PROCESSING INSTRUCTION AND ENGLISH CAUSATIVES

Yıl 2005, Sayı: 129, 34 - 62, 01.09.2005

Süreyya Karacaer

https://doi.org/10.1501/Dilder_0000000038

Öz

This study attempts to examine possible effects of two types of instruction: processing (PI) and traditional (TI) in learning of English causatives by Turkish learners and to see whether possible positive effects are retained well over time by PI and TI groups. Results indicated that both groups resulted in some kind of knowledge gain and had a positive effect on how learners interpreted and produced the English causatives. The effects of the treatments were retained over time in the interpretation of causatives, whereas both the PI and TI groups failed to show the same performance in the production of causatives

Anahtar Kelimeler

Processing Instruction, Traditional Instruction, Input Processing, First Noun Strategy, Causatives

SÜREÇ ODAKLI DİL ÖĞRETİMİ VE İNGİLİZCEDEKİ ETTİRGEN ÇATI

Öz

Bu çalışma, süreç odaklı dil öğretimi ve geleneksel dil öğretiminin Türk öğrencilerin İngilizcedeki ettirgen çatıyı öğrenmelerindeki olası etkilerini karşılaştırmayı; bu iki öğretim yönteminin olası olumlu etkilerini ve bu öğrenmenin uzun süreli bellekte kalıcı olup olmadığını incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Bulgular, hem süreç odaklı grubun hem de geleneksel grubun bir tür kazanım elde ettiğini; İngilizcedeki ettirgen çatıyı yorumlama ve üretme konusunda olumlu bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Ettirgen çatıyı yorumlama konusunda uygulamaların etkileri zaman içinde kalıcı olurken, ettirgen çatıyı üretme konusunda hem süreç odaklı grup hem de geleneksel grup aynı başarıyı gösterememiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Süreç Odaklı Dil Öğretimi, Geleneksel Dil Öğretimi, Girdi İşlemleme, İlk Ad Stratejisi, Ettirgen Çatı

Kaynakça

• Allen, L.Q. 2000. Form-meaning Connections and the French Causative, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22: 69-84.
• Azar, B.S. 1999. Understanding and Using English Grammar (3rd Edition). New York.: Longman.
• Benati, A. 2001. A Comparative Study of the Effects of Processing Instruction and Output-Based Instruction on the acquisition of the Italian Future Tense, Language Teaching Research, 5/2: 95-127.
• Cadierno, T. 1995. Formal Instruction from a Processing Perspective: An Investigation into the Spanish Past Tense, The Modern Language Journal, 79: 179-193.
• Cantürk, B. 2001. Explicit Grammar Instruction: A Comparison of Comprehension-based and Production-based Instruction for EFL Learners, T.C. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları: No.1276. Eskişehir: Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu Yayınları: No. 01.
• Collentine, J.G. 1998. Processing Instruction and the Subjunctive, Hispania, 81: 576- 587.
• Darren, G. & P. Mallery. 1995. SPSS / PC +: Step By Step: A Simple Guide and Reference 3/2”Dos Data Disk Enclosed. Belmont. Albany: Wadsworth Publishing Company: An International Thomson Publishing Company.
• DeKeyser, R. M. et al. 2002. What gets Processed in Processing Instruction? A Commentary on Bill VanPatten’s “Processing Instruction: An Update” , Language Learning, 52 / 4: 805-823.
• DeKeyser, R.M. & K.J. Sokalski. 1996. The Differential Role of Comprehension and Production Practice, Language Learning, 46 / 4: 613-642.
• Doughty, C. & J. Williams. 1998. Pedagogical Choices in Focus on Form, in C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. pp.197- 261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ellis, R. 1993. The Structural Syllabus and Second Language Acquisition, TESOL QUARTERLY, 27: 91-113.
• Ellis, R. 1999. Input-based Approaches to teaching Grammar: A Review of Classroom-Oriented Research, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19: 64-80.
• Farley, A. 2001. Authentic Processing Instruction and the Spanish Subjunctive, Hispania, 84: 289-299.
• Finnemann, M. D. 1987. Liberating the Foreign Language Syllabus, The Modern Language Journal, 71: 36-43.
• Fuchs, M. & M. Bonner. 1995. Focus on Grammar: A High-Intermediate Course for Reference and Practice. London: Longman.
• Fuchs, M. & M. Bonner. 2000. Focus on Grammar: A High-Intermediate Course for Reference and Practice(2nd Edition). New York: Longman.
• Garrett,N. 1986. The Problem with Grammar: What kind can the language learner use?, The Modern Language Journal, 70 / 2: 133-148.
• Gass, S. M. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Heilenman, K. 1995.Grammar, in V. Galloway & C. Herron. (eds.) Research Within Reach II: Research-guided Responses to the concerns of Foreign Language Teachers. pp. 129- 148. Valdosta, G. A. SCOLT.
• Herschensohn, J. 1988. Linguistic Accuracy of Textbook grammar, The Modern Language Journal, 72: 409-414.
• Krashen, S. 1998. Comprehensible Output?, System, 26: 175-182.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. 1997. Grammar and its Teaching : Challenging the Myths, ERIC Digest. pp. 1-4. Available online at http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/Ed406829.html.
• Long, M. 1983. Does Second Language Instruction make a Difference? A Review of Research, TESOL Quarterly, 17 / 3: 359-382.
• Montrul, S. 2001. Causatives and Transitivity in L2 English, Language Learning, 51 / 1: 51-106.
• Nagata, N. 1998. Input vs. Output Practice in Educational Software for Second language Acquisition, Language Learning and Technology, 1 / 2: 23-40. Available online at http://polglot.cal.msu.edu/llt/vol1num2/article1/default.html.
• Norris, J. M. & L. Ortega. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-Analysis, Language Learning, 50 / 3: 417-528.
• Pienemann, M. 1989. Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic Experiments and Hypotheses, Applied Linguistics, 10: 52-79.
• Polio, C. & S. M. Gass. 1997. Replication and Reporting: A Commentary, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19: 499-508.
• Skehan, P. & P. Foster. 1997. Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance, Language Teaching Research, 1 / 3: 185-211.
• Swain, M. 1995. Communicative Competence: Some roles of comprehensible input And comprehensible output in its development, in S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.) Input in Second Language Acquisition. pp. 235-253. Cambridge, M.A: Newbury House.
• Swain, M. 1998. Focus on Form through Conscious reflection, in C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. pp.64-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tschirner, E. 1996. Scope and Sequence: Rethinking Beginning Foreign Language Instruction, The Modern Language Journal, 80: 1-14.
• VanPatten, B. 1996. Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition. Norwood, N.J: Ablex.
• VanPatten, B. 2002a. Processing Instruction: An Update, Language Learning, 52 / 4: 755-803.
• VanPatten, B. 2002b. Processing the Content of Input-Processing and Processing Instruction Research: A Response to DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson, And Harrington, Language Learning, 52 / 4: 825-831.
• VanPatten, B. 2003. From Input to Output: A Teacher’s Guide to Second Language Acquisition. Boston: McGraw Hill.
• VanPatten, B. & T. Cadierno. 1993. Explicit Instruction and Input Processing, Studies In Second Language Acquisition, 15: 225-259.
• VanPatten, B. & W. Wong. 2004. Processing Instruction and the French Causative: Another Replication, in B. VanPatten (ed.). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Pp. 97-118. Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Wong, W. 2001. Form-meaning Connections in Second Language Learning and Instruction in 2001 Combined 801 Teacher Training Workshop. Available online at http//www.flc.ohio- state.edu/flc_pages/801/wong.html. APPENDIX A