اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 406 |
| تعداد مقالات | 3,323 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 4,804,383 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 3,247,729 |
باهم‌آیی‌ها در پیکرۀ نوشتاری فارسی‌آموزان خارجی: مطالعه‌ای بر پایۀ رویکرد عبارت‌شناختی | ||
| پژوهش نامه آموزش زبان فارسی به غیر فارسی زبانان | ||
| دوره 14، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 29، فروردین 1404، صفحه 3-37 اصل مقاله (2.23 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jtpsol.2025.21222.1685 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| شهناز احمدی قادر1؛ رضامراد صحرائی* 2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2نویسندۀ مسئول، استاد گروه زبانشناسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران. | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 04 آذر 1403، تاریخ بازنگری: 26 دی 1403، تاریخ پذیرش: 05 بهمن 1403 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| مطالعة حاضر پژوهشی آمیخته (کمی-کیفی) و مقطعی است که با هدف ارزیابی چگونگی بکارگیری باهم‌آیی‌ها توسط فارسی‌آموزان خارجی در شش سطح مقدماتی تا ماهر انجام شده است. جامعه آماری 1112 متن (پیکره‌ای مشتمل بر 142608 موردواژه) از تولیدات نوشتاری فارسی‌آموزان بنیاد سعدی بود؛ نمونه‌گیری با روش تصادفی طبقه‌ای انجام شد و طی آن 300 متن نوشتاری، با حجم موردواژه‌های متوازن در هر سطح، انتخاب شدند. برای تحلیل پیکره نمونه و شناسایی باهم‌آیی‌ها از دیگر گروه‌واژه‌ها، رویکردهای مختلف زبانی مطالعه شد؛ آنگاه با بررسی و متناسب‌سازی معیارهای رویکرد عبارت‌شناختی و فرث با مشاهدات پژوهش‌گر در پیکره نمونه، تعریف جامعی از باهم‌آیی و معیارهای روشنی برای شناسایی آنها در تولیدات فارسی‌آموزان غیرایرانی به دست آمد. سپس، پیکره نمونه در نرم‌افزار مکس‌کیودی‌ای، کدگذاری و تحلیل شد و با تفسیر آمار توصیفی و استنباطیِ به دست آمده از نرم‌افزار اس‌پی‌اس‌اس، فرضیه‌های پژوهش مورد راستی‌آزمایی قرار گرفتند. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان داد که میزان بکارگیری باهم‌آیی در تولیدات فارسی‌آموزان در شش سطح زبانی، تفاوت معناداری ندارد و باهم‌آیی‌ها از ابتدای زبان‌آموزی دارای اهمیت هستند. همچنین، باهم‌آیی‌های پرتکرار در تولیدات فارسی‌آموزانِ سطوح زبانیِ پایین‌تر، بیشتر مشاهده شد که فهرستی از آنها در مقاله آمده است. مقایسه تنوع بکارگیری باهم‌آیی‌ها در متون نوشتاری فارسی‌آموزان نیز نشان داد که تولیدات زبان‌آموزانِ هر سطح به طور معنی‌داری نسبت به سطح پایین‌تر از تنوع باهم‌آیی بیشتری برخوردارند. یافته‌های پژوهش حاضر در تهیه و تدوین منابع آموزشی و به عنوان مقیاسی برای اندازه‌گیری مهارت زبان‌دوم‌آموزان سودمند است؛ همچنین می‌تواند مبنایی برای شناسایی انواع گروه‌واژه‌ها در حوزه مطالعات باهم‌آیی‌های زبان دوم قرار گیرد. | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Collocations in Persian Learner's Corpus: A Study Based on a Phraseological Approach | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| shahnaz Ahmadighader1؛ Rezamorad Sahraee2 | ||
| 1PhD candidate in Teaching Persian to Non-Persian Speakers, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2Corresponding author, Professor in Linguistics, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The present study is a mixed method (quantitative-qualitative) and cross-sectional research that was conducted to evaluate how to use collocations by foreign Persian learners at six levels from introductory to advanced. The statistical population included 1112 texts from the tests taken at the Saadi Foundation (Linguistic corpus with 142,608 tokens), which were sampled by stratified random sampling method, 300 written texts with balanced volume in each Level. Various linguistic approaches were studied to analyze the sample corpus and identify collocations; Then, by examining and matching the criteria of the Phraseological approach and Farth's approach with the researcher's observations in the sample, a comprehensive definition of coincidence and criteria for identifying it in the productions of non-Iranian Persian learners were obtained. Then, the sample body was coded and analyzed in the MAXQDA software according to a specific coding system, and the research hypotheses were verified by interpreting the descriptive and inferential statistics obtained from the SPSS software. The study found that Persian learners, regardless of their proficiency level, use a similar number of collocations in their writing so the collocations are important from the very beginning of Persian learning. However, more common collocations were observed in the lower-level Persian learners’ writing, and a list of them is provided in the article. Higher-level learners use a greater variety of collocations. These findings suggest that collocations are important from the beginning of language learning and should be incorporated into language instruction and assessment. Extended Abstract: Introduction The effective use of collocations is crucial for accurate and fluent language production (Wray, 2000). collocations, as essential elements of pragmatic competence (Lewis, 2000), enable learners to act diverse communication contexts effectively. the concept of collocation has been explored decades ago by linguists like Palmer (1933) and Firth (1957). Later, the phraseological approach, with its categorization of lexical combinations into terms "idioms", "collocations" and "free combinations", offers a more precise criteria for distinguishing collocations from other lexical groups (Eisenstadt, 1979; Covey, 1981; Nottinger & DeCarrico, 1992; Howarth, 1996). This approach provides a robust theoretical foundation for the current study. Jalili and Sahrai's (2012) corpus-based study, while measuring vocabulary diversity, did not specifically address collocation usage. A comprehensive corpus-based examination of Persian collocation usage in non-Iranian learner texts remains absent from the literature. While studies on English learner productions, such as those by Cowie (1992), Howarth (1996), Moon (1998), Jackendoff (1997), Altenberg (1998), Men (2018), and Lu (2016), have been more extensive, a dedicated focus on Persian collocations in non-Iranian learner texts is still needed. The primary objective of this study is to establish a comprehensive definition and precise criteria for identifying collocations in the written productions of non-native Persian learners. Additionally, the study aims to investigate the frequency and diversity of collocations employed by Persian learners at various proficiency levels. To address these objectives, the following research questions and hypotheses are proposed: Research Question 1: Is there a statistically significant difference in the frequency of various Persian collocation types employed by learners at six distinct proficiency levels in their written productions? Research Question 2: Is there a statistically significant difference in the use of frequent and infrequent collocations by Persian learners at six distinct language proficiency levels in their written productions? Hypothesis 1: There is a statistically significant difference in the frequency of various Persian collocation types employed by learners at six distinct language proficiency levels: introductory, pre-intermediate, intermediate, upper-intermediate, advanced, and proficient. Hypothesis 2: There is a statistically significant difference in the use of frequent and infrequent collocations by Persian learners at six distinct language proficiency levels. Methodology This study employed a mixed-methods (quantitative-qualitative) cross-sectional design. The statistical population comprised 1,112 texts from the Saadi Foundation (a corpus with 142,608 tokens). Using stratified random sampling, 300 written texts with a balanced volume in each category were sampled. To establish a comprehensive definition of collocations and clear identification criteria for identifying collocations from other word groups, a thorough review of linguistic approaches was conducted. The work of researchers such as Eisenstadt (1979, 1981), Van Roey (1990), Howarth (1996), Nesselhauf (2005), Laufer and Waldman (2011), and Men (2018) was considered. By adapting the definitions and criteria from phraseological and Firth’s approaches, along with insights from the sample corpus, a robust framework was developed. The sample corpus was then input into MaxQDA software and subjected to multiple coding iterations using a coding system based on syntactic patterns. This process refined the definition and identification criteria.The entire sample corpus was subsequently coded and analyzed according to the established criteria. Descriptive and inferential statistics, processed using SPSS software, were employed to verify the research hypotheses. To facilitate coding and analysis, lexical combinations were classified based on syntactic patterns, drawing upon the work of Hausman (1989) and Benson et al. (2010). A tailored classification of syntactic patterns was developed to suit the specific context of this research. Results One of the most important achievements of this research is the development of a comprehensive definition of Persian collocations and the establishment of clear criteria for recognizing various linguistic combinations. This framework, visually represented in Figures 1 and 2, facilitates the identification of collocations produced by Persian learners across different proficiency levels. The definition and criteria were derived through rigorous analysis of a substantial corpus. Collocations are defined as combinations of two or more words closely co-located in a text, relative semantic clarity, and at least one of the following characteristics: (1) limited co-occurrence range for one or more constituent elements, or (2) high frequency of co-occurrence in native speaker texts, coupled with a close syntactic relationship. Based on this definition, the following criteria were established for identifying collocations in the written work of foreign Persian learners: Distinction between collocations and idioms: Collocations possess relative semantic clarity. Distinction between collocations and free combinations: Collocations exhibit limited co-occurrence range and high frequency in native speaker texts. Data analysis revealed that collocation usage rates do not vary significantly across six language proficiency levels, indicating their importance from the outset of language learning.Descriptive statistics indicate that in the total sample size (including 47,388 Tokens), 9,055 collocation tokens were observed. The frequency of collocations used in the written productions of different language level learnrers shows a gradual increase of 2% from the introductory level (14%) to the advanced level (16%), which is insignificant. Also, to examine the frequent and infrequent collocations in the productions of Persian learners of different language levels, only well-formed collocations of the “noun-verb” were analyzed, and it was observed that 4,388 collocation tokens and 1,232 collocation types were used in the entire corpus under study. This frequency of collocation types (1232) compared to the number of collocation tokens (4388) means that on average each collocation types is repeated about 3 or 4 times in the texts under study; however, the graph below shows that the distribution of collocation types in the frequency range of 1 to 5 times (bottom of the graph) is much denser than the top of the graph. In other words, a small number of highly frequent collocation types and, on the contrary, a very large number of infrequent collocation types (with a frequency of less than five times) were observed in the sample corpus. Figure: Scatter plot of the frequency of "noun-verb" collocations in Persian learners' productions Comparative analysis of collocation diversity in learner texts indicated that each proficiency level exhibits significantly greater diversity than the preceding level, aligning with the findings of Getsaki (1999), Zhang (1993), and Men (2018). Conclusion The production of collocation reinforcement tasks has consistently been a focus of interest for educators. However, there remains uncertainty regarding the necessity of explicitly teaching learners about the limitations of free word combination and whether a behaviorist approach, emphasizing Audio-lingual teaching method and repetition of word clusters, is sufficient for collocation instruction. This study aims to provide a comprehensive definition and precise criteria for identifying collocations in the written productions of non-native Persian learners, and to examine the representation and diversity of collocations in the Persian productions of learners at different language levels. Through analysis of the sample corpus, significant findings were obtained. Based on these findings, we conclude that explicit instruction on the limitations of collocation selection and informing language learners about collocation patterns can contribute to the development of their vocabulary knowledge. Therefore, it is essential to explore appropriate pedagogical methods and develop curricula and instructional materials for teaching collocations. The findings of this study have implications for the development of educational resources and proficiency assessment tools for second language learners, and can also serve as a foundation for identifying various word group types in the field of second language collocation research. Acknowledgment The authors would like to sincerely thank the experts in this field who collaborated in assessing the reliability of the coding of the learner corpus of this study. Conflict of Interest The data in this study were extracted from texts produced by Persian learners in an educational context and were used without mentioning the learners' names or personal information. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Collocation, Phraseological approach, Criteria for detecting collocations, Persian learner's corpus, Lexical diversity | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
پناهی، ثریا. (1381). فرایند باهم‌آیی و ترکیبات باهم‌آیند در زبان فارسی. نامه فرهنگستان. دوره پنجم، شماره 3.
جزایری، زهرا. (1398). تأثیر آموزش باهم آیی های واژگانی بر تقویت مهارت صحبت کردن فارسی آموزان سطح میانی. (پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد)، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
جلیلی، اکبر. (1401). تحلیلی بر دایره‌واژگانی فعال فارسی آموزان غیرایرانی در گفتار و نوشتار. (رسالة دکتری)، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
جلیلی، اکبر. صحرائی، رضامراد. (1401). تنوع واژگانی در گفتار فارسی‌آموزان چینی‌زبان و عربی‌زبان: پژوهشی بر پایه شاخص گیراد. پژوهشنامة آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان. قزوین: دانشگاه بین‌المللی امام خمینی (ره). / آماده انتشار.
حافظ‌نیا، محمدرضا. (1389). مقدمه‌ای بر روش تحقیق در علوم انسانی. تهران: انتشارات سمت.
حبیبی، آرش؛ سرآبادانی، مونا. (۱۴۰۱). آموزش کاربردی اس‌پی‌اس‌اس. تهران: انتشارات نارون.
صحرائی، رضامراد. احمدی‌قادر، شهناز (1394) آموزش مستقیم واژه در متن: مقایسه تأثیر دو رویکرد یادگیری مستقیم و تصادفی در یادگیری واژه. فصل‌نامه علمی زبان‌پژوهی. تهران: دانشگاه الزهراء. دوره 7، شماره 17، ص 77-102.
صحرائی، رضامراد. مرصوص، فائزه (1395) استاندارد مرجع آموزش زبان فارسی در جهان. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی.
صفوی، کوروش. (1395). درآمدری بر معنی‌شناسی. تهران: انتشارات سورة مهر (وابسته به حوزة هنری).
میرزائی، آزاده. (1396). آشنایی با زبانشناسی پیکره‌ای. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی.
References:
Aisenstadt, E. (1979). Collocability restrictions in dictionaries. In R. R. K. Hartmann (Ed.), Dictionaries and their users: Papers from the 1978 B.A.A.L. seminar on lexicography (pp. 71–74). Exeter: University of Exeter.
Aisenstadt, E. (1981). Restricted collocations in English lexicology and lexicography. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 53, 53–61.
Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. (2010). The BBI combinatory dictionary of English: Your guide to collocations and grammar (3rd ed.). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., et al. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.
Church, K., & Hanks, P. (1990). Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics, 16, 22–29.
Church, K., & Hindle, D. (1990). Collocational constraints and corpus-based linguistics. In Working Notes of the AAAI Symposium: Text-Based Intelligent Systems.
Church, K., Gale, W., Hanks, P., et al. (1991). Using statistics in lexical analysis. In U. Zernik (Ed.), Lexical acquisition: Exploring on-line resources to build a lexicon (pp. 115–164). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Cowie A. P. (1992). Multiword lexical units and communicative language teaching. In P. Arnaud, H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 1–12). London: Macmillan.
Cowie, A. P. (1981). The treatment of collocations and idioms in learners’ dictionaries. Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 223–235.
Cowie, A. P. (1998). Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daller, H. & Xue, H. (2007). Lexical richness and the oral proficiency of Chinese EFL students; A comparison of different measures. In Daller, H., Milton, J. & Treffers-Daller, J. (Eds), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp. 150-164). Cambridge University Press.
Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.
Gitsaki, C. (1999). Second language lexical acquisition: A study of the development of collocational knowledge. San Francisco: International Scholars Publications.
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 145–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greenbaum, S. (1974). Some verb-intensifier collocations in American and British English. American Speech, 49(1, 2), 79–89.
Habibi, A., Sarabadani, M. (2022). SPSS Practical Training. Tehran: Naroon Publications. [In Persian]
Hafeznia, M. (2010). An Introduction to Research Methods in the Humanities. Tehran: SAMT Publications. [In Persian]
Halliday, M. A. K. (1966). Lexis as a linguistic level. In C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday, et al. (Eds.), In memory of J. R. Firth (pp. 148–162). London: Longman.
Hausmann, F. J. (1989). Le dictionnaire de collocations. In F. J. Hausmann, O. Reichmann, H. E. Wiegand, et al. (Eds.), Wörterbücher: ein internationales Handbuch zur Lexicographie. Dictionaries. Dictionnaires (pp. 1010–1019). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Howarth, P. (1996). Phraseology in English academic writing: Some mplications for language learning and dictionary making. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Howarth, P. (1998). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp. 161–186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jalili, A. (2022). An analysis of the active vocabulary of non-Iranian Persian learners in speech and writing. (PhD. Dissertation). Allameh Tabataba’i university, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]
Jalili, A. Sahraei, R.M (2022). Lexical Diversity in the Speech of Chinese and Arab Persian Language Learners: A Research Based on Guiraud's index. Journal on Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages (JTPSOL). Qazvin: Imam Khomeini International University. / Ready for Publication. [In Persian]l
Jazayeri, Z. (2019). The effect of teaching lexical collocations on improve intermediate persian learners speaking skill (Master's thesis), Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]
Jones, S., & Sinclair, J. (1974). English lexical collocations: A study in computational linguistics. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 23(2), 15–61.
Kjellmer, G. (1987). Aspects of English collocations. In W. Meijs (Ed.), Corpus Linguistics and Beyond: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (pp. 133–140). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Kjellmer, G. (1994). A dictionary of English collocations: Based on the Brown corpus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
Laufer ,B. (2005). Focus on Form in Second Language Vocabulary Learning. EUROSLA Yearbook 5:223-250
Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61(2), 647–672.
Leech, G. (1974). Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach. London: Language Teaching Publications.
Lorenz, G. (1999). Adjective intensification—Learners versus native speakers: A corpus study of argumentative writing. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Lu, Y. (2017). A Corpus Study of Collocation in Chinese Learner English. New York: Routledge.
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (1996). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.
Meara, P. (1984). The study of lexis in interlanguage. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. P. R. HOWATT (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 225–235). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Men, H. Y. (2018). Vocabulary Increase and Collocation Learning, a Corpus-Based Cross-sectional Study of Chinese Learners of English. Singapore: Springer Nature
Mirzaei, A. (2017). An introduction to corpus linguistics. Tehran: Allameh Tabataba’i University Press. [In Persian]l
Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nattinger, J. R. and DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223–242.
Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Palmer, H. E. (1933). Second interim report on English collocations. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Panahi, S. (2002). The process of collocations and collocational compounds in Persian. Nameh-ye Farhangestan, Volume 5, Issue 3. Tehran [In Persian]
Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and meanings: Using corpora for English language research and teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Safavi, K. (2016). An Introduction to Semantics. Tehran: Surah Mehr Publications (affiliated with the Arts Department). [In Persian]
Sahraei, R.M. Ahmaighader, Sh. (2016). Direct Teaching of Vocabulary in Context: the Comparison of Effect of Direct and Incidental Teaching in Learning Vocabulary. Journal of Language Research (ZABANPAZHUHI). Tehran: Alzahra University. Volume 7, Issue 17 - Serial Number 17, Pages 77-102. [In Persian]l
Sahraei, R.M. Marsous, F. (2016). Persian Teaching Standard Reference (PTSR). Tehran: Allameh Tabatabaei University Press. [In Persian]
Sinclair, J. (1966). Beginning the study of lexis. In C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, & M. A. K. Halliday, et al. (Eds.), In memory of J. R. Firth (pp. 410–430). London: Longman.
Sinclair, J. (1987). Collocation: A progress report. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday (Vol. 2, pp. 319–331). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text. London: Routledge.
Sinclair, J., Jones, S., & Daley, R. (2004). English collocation studies: The OSTI report. London: Continuum.
Sonbul, S. & Schmitt, N. (2010). Direct teaching of vocabulary after reading: Is It Worth the Effort? ELT Journal Volume, 64(3), 253-260.
Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative study. Functions of Language, 2(1), 23–55.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Van Roey, J. (1990). French-English contrastive lexicology: An introduction. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, X. (1993). English collocations and their effect on the writing of native and non-native college freshmen. Indiana: Indiana University of Pennsylvania. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 183 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 58 |
||