اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 19 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 380 |
| تعداد مقالات | 3,121 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 4,251,071 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,845,117 |
بررسی تفاوتهای فارسی گفتاری و نوشتاری فارسیآموزان خارجی برمبنای نظریه پردازش درونداد | ||
| پژوهش نامه آموزش زبان فارسی به غیر فارسی زبانان | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 12، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 25، فروردین 1402، صفحه 3-22 اصل مقاله (680.36 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jtpsol.2021.11860.1457 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| اعظم رستمی1؛ رضا مراد صحرایی* 2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی زبانان، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی(ره)، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2نویسندۀ مسئول، استاد گروه زبانشناسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی(ره)، تهران، ایران. | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 25 مهر 1398، تاریخ بازنگری: 03 دی 1399، تاریخ پذیرش: 20 تیر 1400 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| تمایز گفتار و نوشتار به عنوان دو گونه‌ی کاربردی زبان، حوزهای بحثبرانگیز در تحقیقات زبانشناسی نوین است. زبان فارسی از این منظر به دلیل اختلاف قابل توجه بین گونههای گفتاری و نوشتاری میتواند از پیچیدگیهای خاصی در امر آموزش، بهخصوص در ارتباط با غیرفارسیزبانها برخوردار باشد. از این رو، در این پژوهش برآنیم به بررسی میزان استفاده از صورتهای گفتاری در تولیدات فارسیآموزان خارجی بپردازیم و به دنبال آگاهی از این مطلب هستیم که زبانآموزان بدون دریافت آموزش مستقیم فارسیِ گفتاری و تنها با اتکا به محیط بومی که در آن قرار دارند تا چه اندازه میتوانند از صورتهای گفتاری به درستی در تولیدات خود استفاده کنند و آیا این تولیدات تابع الگوی خاصی هستند یا خیر. نمونههای این تحقیق از برون‌داد گفتاری و نوشتاری فارسیآموزان مؤسسه‌ی دهخدا در سطح میانی جمعآوری شده است. نتایج تحقیق بیانگر آن است که زبانآموزان با وجود این‌که در محیط آموزشی خود در مؤسسه‌ی دهخدا تنها به روش دانشگاهی و با تمرکز بر مهارتهای خواندن و دستور آموزش دیده بودند، بدون برخورداری از آموزش مستقیم فارسی گفتاری و تنها با اتکا به محیط زبان بومی که در آن حضور داشتهاند، توانستهاند به تولید فارسی گفتاری بپردازند. و دیگر این‌که صورتهای گفتاری درست بیشتر به حوزهی واژگان تعلق دارند تا دستور. شایان ذکر است که در تبیین دادههای این پژوهش از نظریه‌ی پردازش درونداد بهطور عام و اصل تقدم واژههای محتوایی بهطور خاص استفاده شده است. بررسی دادهها نمایانگر این مطلب است که مطابق این نظریه، تولیدات از الگوی خاصی پیروی میکنند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| فارسی گفتاری؛ فارسی نوشتاری؛ نظریه پردازش درونداد؛ واژههای محتوایی و واژههای دستوری | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Study of Difference Between Spoken and Written Forms of Persian Language According to Input Processing Theory ( The Case Study of Non Persian Speakers) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Azam Rostami1؛ Reza Morad Sahraee2 | ||
| 1Corresponding Author, PhD student of Teaching Persian to Non Persian speakers,Allameh Tabataba‘i University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2AssociateProfessor, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, AllamehTabataba‘i University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The distinction between speech and writing as two types of language skills is a controversial area in modern linguistic research. From this perspective, the Persian language, due to the considerable differences between the spoken and written forms, can be of particular complexity in education, especially in non-Persian speakers. Therefore, in this research we intend to study the use of speech forms in Persian productions of foreign learners. Besides we wanted to know to what extent language learners employ spoken words properly without providing them with direct Persian spoken instructions and relying solely on the native language environment and whether such utterances are subject to a particular pattern or not. Samples of this research were collected from intermediate level Persian students at Dehkhoda Institute. The results of this study indicate that language learners could produce spoken Persian variety without direct instruction of spoken forms by relying only on the native language environment. They were taught only academically and with a focus on reading skills and grammar at Dehkhoda institute; furthermore, spoken forms are used more accurately in vocabulary rather than in grammer. It is worth noting that in explaining the data of this study, the input processing theory in general and the principle of content word priority in particular have been used. Analysis of the data has shown that according to this theory, the utterances follow a certain pattern. Extended Abstract: The distinction between speech and writing as two types of language skills is a controversial area in modern linguistic research. From this perspective, the Persian language can be of particular complexity in education due to the considerable differences between the spoken and written forms, especially for non-Persian speakers. Therefore, in this research, we intend to study the use of speech forms in Persian productions of foreign learners. Besides, we wanted to know to what extent language learners employ spoken words properly without providing them with direct Persian spoken instructions and relying solely on the native language environment. Moreover, this research seeks to find out whether these products follow a particular pattern or not. In this study, the distinction between speech and writing was based on Safar Moghadam's research. Saffar Moghadam explores the place of speech jn language teaching and categorizes and explains the most commonly used phonological and syntactic differences between spoken and written Persian in terms of teaching Persian to non-Persian speakers. These differences are in 8 categories of verbs, direct object sign, personal and common pronouns, plural, deletion, motion verbs, vocabulary and special speech constructions. The purpose of this study is to investigate the spoken variations of the Persian language concerning its written form based on standardized and conversational speech types. It is worth noting that in explaining the data of this study, the input processing theory in general and the principle of content word priority, in particular, have been used. Input processing theory, or IP, represents the moment-to-moment model of sentence processing as it understands how to connect particular statements with specific meanings. Methodology In this research, content analysis (quantitative approach in this study) is a method that describes and analyzes the explicit content of information regularly. In this way, messages or information are regularly coded and classified so that the researcher can analyze them quantitatively. The statistical population of this study included 46 sheets of writing from 23 middle-level language learners from Dehkhoda Institute. In the first place, they were asked to write an essay in memory of their trip to Iran. After collecting the papers, they were asked to write the same memory in spoken language as they described it earlier. Writing an essay, first in written and then in spoken form, was supposed to make language learners aware of the difference between writing and speaking. It is worth mentioning that these language learners were not trained in the use of spoken Persian formally. After examining the students` written memories, spoken sentences were extracted and compared with the written forms. Among these sentences, 110 were selected out of the 23 language speech-production forms used for the study. The choice of these terms was based on the use of vocabulary and spoken constructs in general, without regard to any particular pattern. In the following, we analyzed the differences in spoken and written language of these learners based on Safar Moghaddam's article entitled "Speech and Writing Differences in Teaching Non-Persian Speaking Speech Language Skills." Finally, after extracting the results, the data were explained based on the theory of input processing. Results and Discussion The results of the present study are explained based on the first principle of this theory, namely the principle of content words. This principle implies that the second language learner processes and understands the content elements before the grammatical words. This study is descriptive and based on content analysis. According to this research, the highest frequency of employing correct speech was related to the lexicon and the least frequency of using correct speech was related to the plural form. It means the highest frequency of using the correct form of speech was related to vocabulary with 52 cases and the lowest amount of using the correct form was related to the plural form, which is used in only 6 cases out of 110 sentences. The amount of speech forms used in content words is more than the grammatical words. For example, the use of speech forms in "ra", pronoun, plural and deletion is 60 out of 193 cases. The amount of speech form usage in verbs, verbs of motion, vocabulary and special constructions, which are considered part of the content vocabulary, reaches 133 cases. Therefore, it can be concluded that probably without direct training, the amount of correct speech forms in vocabulary is more than grammatical forms. The main result is that the use of spoken words in content words is more than grammatical ones. The primacy of content forms over grammatical forms is one of the important tenets of input processing in the field of second language education, in which second language learners prefer the word to the non-word i.e. grammatical words. To conclude, the present study seeks to elucidate the educational aspects of this subject in a small sample by considering Persian language spoken form in Persian language utterances. In this respect, the results indicated that the correct spoken words were more reflected in the application of vocabulary rather than the grammatical ones. Investigating the results of this research within the context of input processing theory may suggest that direct training in this field can be focused on the vocabulary and grammatical forms used in speech for further development. In the end, it is also worth mentioning that although learners were only academically trained in their teaching environment with a focus on reading and grammar skills, the use of correct spoken forms in their language production was far greater than expected, this per se emphasizes the tremendous impact of the environment on education. However, the Persian courses along with the potential in the native language environment can broaden learners` speaking skills. Without a doubt, the existence of spoken Persian courses, despite the potential in the native language environment, can help to strengthen the speaking skills of language learners. Acknowledgement This paper and the research behind it would not have been possible without the exceptional support from the Dehkhoda International Center for Persian Studies. Conflict of Interest No conflicts of interest are reported by the author for this article. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| spoken Persian, written Persian, Input processing theory, content words, grammatical words | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
فهرست منابع:
آموزگاز، ژاله. (1386). زبان، فرهنگ، اسطوره. تهران، نشر معین.
باقری، مهری. (1386). مقدمات زبانشناسی، تهران: نشر قطره.
ثمره، یدالله. (1368). مجموعه‌ی آموزش زبان فارسی، تهران: وزارت فرهنگ و ارشاد اسلامی، اداره کل روابط و
همکاریهای بینالمللی.
جعفری، فاطمه. (1393). گفتار و نوشتار در آموزش زبان فارسی به عنوان زبان دوم. مجموعه مقالات نخستین
همایش آموزش زبان فارسی. تهران، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
جعفری، فاطمه. (1396). گفتگو برای زبانآموزان زبان فارسی به عنوان زبان دوم. تهران: دانشگاه امیرکبیر.
ذوالفقاری، حسن، غفاری، مهبد، بختیاری، بهروز. (1387). فارسی بیاموزیم. تهران: مدرسه.
رضایی، والی،. کوراوند، آمنه. (1393). ارزیابی دستور آموزشی در کتابهای آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسیزبانان. پژوهشنامه‌ی آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسیزبانان. دوره‌ی 3، شماره‌ی 3، صص: 117-141.
صفارمقدم، احمد. (1391). گونههای گفتاری و نوشتاری در زبانهای انگلیسی و فارسی، زبانشناخت، سال سوم،
شماره‌ی 2، صص: 45-68.
صفارمقدم، احمد. (1392). تفاوتهای گفتار و نوشتار در آموزش مهارت گفتاری زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌آموزان،
زبانشناخت، سال چهارم، شماره‌ی 2، صص: 115-140.
صحرایی، رضا مراد. (1394). جایگاه دستور در نظریهها و برنامههای زبان ِدوم‌آموزی؛ در جستجوی طرحی برای آموزش دستورِ زبان فارسی، فصلنامه‌ی روانشناسی تربیتی، سال یازدهم، شماره‌ی 35، صص: 1-23.
صحرایی، رضا مراد، غریبی، افسانه و ملکلو، داود، صادقی، سمانه، شهباز، منیره، سلطانی، مریم. (1397). مجموعه‌ی مینا، تهران: انتشارات بنیاد سعدی.
صحرایی، رضا مراد، احمدی، شهناز و مرصوص، فائزه، بنفشه، لیلا. (1397). آموزش کاربردی واژه، تهران: انتشارات بنیاد سعدی.
کلباسی، ایران. (1380). فارسی گفتاری و نوشتاری، فرهنگ زبانشناسی، تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات
فرهنگی.
مدرسی، یحیی. (1380). فارسی در گفتار، تهران: شورای گسترش زبان و ادبیات فارسی.
وحیدیان کامیار، تقی. (1384). دستور زبان فارسی گفتاری، تهران: نشر المهدی.
References:
Alhusban, M. A. (2016). The Impact of Modern Technological Tools on Students
Writing Skills in English as a Second Language: US-China Education Review A, July 2016, Vol. 6, No. 7, 438-443.
Alsaawi, A.(2019). Spoken and Written Language as Medium of Communication:
ASelfreflection, International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature,
8(2):194-198.
Amozegar, J. (2009). Language, Culture, Myth . Tehran: Moein Publishing. [In Persian]
Bagheri, M. (2015). Preparations for Linguistics, Tehran: Ghatre Publishing. [In Persian]
Barcroft, J. (2004). Second language vocabulary acquisition: A lexical Input
Processing approach. Foreign Language Annals.VOL, 37, NO.2.
Haliday, M.A.K. (1989). Spoken and Written Languages. Oxford University Press,
USA.
Han, Z. H. & Peverly, S. (2007). Input Processing: A study of "Ab Initio" learners with multilingual backgrounds. International Journal of Multilingualism.DOI: 10.2167
Jafari, F. (2015). Speech and writing in teaching Persian as a second language. Proceeding of The First International Conference of Teaching Persian. Tehran: TarbiatModares University. [In Persian]Jafari, F. (2018).Conversation for learners of Persian as second language. Tehran:Amir Kabir University Publishing. [In Persian]Krashen, S. (1982).Principles and practice in second language acquisition. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kalbassi, I. (2001). Colloquial and written Persian. Dictionary of Linguistics, Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. [InPersian]
Modarrisi, Y. (2001). Persian in colloquial language. Tehran: Persian Language and Literature Development Council. [In Persian]
Redeker, G. (1984). On differences between spoken and written language. Discourse Processes, 7:1, 43-55
Rezei, V. & Kuravand, A. (2015). Evaluating the pedagogical Grammar in Teaching
Persian Language Course books. JTPSOL, 3(8), 117-141. [In Persian]
SaffarMogghadam, A. (2013).Spoken and written varients in teaching Persian language to non Persian speakers. Zabanshnakht, 3(6), 45-68. [In Persian]
SaffarMogghadam, A. (2014). Differences between spoken and written Persianin teaching speaking to non Persian speakers. Zabanshnakht. 4(8), 115-140. [In Persian]
Sahraei, R., Malek Lo, D., Shahbaz, M., & Soltani, M. (2019). MINA collections,
Tehran: Saadi Foundation Publishing. [In Persian]
Sahraei, R., Ahmadi, Sh., Marsos, F.,& Banafshe, L. (2019). Applied Methods of Vocabulary Teaching.Tehran:Saadi Foundation Publishing. [In Persian]
Samareh, Y. (1988). Persian Language Teaching, Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. Tehran: International Academic Collaboration Office. [In Persian]
VanPatten, B. &Cadierno, T. (1993). Input Processing and Second Language Acquisition: A Role For Instruction. The Modern Language Journal. 77.1: 45-57
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition. Ablex Publishing Corporation Norwood, NEW Jersay.
VanPatten, B. (2007). Input Processing in Adult Second Languages Acquisition. Theories In Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (p 115-135). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates publishers.
VanPatten, B.&Willoams, J. (2015). Theories In Second LanguageAcquisition, NewYork: Routledge.
Vahidian, Kamyar, T. (2005). Colloquial Persian Grammar.Tehran: AL Mahdi. [In
Persian]
Zolfaghari, H., Ghafari, M., Bakhtiary, Behrooz. (2008). Let' s Learn Persian. Tehran: Madreseh.[In Persian] | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 647 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 516 |
||