Explicit vs. Contrastive-based Instruction of Formulaic Expressions in Developing EFL Learners’ Reading Ability
محورهای موضوعی : language teachingغلامرضا عباسیان 1 , سید جلیل احسانیان 2
1 - Imam Ali University & IAU
2 - Ministry of Education
کلید واژه: explicit instruction, Formulaic Expressions, CA-based Instruction, Reading Ability,
چکیده مقاله :
As an integrative component of textual structure, formulaic expressions (FEs) play a key role in communicating the message and comprehending the text. Furthermore, interlingually contrastive features of FEs add to their both significance and complexity of their instruction. Given these facts, this study was an attempt to explore a sound mechanism on how to teach FEs; whether an explicit or CA-based approach to FEs instruction could entail various achievements among EFL learners’ reading ability. To this end, three groups of Iranian EFL learners, identified as homogeneous based on Nelson Proficiency Test, were classified into one control and two experimental (i.e. explicit and CA-based instruction) ones. They were exposed to conventional, explicit and CA-based instructions of a set of selected FEs developed into and presented in the form of an instructional handout. Their Knowledge of reading was also tested based on a researcher-made diagnostic test prior to the experiment. Both quantitative and qualitative paradigms were employed to measure both the achievements and the extent of contrast between Persian and English languages in terms of FEs. The former analysis revealed significance difference among the groups in terms of instruction type effectiveness; both explicit and CA-based instruction groups outperformed the control group; on the contrary, no statistically significant difference was revealed between the experimental groups. Additionally, the latter paradigm revealed differences and mismatches between Persian and English FEs in terms of semantic, syntactic and pragmatic parameters. The findings could be insightful for EFL instructors, learners, textbook writers, and syllabus designers to take into account issues like these in their pedagogical programs.
اصطلاحات و کلمات همنشین به عنوان بخش جدایی ناپذیر ساختار متنی، نقش مهمّی درانتقال معنی و درک متن ایفا می کند.همچنین، ویژگی های مقابله ای بین زبانی اصطلاحات و کلمات همنشین، بر اهمّیت و پیچیدگی آموزش آنها می افزاید.با توجه این واقعیت ها، این پژوهش در پی یافتن سازوکاری موثرجهت چگونگی تدریس اصطلاحات و کلمات همنشین بود: آیا روش صریح یا مقابله ای آموزش اصطلاحات و کلمات هم نشین دستاوردهای گوناگونی برای تقویت مهارت خواندن زبان آموزان خارجی به دنبال خواهد داشت؟بدین منظور، بر اساس آزمون توانایی زبانی نلسون سه گروه ایرانی از زبان آموزان انگلیسی در قالب یک گروه شاهد، و دو گروه آزمایشی ( یعنی آموزش صریح و مقابله ای) به ترتیب تحت آموزش متداول ،صریح،و مقابله ای مجموعه ای از اصطلاحات وکلمات همنشین گزیده شده در قالب جزوه ی آموزشی قرار گرفتند. پیش از انجام پژوهش، دانش مهارت خواندن آنها بر اساس آزمون تشخیصی محقّق-ساز ارزیابی شد. برای سنجش یادگیری وتشخیص میزان تمایززبان فارسی با زبان انگلیسی از حیث اصطلاحات وکلمات همنشین، از الگوهای کیفی و کمّی استفاده شد. تجزیه و تحلیل اولیه نشان داد نوع آموزش تاثیر معناداری بر پیشرفت توانایی خواندن افراد داشته است بطوریکه گروههای آموزشی صریح و مقابله ای در مقایسه با گروه شاهد عملکرد بهتری داشته اند. مع الوصف تفاوت آماری معناداری بین گروه های آزمایشی مشاهده نشد. افزون بر این، آخرین الگو نشان داد که اصطلاحات وکلمات همنشین بین زبان های فارسی و انگلیسی از لحاظ ویژگی های ساختاری، معنایی،و کاربردی متمایز و ناهماهنگ هستند. به کارگیری این یافته ها می تواند راهگشای مدرسین، زبان آموزان،نویسندگان کتب درسی، و طرحان مواد درسی زبان خارجی در برنامه ی آموزشی باشد.
Birkenstein, C. (2008). Point of view in teaching composition: ‘Formulaic’ is not a four letter word. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http;//WWW.thefreelibrary.com.
Broukal, M., & Nolan, E. (1999). NTC’s preparation for the TOEFL. USA: NTC Publication.
Butter, C. (2006). The Dynamics of language use: Functional and contrastive perspectives. Combridge: Cambridge University Press.
Charles, M., Picorari, D., Hunston, S. (Eds) (2009). Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cardif University, (2011). What is Formulaic Language? Retieved from the World Wide Web: http: www.cf.ac.uk/encap/research/networks/flarn/what is/index.html.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second- language skills, USA: Harcourt Brace
Corder, S. (1981). Error analysis & interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2009). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ghadessy, M. (1977) Error analysis: A criterion for the development of materials in foreign language education. ELT JXXXI: 244-248.
Hackson, P., Fernandez, P. M. (2008). Terminology and formulaic language in computer assisted translation. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.skase.sk/volumes/JT103/1.pdf.
Hedge, T. (2008). Teaching & learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, T., (2007) L2 Learner-made formulaic expressions and constructions. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
Hayati, M., Kazemzadeh, Gh. ( 2009 ). A contrastive study of English & Persian linking verbs complementation. Ahvaz: Shahid Chamran University.
Istvan, K., (2006). Formulaic Language in English Lingua Franca. Second Language Research 22(2): 219-237
Karen, L. et al. (2007).The Effect of Implicit and Explicit Instruction on Simple and Complex Grammatical Structures for Adult English Language Learners. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: mhtml:TESEL-EJ 11 2.
Keshavarz, M. (2008). Contrastive Analysis & Error Analysis, Tehran: Rahnama Publication.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Culture. Ann Arbort: Michigan University Press.
Laybutt, B. E. (2009). Collection and textual cohesion. England: University of Birmingham.
Longman. (2003). Dictonary of Contemprary English. UK: Longman Publication.
Mey, J. (2009). Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmaics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. (2001). Second Language Teaching and Learning. USA: Heinle & Heinle
Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodologies. Great Bitain: Prentice Hall Publication.
Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary (2004). Britain: Mobile Systems Inc.
Richards, J. and Renandya, W. (2002). Methodology in language teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., Platt, J. and Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Great Britain: Longman.
Richards, j. and Schmidt, R. (2010). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics, England: Longman
Sadeghi, K. (2009). Collocational differences between L1& L2: Implications for efl learners & teachers. TESL Canada Journal. 26(2).
Sefidvand, A. and Vahdani, R. (2011). The impact of FEs on the Iranian EFL students’ writing. Iran: IAU.
Sharpe, J. (1989). Barron’s how to prepare for the TOEFL, New York: Barron’s Publication.
Tode, T. (2007). Durability problems with explicit instruction in an EFL context: The learning of English copula be before and after the instruction of the auxiliary be. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/11/1/11.
Van Lancker, D., Rallon, G. (2004). Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in every day speech: Methods for classification & verification. WWW.elsvier.Com. 24. (2004). 207-240.
Wray, A., (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wray, A., (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wood, D. (2010). Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wood, D. ( 2010). Formulaic language and second language speech flency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yarmohammadi, L. (1965). A Contrastive Study of Modern English and Modern Persian. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University. Dissertation Abstracts: Section A. Humanities and Social Science, 28, 219A-220A.
Yang, B. A. (1986). A Review of Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. UK: Oxford University Press.
Ziahosseiny, M.(2008). A Contrastive Analysis of Persian & English Error Analysis. Tehran: Rahnama Publication.
