The Impact of Explicit Instruction and Metalinguistic Awareness on Cross-linguistic Interference: Path Framing in Motion Events

Year 2017, , 1119 - 1133, 07.11.2017

Abdurrahman Kilimci

https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.336882

Abstract

The study aimed to investigate the influence of the
cross-linguistic variation on the construction of boundary-crossing motion
events in the translation production of the Turkish speakers of L2 English and
measure the impact of explicit instruction and metalinguistic awareness on the learners’
understanding of typological differences and hence their development of L2 ways
of expressing motion events. To this aim, the study followed a pre-test
post-test quasi-experimental research design, involving a treatment and a
control group. A total of 46 second-year university students participated in
the study. They were all majoring in English at the English Language Teaching
Department, at a state university in Turkey. The control (18 females and 5
males) and the treatment group (15 females and 8 males) received a two-week
instructional treatment, the first group receiving an implicit instruction, and
the second an explicit instruction of the boundary-crossing motion event
constructions. Prior to the instructional intervention, a pre-test was
administered to the participants. Mann-Whitney U test run on the mean
scores obtained from the pre-tests indicated no significant differences between
the control and the treatment group, U = 282.5, z = .416, p = .678. Within-group analysis based on
post-test results after the termination of the instructional treatment revealed
that while the implicit instruction had no effect on learners’ acquisition of motion
events, z = 1.842, p = .066., the explicit instruction had a significant
effect on L1 Turkish learners’ development of their knowledge of L2-like
English patterns in construing motion events. Similarly, between-group analysis
revealed that the treatment group (Mdn = 4.00), who received an explicit
instruction significantly outperformed the control group (Mdn = 2.00), who
received implicit instruction, U = 410.5, z = 3.257, p = .001. The study concluded
with the implications of findings for English language teaching and suggestions
for future studies.

Keywords

Key words: boundary-crossing, motion events, explicit instruction, implicit instruction

References

• Cadierno, T. & Lund, K. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition: Motion Events in a Typological Framework. In B. Van Patten, J. Williams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cadierno, T. (2008a). Motion events in Danish and Spanish: A focus-on-form pedagogical approach. In Sabine D. K. & Teun D. R.(Eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar: A Volume in Honour of Rene Dirven (pp. 259-294). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Cadierno, T. (2008b). Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), A handbook of cognitive linguistics and SLA (pp. 378–406). London: Routledge.
• Ellis, R. (2002). The Place of Grammar Instruction in the Second/Foreign Language Curriculum. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (pp. 14-34). Routledge: London.
• Ellis, R. (2012). Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Filipovic, L. (2007). Talking about motion. A crosslinguistic investigation of lexicalization patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Filipović, L. & Vidaković, I. (2010). Typology in the L2 classroom: Second language acquisition from a typological perspective. In M. Pütz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 269-291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Haladyna, T. M., & Rogriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. New York; London: Routledge.
• Hijazo-Gascón, A. (2015). Acquisition of motion events in L2 Spanish by German , French and Italian speakers. The Language Learning Journal, 25(Juillet), 1–26. http://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1046085
• Jarvis, Scott, Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York; London: Routledge.
• Kornfilt, J. (1997). TURKISH. London; New York: Routledge.
• Larrañaga, P., Treffers-Daller, J., Tidball, F., & Ortega, M. -c. G. M. G. (2012). L1 transfer in the acquisition of manner and path in Spanish by native speakers of English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(1), 117–138. http://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911405577
• Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol: Multiligual Matters.
• Negueruela, E., Lantolf, J. P., Jordan, S. R., & Gelabert, J. (2004). The “private function” of gesture in second language speaking activity: a study of motion verbs and gesturing in English and Spanish. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 113–147. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2004.00056.x
• Ozcaliskan, S. (2004). Typological variation in encoding the manner , path , and ground components. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 73–102. http://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.2.03ozc
• Özçaliskan, Ş., & Slobin, D. I. (2000). Climb up vs. ascend climbing: Lexicalization Choices in Expressing Motion Events with Manner and Path Components. In S. Catherine-Howell, S. A. Fish, & T. K. Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston Conference of Language Development, Vol. 2, (pp. 558–570). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
• Özçalışkan, Ş., & Slobin, D. I. (2003). Codability Effects on the Expression of Manner of Motion in Turkish and English. In A. S. Özsoy, D. Akar, M. Nakipoğlu- Demiralp, E. Erguvanlı-Taylan, & A. Aksu-Koç (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 259–270). İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.
• Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Harlow: Longman.
• Slobin, D. I. (1991). Learning to think for speaking: Native language, cognition, and rhetorical style. Pragmatics, 1(1), 7–25.
• Slobin, Dan I. (1996). “From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’”. In J. J. Gumperz and S.C. Levinson (Eds), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp, 97–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Slobin, D. I. (2002). Cognitive and communicative consequences of linguistic diversity. In S. Strömqvist (Ed.), The diversity of languages and language learning (pp. 7- 23). Lund, Sweden: Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature.
• Slobin, D. I. (2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 59-81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Stam, G. (2006) Thinking for Speaking about Motion: L1 and L2 Speech and Gesture. IRAL, 44, 145-171.
• Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and semantic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 36–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.