Ergatif ve pasif arasında seçim yapma eğilimi: İngilizce öğretmenleri için bir önerme

Year 2019, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 68 - 75, 20.10.2019

Turgay Han , Zinat Mahzoun

https://doi.org/10.31464/jlere.526950

Abstract

This study was an attempt to examine the tendency and criteria of native
speakers of English language to choose between ergative and passive structures.
Five sample verbs with the possibility of occuring in active, passive and
ergative constructions (change, grow, develop, increase, decrease) were
selected and their ergative usages in sentences were extracted from Webster
American dictionary. These verbs occur more frequently in academic context
(according to COCA), except for the verb grow that is mostly used in
magazines. The sentences were paired with their passive equivalents, making
total ten sentences. Four native (American) English speakers were asked to
determine which sentence in each pair sounded natural to them and what
distinguishes them from the other. The findings revealed that all the
participants chose the ergative one and they clarified that these actions are
not caused by any external factor and the action happens automatically without
an intentional intervention from outside. Although this study was carried out
in small scales, it can have instructional implications for English teachers.
Future studies can apply the research on greater number of verbs and different
varieties of English native speakers.    

Keywords

ergative, passive, English native speakers, COCA

References

• Abdullayeva, O. (1993). The Acquisition of Ergative Verbs by Turkish EFL Students. Unpublished MA Thesis, Bilkent University, AnkaraButt, M. (2006). The dative-ergative connection. Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, 6, 69-92.Dixon, R. M. (Ed.). (1987). Studies in ergativity (Vol. 71). Elsevier Science Limited.Heyvaert, L. (2003). A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Garner, B. A. (2009). Garner's Modern American Usage (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.Hands, P., & Sinclair, J. (2017). Collins COBUILD English grammar. Glasgow: CollinsJu, M.K. (2000). Overpassivisation errors by second language learners: The effect of conceptualizable agents in discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22, 85-111Kellerman, E. (1978). Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism 15, 59-92Kondo, T. (2005). Overpassivization in second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(2), 129-161.Massam, D. (2006). Neither absolutive nor ergative is nominative or accusative. In ERGATIVITY (pp. 27-46). Springer, Dordrecht.Massam, D., Johns, A., & Ndayiragije, J. (2006). Ergativity: Emerging issues. Dordrecht: Springer.Rezai, M. J., & Ariamanesh, A. A. (2012). Acquisition of English unergative and unaccusative structures by Persian EFL learners. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 31(2), 53-85.Schleppegrell, M. J., & Colombi, M. C. (2005). Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power. Routledge.Taylor, A. (1976). 'Ergative-Based' or 'Transitive-Based'? Foundations of Language, 14(1), 1-17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25170042Wiltschko, M. (2006). On 'Ergativity' in Halkomelem Salish. In Ergativity (pp. 197-227). Springer, Dordrecht.Yılmaz, M. Ş, & Tek, İ. (2016). Usage of Ergative Verbs across Different English Proficiency Levels. 6th Middle East Technical University English Language Teaching Conference, 6.Yip, V. (1994). Grammatical consciousness-raising and learnability. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar (Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp. 123-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524605.008Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, 203-221.