پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,532 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,500 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,085,345 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,189,263 |
بررسی میزان اثر مواد درسی برگرفته از زبانشناسی شناختی بر آموزش حروف اضافه انگلیسی در کلاس درس زبان آموزان EFL | ||
| پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی | ||
| مقاله 8، دوره 9، شماره 4، بهمن 1398، صفحه 1205-1228 اصل مقاله (948.38 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی(عادی) | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jflr.2019.289695.684 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| یاسین کارگر* 1؛ فردوس آقاگل زاده2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری زبان شناسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2دپارتمان زبانشناسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| حرف اضافه، اگرچه بخش نسبتا‌ً کمی از زبان را شامل می‌شود اما در عین حال نقش اساسی و مهمی را ایفا می‌کند. نظر به اینکه میزان به‌کارگیری حروف اضافه در کتب درسی دوره متوسطه زیاد است؛ گاه دانش‌آموزان از تلاش برای یادگیری آن‌ها باز می‌مانند و موفقیت کم‌رنگ‌تری از استفاده آن حروف در کاربردهای روزمره حاصل می‌شود. در این مقاله با بهره‌گیری از روش شبه تجربی به منظور بررسی تاثیر آموزش الهام گرفته از زبانشناسی شناختی بر یادگیری حروف اضافه زبان انگلیسی in، on و at پرداخته شده است. آزمودنی‌ها متشکل از دو گروه (n=44)، بودند. گروه شناختی اسلایدهای تصویری حاوی ابزارهای ادراکی و شناختی، در حالی که گروه سنتی مواد آموزشی به شیوه سنتی دریافت کرد. با وجود اینکه گروه شناختی به طور قابل‌توجهی در پس‌آزمون عمل کرد، اما اثر مثبت آموزش به سبک شناختی تا زمان اجرای پس‌آزمون باتاخیر آشکار نشد. یافته‌های مربوط به نتایج نمره‌های افراد نشان می‌دهد که گروه شناختی به طور قابل‌توجهی بهتر از گروه سنتی در پس‌آزمون بلافاصله و باتاخیر عمل کرد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| حروف اضافه انگلیسی؛ زبانشناسی شناختی؛ مفهوم سازی؛ پیکربندی فضایی؛ تحلیل شبکه چندمعنایی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| To study the effect of cognitive linguistics on teaching English prepositions in the EFL classroom | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Yasin Kargar1؛ ferdows aghagolzadeh2 | ||
| 1Yasin Kargar, Ph.D. Student of Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Tarbiat Modares, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2department of linguistics, faculty of humanities, University of Tarbiat Modares, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| English prepositions possess only a small proportion of language but play an important role. Despite their frequently use in English textbooks for secondary school, students fail to acquire them and often show low achievements in using prepositions properly. In this paper, we use a quasi-empirical study to examine the effect of cognitive-inspired instruction on learning in, on, and at, which are known to pose tremendous difficulty to English language learners due to their language-specific features and polysemous nature. The participants were learners at several schools in Saqez province. They were divided into cognitive and rule group. The cognitive group was presented with pictorial representations of the prepositions and cognitive tools used to motivate non-spatial uses, while the rule group received materials based on rules. Although the cognitive group was significantly improved in the post-test, the positive effect did not last until the delayed post-test. On the other hand, the rule group gained little progress in the immediate post-test, but the performance of the group dropped significantly in the delayed post-test. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| English prepositions, cognitive linguistics, conceptualization, spatial configurations, polysemy network analyses | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Alonso, A. R., Cadierno, T., & Jarvis, S. (2016) Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of spatial prepositions in English as a foreign language. In A. R. Alonso (Ed.) Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 93-120). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Arnett, C., & Jernigan, H. (2014). A cognitive grammar account of case for L2 students of German. German as a Foreign Language, 1, 6893. Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417-423. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Celce-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. New York: Heinle & Heinle. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeKeyser, R., & Sokalski, K. J. (2001). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 51, 81-112. Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352. Evans, V. (2003). The structure of time: Language meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Frisson, S., Sandra, D., Brisard, F., & Cuyckens, H. (1996). From one meaning to the next: The effects of polysemous relationships in lexical learning. In M. Pütz & R. Dirven (Eds.), The construal of space in language and thought (pp. 613-647). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Godfroid, A. (2016). The effects of implicit instruction on implicit and explicit knowledge development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 177-215. Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the ―natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition‖ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 150. Goldstone, R. L. (2003). Learning to perceive while perceiving to learn. In R. Kimchi, M. Behrmann, & C. Olson (Eds.), Perceptual organization in vision: Behavioral and neural perspectives (pp. 233-278). Mahwah: Erlbaum. Hampton, J. A. 2005. Rules and similarity — a false dichotomy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 26. Ijaz, I. H. (1986). Linguistic and cognitive determinants of lexical acquisition in a second language. Language Learning, 36, 401–451. Jacobsen, N. D. (2016). The best of both worlds: Combining cognitive linguistics and pedagogic tasks to teach English conditionals. Applied Linguistics, Advance Access, 1–27. doi: 10.1093/applin/amw030 Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York, NY: Routledge. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar and language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (eds.) Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 66–88). New York: Routledge. Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36, 385408. Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Matula, S. (2007). Incorporating a cognitive linguistic presentation of the prepositions on, in, and at in ESL instruction: A quasi-experimental study (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington D.C. Murakami, A., & Alexopoulou, T. (2016). L1 influence on the acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 365-401. doi: 10.1017/S0272263115000352. Murphy, R. (2012). English grammar in use (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Özgen, E. & Davies, I. R. L. (2002). Acquisition of categorical color perception: A perceptual learning approach to the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 477–493. Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Robinson, P., & N. Ellis (eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge. Slobin, D. (1996). From ―thought and language‖ to ―thinking for speaking‖. In S. Gumperz & S. Levinson (eds.) Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sneddon, J. N. (2010). Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, J. R. (2008). Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. In S. De Knop & T. D. Rycker (eds.) Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of Rene Dirven (pp. 37-65). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York: Routledge. Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77, 724-765. Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tyler, A., Mueller, C., & Ho, V. (2010). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English to, for, and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 181–206. Van Patten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-43. Wierzbicka, A. (1993). Why do we say in April, on Thursday and at 10 o’clock? In search of an explanation. Studies in Language, 17, 437-454. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 737 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 556 |
||