Case studies – combining tradition and innovation

Kathryn JergovichSvetlana Nedelcheva

Georgetown University, USAKonstantin 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.

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.

Motivation

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, denyFuture 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, BulgariaL1 Bulgarian (n=35), Turkish (n=7), Macedonian (n=1), Polish (n=1) 7-10 years of formal English lessons at schoolGender: female (n=25), male (19)Intermediate-Upper Intermediate LevelTwo groups

Cognitive Group (n=22), Traditional Group (n=22).

Methods: Participants

Bulgarian English

Explicit Morphological Marker

NO NO

Prepositional DativeV NP-dat NP-acc

YES YES

Double Object V NP-acc NP-acc

YES, but only when a pronoun is the Indirect Object (IO)

YES

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 StatisticsGrammaticality Judgment Test Means by Group (accuracy ratio)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Pretest Posttest

Traditional

Cognitive

Results: Descriptive StatisticsPicture Description Test (Means by Group) Mean number of Accurate Dative Constructions Produced by Group

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Pretest Posttest

Traditional

Cognitive

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 classroomtasks requiring active student interaction with the target verbspreliminary 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

Prevent Transfer

Enable Transfer

Conditional Transfer

Future Transfer

fax

give

buy

hand

email

mail

send

win Obtaining

Sending

Giving

Communication via

instrument

Common Meaning?

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