The Effect of Contrastive Phrase Re-Synthesis Instruction on Grammatical Accuracy: A Teachability Hypothesis Perspective

مطالعات زبان و ترجمه

Article 4, Volume 49, Issue 4, February 2017, Pages 77-98   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/lts.v49i4.52078

Authors

Manoochehr Jafarigohar¹; Afsar Rouhi²; Majid Ghelichi¹

¹Department of English Language and Literature, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

²Department of English Language and Literature, Payame Noor University, Ardabil, Iran

Abstract

1. Introduction
The role of phrases especially in a universal grammar (UG) sense and the presentation of grammar based on the lexical-functional grammar (LFG) in the form of C-structure rules (Thomann, 2002) and the role of phrase-based instruction in learning seem to be under-researched. Of particular relevance to this issue is the role of grammar instruction which has been very controversial in second language acquisition (SLA) literature (e.g., Ellis, 2008; Krashen, 1993; Pienemann, 1984). One famous view about the effectiveness of grammar teaching is the teachability hypothesis (TH) which proposes a hierarchy of six stages of syntactic acquisition which second language (L2) learners must pass through in the process of acquiring the grammar of a L2 (Pienemann, 1984). It states that instruction will be effective only if learners have developed the pre-requisite processing procedures for processing higher-level linguistic structures. Therefore, this study aims to answer the question of whether, despite the developmental constraints proposed by the TH, explicitly instructing L2 learners to recognize the concept, boundary, and structure of English phrases and the specific grammatical relationships and inter-relationships held by each phrase will enhance their grammatical accuracy in written and oral production and help them develop to the next, next + 1, and 2 stages.
2. Methodology
A total number of 37 female learners of English in a language institute participated in this study. They went through a series of pretests of oral and written processability theory (PT) stages until 23 learners who turned out to be homogeneous in phrase knowledge, written grammatical accuracy, and current PT stages were left. Finally, the learners were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: a contrastive experimental group (CEG, n = 9), an L2-only experimental group (L2EG, n = 7), and a comparison group (CG, n = 7).The Nelson English Language Test was used to measure participants’ general English proficiency. Two Phrase Knowledge Tests were used to measure participants’ knowledge of English phrases and two Written Affirmative Sentences Tests to check their writing accuracy on the pretest and posttest. Two equivalent Picture Differences Tests (adopted from Spada & Lightbown, 1999) were used to specify learners’ current PT stages in oral production and, a Picture-Cued Written Scrambled Questions Test (adopted from Spada & Lightbown, 1999) was used to check their PT stages in writing. But an equivalent written scrambled test was developed for the posttest. After pretesting, the two experimental classes received the treatment as follows. The CEG was provided with contrastive L1-L2 meta-linguistic instruction about the concept, boundary, and structure of English NP, VP, and PP together with intra- and inter-phrasal parsing and phrase re-synthesis practice. The instruction lasted for 7 sessions (two hours each session) and focused on introducing the head and complement, structure, boundary, and configuration of English phrases together with the place and function of each phrase and inter-phrasal relationships in both affirmative and interrogative sentences. This treatment was replicated for the L2EG only in English language rather than being contrastive. The CG only received the focused task for meaning negotiation. After the treatment, participants were post-tested on English phrases, writing grammatical accuracy, and PT stages in oral and written production based on the exact assessment procedures on the pretest. Fisher’s Exact Test was used to compare the percentage of learners in each group who had gained structures at the next, next + 1, and next +2 stages in oral and written production.
3. Discussion
With reference to theoretical assumptions and empirical findings about the role of phrases in linguistic knowledge and production, this study hypothesized that contrastive teaching of phrase configuration and function together with phrase re-synthesis practice would facilitate gaining the TH next and next +1 or 2 stages, contrary to what the TH has proposed. In line with theoretical and empirical support for phrase-dependency of linguistic knowledge, this study showed that when learners develop the ability to recognize the structure and boundary of phrases, they will be able to learn different stages simultaneously because all of those stages share a common building block. The only condition which needed to be met was learning the interrogative word order which constituted the interrogative inter-phrasal parsing practice in this study. Overall, the results provided support for this hypothesis.
The results agree with those in Carrie (2012) and Spada, Lightbown, and White (2006) who found counter-evidence against the TH prediction that beyond the next stage cannot be acquired through instruction. The finding in this study that contrastive teaching and input significantly facilitated acquisition corroborate the results of Kupferberg (1995) and Kupferberg and Olshtain (1996) who found that contrastive linguistic input and explicit contrastive instruction triggered noticing and contributed to achievement in both recognition and production tasks. The results in this study seem to be refuting the TH by indicating that developmental constraints are not insurmountable and instruction does not necessarily have to target the immediately next stage, as they have shown that instruction can facilitate advancing to higher-than-next stages. In other words, the results contradict Pienemann’s (2005) view that “…the Teachability Hypothesis defines CONSTRAINTS on Teachability. It does not predict sufficient conditions for teaching to be successful” (p. 73), because there seem to be conditions which are likely to modify the effects of the constraints themselves. The results also support those in Farley and McCollam (2004) and Spada and Lightbown (1999) who found that readiness failed as a predictor of acquisition as ready learners did not develop to higher stages more than unready learners. In other words, the present study, in accordance with these two studies, indicates that developmental readiness is not the only factor determining acquisition, but instructional intervention also makes a difference.
Overall, both the contrastive and non-contrastive forms of instruction proved more effective than the treatment given to CG. However, taking the effects on phrase knowledge development, canonical word order and advancing to next + 1 and 2 TH stages in oral and written production, the contrastive form seemed to be the most effective form of treatment. However, one point of caution needs to be added, and it is the fact that small sample sizes and lack of a delayed posttest in this study may weaken our claims. But, it is likely that a longer treatment period might have contributed to even better results.
4. Conclusion
Contrary to the TH, the study encourages redefining the role of instruction as facilitating and the influence of developmental constraints as surmountable by using adequate means of instructional intervention. The results suggest that for L2 learners to succeed in acquiring the grammar of a second language they must develop an awareness of the structure of phrases. The ability to re-synthesize phrases from the flow of otherwise segmented words can contribute to their syntactic development. The study also reveals that provision of contrastive input and meta-linguistic instruction is more likely to help learners notice L2 particularities such as linguistic configuration of phrases by using the filter of their L1 knowledge.
Therefore, the general conclusion out of this study would be that phrase re-synthesis instruction and practice especially in its contrastive/comparative form is a useful technique for helping language learners acquire not only the next stage in the TH sense but also advance to higher stages as well. That is, by utilizing the right technique for teaching the grammar of a second language one need not be concerned too much about the constraints proposed by the TH.

Keywords

Phrase re-Synthesis; Teachability Hypothesis; Stage Gain; Grammatical Accuracy; Contrastive Teaching

References

Al Shatter, G. (2011). Processability approach to Arabic L2 teaching and syllabus design. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 34(2), 127–147.

Arnon, I. (2010). Starting big: The role of multi-word phrases in language

as a second language. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 253–298). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Available at http://purl.stanford.edu/zs652gt8462

Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language

Bod, R. (2009). From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic analogy-based model

Brandt, S., Verhagen, A., Lieven E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Development of

Bresnan, J. (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations.

Cambridge: MIT Press.

Carrie, B. (2012). Testing processability theory in L2 Spanish: Can readiness or

Chinese grammatical morphemes. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 155–177). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.

Combinations. Psychological Science, 19(3), 241–248.

Conference. National Technical University of Athens, Athens. Retrieved from CSLI Publications http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/.

Cook, V. J., & Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. Blackwell.

Cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194.

Development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 56–163.

Developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 1–22.

Di Biase, B. (2007). A processability approach to the acquisition of Italian as a

Doman, E. (2012). Further evidence for the developmental stages of language

Doughty, C., & Williams, J (Eds.) (1998). Focus on form in classroom second

Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit

Ellis, N. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: contingency,

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

Empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.

Farley, A., & McCollam, K. (2004). Learner readiness and L2 production in

Form-meaning mappings in explicit form-focused instruction. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 199–234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

French’ learners of English. Language Awareness, 5, 188–195.

From memorized language as a gauge of native-like competence. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in language learning and teaching (pp. 123–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 52–79.

Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese

Kawaguchi, S., & Di Biase, B. (2012). Acquiring procedural skills in L2:

Knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.

Krashen, S. (1993). The effect of grammar teaching: still peripheral. TESOL

Kupferberg, I., & Olshtain, E. (1996). Explicit contrastive instruction facilitates

Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186–214.

Learning and processability. US-China Education Review A, 2(9), 813–825.

Learning and use (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Stanford University,

Learning: The effect of familiarity on children's repetition of four-word

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An

Mandel, D. R., Jusczyk, P. W., & Kemler-Nelson, D. G. (1994). Does sentential

Mansouri, F., & Duffy, L. (2005). The pedagogic effectiveness of developmental

Markedness predict development? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Pittsburgh.

Of language learning. Cognitive Science, 33(5), 752–793.

Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge

Pienemann (Ed.), Crosslinguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 1–60). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of

Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development:

Pienemann, M. (2005). An introduction to processability theory. In M.

Processability theory and skill acquisition. Studies in Language Sciences, 11, 68–96.

Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Prosody help infants to organize and remember speech information? Cognition, 53(2), 155–180.

Quarterly, 27, 717-725.

Readiness in ESL grammar instruction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 81–99.

Second language: Theory and applications (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), The Australian National University.

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first language influence and

Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M., & White, J. (2006). The importance of

Spanish: Processability theory on trial. Estudios de Linguistica Aplicada, 40, 47–l69.

Syntactic productivity across constructions and items. Talk given at the 33rd Stanford Child Language Research Forum, Berkeley, July 10–12.

The acquisition of difficult L2 forms. Language Awareness, 5, 149 –165.

Thomann, J. (2002). LFG as a pedagogical grammar. Proceedings of the LFG 02

Tomasello, M. (2000). The item based nature of children's early syntactic

Trevise, A. (1996). Contrastive meta-linguistic representations: The case of ‘very

University Press.

University Press.

Wray, A., & Fitzpatrick, T. (2008). Why can’t you just leave it alone? Deviations

Zhang, Y. (2005). Processing and formal Instruction in the L2 acquisition of five