پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 932 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,652 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,493,162 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,884,806 |
The Impact of L1/L2-Based Explicit Output Task Instruction on Iranian EFL Learners’ Semantic Prosody Learning | ||
| Journal of Language Horizons | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 2، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 4، مهر 2018، صفحه 51-74 اصل مقاله (1.5 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2019.25455.1107 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Reza Bagheri Nevisi* 1؛ Rasoul Mohammad Hosseinpur2؛ Fatemeh Zadeh Darvish3 | ||
| 1Assistant professor of TEFL, English Language and Literature Department, University of Qom. | ||
| 2Assistant professor of TEFL,, English Language and Literature Department, University of Qom | ||
| 3MA Graduate, University of Qom | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Most of the studies on semantic prosody have mainly focused on the recognition of positive, negative, or neutral load of the meaning inferred from the node and its co-occurrences from corpus-based perspectives. However, this study aimed at delving into the teaching and learning aspect of semantic prosodies within the classroom setting. To this end, 76 Iranian undergraduate university students majoring in English translation were randomly selected. Receptive Semantic Prosody Test (RSPT) was administered as a pre-test to assess the students’ initial knowledge of the semantic prosodies. Then, the students were assigned to three groups: two experimental (L1-based and L2-based) and one control group. The experimental groups went through a seven-week instructional period and received explicit output task instruction on semantic prosodies for 30 minutes at the end of their regular class hour, while the control group was exposed to the same output tasks to complete based on the presented contextual clues only, and no such explicit instruction was provided to them. Finally, RSPT was administered again to see how effective the output task instruction had been with regard to the semantic prosody learning. The comparison of the two approaches to learning semantic prosody demonstrated that L1-based instruction was more effective, and EFL learners were generally more receptive to L1-based output task instruction. The study further implies that both L2 teachers and learners can ill afford to turn a blind eye to the important and undeniable role L1 use plays in learning L2 vocabularies in general and semantic prosodies in particular. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Output task؛ Semantic prosody؛ Explicit instruction؛ L1-Based instruction؛ L2-Based instruction؛ EFL learners | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| تاثیر آموزش صریح فعالیت خروجی زبان اول/زبان دوم-محور بر یادگیری عروض معنایی زبان آموزان ایرانی | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| رضا باقری نویسی1؛ رسول محمد حسین پور2؛ فاطمه زاده درویش3 | ||
| 1استادیار گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه قم | ||
| 2استادیار گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه قم | ||
| 3کارشناس ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه قم | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| بیشتر مطالعات انجام شده در زمینه عروض معنایی عمدتاً به تشخیص بار مثبت ، منفی یا خنثی معنای استنباط شده از گره و وقوع همزمان آن از منظر پیکره ای پرداخته اند. لذا، این مطالعه با هدف بررسی جنبه های آموزش و یادگیری عروض معنایی در محیط کلاس صورت گرفته است. برای این منظور ، 76 دانشجوی دانشگاهی ایرانی مقطع کارشناسی رشته مترجمی زبان انگلیسی به طور تصادفی انتخاب شدند. آزمون عروض معنایی دریافتی (RSPT) به عنوان پیش آزمون برای ارزیابی دانش اولیه زبان آموزان در مورد عروض معنایی انجام شد. سپس، آنها به سه گروه: دو گروه آزمایشی (زبان اول-محور و زبان دوم-محور) و یک گروه گواه تقسیم شدند. گروه های آزمایشی یک دوره آموزشی هفت هفته ای را طی کردند و در پایان وقت عادی کلاس خود به مدت 30 دقیقه آموزش صریح فعالیت خروجی بر روی عروض معنایی را دریافت کردند در حالی که گروه گواه همان فعالیت های خروجی را صرفا براساس سرنخ های متنی ارائه شده تکمیل کرده و هیچ آموزش صریحی دریافت نکردند. سرانجام، آزمون عروض معنایی دریافتی مجدداً اجرا شد تا مشخص شود که آموزش صریح فعالیت خروجی با در نظر گرفتن یادگیری عروض معنایی چقدر مؤثر بوده است. مقایسه دو روش یادگیری عروض معنایی نشان داد که آموزش زبان اول-محور مؤثرتر بوده و زبان آموزان به طور کلی نسبت به آموزش زبان اول-محور فعالیت خروجی پذیرا تر بودند. این مطالعه حاکی از این است که معلمان و زبان آموزان زبان دوم نمی توانند به راحتی از نقش مهم و غیرقابل انکار زبان اول در یادگیری واژگان زبان دوم به طور اعم و یادگیری عروض معنایی به طور اخص چشم پوشی کنند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| فعالیت خروجی-محور, عروض معنایی, آموزش صریح, آموزش زبان اول-محور, آموزش زبان دوم-محور | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ahmadian, M., Yazdani, H., & Darabi, A. (2011). Assessing English learners’ knowledge of semantic prosody through a corpus-driven design of semantic prosody test. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 288-298.
Barcroft, J. (2009). Strategies and performance in intentional L2 vocabulary learning. Language Awareness, 18(1), 74-89.
Brooks-Lewis, K. A. (2009). Adult learners’ perceptions of the incorporation of their L1 in foreign language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 216-235.
Bruen, J., & Kelly, N. (2014). Using a shared L1 to reduce cognitive overload and anxiety levels in the L2 classroom. The Language Learning Journal, 45(3), 368-381.
Bublitz, W. (1996). Semantic prosody and cohesive company: Somewhat predictable. Leuvense Bijdragen: Tijdschriftvoor Germaanse Filologie, 85(1-2), 1-32.
Burden, P. (2001). When do native English speaking teachers and Japanese college students disagree about the use of Japanese in the English conversation classroom? The Language Teacher, 25(4), 5-9.
Butzkamm, W. (2003). We only learn language once: The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms: Death of a dogma. Language Learning Journal, 28(1), 29-39.
Cheng, T. P. (2013). Codeswitching and participant orientations in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 869-886.
Coffin, C., & O’Halloran, K. (2006). The role of appraisal and corpora in detecting covert evaluation. Functions of Language, 13(1), 77-110.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402-423.
Cummins, J., Bismilla, V., Chow, P., Cohen, S., Giampapa, F., Leoni, L. . . . & Sastri, P. (2005). Affirming identity in multilingual classrooms. Educational Leadership, 63, 38-43.
de la Fuente, J. M. (2006). Classroom L2 vocabulary acquisition: Investigating the role of pedagogical tasks and form-focused instruction. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 263-295.
Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. (2006). First- and second-language literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (pp. 197-238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dujmovic, M. (2007). The use of Croatian in the EFL classroom. Metodicki Obzori, 2(1), 91-100.
Elahi, A., & Rahbar, M. (2018). Semantic prosody: Its knowledge and appropriate selection of equivalents. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 6(22), 73-88.
Ferguson, G. (2009). What next? Towards an agenda for classroom codeswitching research. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12, 231-241.
Folse, K. S. (2004). Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. University of Michigan Press.
Fuqua, J. (2014). Semantic prosody: The phenomenon of “prosody” in lexical patterning. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2, 76-83.
Grim, F. (2010). L1 in the L2 classroom at the secondary and college levels: A comparison of functions and use by teachers. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7(2), 193-209.
Harmer, J. (2012). Essential teacher knowledge: Core concepts in English language teaching. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Hawkins, S. (2015). Guilt, missed opportunities, and false role models: A look at perceptions and use of the first language in English teaching in Japan. JALT Journal, 37, 29-42.
Horst, M., White, J., & Bell, P. (2010). First and second language knowledge in the language classroom. International Journal of bilingualism, 14(3), 331-349.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal, and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 258-268). England: Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. England: Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S. (2007). Semantic prosody revisited. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12(2), 249-268.
Hunt, A., & Beglar, D. (2002). Current research and practice in teaching vocabulary. In J. Richards & W. Renandya (Eds.). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 258-266). England: Cambridge University Press.
Jaen, M. M. (2007). A corpus-driven design of a test for assessing the ESL collocational competence of university students. International Journal of English Studies, 7(2), 127-147.
Joyce, P. (2015). L2 vocabulary learning and testing: The use of L1 translation versus L2 definition. The Language Learning Journal, 46(3), 217-227.
Kang, E. (2015). Promoting L2 vocabulary learning through narrow reading. RELC Journal, 46(2), 165-179.
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 114-130.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implication. London, England: Longman.
Laufer, B., & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 694-716.
Lee, J. H., & Macaro, E. (2013). Investigating age in the use of L1 or English‐only instruction: Vocabulary acquisition by Korean EFL learners. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 887-901.
Leeming, P. (2011). Japanese high school students’ use of L1 during pair-work. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21, 360-382.
Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honor of John Sinclair (pp. 157-176). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Louw, B. (2000). Contextual prosodic theory: Bringing semantic prosodies to life. In C. Heffer, H. Sauntson, & G. Fox (Eds.), Words in context: A tribute to John Sinclair on his retirement (pp. 48-94). Birmingham, England: University of Birmingham,
Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: Exploring ‘optimal’ use. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 35-49). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Mansoory, N., & Jafarpour, M. (2014). Teaching semantic prosody of English verbs through the DDL approach and its effect on learners’ vocabulary choice appropriateness in a Persian EFL context. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(2), 149-161.
Manyak, P. C. (2004). "What did she say?" Translation in a primary-grade English immersion class. Multicultural Perspectives, 6(1), 12-18.
Mart, Ç. T. (2013). The facilitating role of L1 in ESL classes. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(1), 9-14.
McGee, I. (2012). Should we teach semantic prosody awareness? RELC Journal, 43(2), 169-186.
Meyer, H. (2008). The pedagogical implications of L1 use in the L2 classroom. College Research Bulletin, 8, 147-160.
Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning from context: Strategies, knowledge sources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 645-670.
Nassaji, H. (2004). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(1), 107-134.
Nassaji, H., & Hu, M. (2012). The relationship between task-induced involvement load and learning words from context. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 50, 69-86.
Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 397-419.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. England: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P., & Meara, P. (2010). Vocabulary. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An Introduction to applied linguistics (2nd ed.) (pp. 34-52). London, England: Edward Arnold.
Nation, P. (2003). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 5(2), 1-8.
Nazary, M. (2008). The role of L1 in L2 acquisition: Attitudes of Iranian university students. Novitas-Royal, 2(2), 138-153.
Partington, A. (2004). Utterly content in each other’s company: Semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 131-156.
Ramachandran, S. D., & Rahim, H. A. (2004). Meaning recall and retention: The impact of the translation method on elementary level learners’ vocabulary learning. RELC Journal, 35(2), 161-178.
Rupley, W. H., Blair, T. R., & Nichols, W. D. (2009). Effective reading instruction for struggling readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(2-3), 125-138.
Schmitt, N. (1999). The relationship between TOEFL vocabulary items and meaning, association, collocation and word-class knowledge. Language Testing, 16(2), 189-216.
Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 1-22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schweers, Jr., C. W. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 classroom. English Teaching Forum, 37(2), 6-9.
Shirzad, M., Rasekh, A. E., & Dabaghi, A. (2017). The effects of input and output tasks on the learning and retention of EAP vocabulary. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(2), 145-152.
Sinclair, J. M. (1987). An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing and the development of the Collins COBUILD English language dictionary. London, England: Collins ELT.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. England: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. (1996a). The search for units of meaning. Textus, 9, 75-106.
Sinclair, J. (1996b). The empty lexicon. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1(1), 99-119.
Stewart, D. (2010). Semantic prosody: A critical evaluation. London, England: Routledge.
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text-editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143-159.
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14, 355-375.
Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies’. Functions of Language, 2(1), 23-55.
Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Sunderman, G., & Kroll, J. F. (2006). First language activation during second language lexical processing: An investigation of lexical form, meaning, and grammatical class. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(3), 387-422.
Tang, J. (2002). Using L1 in the English classroom. English Teaching Forum, 40(1), 36-43.
Teng, F. (2015). The effectiveness of extensive reading on EFL learners’ vocabulary learning: Incidental versus intentional learning. Brazilian English Language Teaching Journal, 6(1), 66-80.
Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote ‘noticing’. ELT Journal, 51(4), 326-335.
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. Harlow, England: Longman.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Tribble, C. (2000). Genres, keywords, teaching: Towards a pedagogic account of the language of project proposals. In L. Burnard & A. McEnery (Eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective: Papers from the Third International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora (pp.75-90). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
Van Zeeland, H., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening comprehension: The same or different from reading comprehension? Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 457-479.
Wang, Z. (2014). Review of the influence of L1 in L2 acquisition. Studies in Literature and Language, 9(2), 57-60. Whitsitt, S. (2005). A critique of the concept of semantic prosody. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(3), 283-305.
Willis, M., & Ohashi, Y. (2012). A model of L2 vocabulary learning and retention. Language Learning Journal, 40(1), 125-137.
Xiao, Z., & McEnery, A. (2006). Collocation, semantic prosody and near synonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 103-129.
Yenkimaleki, M. (2018). Explicit and implicit prosody teaching in developing listening comprehension skills by interpreter trainees: An experimental study. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 6(1), 11-21.
Zhang, W. (2009). Semantic prosody and ESL/EFL vocabulary pedagogy. TESL Canada Journal, 26(2), 1-12.
Zhang, C., (2010). A comparative corpus-based study of semantic prosody, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(4), 451-456. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 606 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 589 |
||