بررسی میزان اثر مواد درسی برگرفته از زبان‌شناسی شناختی بر آموزش حروف اضافه انگلیسی در کلاس درس زبان آموزان EFL

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 Yasin Kargar, Ph.D. Student of Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Tarbiat Modares, Tehran, Iran

2 دپارتمان زبانشناسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

چکیده

حرف اضافه، اگرچه بخش نسبتا‌ً کمی از زبان را شامل می‌شود اما در عین حال نقش اساسی و مهمی را ایفا می‌کند. نظر به اینکه میزان به‌کارگیری حروف اضافه در کتب درسی دوره متوسطه زیاد است؛ گاه دانش‌آموزان از تلاش برای یادگیری آن‌ها باز می‌مانند و موفقیت کم‌رنگ‌تری از استفاده آن حروف در کاربردهای روزمره حاصل می‌شود. در این مقاله با بهره‌گیری از روش شبه تجربی به منظور بررسی تاثیر آموزش الهام گرفته از زبانشناسی شناختی بر یادگیری حروف اضافه زبان انگلیسی in، on و at پرداخته شده است. آزمودنی‌ها متشکل از دو گروه (n=44)، بودند. گروه شناختی اسلایدهای تصویری حاوی ابزارهای ادراکی و شناختی، در حالی که گروه سنتی مواد آموزشی به شیوه سنتی دریافت کرد. با وجود اینکه گروه شناختی به طور قابل‌توجهی در پس‌آزمون عمل کرد، اما اثر مثبت آموزش به سبک شناختی تا زمان اجرای پس‌آزمون باتاخیر آشکار نشد. یافته‌های مربوط به نتایج نمره‌های افراد نشان می‌دهد که گروه شناختی به طور قابل‌توجهی بهتر از گروه سنتی در پس‌آزمون بلافاصله و باتاخیر عمل کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

To study the effect of cognitive linguistics on teaching English prepositions in the EFL classroom

نویسندگان [English]

  • Yasin Kargar 1
  • ferdows aghagolzadeh 2
1 Yasin Kargar, Ph.D. Student of Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Tarbiat Modares, Tehran, Iran
2 department of linguistics, faculty of humanities, University of Tarbiat Modares, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

English prepositions possess only a small proportion of language but play an important role. Despite their frequently use in English textbooks for secondary school, students fail to acquire them and often show low achievements in using prepositions properly. In this paper, we use a quasi-empirical study to examine the effect of cognitive-inspired instruction on learning in, on, and at, which are known to pose tremendous difficulty to English language learners due to their language-specific features and polysemous nature. The participants were learners at several schools in Saqez province. They were divided into cognitive and rule group. The cognitive group was presented with pictorial representations of the prepositions and cognitive tools used to motivate non-spatial uses, while the rule group received materials based on rules. Although the cognitive group was significantly improved in the post-test, the positive effect did not last until the delayed post-test. On the other hand, the rule group gained little progress in the immediate post-test, but the performance of the group dropped significantly in the delayed post-test.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • English prepositions
  • Cognitive linguistics
  • Conceptualization
  • spatial configurations
  • polysemy network analyses

Alonso, A. R., Cadierno, T., & Jarvis, S. (2016) Crosslinguistic influence in the
acquisition of spatial prepositions in English as a foreign language. In A. R. Alonso
(Ed.) Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 93-120).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Arnett, C., & Jernigan, H. (2014). A cognitive grammar account of case for L2 students
of German. German as a Foreign Language, 1, 6893.
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417-423. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL
teacher’s course. New York: Heinle & Heinle.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
DeKeyser, R., & Sokalski, K. J. (2001). The differential role of comprehension and
production practice. Language Learning, 51, 81-112.
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit
language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352.
Evans, V. (2003). The structure of time: Language meaning and temporal cognition.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Frisson, S., Sandra, D., Brisard, F., & Cuyckens, H. (1996). From one meaning to the
next: The effects of polysemous relationships in lexical learning. In M. Pütz & R.
Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 613-647). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Godfroid, A. (2016). The effects of implicit instruction on implicit and explicit
knowledge development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 177-215.
بررسی میزان اثر مواد درسی برگرفته از زبا نشناسی شناختی بر آموزش حروف اضافه انگلیسی در کلاس... 1225
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the ―natural order of L2
morpheme acquisition􀀂 in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants.
Language Learning, 51, 150.
Goldstone, R. L. (2003). Learning to perceive while perceiving to learn. In R. Kimchi,
M. Behrmann, & C. Olson (Eds.), Perceptual organization in vision: Behavioral and
neural perspectives (pp. 233-278). Mahwah: Erlbaum. Hampton, J. A. 2005. Rules
and similarity — a false dichotomy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 26.
Ijaz, I. H. (1986). Linguistic and cognitive determinants of lexical acquisition in a second
language. Language Learning, 36, 401–451.
Jacobsen, N. D. (2016). The best of both worlds: Combining cognitive linguistics and
pedagogic tasks to teach English conditionals. Applied Linguistics, Advance Access,
1–27. doi: 10.1093/applin/amw030
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar and language instruction. In P. Robinson
& N. Ellis (eds.) Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition
(pp. 66–88). New York: Routledge.
Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar
acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics,
36, 385408.
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and
teaching. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Matula, S. (2007). Incorporating a cognitive linguistic presentation of the prepositions
on, in, and at in ESL instruction: A quasi-experimental study (Unpublished PhD
dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington D.C.
Murakami, A., & Alexopoulou, T. (2016). L1 influence on the acquisition order of
English grammatical morphemes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3),
365-401. doi: 10.1017/S0272263115000352.
Murphy, R. (2012). English grammar in use (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Özgen, E. & Davies, I. R. L. (2002). Acquisition of categorical color perception: A
perceptual learning approach to the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 477–493.
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
1226 پژوهش های زبانشناختی در زبان های خارجی، دورة 9، شمارة 4، زمستان 1398
Robinson, P., & N. Ellis (eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second
language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Slobin, D. (1996). From ―thought and language􀀂 to ―thinking for speaking􀀂. In S.
Gumperz & S. Levinson (eds.) Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Sneddon, J. N. (2010). Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J. R. (2008). Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. In S. De
Knop & T. D. Rycker (eds.) Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A
volume in honour of Rene Dirven (pp. 37-65). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics
and experimental evidence. New York: Routledge.
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The
case of over. Language, 77, 724-765.
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes,
embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, A., Mueller, C., & Ho, V. (2010). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the
semantics of English to, for, and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 181–206.
Van Patten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-43.
Wierzbicka, A. (1993). Why do we say in April, on Thursday and at 10 o’clock? In
search of an explanation. Studies in Language, 17, 437-454