درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

این مطالعه به بررسی تاثیر استفاده از دو نوع مواد اموزشی واقعی با موضوع اشنا ولی متفاوت از لحاظ ساختار بلاغی بر کیفیت شنیداری زبان آموزان سطح بالای ایرانی می پردازد. این مواد از لحاظ استدلال و منطق بیانی متفاوت هستند. براساس عملکرد زبان آموزان بر امتحان تعیین سطح فاولر و کو (1976) تعداد 60 نفر انتخاب شدند. پس از آن یک تست محقق – ساخت که دو نوع ساختار بلاغی توضیحی و مباحثه ای برای دو گروه اجرا شد. نتیجه نشان داد که شناخت موضوع به تنهایی تاثیر مهمی بر عملکرد زبان آموزان نداشته است هرچند عملکرد انها بر تست های توضیحی نسبت به مباحثه ای بهتر بود. به نظر می رسد که دانش کلی و مبهم به تنهایی کافی نیست و عملکرد ضعیف انها بیشتر مربوط به سختی ساختارهای بلاغی از لحاظ شناختی و زبانی بود. برداشت اصلی از ین موضوع می تواند این باشد که زبان آموزان سطح بالای ایرانی نیاز به شناختن این نوع ساختارها هم از لحاظ موضوعی و هم از لحاظ ساختار زبانی، اجتماعی و فرهنگی دارند. بعلاوه موضوع تعیین سطح زبانی مثلا به عنوان سطح بالا می بایست برای تک تک مهارت های زبانی در مقایسه با سطح کلی به گونه ای دیگر تعریف شود.

Recent research in the area of Second Language Acquisition has proposed that bilinguals and L2 learners show syntactic indeterminacy when syntactic properties interface with other cognitive domains. Most of the research in this area has focused on the pragmatic use of syntactic properties while the investigation of compliance with a grammatical rule at syntax-related interfaces has not received due attention. In this study, the compliance of 67 Persian native speakers and 52 Persian speaking L2 learners of English with the Overt Pronoun Constraint (OPC, henceforth) a proposed UG principle, at the syntax-pragmatics interface is investigated. Both groups of participants demonstrated violations of the OPC at the syntax-pragmatics interface. It is argued that the results of this study both confirm and complement Sorace and Filiaci’s (2006) Interface Hypothesis while showing that difficulties at interface contexts are more a result of interface complexities than cross-linguistic influence.

This article aims at contrasting aspectual oppositions in English and Persian in the context of the novel The Old Man and the Sea, and its translation by Daryabandari (1983) as the data. Unlike English, in Persian perfective and imperfective forms are morphologically marked. While the vast majority of English simple past forms are translated into Persian by past perfective forms, only less than a quarter of them are translated into this language by past imperfective forms. Most English verbs translated into Persian by past perfectives mainly include past progressives, infinitives and gerunds. In translating English gerunds, simple present forms, prepositional phrases and infinitive forms one normally uses Persian past perfective forms. All Persian non-past forms take mi- obligatorily and they are used in translating a wide range of English non-past forms including simple present and infinitive forms. English simple past forms are mainly used in expressing single events, habits, states and conditionals, whereas the vast majority of Persian past perfectives are used in expressing perfective situations. English simple present forms are mainly used in expressing habits, facts or perfective situations, whereas, Persian non-past forms are mainly used in expressing perfective or progressive situations either in present or future, as well as habits and facts.

Teacher questions are claimed to be constitutive of classroom interaction because of their crucial role both in the construction of knowledge and the organization of classroom proceedings (Dalton Puffer, 2007). Most of previous research on teachers’ questions mainly focused on identifying and discovering different question types believed to be helpful in creating the opportunities for learners’ interactions. Drawing on conversation analysis through adopting socio-cultural perspective, this study, however, aims to examine how EFL teachers manage understanding-check questions in their talk-in-interaction. For this purpose, six EFL teachers’ discursive classroom practices were observed, video-recorded, and transcribed line-by-line in its entirety. Through the microanalysis of the transcribed data, our findings suggest that EFL teachers vary in their management of understanding-check questions and the teachers’ understanding-check questions tend to serve different functions in the different micro-contexts identified. Three major sequential environments emerged to feature understanding-check questions in this study: Activity-boundary environment, post-instruction environment and within-activity environment. The findings of the study indicate that understanding-check questions at activity boundary environment are designed to accomplish dual functions, however those launched in post-instruction and within-activity environments maintain a singular focus on ensuring absolute understanding of the just-given explanation or instruction.