Critical Language and Literary Studies

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی


1 دانشیار ‌آموزش‌ زبان‌ انگلیسی‌ دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 دانشگاه شهید بهشتی


از منظر زبان‌شناختی، یکی از چالش‌برانگیزترین جوانب مهارت نوشتن جمله‌بندی است. اگرچه برخی از جملات تنها از یک جمله‌واره تشکیل می‌شوند، نویسندگان، به منظور دست‌یابی به اثرگذاری بیشتر، اغلب جمله‌واره‌ها را با یکدیگر ترکیب می‌کنند تا در نهایت بتوانند متنی منسجم تولید کنند. با استفاده از رویکرد اصطلاح‌شناسی تخصصی، مقاله حاضر مجموعه‌ای متشکل از 23 اصطلاح تخصصی گرامری که به طور معمول در کلاس‌های آموزش مهارت نوشتن به کار گرفته می‌شوند را مورد بررسی دقیق قرار می‌دهد. بدین منظور، پژوهشگران پیکرۀ زبانی حاوی 14 کتاب گرامر را بررسی کردند و تمامی 23 اصطلاح تخصصی انتخابی در این پیکره جستجو و شمارش شد. به‌علاوه، از 72 دانشجوی زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی‌ آزمون اصطلاحات تخصصی (مبتنی بر اصطلاحات مورد مطالعه) بعمل آمد. براساس بسامد اصطلاحات در پیکرۀ زبانی، نتایج آزمون اصطلاحات تخصصی و تحلیل داده‌های کیفی که از معنی و کاربرد اصطلاحات و مصاحبه‌های انجام‌شده با دانشجویان بدست آمد، پژوهشگران شبکه‌ای اصلاح‌شده از اصطلاحات تخصصی گرامری برای تدریس جمله‌واره‌ها را ارائه کردند. در صورت بکارگیری یکپارچۀ این شبکۀ پیشنهادی، بسیاری از ابهامات و چالش‌های استفاده از اصطلاحات تخصصی گرامری برای تدریس جمله‌واره‌ها در آموزش مهارت نگارش به زبان انگلیسی مرتفع خواهد شد.


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Terminological Approachin ESL/EFL Writing Instruction- Case Study of Clause-related Terms

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sasan Baleghizadeh 1
  • Mehrdad Yousefpouri Naeem 2

1 Shahid Beheshti University

2 Shahid Beheshti University

چکیده [English]

From a linguistic perspective, one of the most challenging aspects of writing is sentence construction. While some sentences are made up of only a single clause, to be more effective in writing, authors often need to combine clauses together to make longer sentences, with the ultimate aim of writing a composition or a coherent text.Taking a terminological approach, the present study made an attempt to scrutinize a total of 23 grammatical terms often used to teach clauses in writing classes. For this purpose, a corpus of 14 grammar books was developed, and all the 23 terms were looked up and counted in the corpus. In addition, a test of grammatical terminology, made of the same target terms, was administered to 72 BA students of English language and literature at ShahidBeheshti University.Based on the frequency of the terms in the corpus (frequency counts), the results of the terminology test (student familiarity factor), and the analysis of the qualitative data obtained from both the meaning/usage of the terms and the interviews with students, the researchers came up with a modified network of grammatical terms used for teaching clauses, which, if used consistently, could minimize ambiguities and confusions over clause-related terms in ESL/EFL writing instruction.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • clause
  • grammatical terminology
  • ESL/EFL writing
  • self-built corpus
  1. Azar, B. S. (2002). Understanding and using English grammar. New York: Pearson Longman Education.
  2. Barkley, L., & Sandoval, C. (2015).Grammar and usage, naturally. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
  3. Beaman, K. (1984). Coordination and subordination revisited: Syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. In D.Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 45–80). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  4. Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing, 22(2), 185–200.
  5. Berry, R. (2008). Talking terms: Choosing and using terminology for EFL classrooms. English Language Teaching, 1(1), 19–24.
  6. Berry, R. (2010). Terminology in English language teaching.Bern: Peter Lang.
  7. Biber, D., & Vasquez, C. (2008). Writing and speaking. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 657-672). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  8. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finnegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Pearson.
  9. Chafe, W. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. InD.Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp.35–54). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  10. Crossley, S. a., Roscoe, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). What is successful writing? An investigation into the multiple ways writers can write successful essays. Written Communication, 31(2), 184–214.
  11. Eckman, F. R, & Bell, L. Nelson, D. (1988).On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a Second Language.Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 1–20.
  12. Gaies, S. J. (1980). T-Unit analysis in second language research: Applications, problems and limitations. TESOL Quarterly, 14(1), 53–60.
  13. Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A. (1988).Clause combining in grammar and discourse.Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  14. Halliday, M.A.K., &Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004).An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
  15. Hinkel, E. (2002). Teaching grammar in writing classes: Tenses and cohesion. In E. Hinkel& S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectiveson grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 181–198). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  16. Hinkel, E. (2011). What research on second language writing tells us and what it doesn't. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning Volume 2 (pp 523-538). New York:Routledge.
  17. Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels.In National Council of Teachers of English, III.
  18. Jalilifar, a. (2010).Thematization in EFL students’ composition writing and its relation to academic experience.RELC Journal, 41(1), 31–45.
  19. Janopoulos, M. (1992). University faculty tolerance of NS and NNS writing errors: A comparison. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(2), 109–121.
  20. Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008).A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York: Routledge.
  21. Leech, G. (2006). A glossary of English grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  22. O’Donnell, R.C. (1974). Syntactic differences between speech and writing.American Speech, 49, 102–110.
  23. Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010).Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing.Journal of Second Language Writing, 19 (4), 218-233.
  24. Penston, T. (2005).A concise grammar for English language teachers.Wicklow: TP Publications.
  25. Saddler, B., Asaro, K., &Behforooz, B. (2008).The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining practice on four young writers with learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 6(1), 17–31.
  26. Schleppegrel, M. J. (2008). Grammar, the sentence, and traditions of linguistic analysis. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 673-693). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  27. Sjolie, D. (2006). Phrase and clause grammar tactics for the ESL/ELL writing classroom.The English Journal, 95(5), 35–40.
  28. Spears, R. A. (1991).NTC's dictionary of grammar terminology.Lincolnwood: National Textbook Company.
  29. Walker, E., &Elsworth, S. (2000). Grammar practice for intermediate students. Essex: Pearson Education.