یادگیری ویژگی های زمان آینده در زبان انگلیسی توسط تک زبانه های فارسی و دو زبانه های فارسی-کردی: یک مطالعه ی زایشی

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی(عادی)

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران

2 دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران

چکیده

این پژوهش به‌بررسی ویژگی‌های نحوی (Syntactic features) زمان آینده بین زبان‌آموزان تک‌زبانه فارسی و دو زبانه فارسی- کردی  که قصد فراگیری زبان انگلیسی را داشتند، بر پایه نظریه‌های زایشی (Generative theories) زبان دوم و سوم پرداخته است. برای این منظور 36 زبان‌آموز تک‌زبانه فارسی و 36 زبان‌آموز دو زبانه فارسی- کردی در فرایند پژوهش شرکت کردند. در ابتدا، آزمون تعیین سطح آکسفورد (Oxford Placement Test) از این افراد به‌عمل آمد و بر اساس نتایج به‌دست آمده از آن، زبان‌آموزان به‌سه‌گروه متوسط (Intermediate)، متوسط به‌بالا (Upper-intermediate)، و پیشرفته (Advanced) گروه‌بندی شدند. پس از آن، اینان، در هر سطح، در دو آزمون قضاوت دستوری و ترجمه شرکت کردند، تا دانش زبانی آن‌ها در رابطه با ویژگی‌های نحوی ساخت زمان آینده؛ ارزیابی شود. در پایان، داده‌های گردآوری شده از طریق آزمون‌های فوق بر پایه نظریه‌های زایشی مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان داد که شرکت‌کنندگان در هر دو گروه با مشکل فراگیری ویژگی‌های نحوی زمان آینده روبرویند. زیرا زبان‌های قبلی آن‌ها، فاقد نشانه‌های زمان آینده در زبان مقصد (زبان انگلیسی) است. به‌دلیل این فقدان، فراگیران زبان انگلیسی در مراحل اولیه یادگیری، با معضل به‌کارگیری زمان آینده به‌شکل صحیح روبرویند. اما با نزدیکتر‌شدن به‌سطوح پیشرفته، آن‌ها به‌تدریج توانایی بیشتری برای تولید جمله‌های درست زبان مقصد را پیدا می‌کنند. به‌عبارتی، از آنجایی که هر دو زبان کردی و فارسی، فاقد مشخصة معین برای بیان زمان آینده‌اند، فراگیران برای یادگیری مهارت استفاده از زمان آینده با مشکل مواجه خواهند بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The acquisition of future tense properties by Iranian Persian monolingual and Kurdish-Persian Bilingual learners of English: A generative study

نویسندگان [English]

  • Reza Khany 1
  • Sara Haghi 2
1 faculty of English language and literature
2 Department of humanities, Ilam university
چکیده [English]

The present study examined the acquisition of the syntactic features of future tense by Persian monolingual speakers and Kurdish-Persian bilingual learners of English in light of the prediction made by several second language (L2) and third language (L3) generative theories. To this end, 36 Persian monolinguals and 36 Kurdish-Persian bilingual learners of English took part in the study.
At first, the participants took an Oxford Placement Test (OPT) based on which they were assigned to three groups, namely, intermediate, upper-intermediate, and advanced with regard to their English Language Proficiency. Then, they received a grammatical judgment test (GJ) and a translation test (TT).
The results revealed that the contributors of the study in both groups faced difficulties acquiring syntactic features of future tense since their former languages lack the same feature. According to the results, the inconvenience learners struggle with is much more noticeable at the early stages of English learning. As the participants got closer to advanced levels, they gradually build the ability to produce more target like productions. The findings also demonstrated that since both Kurdish and Persian speakers have a lack of specific syntactic features for expressing future tense, they face difficulties acquiring the same feature in English.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • full access full transfer hypothesis
  • representational deficiency hypothesis
  • universal grammar
  • initial state
  • end state

مراجع

Allan, D. (1992) Oxford Placement Test: Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Bardel C and Falk Y (2007) The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research 23:459-84.
Bardel C and Falk Y (2012) The L2 status factor and the declarative/procedural distinction. In: Cabrelli Amaro J, Flynn S, and Rothman J (eds) Third language acquisition in adulthood. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, PP. 61-78.
Bardel C and Sanchez L (2017) The L2 status factor hypothesis revisited: The role of metalinguistic knowledge, working memory, attention and noticing in third language learning: In Angelovska T and Hahn A (eds) L3 syntactic transfer: Models, New developments and implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 85-102.
Berkes E and Flynn S (2012) Multilingualism: New perspectives on syntactic development. In: Ritchie WC and Bhatia TK (eds) The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism. 2nd edition. Chichester: John Wiley and sons, pp. 137-67.
Cabrelli Amaro J, Amaro FJ, and Rothman J (2015) The relationship between L3 transfer and structural similarity across development: Raising across an experiencer in Brazilian Portuguese. In: Peukert H (ed.) Transfer effects in multilingual language development. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 21-52.
Dewaele, J.M. (2001) Activation or inhibition? The interaction of L1, L2, and L3 on the language mode continuum. In J. Cenoz, B.Hufeisen, & U.Jessner (Eds), cross linguistic influence in third language interaction: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp.69-89). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Epstein, S., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1996) second language acquisition: theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 19, 677-758.
Falk Y and Bardel C (2011) Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research 27: 59-82.
Falk Y, Lindqvist C, and Bardel C (2015) The role of L1 explicit metalinguistic knowledge in L3 oral production at the initial state. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 18: 227-235.
Flynn S, Foley C, and Vinnitskaya I (2004) The Cumulative Enhancement Model for language acquisition: comparing adults and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses. The International Journal of Multilingualism 1: 3-16.
Ghafoori, B., Dastgoshadeh, A., Aminpanah, A., & Ziaei, Sh. (2016). The effect of
CALL on Iranian EFL learners' grammar of writing. International Journal of
Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, Volume 12(3). 14-23.
Hakansson G, Pienemann M, and Sayheli S (2002) Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research 18:250-73.
Hammarberg, B. (2001). Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition. In: J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisan, & U. Jessner (Eds), Cross linguistic influence in third language acquisition (pp. 21-41). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hawkins, R. (2003) Representational deficit theories of adult SLA: evidence, counter evidence, and implications. Invited plenary talk presented at Euro SLA, Edinburgh, September 2003.
Hawkins, R. and Chan, Y.H.C. (1997) The Partial Availability of Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition: The Failed Functional Feature Hypothesis. Second Language Research 13: 187-226.
Hermas A (2010) Language acquisition as computational resetting: verb movement in L3 initial state. International Journal of Multilingualism 7: 343-62.
Hermas A (2014a) Multilingual transfer: L1 Morphosyntax in L3 English. International Journal of Language Studies 8: 1-24.
Hermas A (2014b) Restrictive relatives in L3 English: L1 morphosyntax in L3 English: L1 transfer and ultimate attainment convergence. Australian Journal of Linguistics 34:361-87.
Lardier, D (2000) Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. In J. Archibald (Ed.) second language acquisition and linguistic theory, pp. 102-129. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lardier, D. (1998a). Case and tense in fossilized steady state. Second Language Research, 14, 1-26.
Lardier, D. (1998b). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359-375.
Leung Y-KI (2007) Third language acquisition: why is it interesting to generative linguists? Second Language Research 23: 95-114.
Nabi Lo, M., Torki, R., Moradi, P. (2019). Investigating Iranian beginner level language learners’ gradual progress in grammar acquisition using computer games designed for English learning. Journal of Foreign Language Research. 9(3) 763-787.
Pradis M (2009) Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Studies in bilingualism, volume 40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Platzack C (1996) The initial hypothesis of syntax: A minimalist perspective on language acquisition and attrition In:Clahsen H (ed.) Generative Perspective on Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 369-414.
Prevost, P. and White, L (2000a): Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research 16, 103-33.
Prevost, P., & White, L. (2000b). Accounting for morphological variation in second language acquisition: Truncation of missing inflection? In M.A. Friedemann & L.Rizzi (Eds), The Acquisition of syntax (pp.202-235). London: Longman.
Puig-Mayenco., E., Gonzalez Alonso, J., & Rothman, J. (2018). A systematic review of transfer studies in third language acquisition. Second Language Research Journal, 1-38. DOI: 10. 1177/0267658318809147
Rothman J (2010) On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: word order and relative clause high/low attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching (IRAL) 48:245-73.
Rothman J (2011) L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The Typological Primary Model. Second Language Research 27: 107-27.
Rothman J (2013) Cognitive economy, non-redundancy and typological primacy in L3 acquisition: Evidence from initial stages of L3 Romance. In: Baauw S, Dirjkoningen F, and Pinto M (Eds) Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 217-47.
Rothman J (2015) Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primary Model (TPM) of third language transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18: 1-12.
Rothman J and Cabrelli Amaro J (2010) What variables condition syntactic transfer? A look at the L3 initial state. Second Language Research 26: 189-218.
Schwartz, B. and Sprouse, R. (1994) Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In Hoekstra, T. and Schwartz, B., editors, Language acquisition studies in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schwartz, B.D. and Sprouse. R. (1996). L2 cognitive status and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12: 40-72.
Siemund P and Lechner S (2015) Transfer effects in the acquisition of English as an additional language by bilingual children in Germany. In: Peukert H (ed) Transfer effects in multilingual language development. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 147-60.
Slabavoka R (2017) The scalpel model of third language acquisition. International journal of Bilingualism 21: 651-66.
Westergaard M, Mitrofanova N, Mykhaylyk R et al. (2017) Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The Linguistic Proximity Model. International Journal of Bilingualism 21: 662-82.
White, L. (1989). Linguistic universals, markedness and learnability: Comparing two different approaches. Second Language Research, 5, 127-140.
White, L. (2003) Second language acquisition and universal Grammar. UK: Cambridge University Press.
پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی
دوره 10، شماره 3
آبان 1399
صفحه 542-557

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار