آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 5 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 108 |
| تعداد مقالات | 1,228 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 1,147,675 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 1,007,054 |
Investigating the Effects of Syntactic and Semantic Awareness in the Sentence Comprehension of EFL Learners | ||
| Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances | ||
| مقاله 7، دوره 12، شماره 1، تیر 2024، صفحه 107-128 اصل مقاله (856.08 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22049/jalda.2024.28603.1543 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Mohammad Reza Khaksar1؛ Mohammad Saber Khaghaninejad* 2 | ||
| 1MA in ELT, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran | ||
| 2Associate Professor of TEFL, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| This study investigated how English semantic and syntactic awareness contribute to the sentence comprehension of beginner, intermediate, and advanced EFL learners. Consequently, 188 Iranian EFL learners were recruited for the study and, pertinent to their English proficiency levels, were divided into three groups. To elucidate the possible contribution of semantic and syntactic awareness for comprehending English sentences, five sets of sentences were constructed controlling the frequency, length and difficulty of their comprising words: 20 syntactically correct / semantically incorrect, 20 syntactically incorrect / semantically correct, 20 syntactically / semantically incorrect, 20 syntactically / semantically correct, and finally 20 Garden-Path sentences (which are both semantically and syntactically correct but difficult to comprehend by the first attempt). With the aid of a software application (Com-Chron) designed specifically for this study on the UX platform, the participants’ comprehension was checked both in terms of their success-rate and their reaction-time. Through a multiple-choice online task, the participants were asked to select the option which showed the correct understanding of the constructed sentence in 30 seconds. Statistical analyses revealed that semantically-incorrect sentences were the most challenging and syntactically-incorrect sentences were the least demanding for the participants of three proficiency levels. The findings affirmed the dominance of semantics over syntax when it came to the comprehension abilities of EFL learners across different English proficiency levels. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| English sentence comprehension؛ semantic awareness؛ syntactic awareness؛ Garden-path sentences | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Afhami, M., & Khaghaninejad, M. S. (2022). Investigating the Effects of Different Explicit Syntactic Marker Types on Sentence Comprehension of EFL Learners: Do Age and Proficiency Level Matter? Journal of Teaching Language Skills 41(3), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.22099/tesl.2022.43083.3098
Artetxe, M., & Schwenk, H. (2019). Massively multilingual sentence embeddings for zero- shot cross-lingual transfer and beyond. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7, 597–610. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacla00288
Barahuee, G., Khaghaninejad, M., & Moloodi, A. (2020). An Investigation into the Effective Factors in Comprehending English Garden-Path Sentences by EFL Learners. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 38 (1), 79-119. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2020.34657.2731
Briscoe, T. (2020). Introduction to Linguistics for Natural Language Processing. Cambridge University Press.
Brimo, D., Apel, K., & Fountain, T. (2017). Examining the contributions of syntactic awareness and syntactic knowledge to reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12050
Chwilla, D. J. (2022). Context effects in language comprehension: The role of emotional state and attention on semantic and syntactic processing. Frontiers of human neuroscience, 10(1), 234-256. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36504628
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060024
Demberg, V., & Keller, F. (2019). Cognitive Models of Syntax and Sentence Processing. Edinburgh University Press.
Deniz, F., Tseng, C., Wehbe, L., Dupré la Tour, T., & Gallant, J. L. (2023). Semantic Representations during Language Comprehension Are Affected by Context. Journal of Neuroscience, 43(1), 3144-3158. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2459-21.2023
Drury, J. E., Baum, S. R., Valeriote, H., & Steinhauer, K. (2016). Punctuation and implicit prosody in silent reading: an ERP study investigating English garden-path sentences. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 13-45. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01375
Fodor J. A., Bever T., G., & Garrett, M. (1974). The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar. McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100008124
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance 12: The Psychology of Reading (p. 559–586). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315630427
Friederici, A. D., & Hahne, A. (2001). Development patterns of brain activity: Reflecting semantic and syntactic processes. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 24, 231-246. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.24.11fri
Friederici, A. D., & Kotz, S. A. (2003). The brain basis of syntactic process: Functional imaging and lesion studies. NeuroImage, 20, 8-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.003
Hagoort, P. (2003). Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(6), 883-899. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903322370807
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22(3), 369-397. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr272oa
Hopp, H. (2016). The timing of lexical and syntactic processes in second language sentence comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(5), 1253-1280. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716415000569
Huang, J., Huang, K., & Chang, K. (2021). Disentangling Semantics and Syntax in Sentence Embeddings with Pre-trained Language Models. Computation and language, 13(3), 342-365. https://doi.org/1048550/arXiv.2104.05115
Juffs, A. (1998). Some effects of first language argument structure and morphosyntax on second language sentence processing. Second Language Research, 14(4), 406-424. https://doi.org/10.1191/026765898668800317
Keenan, J. M., & Betjemann, R. S. (2008). Comprehension of single words: The role of semantics in word identification and reading disability. In E. L. Grigorenko & A. J. Naples (Eds.), Single-word reading: Behavioral and biological perspectives (pp. 191–209). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Khaghaninezhad, M. S., & Kaashef, F. (2014). Applying cooperative language learning techniques in Iranian ELT context. International journal of Language Learning and applied Linguistics world, 5(3), 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2020.1868223
Khaghaninejad M., Azarian, M., & Javanmardi, F. (2022). A Corpus-Based Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of Objectivity Manifestations in Academic Texts. Journal of Applied linguistics and applied literature: Dynamics and Advances, 10(1), 119-140. https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2022.27325.1333
Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 205-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002
Kim, A., & Sikos, L. (2011). Conflict and surrender during sentence processing: An ERP study of syntax-semantics interaction. Brain and Language, 118(1-2), 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.03.002
Khodadady, E., Khaghaninezhad, M. S., Alavi, M., & Pishghadam, R. (2012). Teaching English in academic context: Schema-based or translation-based approach? International Journal of Linguistics, 4(1), 56-89. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i1.1213
Kumar, A., Kabir, A., Vadapalli, R., & Talukdar, P. (2020). Syntax-guided controlled generation of paraphrases. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8(2), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacla00318
Massol, S., Mirault, J., & Grainger, J. (2021). The contribution of semantics to the sentence superiority effect. Scientific Reports, 11, 201-248. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99565-6
Matar, S., Dirani, J., Marantz, A., & Pylkkänen, L. (2021). Left posterior temporal cortex is sensitive to syntax within conceptually matched Arabic expressions. Scientific Reports, 11, 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86474-x
Miller, A. K. (2014). Accessing and maintaining referents in L2 processing of wh-dependencies. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(2), 167-191. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.2.02mil
Morgan, E. U., Van der Meer, A., & Vulchanova, M. (2020). Meaning before grammar: A review of ERP experiments on the neuro-developmental origins of semantic processing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 27, 441–464. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01677-8
Müller, O., & Hagoort, P. (2006). Access to lexical information in language comprehension: Semantics before syntax. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(1), 84-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/089892906775249997
Omaki, A., & Lidz, J. (2015). Linking parser development to acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Language Acquisition, 22(2), 158-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2014.943903
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading skills. Psychiatry, 50, 1125-1129. https://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/perfettilab/pubpdfs/Reading%20skills.pdf
Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. (2016). Second language processing and revision of garden-path sentences: a visual word study. Bilingualism, 19(3), 636. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000838
Prystauka, Y., & Lewis, A. G. (2019). The power of neural oscillations to inform sentence comprehension: A linguistic perspective. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(9), 123-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12347
Robertson, E. K., & Gallant, J. E. (2019). Eye tracking reveals subtle spoken sentence comprehension problems in children with dyslexia. Lingua, 228(1), 1-17. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.06.009
Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2016). Cognitive psychology. Nelson Education.
Tamimy, M., Setayesh, L., & Khaghaninejad M. S. (2022). Collectivism and individualism in US culture: An analysis of attitudes to group work. Training, language and culture, 6(2), 20-34. https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442X-2022-6-2-20-34
Tan, Y., Martin, R. C., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2017). Semantic and Syntactic Interference in Sentence Comprehension: A Comparison of Working Memory Models. Frontiers of Psychology, 8(3), 198-230. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00198
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5), 1632-1634. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7777863
Traxler, M. J. (2014). Trends in syntactic parsing: Anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good enough parsing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(11), 605-611. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.tics.2014.08.001
Van Gompel, R. P., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Jacob, G. (2006). The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 335-362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004
Warren, P. (2013). Introducing psycholinguistics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978531
Washington, P., & Wiley, R. (2023). The contributions of proficiency and semantics to the bilingual sentence superiority effect. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 26(3), 516-526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728922000748
Ye, Z., Luo, Y. J., Friederici, A. D., & Zhou, X. (2006). Semantic and syntactic processing in Chinese sentence comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Research, 71(1), 186-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.11.085 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 194 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 207 |
||