Accuracy Order of Grammatical Morphemes in Persian EFL Learners: Evidence for and against UG

محورهای موضوعی : language teaching

موسی غنچه پور ¹ (گروه زبان و ادبیات، دانشگاه فرهنگیان، تهران، ایران)
مهدیه پاک زاد مقدم ² (وزارت آموزش و پرورش ، کرمان، ایران)
عزت اله کلانتری خاندانی ³ (گروه زبان و ادبیات، دانشگاه فرهنگیان، تهران، ایران)
محمد حسن فرخی برفه ⁴ (گروه زبان و ادبیات، دانشگاه فرهنگیان، تهران، ایران)

تاریخ دریافت : 1399/06/01 تاریخ پذیرش : 1399/06/01 تاریخ انتشار : 1398/10/11

کلید واژه: Accuracy, Persian, transfer, morpheme, universal grammar,

چکیده مقاله :

This study addresses the acquisition of the morphological markers in Persian learners of English as a foreign language. To this end, the accuracy order of nine morphemes including plural –s, progressive –ing, copula be, auxiliary be, irregular past tense, regular past tense –ed, third person –s, possessive - and indefinite articles was studied in 60 teenage Persian EFL learners. Placement and proficiency tests and a demographic questionnaire were employed to collect the data. The total production of 2160 morphemes was manually checked, classified, and counted to rank their acquisition order. The learners’ accuracy order was ranked in a decreased order from 1 to 9 as follows: regular past tense, auxiliary be, copula be, present progressive tense, indefinite articles, plural –s, possessive -, irregular past tense and third-person singular –s. The Spearman correlation showed that Persian students’ accuracy order had a moderate and weak relationship with the accuracy order of ESL and EFL learners, respectively. This finding proves that Persian EFL learners do not learn English grammatical morphemes in a natural order. Moreover, the universal grammar does not remain fully in these learners. The minor role of UG in EFL acquisition also indicates the important role of transfer in foreign language learning.

چکیده انگلیسی:

این مقاله فراگیری تکواژهای دستوری در یادگیری زبان انگلیسی را در فراگیران فارسی زبان بررسی می‌کند. به این منظور، ترتیب درست نه تکواژ دستوری زبان انگلیسی در 60 فراگیر نوجوان فارسی زبان بررسی شد. تکواژها عبارت بودند از تکواژ s جمع، تکواژ ing استمراری، فعل ربطی be، فعل کمکی be، تکواژ بی‌قاعده زمان گذشته، تکواژ باقاعده زمان گذشته، سوم شخص مفرد زمان حال ساده، تکواژ s مالکیت و تکواژهای حروف تعریف نامعین. آزمون‌های تعیین سطح و مهارت و پرسش‌نامه اطلاعات فردی برای جمع‌آوری داده‌های نوشتاری به کار گرفته شدند. به طور کلی، 2160 تکواژ دستوری تولید‌شده برای رتبه‌بندی، ترتیب یادگیری تکواژها به صورت دستی شمرده، بررسی و طبقه‌بندی شدند. ترتیب درست یادگیری تکواژها در فراگیران به‌صورت نزولی از 1 تا 9 به‌ترتیب زیر رتبه‌بندی شدند: زمان گذشته باقاعده، فعل کمکی be، فعل ربطی be، تکواژ ing زمان حال استمراری، حروف تعریف نامعین، تکواژ s جمع، تکواژ s مالکیت، زمان گذشته بی‌قاعده و s سوم شخص زمان حال ساده. ضریب همبستگی رتبه‌ای اسپیرمن نشان داد که ترتیب درست فراگیری تکواژهای دستوری در آزمودنی‌های نوجوان فارسی‌زبان ارتباط میانه و ضعیفی با ترتیب درست فراگیری این تکواژها در فراگیران زبان انگلیسی به عنوان زبان دوم و بیگانه به‌ترتیب داشت. این یافته تأییدی است بر اینکه گویشوران فارسی‌زبان که زبان انگلیسی را می‌آموزند تکواژهای دستوری را به‌صورت طبیعی یاد نمی‌گیرند. علاوه‌بر‌این، دستور همگانی در این فراگیران به‌صورت کامل وجود ندارد. همچنین، نقش کم‌رنگ دستور همگانی در یادگیری زبان انگلیسی تأییدی بر نقش مهم انتقال در یادگیری زبان بیگانه است.

منابع و مأخذ:

 Barrot, J. (2010). Accuracy order of selected grammatical morphemes in the monitored written compositions of Filipino adult language learners. Philippine ESL Journal, 4, 45-65.

Barrot, J., & de Leon, K. (2014). Accuracy order of the grammatical morphemes in the oral production of preschool pupils. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 63-76.

Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(2), 175-198.

Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Harvard U. Press.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structure. The Hague: Mouton.

Chumkamon, S. (2017). Use of English Grammatical Morphemes Among L1-Thai Learners. (Unpublished master's thesis). Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Cook, V. J. (2010). The relationship between first and second language acquisition revisited. In Macaro, E. (ed.), The Continuum companion to second language acquisition (pp. 137–157). London: Continuum.

Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974).  Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language learning, 24(1), 37-53.

Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164-194.

Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition 2nd Edition-Oxford applied linguistics. Oxford university press.

Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta‐analysis of multiple determinants. Language learning, 51(1), 1-50.

Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Explaining phenomena of first and second language acquisition with the constructs of implicit and explicit learning. Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, 48, 25-46.

Hulstijn, J. H., Ellis, R., & Eskildsen, S. W. (2015). Orders and sequences in the acquisition of L2 morphosyntax, 40 years on: An introduction to the special issue. Language Learning, 65(1), 1-5.

Khor, S. (2012). A corpus-based study in morpheme acquisition order of young learners of English. Retrieved from Uppsala University: www. divaportal. org/smash/get/diva2, 608517, 65-80.

Krashen, S. D. (1977). Some issues relating to the monitor model. On Tesol, 77(144-158).

Krashen, S. D. (2009). Principles and practice in second language acquisition (1st Internet ed.). Oxford: Pergamon. Retrieved from http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf.

Krashen, S. D., Sferlazza, V., Feldman, L., & Fathman, A. K. (1976). Adult performance on the SLOPE test: More evidence for a natural sequence in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 26(1), 145-151.

Kwon, E.Y. (2005).The natural order of morpheme acquisition: A historical survey and discussion of three putative determinants. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 1-21.

Lebeco, E. (2013).The acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes by Filipino university freshman multi-linguals. Asian Journal of English Language Studies (AJELS. Volume 1, 117-134.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned 4th edition-Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers. Oxford university press.

Luk, Z.P., & Shirai Y. (2009). Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural –s, articles, and possessive ʼs. Language Learning, 59, 721-754.

Mohammed, A. S. E., & Sanosi, A. B. (2018). Accuracy order of English Grammatical Morphemes of Saudi EFL learners. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 18(77), 65-80.

Muñoz, C. (2006). Accuracy orders, rate of learning and age in morphological acquisition. Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning, 107-126.

Murakami, A. (2011). Cross-linguistic influence on the accuracy order of English grammatical morphemes: Insights from a learner corpus. In S. Granger, S. Gaëtanelle, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty years of learner corpus research. Looking back, moving ahead: Corpora and language in use - Proceedings 1 (pp. 325–334).

 Özçelik, Ö. (2018). Universal Grammar and second language phonology: Full transfer/prevalent access in the L2 acquisition of Turkish “stress” by English and French speakers. Language Acquisition, 25(3), 231-267.

Parodi, T. (2012).Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. New York:  Blackwell Publishing.

Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33(4), 465-497.

Saville-Troike, M., & Barto, K. (2016). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.

Schenck, A. D., & Choi, W. (2013). Unlocking the secrets of morphosyntactic development by examining acquisition order disparities in an EFL context. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 3(01), 47.

Schuwerk, T. (2004). Morpheme acquisition in second language learning. MA thesis at the University of Central Florida.

Semren, M. (2018). The Order of emergence of the morphological markers of temporal expression in the Croatian EFL learners’ longitudinal speech production data. Applied Linguistics Papers, (25/2), 89-106.

Seog, D. S. Y. (2015). Accuracy  order  of  grammatical  morphemes  of  Korean EFL learners:  Disparities  among  the  same  L1  groups. Linguistic Research 32 Special Edition, 151-171.

Song, J (2019). The Role of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition from the perspective of Chinese acquiring English Reflexives. Studies in English Language Teaching, 7 (2) 284-288. doi:10.22158/selt.v7n2p284

Song, Z. (2019, August). Universal Grammar Plays a Minor Role in Second Language Acquisition. In 1st International Symposium on Innovation and Education, Law and Social Sciences (IELSS 2019). Atlantis Press.

Tono, Y., & Aoki, M. (2000). A computer learner corpus-based analysis of the acquisition of irregular verbs: optimizing the learning list and monitoring the learning process. The Bulletin of the Kanto-Koshin-etsu English Language Education Society, 14, 103-122.

van de Weijer, J. (2015). The role of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. Chinese Accents and Accented Chinese CAAC2014, 1.

White, L. (2015). Linguistic theory, universal grammar, and second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (PP. 34-54). New York and London, Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group.