صالح عریضاوی

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.

This study aimed at investigating the tendency of research article (RA) authors for the application of nominalization in RA discussion sections from the perspective of two discourse communities. To this end, 150 RA discussion sections were selected from local and international Applied Linguistics journals. Following the rhetorical structure analysis of the corpus and the move tagging, the authors analyzed the vertical and horizontal distribution of the nominalization types within and between the journals. The results demonstrated that international RA authors show a greater preference to use nominalization in certain moves of the discussion sections, and this can be explained by considering the move function and nominalization types. It was also revealed that a large number of nominalizations are located in some moves than others. In other words, authors use nominalization in these moves to ameliorate the style and the language of the discussion sections to sound more persuasive. Finally, fine-grained qualitative analyses are presented

Drawing on Walsh's (2012) idea that boosting learners' contribution and interaction can play a key role in their foreign language learning, this mixed-methods study tried to cast some light on the ways by which teachers, via their choice and use of language, create or block learners' contribution in direct interactions in the classroom. A total of 800-minute recordings of 10 teachers' talks and their learners' in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes were studied utilizing a Conversation Analysis methodology. The interaction patterns identified in the recordings suggest that teachers could manipulate their talk either to facilitate or obstruct learners' involvement by the inserted turns they take. The findings of the study indicate that the teachers need to minimize their interventions while the learners taking their turns, and instead pave the way for a more interactive discourse. In addition, a 'listening culture' in the classrooms should be encouraged in order to create opportunities for more classroom interactive talk. A number of implications for teachers and teacher trainers are also given.

This study reports on research article (RA) authors’ definitional understanding and sociocultural perceptions of intertextuality and plagiarism in academic writing. To meet this end, a questionnaire, consisting of three sections, was constructed and emailed to Iranian RA authors who have published in leading international and local applied linguistics journals. The findings of the first two sections suggest that authors recognized the crucial role intertextuality plays in RAs; however, they had a flimsy understanding of the concept and its cultural bearings. On the other hand, unacceptable, as most of these respondents may find it, plagiarism was seen as an unavoidable part of academic research at least in initial steps of academic writing. This was shown to be mainly the function of the authors’ sociocultural perceptions of plagiarism. The third section of the questionnaire addressed the authors’ departure from plagiarism and gradual proximization to intertextuality. The findings imply that plagiarism, intertextuality and their concomitant sociocultural perceptions ought to be discussed, re-examined, and put to trial in local contexts

Despite the voluminous body of research investigating linguistic, disciplinary, and cultural variations in citation practices in research articles, these practices have not been examined in light of the interplay between disciplinary conventions and research methodological underpinnings in the field of linguistics. Adopting a multi-faceted design, this study analyzed 180 research article introductions from two close-knit disciplines (Theoretical Linguistics and Applied Linguistics) to look into the contextualized citation functions and authorial evaluative stance toward citations. The corpus was purposively selected to sample three research methodologies. Comparisons were carried out at disciplinary, research methodological, and combinatory levels. The findings of the study show clear variations in the citation functions and evaluative stances taken toward citations. These variations are thought to be the result of the disciplinary conventions which authors must abide by as well as the paradigmatic underpinnings of the research methodologies which the articles are built upon, though the latter have greater impacts. As a partial contribution to the field of second language writing, a practical taxonomy is also proposed to account for the contextualized citation functions in the two disciplines. The study concludes with some pedagogical implications