The Processing of Topicalization in Persian and English

Subject Areas : Journal of Teaching English Language Studies

Leila Azizi ¹ (Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch)
Shahla Roshani ² (Payam Noor University)
Ghale Sheikhi ³ (Payam Noor University)

Received: 2014-09-20 Accepted : 2014-10-21 Published : 2014-11-01

Keywords: processing, Topicalization,

Abstract :

The present study sought to investigate whether there is any difference between topicalization processes in English and Persian structures among EFL learners.50 female students of Jahad Daneshgahi English Language Institute in Qazvin participated in this study. All of the participants were native speakers of Persian studying in Jahad Daneshgahi English Language Institute in Qazvin, Iran. The participants were administered three tests. A multiple choice test for English language proficiency test(PET) to determine the level of the participants , a multiple choice English Topicalization test and Persian Topicalization test to measure the possible effect of topicalixed structures on subjects' comprehension and to measure the participants' knowledge of topicalized structures. The same tests were presented to participants of advanced and intermediate level. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to answer the research question of this study. The findings showed that the advanced group performed better on the English Topicalization test. There was a significant dependency between the English language proficiency level and comprehension of Topicalized structures. Then, the result of Persian test show that both groups cannot process Persian topicalized sentences well. Accordingly, the null hypothesis that states that there is no significant difference between topicalization process in English and Persian is rejected and we can claim that there is significant difference between topicalization process in English and Persian . The findings of the present study may have implications for L2 learners and teachers.

References:

Belletti, A., Bennati, E & Sorace, A. (2007). Theoretical and developmental issues issues in the syntax of subjects: evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25, 657-689.

Birner, B. & Mahootian, Sh.( 1996). “Functional constraints on inversion in English and Farsi.” Language Sciences 18(1-2):127-138.

Birner, B. & Ward, G. (1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English (Studies in Language Companion Series 40). Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publication.

Chomsky, N. (1977). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.

Darzi, A. (2010) . word order,NP Movement and Opacity Conditions in Persian,Ph.D Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Fillmore, C. (1968). The Case for Case. Universals in Linguistic Theory, ed. by Emmon Bach & Robert Harmes, 1-88. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

Karimi, S. ( 2005). A minimalist approach to scrambling: evidence from Persian. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.

Karimi, S. (1994). “Word-order variations in contemporary spoken Persian” in Persian Studies in North America: Studies in Honor of Mohammad Ali Jazayery. Mehdi Marashi (Ed.). Maryland: IRANBOOKS, pp.43-73.

Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Class and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mahootian, Sh. (2008). “Inversion and Topicalization in Farsi Discourse” in Aspects in Iranian Linguistics. Simin Karimi, Vida Sammiian, and Donald Stilo (Eds.). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publication, pp. 277-288.

Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Michaelis. L A. & Lambrecht.K.(1996). Toward a Construction-Based Theory of Language Function: The Case of Nominal Extraposition. Linguistic Society of America.

Robertson, D. & Sorace. A. (1999). Losing the V2 constraint. In E. Klein and G. Martohardjono (eds.) The Development of Second Language Grammars. A Generative Approach. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

Schwartez, B.D. & Sprouse. R.A. (1994). Word order and Nominative Case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German Interlanguage. In T. Hoekstra & B.D. Schwartz, eds., Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 317- 68.

Sorace, A. (2009). Theoretical and methodological interfaces in research on L2 ultimate attainment. Paper presented at GASLA 10 conference, University of Illinois.

Sorace, A. (2006). Interfaces in L2 Development. In Adriana Belletti, Elisa Bennati, Christiano Chesi, Elisa Di Domenico & Ida Ferrari (Eds.), Language Acquisition and Development: Proceedings of GALA 2005 (pp. 505-521). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.

Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In Leonie Cornips & Karen P. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social (pp. 55-80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sorace, A. & Serratrice, L. (2002). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism 13, 195-210.

Tsimpli, I.-M. & Soarce. A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-semantics and syntaxdiscourse phenomena. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia & C. Zaller (Eds), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston Conference on Language Development (pp. 653-664). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press

Ward, G. (1999). “A comparison of postposed subjects in English and Italian” in Pragmatics & beyond. New series. Akio Kamio and Ken-ichi Takami (Eds.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 3-21.

Ward, G .& Birner, B.J. (2004). Information Structure and Non-canonical Syntax. in The Handbook of Pragmatics. Horn Laurence and Gregory Ward (Eds.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing, pp.152-174.

White, L. (2009). Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In William C. Ritchie & Tej K. Bhatia (Eds.), The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 49-68). Emerald Publishing Limited.