Download Kathryn Jergovich, MA, Georgetown University, Washington D.C.

Case studies – combining
tradition and innovation
Kathryn Jergovich
Svetlana Nedelcheva
Georgetown University, USA
Konstantin Preslavsky University, Bulgaria
2010
Overview
 Background (Motivation)
 Research Questions
 Methods
 Results
 Limitations
 Future Analysis and Research
Background
A major focus in Linguistics: The relationships
between verbs, sentence patterns verbs occur
with, and the meanings of the sentences.
Generativist view: projection account (e.g.
Chomsky, 1981).
John gave Bill a book.
Construction Grammar (e.g., Goldberg, 1995,
2003)
Argument structures have meanings themselves
independent of verbs.
Motivation
• A number of scholars have recognized the
potentials of Cognitive Linguistics in
language teaching (e.g., Achard & Niemeier;
2004; Putz, Dirven, & Niemeier, 2001; Taylor,
1993).
• Major focus on vocabulary learning either
through metaphor awareness or through an
exposure to a core sense of the vocabulary item
• Still, the relation between CL theories and
pedagogical practices needs to be made clearer.
Motivation
Goal of the study: determining whether the
innovative Construction Grammar approach or
the traditional Transformation Grammar account
of verb argument structure, specifically relating
to prepositional dative (John gave the book to
Bill: PD) and double object construction (John
gave Bill the book: DO) is more useful for EFL
instruction.
Construction Grammar for EFL instruction
Network of constructions
Construction Grammar for EFL instruction
Polysemy
Each construction is associated with a “family of closely related senses”
around a core meaning.
Double Object Construction (D.O.) (Goldberg, 1995)
Agent causes transfer (central sense): give, hand,
pass, throw, toss, bring, take
Conditional transfer: guarantee, promise, owe, etc.
Intended transfer: bake, build, make, get, grab, win,
earn, etc.
Agent prevents transfer: refuse, deny
Future transfer: leave, reserve, grant, etc.
Enabling conditions for transfer: permit, allow
The study
Research Questions
Does Construction Grammar based instruction
aid learners in learning and using English double
object construction and prepositional dative
construction?
Is Construction Grammar based instruction more
effective than traditional instruction in facilitating
learning of English double object construction
and prepositional dative construction?
Methods: Participants
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners (N=44)
19-24 year old students at Shumen University, Bulgaria
L1 Bulgarian (n=35), Turkish (n=7), Macedonian (n=1),
Polish (n=1)
7-10 years of formal English lessons at school
Gender: female (n=25), male (19)
Intermediate-Upper Intermediate Level
Two groups
Cognitive Group (n=22), Traditional Group (n=22).
Methods: Participants
Bulgarian
English
Explicit Morphological
Marker
NO
NO
Prepositional Dative
V NP-dat NP-acc
YES
YES
Double Object
V NP-acc NP-acc
YES, but only
YES
when a pronoun is
the Indirect Object
(IO)
Materials
Pretest Materials
Grammaticality Judgment Test
Picture Completion / Description Test
Grammaticality Judgment Test
• 40 items
Examples
UG
G
• Sabrina changed Joe the music. 1 2 3 4 5 6
• Ken promised Cathy a bonus.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Picture Description / Completion Test
• 20 items
Example
Instruction materials – a “Cognitive”
workbook and a “Traditional” workbook
• The “Cognitive group” completed a
workbook with a CG focus: the
explanations emphasized constructional
polysemy, metaphorical extensions of
ditransitive
• The “Traditional group” completed a
workbook with a transformational grammar
focus: verb lists plus exceptions
Cognitive instructional materials:
- Syntax has meaning;
- The core meaning of a syntactic construction
reflects scenes that are very basic to the human
experience
Ex. John gave Mary a banana.
giver
receiver thing received
Traditional instructional materials:
• the IO is generally a person, the Direct object
is generally a thing;
• the IO should have the characteristics +human
or at least +animate.
Subject + Verb + Indirect object + Direct object
John
gave
Mary
a banana.
Posttest Materials
Grammaticality Judgment Test
Picture Completion / Description Test
Same
Different
N of sentences and pictures
Content of sentences
Target verbs
Pictures
Methods (Coding and Scoring)
Grammaticality Judgment Test


Raw Score (rating)
Converted Score
Grammatical Item: 6=2 points; 5, 4=1 point 3,2,1=0 point
Ungrammatical Item: 1=2 points, 2, 3=1 point, 4, 5, 6=0 point


The ratio of converted score to the total possible score
Gain score
Picture Completion / Description Test




Number of accurately produced PD sentences
Number of accurately produced DO sentences
Number of accurately produced PD + DO sentences (total)
Gain score
Results
Pretest Results
Grammaticality Judgment Test
No significant differences (P=.828)
Picture Completion / Description Test
No significant differences
 Total no. of dative constructions (P=.416)
 No. of DO constructions (P=.896)
 No. of PD constructions (P=.512)
Results: Descriptive Statistics
Grammaticality Judgment Test Means by Group (accuracy
ratio)
70
60
50
40
Traditional
Cognitive
30
20
10
0
Pretest
Posttest
Results: Descriptive Statistics
Picture Description Test (Means by Group) Mean number of
Accurate Dative Constructions Produced by Group
3.5
3
2.5
2
Traditional
Cognitive
1.5
1
0.5
0
Pretest
Posttest
RQ1
Does Construction Grammar based instruction aid
learners in learning and using the double object
construction and prepositional dative construction?
RQ2
Is Construction Grammar based instruction more
effective than traditional instruction in facilitating
learning of English double object construction and
prepositional dative construction?
Limitations
CL approach to instruction should ideally be
incorporated throughout a course, not just one
isolated treatment
Participants’ lack of enough prior experience on
this type of tests (esp. GJT, Picture Test)
Serious limitations were observed in the
workbook method
Future Work
a new set of visual teaching materials (Yiyoung
Kim Yiyoung Kim)
instruction - conducted by a teacher in a
computer-facilitated classroom
tasks requiring active student interaction with the
target verbs
preliminary results - higher level of accuracy and
statistically significant difference
Sub
V
Obj1
Obj2
X causes Y to receive Z successfully
Sarah emailed Michelle the picture of her dog.
Ben won Sarah a stuffed animal at the
carnival.
Intended Transfer
Future Transfer
Enable Transfer
Prevent Transfer
Conditional Transfer
Common Meaning?
win
buy
Obtaining
hand
give
Giving
email
send
Sending
fax
mail
Communication via
instrument
Conclusions
A positive relationship between CL-based
instruction and EFL development
Enlarging the scope of CL-based instruction to
traditional “grammar” area
Detailed model of classroom application of CL
THANK YOU