ترکیب‎های قالبی فارسی و کارکردهای متنی آنها در نگارش

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

2 دانشیار گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

چکیده

توجه روزافزونِ عبارت‌شناسان به ترکیب‎های قالبی در دهه‌ی اخیر نشان‌دهنده‌ی اهمیت کارکردی آنها است. ترکیب‎های قالبی، عناصر زبانی پیش‌ساخته‎ای هستند که به صورت یک مجموعه، نگهداری و بازیابی می‎شوند. هدف پژوهش حاضر بررسی ویژگی‎های کارکردی ترکیب‎های قالبی فارسی و ارتباط آنها با مهارت نگارش است. در این پژوهش، ترکیب‎های قالبی در نوشته‎های فارسی تولید شده توسط 10 گویشور زبان فارسی از نظر کمّی و کیفی مورد بررسی قرار گرفته‎اند. پیکره‌ی تولید‌ شده در این پژوهش شامل 100 نمونه‌ نوشته‌ی فارسی بوده که از نظر کیفیتِ به‌کارگیری ترکیب‎های قالبی از انواع کارکردی مختلف و همچنین سطح مهارت نگارش، نمره‌گذاری شده‎اند. در بخش کمّی، از تحلیل بسامد، تحلیل همبستگی و تحلیل آزمون خی‌ و در بخش کیفی از تحلیل محتوا و مصاحبه‎های گذشته‌نگر برای کاویدن پیش‌فرض‎ها، تحلیل‎ها و داوری‎ مشارکان استفاده شده است. نتایج مطالعه‌ی حاضر نشان می‎دهد که (1) بسامد بالای استفاده از ترکیب‎های قالبی فارسی لزوماً کیفیت نوشتار را بالا نمی‎برد و (2) بررسی ویژگی‎های کارکردی ترکیب‎های قالبی باید با توجه به وجوه بینازبانی آنها و گاه با توجه به دانش زبان انگلیسی گویشوران فارسی انجام شود. یافته‎های این پژوهش را می‌توان در مطالعات زبان‌شناختی و آموزش زبان فارسی به گویشوران سایر زبان‌ها مورد توجه قرار داد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Persian Formulaic Sequences and Their Textual Functions in Writing

نویسندگان [English]

  • Saeide Shamsaei Shamsaei 1
  • Mohammadreza Hashemi 2
چکیده [English]

The growing attention to formulaic sequences during the last decade indicates that the functional features of such sequences play a crucial role in writing. Formulaic sequences are prefabricated linguistic components which are stored and retrieved as a whole. The present study aims to examine the functional features of such sequences in Persian writings. To do so, 10 writing samples of Persian native speakers were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed. The corpus included 100 sample writings which were scored with regard to using the formulaic sequences from different functional categories as well as writing skill level. In the quantitative phase, frequency analysis, correlation analysis and Chi-square analysis were employed whereas in the qualitative phase, content analysis and retrospective interviews were used to explore the participants' presumptions, analyses, and judgments. The results showed that (1) high frequency of using formulaic sequences would not necessarily guarantee the quality of writing and (2) studying the functional features of formulaic sequences is suggested to be conducted with paying full attention to inter-lingual characteristics as well as the Persian speakers' knowledge of English. The findings of the research could be utilized in linguistic studies and Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages (TPSOL).

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Formulaic sequences
  • writing skill
  • Inter-lingual characteristics
Alali, F. & Schmitt, N. (2012). Teaching Formulaic Sequences: The Same or Different from Teaching Single Words? TESOL Journal, 3: 153-180.
Allen, D. (2009). Lexical Bundles in Learner Writing: An Analysis of Formulaic Language in the ALESS Learner Corpus. Komaba Journal of English Education, 17: 105-127.
Bannard, C. & Lieven, E. (2009). Repetition and reuse in child language learning. In R. Corrigan, E. Moravcisk, H. Ouali & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic Language: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations, Vol. 2. (pp. 299-321). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Biber, D. et al. (2004). If You Look at ...: Lexical Bundles in University Teaching and Textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25: 371-405.
Burneikaite, N. (2009). Metadiscoursal Connectors in Linguistics MA Theses in English L1 and L2. Kalbotyra, 61: 36-50.
Conklin, K. & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic Sequences: Are They Processed More Quickly than Non-Formulaic Language by Native and Non-Native Speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29: 72-89.
Conklin, K. & Schmitt, N. (2012). The Processing of Formulaic Language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32: 45–61.
Corrigan, R. et al. (2009). Introduction: Approaches to the study of formulae. In R. Corrigan, E. Moravcisk, H. Ouali & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic Language: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations, Vol. 2 (pp. XI-XXIII). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Durrant, P. & Schmitt, N. (2009). To What Extent Do Native and Non-native Writers Make Use of Collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47: 157-177.
Durrant, P. & Schmitt, N. (2010). Adult Learners’ Retention of Collocations from Exposure. Second Language Research, 26: 163-188.
Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 63-103). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Ellis, N. C.et al. (2013). Usage-Based Language: Investigating the Latent Structures That Underpin Acquisition. Language Learning, 63: 25-51.
Ellis, N. C. et al. (2014). Does language Zipf right along? Investigating robustness in the latent structures of usage and acquisition. In J. Connor-Linton & L. Amoroso (Eds.), Measured Language: Quantitative Studies of Acquisition, Assessment, Processing and Variation (pp. 33-50). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Garnier, M. & Schmitt, N. (in press). The PHaVE List: A Pedagogical List of Phrasal Verbs and Their Most Frequent Meaning Senses. Language Teaching Research.
González Fernández, B. & Schmitt, N. (in press). How Much Collocation Knowledge Do L2 Learners Have? The Effects of Frequency and Amount of Exposure. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics.
Hall, T. (2009). The Fossilization-Formula Interface. Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 9(2): 62-64.
Hirose, K. (2001). Realizing a giant first step toward improved English writing: A case in a Japanese university. In I. Leki (Ed.), Academic Writing Programs (pp. 35-46). Alexandria: TESOL.
Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 Organizational Patterns in the Argumentative Writing of Japanese EFL Students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12: 181-209.
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.
Hulstijn, J. H. et al. (2014). Bridging the Gap: Cognitive and Social Approaches to Research in Second Language Learning and Teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36: 361-421.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27: 4–21.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Event-Related Brain Potentials to Semantically Inappropriate and Surprisingly Large Words. Biological Psychology, 11: 99–116.
Li, J. & Schmitt, N. (2009). The Acquisition of Lexical Phrases in Academic Writing: A Longitudinal Case Study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18: 85-102.
Martinez, R. & Schmitt, N. (2012). A Phrasal Expressions List. Applied Linguistics, 33: 299-320.
Miller, G. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. The Psychological Review, 63: 81-97.
Miller, J. (2009). No Jam for the Wicked: Do All English Speakers Understand and Use the Same Idioms? Australian Style, 16(2).
Miller, J. (2013). Phraseology across continents. In J. Szerszunowicz (Ed.), Research on Phraseology across Continents, Vol. 2 (pp. 404-421). Bialystok: University of Bialystok Publishing House.
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The Use of Collocations by Advanced Learners of English and Some Implications for Teaching. Applied Linguistics, 53: 223-242.
Ohlrogge, A. (2009). Formulaic expression in intermediate EFL writing assessment. In R. Corrigan, E. Moravcisk, H. Ouali, & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic Language: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations, Vol. 2 (pp. 375-386). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rott, S. (1999). The Effect of Exposure Frequency on Intermediate Language Learners' Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition and Retention through Reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2: 589-620.
Schmidt, N. (2010). Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual. London: Palgrave McMillan.
Simpson-Vlach, R. & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An Academic Formulas List (AFL). Applied Linguistics, 31: 487-512.
Sinclair, J. (1987). The nature of the evidence. In J. Sinclair (Ed.), Looking Up: An Account Of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing (pp. 150-159). London: Collins.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Siyanova-Chanturia, A. et al. (2011). Adding More Fuel to the Fire: An Eye-Tracking Study of Idiom Processing by Native and Non-Native Speakers. Second Language Research, 27: 1-22.
Sonbul, S. & Schmitt, N. (2013). Explicit and Implicit Lexical Knowledge: Acquisition of Collocations Under Different Input Conditions. Language Learning, 63: 121–159.
Stubbs, M. (1995). Corpus evidence for norms of lexical collocation. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics (pp. 245-256). Oxford: Oxford 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.
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic Sequences in Second Language Teaching: Principle and Practice. Applied Linguistics, 21: 463-489.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wray, A. & Perkins, M. R. (2002). The Functions of Formulaic Language: An Integrated Model. Language and Communication, 20: 1-28.