The Process of Language User Identity from Linguistic Neoteny Perspective

Document Type : نقش فرهنگ در آموزش زبان های خارجی

Authors

French Translation Departement, Faculty of Persian Litterature and Foreigne Languages, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Bilingualism and second language learning is a complex process in which teaching presents a variety of topics for the language user to learn the syntactic system, its components and the level of the four skills. The more you learn the language, the higher the levels of these skills become and more the user becomes proficient in language communication. The teaching standard evaluates the degree to which these four skills are enhanced. But according to linguistic neoteny, the user's identity interacts with all languages, even those he does not own. All the training tips are used for the user's language proficiency, and language proficiency is not just about evaluating language skills. Linguistic Neoteny examines language learning in the final stage of training, ie. language proficiency, in which the language identity that the user acquires plays a key role in learning a language. In this article, using the bilingual attitude and language ownership proposed by Linguistic neoteny, we analyze the language user at different stages of linguistic contact with languages. We will see that a monolingual and mono identity user can not have a linguistic connection by having the same monotony, and he cannot own both languages equally. Despite the user's knowledge of the basic language system, he needs to put his linguistic identity in an essential process.

Keywords

References

رضاپور، روح‌اله ( ۱۳۹۹). ترجمه و تولید زبانی در دوزبانگی از منظر نئوتنی زبانی، جستار‌های زبانی، د11، ش1 پیاپی 55، فروردین و اردیبهشت 1399، صص31-51.
زارع بهتاش اسماعیل، قلیخانی، حسین(1399). بررسی مشکلات درک و ترجمه متن از نوع جریان سیال ذهن، یک مطالعه مورد: خشم و هیاهو اثر فاکنر، پژوهش های زبان شناختی در زبان های خارجی، (10)، 4، 658-671.
 
Bajrić, S. (2005). Questions d’intuition. Langue Française, 147, 7–18.
Bajrić, S., 2009, Linguistique, cognition et didactique : principes et exercices de linguistique- didactique, Paris : PUPS.
Bloomfield, L. (1935). Language, London: Allen and Unwin Ltd. 

Guillaume, G. (1973). Leçon de linguistique, (1948-1949), série C, Grammaire particulière du français et grammaire générale IV, Volume.3, Québec : Les presses de l’Université Laval ; Paris : Klincksieck. 

Hagège, C. (2005). L’enfant aux deux langues, Paris, Odile Jacob.
Haugen, E. (1953). The Norwegian Language in America : a study, in Bilingual Behaviour, Philadelphi : University of Pennsylvania Press.
Macnamara, J. et Kushnir, S.-L. (1971). Linguistic independence of bilinguals: The input switch, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, N°10: 480–487.
Rezapour, R. (2016). Le bilinguisme en néoténie linguistique, Paris: L’Harmattan.
Rezapour, R. (2020). La Relecture de l’aspect terminologique de la néoténie linguistique conformément à celui de la didactique des langues. Recherches en Langue et Littérature Françaises, Vol. 14, N° 26, 178-191.
Titone, R. (1972). Le bilinguisme précoce. Bruxelles : Dessart.
Weinreich, U. (1979). Language in contact, Findings and problems, 9° tirage, The Hague : Mouton.
Yaguello, M. (1988). Catalogue des idées reçues sur la langue, Paris : Point Virgule.

Journal of Foreign Language Research
Volume 11, Issue 4
December 2021
Pages 626-638

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics