine immigrata nel Pavese. In I. Tempesta & M. Vedovelli (eds.), Di Linguistica e di Sociolinguistica. Studi offerti a Norbert Dittmar, 117-148, Bulzoni, Roma. Chini M. (ed.), 2004, Plurilinguismo e immigrazione in Italia. Un’indagine sociolinguistica a Pavia e Torino, Franco Angeli, Milano. Chini M. (ed.), 2009, Plurilinguismo e immigrazione nella società italiana. SILTA, 38/1. Monogr. Iss. Chini M. & C. Andorno (eds.)(in prep.), Lingue e pratiche linguistiche di alunni di origine immigrata. Un’indagine sulla Provincia di Pavia e sul Piemonte dieci anni dopo, FrancoAngeli, Milano. Giacalone Ramat A. (ed.), 2003, Verso l’italiano. Percorsi e strategie di acquisizione, Carocci,Roma Guerini F., 2006, Language alternation strategies in multilingual settings. A case study: Ghanaian immigrants in Northern Italy, Lang, Bern. Guerini F. & S. Dal Negro (eds.), 2011, Italian sociolinguistics: twenty years on. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 210. Special Issue. Lüdi G., 1990, Les migrants comme minorité linguistique en Europe. Sociolinguistica 4. 113–135. Rumbaut R.G., 1997, Assimilation and its discontents: Between rhetoric and reality. International Migration Review 31/4. 923-960. Valentini A., 2005, Lingue e interlingue dell’immigrazione in Italia. Linguistica e Filologia 21. 195208. Vietti A., 2005, Come gli immigrati cambiano l’italiano, FrancoAngeli, Milano.

Grazie molte dell’attenzione! Gracias!

Thank you very much for your attention! Danke sehr! Grazie dell’attenzione!