CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In conclusion, the revision was replicated for the first study of Ahlem’s and etc. “Awareness of L1/L2 differences: does it matter?” The aim of this study was examine to examine students of Russian origin and find out how meta-language ability will affect forming past perfect sentences in English. It can be said that the students who have English as a foreign language have to face a number of problems when they have to study in the classrooms.

Thus, to university level student who has a fairly advanced meta-linguistic competence; although it does not own meta-language to adequately describe their observations on the speech. The study of verbal productions can highlight two main sets of results.

Respondents’ ability to review their answers as to the choice between two statements (Appendix 1) is related to the mental representation associated with understanding past perfect tense in their L1. There is hypothesis saying that children more frequently provide a comment on their responses when they are expected to choose according to our initial hypothesis of a mental organization of linguistic terms considered linear. Moreover, the linguistic productions of children differ from young and adult learners of L2. So it can be said that if this study was conducted among children the results would be different.

Finally, this study shows the existence of relations between the developments of meta-linguistic skills and developing understanding of statements moralized including "duty" and "power". In the same spirit, we can mention some research that suggests the existence of a relationship between meta-linguistic skills and mastery of the subjects understanding of mental states such as "not knowing" or "assume anything". A clear example of this could be seen in Ahlem’s and etc. study, despite the teachers' trials on education, to teach them Russain-speaking ESL students showed more limitations in their ability to judge correctly and to build English past perfect tense, at least in part because the implicit rules from them Russian language, which they brought with them the first in their language. This pattern of results is what led Spada, Lightbown, and White (2005) explicitly study the effect of contrast Ll/L2 information about the development of educational inquiry with Russian speaking learners of English. Their results do not provide clear support for the benefits L1/L2. On the other hand, this was perhaps because sufficiently comparative study was not presented. Information proposals have been made to improve the pressure in order to distinguish and form correct past perfect sentences in English without any explanation L1/L2. During this research study, it appears that it will be important for Russian students that information about forming past perfect tenses in English can best be explicitly provided.

All these results suggest that meta-linguistic activity is considered as a subject's activity in connection with its general trend, particularly as to the progressive control of different aspects of language. Access to the requested meta-linguistic reflection here in terms of modal understanding can be seen as constituting a basis for a more controlled, on the pragmatic aspects of communication. This opens opportunities for research on the process used in the control and awareness of the pragmatic dimension of language. This is considered a social act in which the interactants construct (or co-build) a mental representation of the communication situation in which they are involved.

If students benefit from the lessons of the teacher is available, it may mean that a refusal could provide meta-linguistic explanations in English and knowledge of the students lack of rules associated with L1. The absence of explicit knowledge Ll rule could have been prevented; participants identify the differences between the two systems of language. The participants who had participated in this research, in accordance with their rules of L1 (Russian) behaviour are not necessarily consciously. Such a possibility is not excluded because the participants were not directly asked for the pattern and convention on the issue of forming past perfect tense in their own language. Thus, incomplete knowledge of the issue of forming the edge of the rules from their mother tongue and their second language may cause the apparent inability of the international rules of language to explain their use and evaluation dominated by forming tenses in English. On the one hand, from the findings which are statistically significant the hypothesis of this study is supported and we can say that those two domains of meta-linguistic knowledge and grammar performance are closely related. On the other hand, the weakness of this project is that it was limited with time and word conditions. Moreover, because of limited materials were taken to achieve the main aim of the study, the arguments might not be convincing enough. Consequently, this research can be improved by making more careful and progressive further investigation by examining the students to control their own rules in Ll (Russian), to analyse their awareness of the differences between Russian and English tense formation.

Recommendations

· Meta-linguistics capabilities should be developed in Russian students during their childhood, it should be include in their schooling curriculum.

· Proper framework should be developed in order to get proper understanding of the grammatical structure of English by the Russian students.

· As per the research, it is clear that the Russian respondents do have a significant problem in forming the past perfect tense in English so assessment test should be conducted every week in order to decrease in grammatical deficiencies among the Russian students and tell them about the mistakes and corrective measures to overcome their weakness.

REFERENCES

Ahlem Ammar, Patsy M. Lightbownb and Nina Spada. (2010). Awareness of L1/L2 differences: does it matter?. Language awareness.

Alderson, K and Banerjee , D (2002) “The influence of native language on Learning” p.80-111.

Bengtsson, M. (1980). Linguistic awareness when learning a second/foreign language. Rassegna Italiana Linguistica Applicata, 3,325-344.

Bialystok, E. (1982). On the relationship between knowing and using meta-linguistic forms. Applied Linguistics, 3, 181-206.

Bialystok, E. (1988). Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness. Developmental Pshchology 24, 560-567.

Bialystok, E., & Ryan, E.B. (1985). A meta-cognitive framework for the development offirst and second language skills. In D.L. Forrest-Pressley, G.E. Mackinnon, & T.G. Waller (Eds.), Meta-cognition, cognition, and human performance: Vol. 1. Theoretical perspectives (pp. 207-252). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Cambridge University Press.

Coady, J. (1979), “A psycho linguistic model of the ESL reader,” In R. Mackay, B. Barkman, & R. R. Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a second language, Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publisher, pp. 5- 45 Cognition, 1, 137-164.

Creswell J. W. (2009) “Research Design”: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp: 81-120

Cromdal, I (1999). Childhood bilingualism and meta-linguistic skills: Analysis and control in young Swedish-English bilinguals. Applied Psycho linguistics, 20, 1-20.

Davis, J. (2008). Mother tongue: How humans create language. Secaucus, NJ: Carol.

DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & I Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 42-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C.I Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-348). Oxford: Blackwell.

DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl. 1), 1-25.

Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 1-32). London: Academic Press.

Ellis, N.C. (1994). Implicit and explicit processes in language acquisition: An introduction. In N.

Ellis, R. (1991). Grammar teaching-practice or consciousness-raising. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Second language acquisition and second language pedagogy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Gaux, C., & Gombert, IE. (1999). Implicit and explicit syntactic knowledge and reading in pre­adolescents. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 169-188.

Gleitman, L., Gleitman, H., & Shipley, E. (1972). The emergence of the child as a grammarian.

Green, P.S., & Hecht, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13, 168-184.

Han, Y., & Ellis, R. (1998). Implicit, explicit knowledge and general language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 1, 1-23.

Han, Z.-H., & Selinker, L. (1999). Error resistance: Towards an empirical pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 3,249-275.

Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty, & I Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156-174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hawkins, E. (1984). Awareness of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hu, G. (1999). Explicit meta-linguistic knowledge at work: The case of spontaneous written produc­tion by formal adult Chinese learners of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Hu, G. (2002). Psychological constraints on the utility of meta-linguistic knowledge in second language procuction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 347-386.

Hulstijn, 1.H., & Hultstijn, W (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23-43.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principle and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 45-77). London: Academic Press.

Kupferberg, 1. (1999). The cognitive turn of contrastive analysis: Empirical evidence, Language Awareness, 8,210-222.

Kupferberg, 1., & Olshtain, E. (1996). Explicit contrastive instruction facilitates the acquisition of difficult L2 forms. Language Awareness, 3-4, 149-165.

Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.

Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (2000). Do they know what they're doing? L2 learners' awareness of Ll influence. Language Awareness, 4, 198-217.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research in second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.

Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge:

Odlin, T., & Jarvis, S. (2004). Same source, different outcomes: A study of Swedish influence on the acquisition of English in Finland. The International Journal of Multilingualism, 1, 123-140.

Picard, M. (2002). L1 interference in second language acquisition: The case of question formation in Canadian French. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 61-68.

Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10,217-243.

SchachterJ. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 2,205-214.

Seliger, H.W (1979). On the nature and function of language rules in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 13,359-369.

Sheen, R. (1996). The advantage of exploiting contrastive analysis in teaching and learning a foreign language. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 183-197.

Sheen, R. (2005). Focus on forms as a means of improving accurate oral production. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp.271-310). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10,361-392.

Sorace, A. (1985). Meta-linguistic knowledge and language use in acquisition-poor environments. Applied Linguistics, 6, 239-254.

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P.M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 1-22.

Spada, N., Lightbown, P.M., & White, 1. (2005). The importance offormlmeaning mappings inexplicit form-focused instruction. InA. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 199-234). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

White, 1. (1998). Getting the learners' attention: A typographical enhancement study. In C. Doughty & 1. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA (pp. 85-113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

White, 1., & Ranta, L. (2002). Examining the interface between meta-linguistic performance and oral production in a second language. Language Awareness, 11, 259-290.

White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 2, 133-161.

White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P.M., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416-432.

Zobl, H. (1980). The formal and developmental selectivity of L1 influence on L2 acquisition. Language Learning, 30,43-57.

Zobl, H. (1985). Grammars in search of input and intake. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 329-344). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1

The grammaticality judgment task

Correct or incorrect?

Each item below shows two statements. Tick (√) the correct statement

Example: (A) John is late to school (B) John had been late to school.

(1) Option A is correct only.

(2) Option B is correct only.

(3) Both Options are correct.

(4) Both Options are incorrect.

(5) I don’t know.

1. (A) I had written the letter before you came home

(B) I had been writing a letter before you came home

2. (A) If she had been studied hard, she would have passed the English language exam.

(B) If she were working hard, she would pass the English language exam.

3. (A) Mary looked as if she had not slept for 48 hours .

(B) Mary looked as she had been awaked for 48 hours.

4. (A) I had never seen such a beautiful beach before I went to Kauai.

(B) I never saw such a beautiful beach before I went to Kauai.

5. (A) I did not have any money because I had lost my wallet.

(B) I did not have money, because I lost my wallet.

6. (A) She only understood the movie because she had read the book

(B) She understood the movie, because she has been reading the book

7. (A) Kristine had never been to an opera before last night.

(B) Kristine has never gone to an opera before last night.

8. (A) We were not able to get a hotel room because we had not booked in advance.

(B) We were not able to get a hotel room because we were unable to book in advance.

9. (A) We had had that car for ten years before it broke down.

(B) The car was with us for 10 years before it broke down.

10. (A) She had never seen a bear before she moved to Alaska.

(B) She never saw a bear before she moved to Alaska.

11. (A) What do the children wants to play?

(B) What play the children do want?

12. (A) He had finished his homework by 5 o’clock

(B) He finished his homework by 5 o’clock

13. (A) They had shipped the goods when the telegram arrived.

(B) They did shipped the goods when the telegram arrived.

14. (A) Anna has graduated in 2001.

(B) Anna had graduated in 2001.

15. (A) I had a dinner one hour ago.

(B) I dinnered one hour ago.

Appendix 2

Items on cards for the scrambled questions task:

1. HAD THEY SHIPPED THE GOODS? HAD WERE

2. WHAT HAD HE DONE SO HE WAS KEPT AFTER THE SCHOOL? DID HAD

3. HAD THEY HAD A MEAL BEFORE THE CAME TO COLLEGE? HAD HAVE

4. WHO HAD LIVED IN THIS HOUSE BEFORE I MOVED IN? HAD HAVE

5. HAD SHE FOUND A NEW JOB BY THAT TIME? HAD DID

6. WHAT HAD YOU DONE BEFORE TO PLAY A GAME? DID HAD

7. HAD YOU EVEN PLAYED HERE BEFORE? HAD WAS

8. HAD THEY ALREADY OPERATED THEIR LAPTOP? DID HAD

Date: 2016-01-05; view: 1588