تأثیر جنسیت بر فعالیت برو ن داد – درون داد
Subject Areas : Journal of Language, Culture, and Translationمینا کاظم زاده 1 , اکبر افقری 2
1 - کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه شیخ بهایی
2 - دانشیار زبانشناسی کاربردی، دانشگاه شیخ بهایی
Keywords: جنسیت, پردازش درون داد, پردازش برون داد,
Abstract :
تحقیق حاضر مطالعه ایست که به بررسی تأثیر جنسیت بر فعالیت هایی پرداخته که با برون داد آغاز شده و بلافاصله با درون داد دنبال میشود. 46 مرد و 52 زن که در کانون زبان ایران مشغول تحصیل بودند به چهار گروه آزمایش تقسیم شده؛ دو گروه از آنها در فعالیت های برون داد و دو گروه در فعالیت های درون داد شرکت کردند. در این راستا، نخست از شرکت کنندگان دو گروه برونداد خواسته شد تا بر اساس یکسری تصویر کارتونی داستانی را به انگلیسی بنویسند. سپس همه شرکت کنندگان (هم گروه های برون داد و هم گروههای درون داد) یک داستان نمونه را که توسط یک انگلیسی زبان در مورد این تصا ویر نوشته شده بود، خواندند. نهایتاً از همه ی شرکت کنندگان خواسته ش د که داستان خوانده شده را با جزئ یاتی که به خاطر دارند ، بنویسند. نتایج این تحقیق نشان داد که فعالیت هایی که ب ه صورت برون داد قبل از درون داد صورت گرفتند تأثیر به سزایی روی یادگیری واژگان و ا صطلاحات دستوری مد نظر داشتند . با وجود این، در خصوص تأثیر جنسیت تفاوت آماری معنیداری بین گروههای برونداد و درونداد مشاهده نشد.
Bacon, S. (1992). The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing strategies, and cognitive and effective response in second-language listening. The Modern Language Journal,76, 160-178.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Arab, F. (2010). The impact of pair work on promoting noticing among EFL learners.The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 17(1), 18-31.
Boyle, J. (1987). Sex differences in listening vocabulary. Language Learning, 37, 273-284.
Burstall, C. (1975). Factors affecting foreign-language learning: a consideration of some relevant research findings. Language Teaching and Linguistic Abstracts, 8, 105-125.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23-48). Harlow, England: Longman.
de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529-555.
Eisenstein, M. (1982). A study of social variation in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 32, 367-392.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nded.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M., & Alvarez Torres, M. J. (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 1-31.
Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: an investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 459-479.
Harley, T. A. (2008). The psychology of language from data to theory (3rded.). New York: Psychology Press.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168-196.
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 239-278.
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999).Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421-452.
Izumi, Y., & Izumi, S. (2004). Investigating the effects of oral output on the learning of relative clauses in English: Issues in the psycholinguistic requirements for effective output tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 587-609.
Jiyuan, F. (2009). Investigating the effect of output task types on Chinese learners’ acquisition of the English hypothetic conditional. Teaching English in China-CELEA Journal, 32(6), 104-117.
Krashen, S. D. (1980). The input hypothesis. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Current issues in bilingual education (pp. 144-158). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1984). Immersion: Why it works and what it has taught us. Language and Society, 12, 61-64.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1993). Language use in normal speakers and its disorders. In G. Blanken, J. Dittman, H. Grimm, J. C. Marshall, & C. W. Wallesch (Eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies (pp. 1-15). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Maitland, S. B., Herlitz, A., Nyberg, L., Backman, L., & Nilsson, L. G. (2004). Selective sex differences in declarative memory.Memory and Cognition, 32, 1160-1169.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79-103.
Muranoi, H. (2007). Output practice in the L2 classroom. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 51-84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nyikos, M. (1990). Sex related differences in adult language learning: Socialization and memory factors. The Modern Language Journal, 3, 273-287.
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277-303.
Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan& I. Walker (Eds.), Proceeding of CLaSIC (pp. 721-737). Singapore: National University: Centre for Language Studies.
Shehadeh, A. (2003). Learner output, hypothesis testing, and internalizing linguistic knowledge. System, 31, 155-171.
Song, M.-J., &Suh, B. R. (2008). The effects of output task types on noticing and learning of the English past counterfactual conditional. System, 36, 295-312.
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17, 95-114.
Suzuki, W., Itagaki, M., Takagi, T., & Watanabe, T. (2009). The effect of output processing on subsequent input processing: A free recall study. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 1-17.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), The handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471- 483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285-304.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form.Language Learning, 49, 583-625.
Zhang, S. (2009). The role of input, interaction and output in the development of oral fluency. English Language Teaching, 2, 91-100.
