Consciousness-Raising on preposition-stranding

Title

Consciousness-Raising on preposition-stranding

Authors

Jabar Mirani (Ph.D. Student)

Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

Khosro Soleimani

Department of English Language Teaching, Payam Noor University,Javanroud, Iran

E-mail: [email protected]

Bio Dat

Jabar Miran is a Ph.D. Student of General Linguistics at Tehran University, Tehran, Iran and has an MA in TEFL from Shiraz niversity, Shiraz, Iran. His research interests include IELTS studies, phraseology, dialectology, cognitive linguistics, and discourse analysis.

Abstract

Within the framework of UG model, Consciousness Raising (C-R) as

a technique through form-focused instruction or error correction

has been suggested and sometimes experimentally tested.

Therefore, based on recent communicative and cognitive approaches

and returning to fashion of grammatical teaching, it was the main

concern of this study to experimentally examine the technique of

C-R regarding focusing students’ concentration toward the

similarities and differences of unmarked and more acceptable

preposition stranding (P-S), marked and less acceptable pied-

piping(P-P) of wh-question movements and lexical knowledge of

some verbs subcategorized for special prepositions in English and

Persian. 57 basic science and engineering students were chosen

and assigned randomly to two groups; 29 students in the

experimental group and 28 students in normal grammar practicing

class as control group. A .81-index reliable test was

administered to them as a pre-test which showed no significant

difference between them at the beginning of the study. After the

presentation of the treatment, the results indicated that there

is a statistically significant difference between the two groups

on P-S and lexical knowledge to the advantage of the experimental

group. Thus C-R as a tactic for teaching language points such as

P-S and phrasal verbs can be utilized by teachers in their

classrooms.

Key words: Consciousness-raising, Wh-question movements,

Preposition stranding, Pied-piping

1.Introduction

Grammatical points have been taught through various schools of

thoughts in applied linguistics including the traditional, structural,

functional and recent cognitive approaches. However, the current paper

puts a particular stress on the cognitive approach to grammatical

instruction, known as grammatical consciousness-raising. Like other

theories or models, it has both its supporters and opponents, whose

arguments are presented. Ellis (1997) defines grammar consciousness-

raising tasks as ‘arising tasks (in) pedagogic activity where the

learners are provided with L2 data in some form and required to

perform some operation on or with it, the purpose of which is to

arrive at an explicit understanding of some linguistic properties of

the target language". Rutherford and Sharwood Smith (1986, p. 274), in

their attempt to define C-R, stated, " by consciousness raising we

mean the deliberate attempt to draw the learners’ attention

specifically to the formal properties of the target language".

Following the ‘anti-grammar movement’ of the 1980s, the place of

grammar in language teaching changed from habit formation into grammar

awareness activities and there was a major theoretical shift from ‘how

teachers teach grammar’ to ‘how learners learn grammar’ (Celce-Murcia

1991). Other researchers and theorists ( ) suggested or experimentally

showed the usefulness of C-R on teaching grammatical points in

learning foriegn or second languages. In this line, the current study

aimed generally to investigate the impact of raising the student's

consciousness toward the similarities or differences between

their first language and English to set and learn more acceptable

P-S cases and lexical knowledge. Thus, the findings of the presentstudy would be useful for the foriegn or second language teachers in

teaching grammatical aspects similar to those of this study.

2.Review of Related Literature

Ellis (1993) stated that the popularity of grammar practice is

generally supported by the belief that more practice leads to

greater proficiency; nonetheless, his criticism is that due to

psycholinguistic constraints, practice does not necessarily

contribute to autonomous ability to use the structure in real

contexts and he challenges the conventional wisdom that ‘practice

makes perfect’ in favor of a series of C-R tasks including

grammar consciousness-raising tasks, interpretation tasks, and

focused communication tasks. Hopkins and Nettle (1994) argue

against Ellis's position and say Ellis’s consciousness-raising

activities does not meet the student's expectations and they are

not something new. Based on Ellis (1993), there are five types of

form-focused tasks, consciousness-raising tasks, interpretation

tasks, focused communication tasks, grammar exercises, and

grammar practice activities. The first three types are based on

the concept of C-R, taking into account the nature of language

development as, "an organic process characterized by backsliding,

leaps in competence, interaction between grammatical elements,

etc." (Nunan, 1991). The fourth, a traditional type of grammar

task, is called ‘grammar exercises’. The last type, as

exemplified by Ur (1988), is a communicative grammar practice. In

contrast to C-R features in the first three tasks, these last two

types are categorized as practicing tasks.

Teachers can expect formal linguistics to contribute to this

sort of pedagogical grammar hypothesis (PGH). Thus, in this

regard, contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH) made its

contribution and there are a lot of pedagogical grammars (PG)

written in the framework of CA. However, what the current

linguistic theory has to offer to language pedagogy is rather

different and it has been put forward under the term of C-R. C-R

is a sort of PG which results from UG principles and parameters

theory and its corollaries like markedness theory. There are many

suggestions for the inclusion of Consciousness Raising Tactic in

teaching grammatical rules. Sharwood Smith (1981) recommended

that in certain conditions, C-R increases the rate of learning a

second language. Rutherford (1980) also pointed to the role which

C-R plays in language acquisition. In addition, Cook (1996) put

it forward as a pedagogical technique for helping learners set

parameters in a second language. Also White et al (1991) studied

input enhancement on question formation with three experimental

classes of French students learning English within a two-week

period. Wh-movement occurs in marked question forms in French.

But its occurance is unmarked in English. Therefore, this may

result in negative transfer in learning English by French

students. Thus, it should be unlearned by providing positive

evidence in English. In White et al (1991) the students’

attention was focused on explanations and examples that this form

is present in French, and this leads to inappropriate

construction in learning it in English. In this way, their

consciousness was raised toward the inaccuracy of this form in

English. At the end of the experiment, they tested their

participants on a preference task and other means of examining

wh-question formation in English. They found that the C-R group

statistically outperformed the uninstructed group. They finally

concluded"…instruction on the formation of questions had an

immediate impact on syntactic accuracy" (p428).

Kao (2001) highlights the effect of formal instruction on the

learner's performance on preferred structures such as P-S

compared to marked P-P in the second language. That being the

case, Nitta, R. and Gardener, S (2005) analyzed and reviewed some

standard textbooks focusing on grammar teaching; they concluded

that although there are more theoretical arguments in favor of C-

R usefulness than against it, the well-known English language

textbooks involve more practices parts than C-R communicative

based tasks. They state that most general ELT course books

currently include grammar tasks, suggesting a common view in ELT

that learners benefit from form-focused tasks to improve their L2

accuracy. To investigate the nature of such tasks, they developed

a framework of consciousness-raising and practice task types,

applied it to nine contemporary ELT course books, and thus

identified a number of current trends. All of them included more

presentation and practice parts introduced through both inductive

and deductive grammar practicing approaches and less C-R tasks.

Moreover, according to Bursztyn, M. A. and Klepadski G. A.

(2008), grammar teaching called " gramticography" as a part of

the language teaching process has returned to fashion and is

discussed under the name of the technique of grammatical

conciousness-raising with due attention to the role of

comprehensible input in second language acquisition.

Following the aforementioned trends, since there are no

studies conducted on acquiring grammatical points such as P-S and

lexical knowledge of English in Iran, the purpose of this study

is to investigate the impact of raising the student's

consciousness toward the similarities or differences between

their first language and English to set and learn more acceptable

P-S cases and lexical knowledge in the following ways:

1. It examines lexical knowledge of some special verbs requiring

some strict prepositions as their complements such as wait for as

shown in the following example (i):

(i). The young girl is waiting for the school bus now.

2. It deals with the corresponding wh-question movement of the

statements like (i) above in two forms of less acceptable pied-

piping parameters as (ii) and more acceptable preposition

stranding parameters as (iii) in the following:

( ii). For which bus is the young girl waiting now?

( iii). Which bus is the young girl waiting for?

Therefore, in the case of Iranian L2 learners of English,

students’ attention must be focused on two kinds of contrasts

between their native language and English in wh-question movement

conditions:

(i)The L2 allows P-S parameter more acceptably than PP.

(ii)It is not a non- movement language.

3. Method

The 57 participants in this study were chosen out of 122 basic

sciences and engineering students in Kurdistan University. Later

on, they were randomly assigned to two groups, 29 students in the

experimental C-R group and 28 in the normal grammar practicing

control group. The instrument used for this study is a 40-item

Grammaticality Judgment Test (GJT) and Grammatical Correction

Task (GCT) constructed and adapted following Klein (1995b). The

test included 20 items based on wh-movement question parameters

(pied-piping and preposition-stranding) in English and 20

statements including verbs which are necessarily subcategorized

for their specific prepositions. Pied-piping is set in Iranian

languages but preposition stranding does not exist. Participants

judged a sentence as correct or incorrect with GJT; however, with

the GCT, they rewrote the correct form of incorrect items. The

reliability of the test was calculated through the split-half

method in a pilot study which was carried out before the real

study at Shiraz University. It thus showed a 0.81 index of

reliability. Furthermore, the questionnaire included a question

to check the participants' previous knowledge of English before

the study.

In this study, the test was given to a group of students

assigned randomly to an experimental C-R group and a normal

grammar practicing control group. Their test scores were

subjected to SPSS independent t- test analysis. The result

indicated a t- value which meant that there were no statistically

meaningful differences between the experimental C-R and control

group at the onset of the study. The result of this test was

considered as the pre-test of the study for both experimental and

control groups. After a week interval, experimental group was

given C-R treatment for an hour in three sessions in every other

day during a week. A week later, both control and experimental

groups judged the items of the instrument of the study as the

post- test of the study within just 40 minutes.

The students’ correct judgment of the P-S items, correctly

subcategorized verbs and correctly rewritten items received one

point. In the case of incorrect judgment (P-P and null-prep) or

not answering the item, they got no points. Based on the results

of the participant’s judgments, their scores were collected in

the form of interval data and subjected to statistical analysis.

Therefore, an independent t-test was run to compare the results

of the experimental C-R and normal grammar practicing control

groups’ correct judgments to support or reject the hypothesis of

the study at 0.05 level of significance.

4.Results and Discussion

The participants’ performance on the instrument of the study was

analyzed using the SPSS package for windows. The results of an

independent t-test presented in table 1 compares the experimental

C-R group with a control group on GJT and GCT. It thus tries to

find out whether C-R treatment was effective for learning

(setting) the parameters of P-S which is an unmarked and more

acceptable property in English and lexical knowledge of some

special phrasal verbs.

As can be found in the following table, the experimental C-R

group exhibited a t-value of 9.89 which means that there is a

significant difference between the means of the two groups on P-S

and lexical knowledge to the advantage of the experimental group

(P< .05).

Table 1: analysis of t test for the comparison of control and

experimental group on P-S & lexical knowledge

Variables No. Mean SD

DF t-value a p-value Control289.283.90279.890.5Experiment2916.282.09

al a p value for independent t test comparing the two groups

After the presentation of the C-R treatment, as the above table

indicates, treatment has increased the amount of correct and

appropriate responses and decreased the amount of null- prep and

P-P occurrences in the experimental group.

Consciousness raising as a way of life is the foundation for all

kinds of learning and knowledge of human beings especially in

pedagogy. Therefore, this study aimed to examine whether C-R has

any impact on correct judgment on preposition stranding and

lexical knowledge on the part of the EFL learner. As the results

showed, the experimental group outperformed the control group on

P-S parameter and lexical knowledge, and this leads to the

conclusion that C-R is a helpful tactic used by the English

language teachers to improve the students' performances on

grammatical and lexical knowledge in situations like the present

study. Further, these results are in line with Rutherford and

Sharwood Smith(1986) in claiming that the learners will trigger

the parameters of a second language if they are exposed to enough

input which may be in explicit (conscious), or implicit

(unconsciousness) form in that language. In the same way, it

provides further support for White et al (1989) and (1991) who

applied C-R experimentally and reported successful results in ESL

situations. Accordingly, the findings also complies with Kao

(2001) who cites suggestions for the vital role of formal

instruction, Nitta and Gardeners (2005) and Bursztyn and

Klepadski (2008) who suggested that C- R in the form of exposure

to L2 parameters can influence the course or the rate of learning

language forms such as P-S setting and lexical knowledge. As the

implications of this study, the following conclusions and

suggestions can be arrived at:

C-R tactic can enhance the participants' performance in

lexical knowledge and P-S parameter; hence it is suggested

that teachers utilize this technique in teaching these

structures and others in EFL situations.

C-R technique should be experimentally tested for teaching

other parameters in different languages and with other better

instruments.

The results can not be generalized beyond the situation of

this study until more studies are done with improved

instruments in other conditions.

References

Bursztyn, M. A. & Klepadski, G. A. (2008). Grammatical

Consciousness Raising and Grammar Typology. Studio Anglica

Resoveus

Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy insecond and foreignlanguage teaching. TESOL Quarterly 25/3, 459–80.

Cook, V. J. and Newson, M. (1996). Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An

Introduction. Blackwell Publishers

Ellis, R. (1993). ‘Talking shop: second languageacquisition

research: how does it help teachers? An interview with Rod

Ellis’. ELT Journal 47/1: 3–11.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Hopkins, D. and M. Nettle. (1994). ‘Second language acquisition

research: a response to Rod Ellis’. ELT Journal 48/2: 157–61.

Kao, R. (2001). Where have the preposition gone? A study of

English prepositional verbs and input enhancement in

instructed SLA. International Review of Applied linguistics

Nitta, R. and Gardener, S. (2005). Consciousness Raising &

Practice in ELT Coursebook. ELT Journal 59(1).

Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology: ATextbook for Teachers. New

York: Prentice Hall.

Rutherford, W. and Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Consciousness

Raising and Universal Grammar. Applied Liguistics6(3):274-281.

Rutherford, W. (1980). Aspects of Pedegogical Grammmar. Applied

Linguistics 1(1):60-73.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). ‘Consciousness-raising and the second

language learner’ [in:] AppliedLinguistics 2, pp. 159–168.

Ur, P. (1988). Grammar Practice Activities. Cambridge: Cambridge

White,L., Spada,N. Pasty, M.& Rantal, L. (1991). Input

Enhancement and L2 Question Formation. Applied Linguistics

12(4):416-432.

Appendix

Name: Major of Study:

Dialect: Farsi Turkish Kurdish Luri

Baluchi Arabic

How many semesters have you studied in an English institute?

Choose each sentence as good (syntactically correct) or bad

(syntactically wrong. If you choose a sentence as bad, correct it

in the space provided.

1. The young girl waited the school bus yesterday morning.

a)good b) bad

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

2. Which bus did the young girl wait yesterday morning?

a)good b)

bad

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

The girls are sitting on the park bench now.

a)good b) bad

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

3. On which bench are the girls sitting now?

a)good b)bad

……………………………………………………………………………………

4. The tall nurse worked the doctor last year.

a)good b)bad

………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. Who(m) did the tall nurse work last year?

a)good b)bad

………………………………………………………………………………………….…

6. The man is knocking on the kitchen door right now.

a)good b)bad

……………………………………………………………………………………………

7. Which door is the man knocking on right now?

a)good b)bad

……………………………………………………………………………………

8. This small boy sleeps this cradle every day.

a)good b)bad

…………………………………………………………………………………………

9. What does this small boy sleep every day?

a)good b)bad

…………………………………………………………………………………………….

10. The children are looking at the tall trees right now.

a)good b)bad

…………………………………………………………………………………………

11. Which trees are the children looking at right now?

a)good b)bad

…………………………………………………………………………………………

12. The little boy danced his friends in the hall

yesterday.

a)good b)bad

………………………………………………………………………………………….

13. Who(m) did the little boy dance in the hall yesterday?

a)good b)bad

……………………………………………………………………………………….

14. The small boys are laughing at the funny pictures now.

a)good b)bad

……………………………………………………………………………………

15. At which pictures are the small boys laughing now?

a)good b)bad

………………………………………………………………………………………….

16. The small girls are playing the yellow doll now.

a)good b)bad

…………………………………………………………………………………….

17. Which doll are the small girls playing now?

a)good b)bad

………………………………………………………………………………………

18. The two friends talked about the film last night.

a)good

b)bad

…………………………………………………………………………………….

19. About what did the two friends talk last night?

a)good b)bad

…………………………………………………………………………………………

20. The boys are reading in the school library now.

a)good b)bad

…………………………………………………………………………………………

21. Which library are the boys reading in now?

a)good b)bad

………………………………………………………………………………………….

22. My best friend are coming a small village near the

city.

a)good b)bad

………………………………………………………………………………………………

23. Where are your best friends coming?

a)good b)bad

…………………………………………………………………………………………

24. The children went after their mother into the room.

a)good b)bad

………………………………………………………………………………………

25. After whose mother did the children go into the room?

a)good b)bad

…………………………………………………………………………………………

26. The English students listen the B.B.c news every

night.

a)good b)bad

……………………………………………………………………………………….

27. What do the English students listen every night?

a)good b)bad

……………………………………………………………………………………

28. The English students worried the difficult test last

night.

a)good b)bad

………………………………………………………………………………

29. Which test did the English students worry about?

a)good b)bad

……………………………………………………………………………………………

30. My brother is teaching in a new school this year.

a)good b)bad

…………………………………………………………………………………………

31. In which school is your brother teaching this year?

a)good b)bad

…………………………………………………………………………………………

32. The students pointed the world map yesterday.

a)good b)bad

……………………………………………………………………………………………

33. What did the students point yesterday?

a)good b)bad

………………………………………………………………………………………………

34. They spoke to the young man yesterday afternoon.

a)good b)bad

……………………………………………………………………………………………

35. Who(m) did they speak to yesterday afternoon.

a)good b)bad

……………………………………………………………………………………………

36. The mother was looking her lost child last night.

a)good b)bad

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Which child was the mother looking last night?

a)good b)bad

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

37. These students are thinking their lessons right now.

a)good b)bad

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

38. What are these students thinking about right now?

a)good b)bad

………………………………………………………………………………………………