Mirzaei, A., Hashemian, M., Azizi Farsani, M. (2016). Lexis-Based Instruction and IELTS Candidates’ Development of L2 Speaking Ability: Use of Formulaicity in Monologic Versus Dialogic Task. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(2), 69-98. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2016.3816
Azizullah Mirzaei; Mahmood Hashemian; Mahshid Azizi Farsani. "Lexis-Based Instruction and IELTS Candidates’ Development of L2 Speaking Ability: Use of Formulaicity in Monologic Versus Dialogic Task". Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35, 2, 2016, 69-98. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2016.3816
Mirzaei, A., Hashemian, M., Azizi Farsani, M. (2016). 'Lexis-Based Instruction and IELTS Candidates’ Development of L2 Speaking Ability: Use of Formulaicity in Monologic Versus Dialogic Task', Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(2), pp. 69-98. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2016.3816
Mirzaei, A., Hashemian, M., Azizi Farsani, M. Lexis-Based Instruction and IELTS Candidates’ Development of L2 Speaking Ability: Use of Formulaicity in Monologic Versus Dialogic Task. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2016; 35(2): 69-98. doi: 10.22099/jtls.2016.3816
Lexis-Based Instruction and IELTS Candidates’ Development of L2 Speaking Ability: Use of Formulaicity in Monologic Versus Dialogic Task
Although lexis research (e.g., Lewis, 1997; Taguchi, 2008) has already evidenced the possibility of teaching formulaic sequences (FS), further research is still needed to examine the procedures or frameworks through which the approach can be applied and probe the second or foreign language (L2) areas where it demonstrates more relevance. This pretest-posttest quasi-experimental study aimed, firstly, to compare the effects of intensive and extensive lexis-based L2 instructions on the development of IELTS candidates’ speaking performance and, secondly, to explore whether different types of speaking tasks (i.e., monologic vs. dialogic) have any differential effects on the frequency of using FS by L2 learners. To this end, three intact classes including 40 L2 learners preparing themselves for IELTS in a language center in Iran were randomly assigned to one control and two experimental groups. The groups received the same amount of instruction, however differently, two receiving intensive and extensive instructions in FS (or unanalyzed chunks) and the other receiving conventional non-lexis instruction. The results revealed that both lexis groups outperformed the control group pointing to the effectiveness of both intensive and extensive lexis-based instructions to the learners’ development of speaking proficiency. Moreover, the results showed no significant difference between the effects of intensive and extensive types of lexis instructions upon IELTS candidates’ development of speaking performance. Further, it was revealed that dialogic tasks were more conducive to the FS use than monologic tasks. Finally, the implications for L2 theory and pedagogy are discussed.
آموزش مبتنی بر واژه‌واره‌ها و توسعه‌ی مهارت گفتاری داوطلبان آزمون آیلتس: به کارگیری رویکرد فرمول‌واره‌ای واژگانی در بخش‌های تک‌گویی و گفت‌وگو
Authors [Persian]
عزیزالله میرزایی; محمود هاشمیان; مهشید عزیزی فارسانی
دانشیار
Abstract [Persian]
اگر چه پژوهش در حوزه‌ی واژه‌واره‌ها (لویز، 1997؛ تاگوچی، 2008) امکان‌پذیر بودن آموزش مبتنی بر توالی‌های فرمولی واژگان (یا توالی‌های واژه‌ای فرمول‌واره) را قبلا تایید کرده است، با این وجود، بررسی روند یا چارچوب‌هایی که از طریق آن این رویکرد عملی شود، و نیز حوزه‌هایی از زبان دوم یا زبان خارجی که این نوع آموزش کاربرد موثرتری دارد، نیازمند پژوهش بیشتری است. این مطالعه‌ی با روش پیش‌آزمون-پس آزمون- مقایسه‌ای گروه بر آن بود تا ابتدا تاثیر دو نوع آموزش فشرده و گسترده ی واژه واره-محور را بر توسعه ی عملکرد گفتاری داوطلبان آزمون آیلتس بررسی کند، و دوم، این مطالعه بر آن بود تا بررسی کند که آیا نوع آزمون گفتاری آیلتس (تک‌گویی و گفت‌وگو) تاثیر معناداری بر تعداد توالی‌های فرمولی واژگان (یا توالی‌های واژه‌ای فرمول‌واره) مورد استفاده‌ی سخنوران دارد. در این راستا، سه کلاس آیلتس در یک مرکز زبان در ایران متشکل از40 داوطلب آزمون به صورت تصادفی به یک گروه شاهد و دو گروه آزمایش تخصیص یافتند. گروه‌ها به یک اندازه آموزش دریافت کردند، هرچند به شیوه‌ی متفاوت، دو گروه آزمایش دو نوع آموزش فشرده و گسترده‌ی توالی‌های فرمولی واژگان (یا تکه‌های تحلیل نشده) و گروه شاهد آموزش غیر واژه واره-محور دریافت کردند. نتایج نشان داد که هر دو گروه آزمایش به صورت معنادار از گروه شاهد بهتر عمل کردند، که بر مؤثربودن هر دو نوع آموزش فشرده و گسترده‌ی واژه واره-محور در ارتقای توانش گفتاری زبان‌آموزان اشاره دارد. همچنین مشخص شد که آزمون‌های نوع گفت‌وگو نسبت به تک‌گویی منجر به استفاده‌ی بیشتری از توالی‌های فرمولی شد.
Keywords [Persian]
توالی‌های فرمولی، آموزش واژه واره- محور، توانش گفتاری، توالی‌های تحلیل‌نشده
References
Anderson, J. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th Ed.). New York: Worth.
Bakhshizadeh, Y., Rahimi Domakani, M., & Rajaei, M. (2015). The effect of explicit instruction of formulaic sequences on oral proficiency improvement of young Iranian EFL students. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 3(10), 44-52.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research 10(3), 245-261.
Cullen, P., French, A., & Jakeman, V. (Ed.) (2014). The official Cambridge guide to IELTS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and UCLES.
Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing applied linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, N. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism, and language learning. Language Learning, 48(4), 631-64.
Ellis, N. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook in SLA (pp. 63-103).Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, N. (2005). SLA the associative-cognitive creed. Paper presented at the 14th World Congress of Applied Linguistics. Madison, Wisconsin.
Hakuta, K. (1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 287-298.
Keller, R. (1979). Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 219-237.
Krashen, S. & Scarcella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance. Language Learning, 28(2), 283-300.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (2000). Materials and resources for teaching collocation. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation: Further development in the lexical approach (pp. 186-204). Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications.
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGuire, M. (2009). Formulaic sequences in English conversation: Improving spoken fluency in non-native speakers. Unpublished M. A. Thesis, Denton, TX: University of North Texas, Denton, Texas.
Mirzaei, A., Rahimi Domakani, M., & Rahimi, S. (2016). Computerized lexis based instruction in EFL classrooms: Using multi-purpose LexisBOARD to teach L2 vocabulary. ReCALL, 28(1), 22-43.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pawley, A., & Syder, H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native like selection and native-like fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp.191-226). London: Longman.
Peters, A. M. (1983). Units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Serrano, R., Stengers, H., & Housen, A. (2014). Acquisition of formulaic sequences in intensive and regular EFL programmes. Language Teaching Research, 1-18.
Schmitt, N. (Ed.). (2004). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use (Vol. 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taguchi, N. (2007). Chunk learning and the development of spoken discourse in a Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 433-457.
Taguchi, N. (2008). Building language blocks in L2 Japanese: Chunk learning and the development of complexity and fluency in spoken production. Foreign Language Annals, 41(1), 130-154.
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weinert, R. (2010) Formulaicity and usage-based language: Linguistic, psycholinguistic and acquisitional manifestations. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp.1-20). London: Continuum.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1976). The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Wood, D. (2002). Formulaic language in acquisition and production: Implications for teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 20(1), 1-15.
Wood, D. (2008). Mandarin Chinese speakers in a study abroad context: Does acquisition of formulaic sequences facilitate fluent speech in English. The East Asian Learner, 3(2), 43-62.
Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence and applications. London: Continuum.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wray, A., & Fitzpatrick, T. (2008). Why can’t you just leave it alone? Deviations from memorized language as a gauge of native like competence. In F. Meunier & S, Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 123-148). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication, 20(1), 1-28.
Top