| تعداد نشریات | 24 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 877 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,848 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 14,549,130 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 12,277,013 |
Focus on Lexis and L2 Learners' Development of Oral Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency Measures | ||
| Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 37، شماره 2، مهر 2018، صفحه 91-123 اصل مقاله (1.04 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/jtls.2019.31417.2601 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Azizullah Mirzaei* 1؛ Ashraf Beyzaei2؛ Ali Roohani3 | ||
| 1Shahrekord University | ||
| 2English Department, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran | ||
| 3English Department, Faculty of Letters & Humanities, ShahreKord University | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Second language (L2) theories have for long acknowledged the importance of focus on formulaicity or conventionalized lexical chunks. Yet, there has been little attempt to examine the impact of this on foreign language learners’ development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) measures. The purpose of this study was twofold: First, to see whether lexis-based instruction had any significant effects on EFL learners' oral CAF, and, second, whether different types of lexis-based instructions (e.g., using corpus-based concordances, textual lexis enhancement, and audio-visual captioned lexis) had differential effects. Participants were 54 EFL undergraduates at an Iranian university. After checking the initial homogeneity, 2 groups of participants were randomly assigned to experimental (lexis) and control (non-lexis) groups. After pretesting on CAF, the lexis sub-groups received the 3 types of lexis-based instructions in a counterbalanced manner. After each lexis instruction, students’ oral data were also obtained. The control group received mainstream non-lexis instruction. One-way MANCOVA results pointed to the significant effects of lexis instruction on oral CAF measures. Specifically, repeated-measures MANOVA results revealed that audio-visual captioned lexis was the most effective modality in heightening formulaicity. The findings suggest that focus on lexis is beneficial to L2 learners’ oral skills. Further theoretical and pedagogical implications are discussed. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Lexical chunks؛ lexis-based instruction؛ CAF measures؛ corpus-based concordances؛ textual lexis enhancement؛ audio-visual captioned lexis | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Alavi, S. T., & Sadeghi, K. (2017). Development of fluency, accuracy, and complexity in productive skills of EFL learners across gender and proficiency: A chaos complexity approach. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(4), 1-35. Alexander, L. (1967). First things first. London: Longman
Ballester, C. P. (2012). CALL evaluation: Students' perception and use of LoMasTV. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 225-250.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheeler, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245-261.
Chan, D., & Herrero, C. (2010). Using film to teach languages. Manchester: Cornerhouse.
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly that non-formulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72-89.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dickinson, P. (2012). Improving second language academic presentations with formulaic sequences. Journal of Niigata University of International and Information Studies, 15, 25-36.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.
Fakhraee Faruji, L. & Ghaemi, F. (2017). Task complexity manipulation and accuracy in writing performance. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(4), 103-132.
Fang, J. (2013). The uses and functions of formulaic sequences in the development of speech fluency in English as a second language. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Wisconsin, River Falls.
Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: a consideration of their role in task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 75-94). London: Longman.
Graham, P. (2005). Task-based language teaching. Retrieved May 7, 2015, from Word Wide Web: http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html
Graham, L. (2009). It was a challenge but we did it! Digital worlds in a primary classroom. Literacy, 43(2), 107-114.
Hameed, Q. J. (2002). The lexical approach between grammar and lexis: Theory and practice. Adab Al-Kufa Journal, 9, 9-33.
Honan, E. (2008). Barriers to teachers using digital texts in literacy classrooms. Literacy, 42(1), 36-43.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461-473.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (1998). Verbs observed: a corpus-driven pedagogic grammar. Applied linguistics, 19(1), 45-72.
Howarth, P. (1998). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and application (pp. 161-86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 24-49.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 261-284.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1992). A nonhierarchical relationship between grammar and communication (part 1). In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on Language and linguistics (pp. 158-165). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (1997a). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (1997b). Pedagogical implications of the lexical approach. In J. Lewis, & T. Hockin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 255-270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, M. (2000). Learning in the lexical approach. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation: Further development in the lexical approach (pp. 155-184).Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (2008). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. Hampshire, UK: Heinle Cengage Learning.
Little, D. (1994). Words and their properties: arguments for a lexical approach to pedagogical grammar. InT. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 99-122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mirzaei, A., Hashemian, M., & Azizi Farsani, M. (2016b). 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.
Mirzaei, A., Rahimi Domakani, M., & Rahimi, S. (2016a). Computerized lexisbased instruction in EFL classrooms: Using multi-purpose LexisBOARD to teach L2 vocabulary. ReCALL, 28(1), 22-43.
Mirzaei, M., Meshgi, K., Akita, Y., & Kawahara, T. (2017). Partial and synchronized captioning: A new tool to assist learners in developing second language listening skill. ReCALL, 29(2), 178-199.
Mobahat, F. (2001). The relationship between vocabulary learning strategies and Iranian EFL learners' aptitude. Unpublished master's paper, University of Wisconsin-River Falls.
Moudrana, O. (2001). Lexical approach to second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 263-287.
Nagy, W. E. & Herman, P. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. McKeown & M. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19-35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nattinger, J.R. (1980). A lexical phrase grammar for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 14(3), 337-344.
Nattinger, J.R. & DeCarrico, J.S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nation, I. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
O'Keeffee, A., McCarthy, M. & Carter, C. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS version 15 (3rd Ed.). New York: Open University Press. Pavesi, M. (2012). The potentials of audio-visual dialogs for second language acquisition. In P. Alderete-Diez, L. Ni Dhonnchadha and D. Ni Uigin (Eds.), Translation, technology, and autonomy in language teaching and learning (pp. 155-174). Peter Lang.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmitt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-225). London: Longman.
Pressley, M. (1987). The mnemonic keyboard method. Review of Educational Research, 52, 61-91.
Qasim Hameed, J. (2002). The lexical approach between grammar and lexis: theory and practice. Adab Al-Kufa Journal, 9, 9-33.
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, language learning, and performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance (pp. 3-38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt. Hawai'i (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-65). University of Hawai'i: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
Side, R. (1990). Phrasal verbs: Sorting them out. ELT Journal, 44, 144-152.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. & Renouf, A. (1988). A lexical syllabus for language learning. In M. McCarthy, & R. A. Carter (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp.140-160). New York: Longman.
Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Open 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.
Talavan, N., and Javier, M. (2014). La subtitulación en el aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras. Barclona: Octaerdo.
Tomasello, M. (2000). The item-based nature of children’s early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 156-163.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Tschirner, E. (2001). Language acquisition in the classroom: The role of digital video. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14, 305-319.
Wei, L, & Ying, H. (2011). On the role of formulaic sequences in second language acquisition. US-China Foreign Language, 9(11), 708-713.
Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus: A new approach to language teaching. London: Collins COBUILD.
Willis, D., (1993). Grammar and lexis: some pedagogical implications. In J.M. Sinclair, G. Fox, & M. Hoey, (Eds.), Techniques of description: spoken and written discourse. London: Routledge.
Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 13-33.
Wood, D. (2010). Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence and applications. London: Continuum
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principles and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 463-489.
Wray, A.(2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Xu, L. (2010). A correlation study on lexical chunks and business correspondence writing in EFL in China. Retrieved March 24, 2016, from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:332052/fulltext01.
Zhao, Y. (2009). The effect of listeners' control of speech rate on second language comprehension. Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 49-68. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,321 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,473 |
||