بندهای موصولی توصیفی و توضیحی: نگاهی تحلیلی بر توالی فراگیری بندهای موصولی فارسی آموزان غیر ایرانی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هسته ی پژوهش ‏های بنیادی برای توسعه ی آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی زبانان، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی

2 نویسنده ی مسئول، دانشیار زبان‏شناسی، مدیر هسته ی پژوهش‏های بنیادی برای توسعه ی آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی زبانان، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی

چکیده

از موانع برقراری ارتباط مؤثر میان مطالعات در دو حوزه­ی یادگیری و آموزش، تفاوت دیدگاه­هایی بوده که میان محققان یادگیری/ فراگیری از یک طرف و برنامه­ریزان درسی و معلّمان از طرف دیگر وجود داشته ­است. با این­حال، در سال­های اخیر، توجه بسیاری به ماهیّت فراگیری زبان دوم شده­ است؛ چراکه درک ماهیّت فراگیری زبان دوم به ما کمک می­کند تا بتوانیم مواد درسی و آموزش­های کلاسی خود را مطابق با نظام فراگیری زبان­آموزان تغییر داده و ارتباطی منطقی میان یادگیری و آموزش برقرار کنیم. از این رو، در این پژوهش به بررسی توالی فراگیری بندهای موصولی از جنبه­ی توصیفی و توضیحی بودن آن­ها پرداخته می­شود. بدین منظور، 493 متن از پیکره­ی نوشتاریِ فارسی­آموزان غیرایرانی با ملیّت­های مختلف مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. سپس، بندهای موصولی، برچسب خورده و با توجه به سطح زبان­­آموزان تقسیم­بندی شد. پس از مشخص شدن هر بندِ موصولی به لحاظ توصیفی یا توضیحی بودن، روند فراگیری این بندها مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. نتایج این مطالعه نشان داد که فارسی­آموزان غیرایرانی، فارغ از جنسیت، ملیّت، روش تدریس و سن، موصولی­های توصیفی را پیش از موصولی­های توضیحی می­آموزند و حتّی پس از فراگیری، تمایل بیشتری در استفاده از بندهای موصولی توصیفی دارند. اشارات ضمنیِ این موضوع نشان از آن دارد که در آموزش بندهای موصولی در زبان فارسی، بهتر است ابتدا بندهای موصولی توصیفی تدریس شود تا با ترتیب فراگیری زبان­آموزان نیز همخوانی داشته ­باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Restrictive and Non-Restrictive Relative Clauses in Persian Language: Sequence of Acquisition by Non-Iranian Persian Learners

نویسندگان [English]

  • Shohre Sadat Sajjadi 1
  • RezaMorad Sahraei 2
1 PhD Graduate in General Linguistics and Member of the Research Group for TPSOL Development, Department of Linguistics, Literature and Foreign Languages Faculty, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Corresponding author, Associate Professor of General Linguistics and Manager of the Research Group for TPSOL Development, Department of Linguistics, Literature and Foreign Languages Faculty, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Learning and teaching must have an effective relation, but of course, there is a gap between these two fields of study. That’s because of two points of view: study of learning and acquisition on the one hand and teaching and curriculum design on the other hand. However, in recent years, much attention has been paid to the nature of second language learning, because understanding the nature of the second language learning will help us to adapt our syllabus and curriculum design in accordance with the learning system and make logical connections between learning and teachings. To this end, this study scrutinized the sequence of acquisition of two types of relative clauses: restrictive and non-restrictive. So, 493 texts from a corpus of Persian learners’ written texts were analyzed. Then, the relative clauses were tagged and according to the level of language learners, they were divided into six categories. After the restrictive and non-restrictive clauses were distinguished, the acquisition of these clauses was examined. The results showed that Persian Learners, regardless of gender, nationality, method of previous teaching and age, learned restrictive relative clauses sooner than non-restrictive ones. Even after learning, they tended to use restrictive clauses more often. The implication of this study is that it is better to teach restrictive clauses sooner to accord with the learners’ sequences of learning.
Extended abstract
Learning and education must have an effective relation. Of course, there is a gap between these two fields of study. That’s because of two points of view: study of learning and acquisition on one hand, and teaching and curriculum design, on the other hand. However, in recent years, much attention has been paid to the nature of second language learning/acquisition because understanding the nature of the second language learning will help us to adapt our syllabus and curriculum design in accordance with the learning system.
Previous studies (e.g. Fries, 1945; Lado, 1957; James, 1998) during the past decades have shown the importance of first language in acquisition of second language, but the recent studies (e.g. Selinker, 1972; Nemser, 1971; Corder, 1971) indicated that although the role of the first language in learning/acquisition of second/foreign language cannot be ignored, language learners with different first languages, follow the Universal Grammar (UG) and learners’ inter-languages are somehow similar. So, second language learners follow a sequence and order in their acquisition. Thus, in this study, sequence and order of acquisition of two types of relative clauses were scrutinized. Relative clauses can be divided into two types: restrictive and non-restrictive. A restrictive clause is a “clause which functions as an adjective to identify the word it modifies. It is essential for the intended meaning and it is not offset with commas”. On the other hand, “A nonrestrictive modifying clause (or non-essential clause) is an adjective clause that adds extra or nonessential information to a sentence. The meaning of the sentence would not change if the clauses were to be omitted and also they are usually set off by commas”. Knowing that which kind of relative clauses were learned sooner and more accurately by the students could help us to understand how and when Persian language (here relative clauses) is learned. So we can utilize these findings in our teaching, and designing our syllabi and curriculum. The question of this study is “What is the acquisition sequence of Persian relative clauses?’. We supposed that, non-Iranian Persian language learners, learn restrictive relative clauses sooner than non-restrictive clauses and they use this type of relative clause more often than non-restrictive one. The reason behind this hypothesis is that this kind of relative clauses are syntactically easier because there is no movement or extra structure on their derivation. In order to test this hypothesis, 493 Persian learner’s written texts were analyzed. The learners were from various countries such as Austria, Argentina, Spain, Australia, Afghanistan, Slovakia, Slovenia, Algeria, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Italy, Azerbaijan, Argentina, Germany, USA, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Pakistan, Portugal, Tajikistan, Taiwan, Turkey, Tunisia, Czech, China, Russia, Romania, Syria, Switzerland, Serbia, Iraq, France, Kyrgyzstan, Croatia, Colombia, Georgia, Lebanon, Poland, Hungary, Egypt and India. Therefore, the first language of learners is not influential factor in this study. The data were collected from two exams (placement test and progress test which is conducted by Sa’di Foundation in 2015 & 2016) and the learners had to use at least 120 words in their writings. After that, the data were gathered and tagged as a restrictive relative clauses and non-restrictive relative clauses. According to the level of language learners, they were divided into six groups; beginner, elementary, low intermediate, intermediate, upper intermediate, advanced, and proficient. The results showed that regardless of gender, nationality, method of previous teaching and age, in general, the higher level students use restrictive relative clauses in their language more accurately. And the emergence of non-restrictive relative clause occurs later and less than the other type even in advanced and proficient levels. Thus, we can conclude that the Persian language learners will learn restrictive relative clauses sooner than non-restrictive ones. The interesting point of this study is that even after learning non-restrictive relative clauses, the Persian language learners tend to use restrictive clauses more often. Perhaps this happens because of the economy principle (the least effort) of language which was introduced for the first time by Zipf (1949). The aim of this principle is the maximum effect with the least input. So, as non-restrictive relative clauses have extra information, language learners prefer not to use it as long as they can. On the other hand, they tend to use restrictive relative clause because of the meaning that it determines. Since one of the most important issues in second/foreign language learning/acquisition is native-like competence, we can conclude that it is better to teach restrictive clauses before non-restrictive relative clauses to incorporate education and sequences of learning/acquisition for effective teaching and learning.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • sequence of learning
  • non-Iranian Persian learners
  • relative clauses
  • restrictive
  • non-restrictive
آزموده، حسن، عموزاده، محمد، رضایی، والی و طاهری، اسفندیار. (1395). سیر تکوین بند موصولی تحدیدی در فارسی. مجله­ی دستور. ش 12. صص: 193-215.

اسپادا، نینا، لایت باون، پاتسی. (2013). زبان‌ها چگونه آموخته می‌شوند؟. ترجمه­ی رضامراد صحرائی (1395). تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی.

الیس، راد. (2003). فراگیری زبان دوم، ترجمه­ی علی رحیمی و زهرا باقری (1388)، تهران: انتشارات جنگل.

بهرامی، کاوه. (۱۳۹۵). بررسی بندهای موصولی تحدیدی و توضیحی درزبان های فارسی و آلمانی. دوماهنامه جستارهای زبانی. ش 7 (2). صص 19-32.

_________. (1392). بررسی رده­شناختی راهبردهای ساخت بند موصولی در زبان­های فارسی و آلمانی. مجله­ی پژوهش­های زبان­شناختی در زبان­های خارجی. ش 1. صص: 61-76.

راسخ­مهند، محمد، مجتبی علیزاده صحرایی، راحله ایزدی­فر و مریم قیاسوند. (1391). تبیین نقشی خروج بند موصولی در زبان فارسی. مجله­ی پژوهش­های زبان­شناسی. ش 1. صص: 21-40.

رحمنی، رامین. (1393). فراگیری بندهای موصولی در زبان فارسی؛ محدودیت‌های چندگانه. پایان‌نامه­ی کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه تهران.

زاهدی،کیوان، خلیقی، محمد، ابوالحسنی چیمه، زهرا و گلفام، ارسلان. (1391). ضمایر بازیافتی در زبان فارسی. مجله­ی جستارهای زبانی (پژوهش­های زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی سابق). ش 11. صص: 101-121.

سجادی، شهره سادات و صحرایی، رضامراد. (1397). سلسله­مراتب گروه اسمی: فراگیری بندهای موصولی در زبان فارسی. مجله­ی پژوهشهای زبانی، سال 9، ش 1، صص: 21-38.

شکوهی علی‌آبادی، مرضیه. (1391). توصیف و آموزش بندهای موصولی فارسی در چارچوب برنامه‌های درسی، پایان‌نامه­ی کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی.

صفوی، کوروش. (1380).گفتارهایی در زبان­شناسی. تهران: هرمس.

علیزاده، علی و خالقیزاده، شراره. (1394). به‌کارگیری بندهای موصولی فاعلی- فاعلی و فاعلی-مفعولی: مقایسه­ی نوشتار فارسی‌آموزان عربی‌زبان سطح میانی و پیشرفته. مجله­ی پژوهشنامه­ی آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسیزبانان. ش 1(9)، صص: 59-78.

ماهوتیان، شهرزاد. (2000). دستور زبان فارسی از دیدگاه رده­شناختی. ترجمه­ی مهدی سمائی. تهران: نشر مرکز، 1387.

نعمت­زاده، شهین، روشن، بلقیس، غیاثیان، مریم­السادات و غفاری، مهران. (1392). سطوح پیچیدگی بندهای موصولی فاعل- فاعل و فاعل- مفعول در کودکان فارسی زبان 3 تا 6 ساله. جستارهای زبانی. ش 4(16)، صص: 221-244.

 

References:

Alexopoulou, D. (2007). Free and restrictive relative clauses in Greek. Selected papers on theoretical and applied linguistics, 17(1), 85-93.

Alizadeh, A. & Khaleghizadeh, Sh. (2015). Using Relative Clauses of Subject- Subject and Subject-Object: Comparision of the writings of Arab-speaking Persian learners in Intermediate and Advanced level. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages. 4(9), 59-78. [In Persian]

Anderson, R. (2009). Grammar Teaching Unit – Relative Clauses. English 215C, Helt, CSUS.

Annas, V. (2004). “Relative Clauses: Introducing Relative Clause Types According to Order of Difficulty and Frequency”. Descriptive Linguistics.EFL503 final paper

Arabmofrad, A. & Marefat, H. (2008). “Relative Clause Attachment Ambiguity Resolution in Persian”. International Journal of American Linguistics (IJAL). 11(1), 29- 48.

Azmode, H., Amozade, M., Rezai, V., & Taheri, E. (2018). A Study of restrictive Relative Clause in Persian. Journal of Grammar, 12, 193-215. [In Persian]

Bahrami, K. (2017). A study of restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses in Farsi and German, Journal of Jostarhaye zabani, 7 (2), 19-32. [In Persian]

Bahrami, K. (2014). A Typological Analysis of Relativisation Strategies in Farsi and German. Foreign Language Reasearch Journal, 3 (1), 61-76. [In Persian]

Comrie, B. (1996, January). The unity of noun-modifying clauses in Asian languages. In Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics. 3, 1077-1088.

Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals, Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morphology. 2. Überarb. Aufl. Oxford: Blackwell.

Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language81(4), 882-906.

Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in second language acquisition13(4), 431-469.

Ellis, R. (2003). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University(8th ed).

______. (2003). The study of second language acquisition. Translated by Rahimi, A. & Bagheri, Z. (2010) Tehran: Jungle Publisher. [In Persian]

Fabb, N. (1990). “The difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses”. Journal of Linguistics 26, 57-78.

Felser, C., Marinis, T.,  & Clahsen, H. (2004). “Children’s Processing of Ambiguous Sentences: A Study of Relative Clause Attachment”. Language Acquisition 11, 127- 134.

Fry, C. (2010). “Considerations on the Teaching and Learning of Relative Clauses with Respect to Turkish Students at Pre-intermediate level”. Merve Bakkal,1691609 or Retrieved from http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/pyp/cfry/teachingrelative clauses.pdf

Gass, S (1982). From theory to practice In M. Hines & W. Rutherford, On TESOL ’81: Selected Papers of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 129-139.

Gibson, E., Desmet, T., Grodner, D., Watson, D., & Ko, K. (2005). Reading relative clauses in English.  Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/tedlab/tedlab_website/researchpapers/Gibson_et_al_2005_CogLing.pdf

Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: An Introduction. 2. Überarb. Aufl. 2 vols. Amsterdam [u.a.]: Benjamins.

Hakuta, K. (1981). “Grammatical Description Versus Configurational Arrangement in Language Acquisition: The Case of Relative Clauses in Japanese”. Cognition, 9, 197- 236

Hsu, N. C. (2006). Issues in Head- Final Relative Clauses in Chinese – Derivation, Processing, and Acquisition. A Ph.D. Dissertation. DelawareUniversity.

Ishizuka, T. (2005). Processing relative clauses in Japanese. UCLA Working papers in Linguistics13, 135-157.

Keenan, E. L. (1985). “Relative clauses”. In Shopen, Timothy (Ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. II: Complex Constructions. 141-170.Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge University Press.

____________., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic inquiry8(1), 63-99.

Kroeger, R. P. (2005). Analyzing Grammar: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levy, R., Fedorenko, E., &. Gibson, E. (2007). “The Syntactic Complexity of Russian Relative Clauses”. Paper Presented at CUNY Sentence Processing Conference. San Diego. March 2007.

Lin, C. C. & Bever, G. T. (2006). “Chinese Is No Exception: Universal Subject Reference of Relative Clause Processing”. Paper Presented at The 19th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. CUNY Graduate Center. New York. NY.

Mahootian, S. (1999). Persian Grammar from a Typological Perspective. Translated by Samaei, M. (2000). Tehran: Markaz Publisher. [In Persian]

Marefat, H. & Rahmany, R. (2009). “Acquisition of English Relative Clauses by Persian EFL Learners”. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies.5(2) , 21- 48.

MacWhinney, B., & Pleh, C. (1988). “The Processing of Restrictive Relative Clauses in Hungarian”. Cognition. 29, 95–141.

Nemat Zadeh S., Roshan B., Ghiasian M S., & Ghaffari M. (2014). Levels of Complexity of SS and SO Type Relative Clauses in Preschool Persian Speaking Children. Journal of Language Related Research. 4 (4) , 221-244. [In Persian]

Newmark, L. (1966). How not to interfere with language learning. International journal of American linguistics32(1), 77-83.

Papadopoulou, D. & Clahsen, H. (2003). “Parsing Strategies in L1 and L2 Sentence Processing: A Study of Relative Clause Attachment in Greek”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 25, 501- 528.

Polinsky, M. (2008). “Relative Clauses in Heritage Russian: Fossilization or Divergent Grammar?”. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL). 16: University of Michigan

Rahmany, R., Marefat, H., & Kidd, E. (2011). “Persian Speaking Children’s Acquisition of Relative Clauses”. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 8(3), 367–388.

Rahmany, R. (2015). Acquisition of relative clauses in Persian. MA Thesis, Tehran university. [In Persian]

Rasekh Mahand, M., Alizadeh Saraie, M., Izadifar, R., & Ghiasvand, M. (2013). The functional explanation of relative clause extraposition in Persian. Journal of Research in Linguistics. 4 (1), 21-40. [In Persian]

Safavi, K. (2001). Goftârhâ-yi dar Zabânshenâsi [Essays on Linguistics]. Tehran: Hermes. [In Persian]

Sajjadi, sh. & Sahraee, R. M. (2018). Noun Phrase Accessability: acquisition of relative clauses in Persian language. Journal of Language Research. 9(1), 21-38. [In Persian]

Shokuhi Ali Abadi, M. (2013). Description and teaching of Persian relative clauses: a syllabus design. MA Thesis, Allamah Tabatabaee university. [In Persian]

Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (2013). How Languages are Learned 4th edition. Translated by Sahraee, R.M. Tehran: Allame Tabataba’i University Press. [In Persian]

VanPatten, B., & Benati, A. G. (2015). Key terms in second language acquisition. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Villiers, G. J., Flusberg, T. B. H.,  Hakuta, K., & Cohen, M. (1979). “Children's Comprehension of Relative Clauses”. Journal of psycholinguistic Research. 8(5) , 499- 518.

Zahedi, K., Khalighi, M., Abolhasani Chimeh, Z., & Golfaam, A. (2013).  Resumptive Pronouns in Persian. Journal of Language Related Research. 3(3). 121-201. [In Persian]