اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 360 |
| تعداد مقالات | 2,962 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 3,779,808 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,554,015 |
بررسی ابزارهای انسجامی در نوشتار فارسی‌آموزان سطح پیشرفته (مقاله علمی- پژوهشی) | ||
| پژوهش نامه آموزش زبان فارسی به غیر فارسی زبانان | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 10، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 22، مهر 1400، صفحه 53-81 اصل مقاله (1.24 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jtpsol.2020.13069.1480 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| زهرا علیزاده معمار1؛ عطیه کامیابی گل* 2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری زبان‌شناسی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد | ||
| 2نویسنده ی مسئول، استادیار گروه زبان و ادبیات فارسی و گروه زبان‌شناسی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 23 فروردین 1399، تاریخ بازنگری: 10 تیر 1399، تاریخ پذیرش: 03 مرداد 1399 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| ابزارهای انسجامی در تولید متنی سلیس و یکپارچه نقش مهمی را ایفا می‌کنند. طبق نظریه‌ی هلیدی و متیسن (2014) که رویکرد اتخاذ شده در این پژوهش است، ابزارهای انسجامی به دو دسته‌ی دستوری و واژگانی به ترتیب شامل ( حروف ربط، ارجاع، جانشینی و حذف ) و ( تکرار، ترادف، تضاد، شمول، جزءواژگی، با‌هم‌آیی) تقسیم می‌شوند. هدف از تحقیق حاضر، بررسی عملکرد فارسی‌آموزان در چگونگی کاربرد ابزارهای انسجامی در نوشتار و مقایسه‌ی دو مرکز آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد و جامعه‌المصطفی‌العالمیه در مشهد است. جامعه‌ی آماری این پژوهش متشکل از 200 نمونه نگارش فارسی‌آموزان در سطح پیشرفته است که از هر یک از مراکز به صورت تصادفی با در نظرگرفتن متغیر جنسیت انتخاب شدند. به منظور بررسی معنادار بودن تفاوت متغیرهای مورد بررسی از نرم‌افزار اس‌پی‌اس‌اس و آزمون تی مستقل استفاده شد. نتایج تحقیق نشان داد در هر دو مرکز میانگین کاربرد تکرار و ارجاع که به ترتیب از نوع واژگانی و دستوری هستند از سایر ابزارهای انسجامی بیشتر است و میانگین کاربرد شمول و جزءواژگی نیز در هر دو مرکز کم است. حذف و جانشینی نیز از کم‌کاربردترین ابزارهای انسجام دستوری هستند. همچنین، تفاوت معناداری در عملکرد فارسی‌آموزان دو مرکز در کاربرد برخی از ابزارهای انسجامی (حذف و جانشینی، ارجاع، جزءواژگی، شمول، ترادف) مشاهده شد. علاوه بر این، مشخص شد جنسیت در چگونگی به‌کارگیری ابزارهای انسجامی تفاوت معناداری ایجاد می‌کند. بدین معنا که کاربرد برخی از ابزارها انسجامی توسط خانم‌ها بیشتر از جنس مخالف است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| "ابزارهای انسجامی"؛ "آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان"؛ "نوشتار"؛ "تکرار و ارجاع"؛ "حذف و جانشینی" | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| A Study on Cohesive Devices in the Writing Samples of Advanced Persian Learners | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| zahra Alizadeh Memar1؛ Atiyeh Kamyabi Gol2 | ||
| 1PhD student in Genaral Linguistics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran | ||
| 2Corresponding author, Assistant professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature and Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Cohesive devices play an integral role in creating fluent and integrated texts. According to a recent approach presented by Halliday and Matthiessen, systematic functional grammar, which was adopted in this study, divides cohesive devices into two categories, namely, grammatical and lexical. The purpose of the present study was to compare the use of cohesive devices in the advanced level learners’ writing samples at two teaching Persian centers in Mashhad, including teaching Persian to non-Persian learners at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad and Al-Mustafa Al-Alamieh. Overall, 200 writing samples were collected and analyzed. All advanced level learners in both centers participated in this study. Learner's gender was also taken into account. In order to analyze the significant difference between variables, the collected data were entered into the SPSS software (Version 23) and T-test was applied. The results of the study revealed that, the average use of repetition and reference that are related to lexical and grammatical categories were used more than the other cohesive devices in both institutes. The average use of hyponymy and metonym was low. Of all types of grammatical devices, reference was the most frequent and the least frequent were ellipsis and substitution; In addition, it was observed that there was a significant difference between performance of Persian learners in applying of some cohesive devices such as substitution and ellipsis, reference, metonym, hyponymy, and synonym; also there was a significant difference between male and female participants; in other words, females applied cohesive devices more frequently than their male counterparts. Extended Abstract: Cohesive devices play an integral role in creating fluent and integrated texts. Texts can be presented in both spoken and written forms. A text is defined as any kind of language presented in any medium that might be meaningful for those who are familiar with that specific language (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, P. 3). According to Halliday and Matthiessen, (2014) systematic functional grammar focused most on text and clause which were analyzed as the main elements present in a text. Clause is defined as a unit where different kinds of meaning such as experimental, interpersonal and textual are unified into a singlesyntagm (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p. 74). Most elements of a clause structure serve more than one function in the clause and this is what Halliday and Matthiessen (2014) have called metafunction. In cohesive systems, there are different types of devices which make it possible for the existing constituents in the text to inter-connect with various parts of the clause in any distance from each other. Cohesive system is built around two categories: namely, 1. grammatical devices including conjunctions, reference and ellipsis, and 2. lexical devices including repetition, synonymy, antonym, hyponymy, meronym, and collocation. In any type of text, opinions and ideas should be organized and presented in a cohesive fashion in order to be comprehended better by the audience. So, cohesive devices are inevitable elements in texts which assist readers to understand a text. These devices are applied in different language learning skills and writing is one of those skills which creates great obstacles for language learners; if learners do not have enough information regarding how to use them, they will face many problems in conveying their ideas and thoughts. Although numerous researches have been conducted on cohesive devices in different fields of study and on different genres of writing; however, to the best of the authors of the present article, no research has been done on comparing the use of cohesive devices by non-native Persian learners studying at teaching Persian to non-Persian learners’ centers in Mashhad. By shedding light on this matter, the authors hope to create awareness raising regarding the correct usage of cohesive devices and promote the overall quality of writing among Persian learners in Mashhad. All in all, the purpose established for the present study was twofold: 1. Toanalyze pieces of writings written by advanced level Persian language learners in order to see how they apply cohesive devices (both grammatical and lexical) in their writings, and 2. To compare the two major teaching Persian language to non-native Persian learners’ centers in Mashhad. To do so, Halliday and Matthiessen’s (2014) systematic functional approach was applied for analyzing the data and the analysis of cohesive devices was done according to logical function. The study samples in the present study included 200 pieces of writings written by advanced level Persian learners who were graduating from Ferdowsi University of Mashhad’s teaching Persian language to non-native Persian learners’ center and Al-Mustafa Al-Alamieh’s teaching Persian language to non-native Persian learners’ center. These are the two main Teaching Persian centers in the city of Mashhad. These participants took part in a final exam in order to graduate. The final exam followed the main structure of the TOEFL exam. The advanced level learners were selected so as to make sure the learners were familiar enough with cohesive devices, text organization and presentation of ideas in texts. 100 writing samples were gathered from each institute (overall total of 200 writings). The study sample included all advanced level learners in both centers and so the study sample equaled the statistical population. Also, gender was the only variable that was taken into account. In other words, 50 samples were written by males and 50 written by females in each institute. The data was gathered in December 2019 and word limitation was also considered in data selection. Each text included 150 to 250 words which was the general requirement of the final exam. During data collection, the participants were asked to explain and elaborate on a topic of the same genre in both institutes. The data was collected, coded and then analyzed through the Statistical Package for social Sciences (SPSS) software (version 23). A T-test (unpaired sample) was used to check the differences between dependent and independent variables. The collected data was analyzed twice in a month to check intra-rater reliability which was checked though the use of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The test results showed acceptable intra-rater reliability. Based on the results, learners in both institutes followed the same pattern in application of cohesive devices. Namely, repetition was found to be the most frequent kind of lexical devices and hyponym and meronym were the least used ones. Of all types of grammatical devices, reference was the most frequent and the least frequent ones were ellipsis and substitution; in addition, T-test results showed that there was a significant difference in applying cohesive devices between the writing samples in the two Persian language teaching centers (ellipsis and substitution, reference, hyponymy, meronym and synonym). The results revealed that although learners were at the same level they did not possess the same level of mastery over lexical and grammatical categories. The advanced level Persian learners at Al-Mustafa outperformed their counterparts at the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad’s teaching Persian to non-Persian center. Finally, the results of the present study revealed that there was a significant difference between gender and application of some cohesive devices such as antonym, reference, and conjunction; in other words, female Persian learners used cohesive devices more than their male counterparts. It is suggested that the non-Persian learners' teaching materials encompass a specific section regarding the importance of cohesive devices and their correct application in Persian. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| "cohesive devices", " teaching Persian to non-Persians", "writing", "repetition and reference", "ellipsis and substitution" | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
امین، سهیلا. (1386). بررسی نگارش دانش‌آموزان دختر و پسر در مقطع دوم راهنمایی در منطقه‌ی یک تهران در واحد یادگیری نگارش (پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد). دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران. آقائی، خدیجه و رجبی، مجتبی. (1398). بررسی ابزارهای انسجام متن‌های خوانداری و گفتاری «فارسی بیاموزیم» بر پایه‌ی انگاره‌ی هلیدی و حسن. پژوهش‌نامه‌ی آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان، 8، 1 (17)، صص: 182-157. حامدی شیروان، زهرا و عباس‌نژاد، حمیده. (1395). بررسی تطبیقی کاربرد ابزارهای انسجام متن در نوشته‌های فارسی‌آموزان غیرفارسی‌زبان. زبان‌کاوی، 2 (3)، صص: 62-37. حامدی شیروان، زهرا و میرشاهی، مهشید. (1395). بررسی و مقایسه‌ی کاربرد ابزارهای انسجام متن در کتاب‌های سطح پیشرفته از چهار مجموعه کتاب آموزش زبان فارسی، مهین‌ناز میردهقان، مجموعه مقالات همایش ملی واکاوی منابع آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان (صص:537-516). تهران: خاموش داوردی‌اردکانی، نگار و آقاابراهیمی، هاجر. (1391). ارزیابی اصالت متون سه کتاب آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان از دیدگاه انسجام. پژوهش‌نامه‌ی آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان، 1، 1 (1)، صص: 168-151.
References: Abdul Rahman, Z. A. A. (2013). The use of cohesive devices in descriptive writing by Omani student-teachers. SAGE, 13 (4), 1-10.
Aghaei, K. & Rajabi, M. (2019). Exploring the cohesive devices in written and spoken texts of “Let׳s Learn Persian״ based on Halliday and Hassan's (1976) model. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of other Languages, 8, 1 (17). [In Persian]
Amin, S. (2007). Comparative investigation of the writing styles of girls and boys students at the 2nd Level of guidance school in the region one of education in Tehran in the course of learning composition (Master׳s thesis). Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]
Cho, H. Y. & Shin, J. A. (2014). Cohesive devices in English writing textbooks and Korean learners’ English writings. English Teaching, 6 (1), 41-59.
Davari Ardekani, N., & Aghaebrahimi, H. (2012). The authenticity of three PFL textbooks from the cohesion viewpoint. Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of other Languages, 1, 1 (1), 151-168. [In Persian]
Dornyei, Z. (2011). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fitriati, S. W. & Yonata, F. (2017). Examining text coherence in graduate students of English argumentative writing: case study. Arab World English Journals (AWEJ), 8 (3),1-14.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introductionto functional grammar (4thedition). London & New York: Routledge.
Hamedishirvan, Z. & Abbasnejad, H. (2016). A comparative analysis of cohesive devices in non-Persian learners' writing. Language Analysis, 2 (3), 37-62. [In Persian]
Hamedishirvan, Z. & Mirshahi, M. (2016). Investigating and comparing of cohesive devices in four series of teaching Persian language textbooks at advanced level. Mirdehghan, M, First National Conference on Investigating TPSOL Textbooks (pp. 516-537). Tehran: Khamoosh. [In Persian]
Holmes, J. (2008). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.
Ikard, R. H. (2009). Cohesive adequacy in the narrative samples of school-age children who use African American English. Language and Hearing services in Schools, 40, 393- 402.
Jisa, H. (2000). Increasing cohesion in narratives: A developmental study of maintaining and reintroducing subjects in French. Linguistics, 38(3), 591-620.
Johnson, P. (1992). Cohesive and coherence in composition in Malay and English. RELC Journal, 23(2), 1-17.
Kai, J. (2008). Lexical cohesion patterns in NS & NNS dissertation abstract in applied linguistics: A comparative study. Linguistics Journal, 3, 132-144.
Meisuo, Z. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal,31 (1), 61-95.
Nippold, M. A., Schwarz, I. E., & Undlin, R. A. (1992). Use and understanding of adverbial conjuncts: A developmental study of adolescents and young adults. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 35 (1), 108-118.
Rutter, P. & Raban, B. (1982). The development of cohesion in children's writing: A preliminary investigation. First Language, 3 (7), 63-75.
Webb, N. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Haertel, E. H. (2006). Reliability coefficients and generalizability theory. Handbook of Statistics, 26, 4–42.
Xuefan, C. (2007). Lexical cohesion in Chinese college EFL writing. CELEA Journal, 30 (5), 46-57.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 551 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 564 |
||