Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances

JALDA

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

Journal Metrics

News

Investigating the Effects of Syntactic and Semantic Awareness in the Sentence Comprehension of EFL Learners

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 MA in ELT, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

2 Associate Professor of TEFL, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

This study investigated how English semantic and syntactic awareness contribute to the sentence comprehension of beginner, intermediate, and advanced EFL learners. Consequently, 188 Iranian EFL learners were recruited for the study and, pertinent to their English proficiency levels, were divided into three groups. To elucidate the possible contribution of semantic and syntactic awareness for comprehending English sentences, five sets of sentences were constructed controlling the frequency, length and difficulty of their comprising words: 20 syntactically correct / semantically incorrect, 20 syntactically incorrect / semantically correct, 20 syntactically / semantically incorrect, 20 syntactically / semantically correct, and finally 20 Garden-Path sentences (which are both semantically and syntactically correct but difficult to comprehend by the first attempt). With the aid of a software application (Com-Chron) designed specifically for this study on the UX platform, the participants’ comprehension was checked both in terms of their success-rate and their reaction-time. Through a multiple-choice online task, the participants were asked to select the option which showed the correct understanding of the constructed sentence in 30 seconds. Statistical analyses revealed that semantically-incorrect sentences were the most challenging and syntactically-incorrect sentences were the least demanding for the participants of three proficiency levels. The findings affirmed the dominance of semantics over syntax when it came to the comprehension abilities of EFL learners across different English proficiency levels.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Article Title [Persian]

آگاهی معنایی و آگاهی دستوری در درک جملات توسط زبان آموزان انگلیسی

Authors [Persian]

  • محمدرضا خاکسار 1
  • دکتر محمد صابر خاقانی نژاد 2

1 کارشناس ارشد آموزش زبا ن انگلیسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

2 دانشیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه زبان‌های خارجی و زبانشناسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

Abstract [Persian]

این مطالعه با هدف مقایسه تأثیر دانش نحوی و  دانش معناشناسی در فهم جملات انگلیسی توسط زبان ­آموزان ایرانی در سطوح مختلف انجام شده است. یکصد و نود زبان­ آموز ایرانی از طریق نمونه­ گیری آسان در سه گروه مبتدی، متوسط، و پیشرفته جهت این مطالعه به کار گرفته شدند. جهت انجام مقایسه بین تأثیرات احتمالی دانش نحوی و معناشناسی بین سطوح مختلف زبان آموزان، پنج دسته جمله ساخته شدند: ۲۰ جمله غلط به لحاظ دستوری و درست به لحاظ معنایی، ۲۰ جمله غلط به لحاظ معنایی و درست به لحاظ دستوری، ۲۰ جمله درست هم به لحاظ معنایی وهم به لحاظ دستوری، ۲۰ جمله غلط هم به لحاظ معنایی و هم به لحاظ دستوری، و ۲۰  جمله دیریاب. به منظور بررسی عملکرد شرکت­ کنندگان نرم افزارخاصی به کار گرفته شد که هم تعداد پاسخ­های صحیح و هم مدت زمان پاسخگویی به سوالات را مشخص می­کرد. پس از پردازش داده­ها مشخص شد که جملاتی که به لحاظ معنایی غلط بودند برای شرکت­ کنندگان آزمون سخت­ تر از دیگر جملات بوده است. همچنین یافته­ ها حاکی از آن بود که درک جملات غلط به لحاظ معنایی نسبت به جملات دیریاب دشوار­تر بوده است. همچنین نتایج نشان داد که جملات غلط به لحاظ دستوری و جملات درست به لحاظ معنایی و دستوری آسان­ترین جملات برای درک شرکت کنندگان بوده‌اند. در نهایت با توجه به داده­ها می­توان نتیجه گرفت که جملات غلط به لحاظ معنایی برای زبان­آموزان تمام سطوح سخت­ ترین نوع جملات هستند.

Keywords [Persian]

  • درک جملات انگلیسی
  • آگاهی دستوری
  • آگاهی معنایی
  • جملات دیریاب
References
Afhami, M., & Khaghaninejad, M. S. (2022). Investigating the Effects of Different Explicit Syntactic Marker Types on Sentence Comprehension of EFL Learners: Do Age and Proficiency Level Matter? Journal of Teaching Language Skills 41(3), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.22099/tesl.2022.43083.3098
Artetxe, M., & Schwenk, H. (2019). Massively multilingual sentence embeddings for zero- shot cross-lingual transfer and beyond. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7, 597–610. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacla00288
Barahuee, G., Khaghaninejad, M., & Moloodi, A. (2020). An Investigation into the Effective Factors in Comprehending English Garden-Path Sentences by EFL Learners. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 38 (1), 79-119. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2020.34657.2731
Briscoe, T. (2020). Introduction to Linguistics for Natural Language Processing. Cambridge University Press.
Brimo, D., Apel, K., & Fountain, T. (2017). Examining the contributions of syntactic awareness and syntactic knowledge to reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12050 
Chwilla, D. J. (2022). Context effects in language comprehension: The role of emotional state and attention on semantic and syntactic processing. Frontiers of human neuroscience, 10(1), 234-256. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36504628
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060024
Demberg, V., & Keller, F. (2019). Cognitive Models of Syntax and Sentence Processing. Edinburgh University Press.
Deniz, F., Tseng, C., Wehbe, L., Dupré la Tour, T., & Gallant, J. L. (2023). Semantic Representations during Language Comprehension Are Affected by Context. Journal of Neuroscience, 43(1), 3144-3158. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2459-21.2023 
Drury, J. E., Baum, S. R., Valeriote, H., & Steinhauer, K. (2016). Punctuation and implicit prosody in silent reading: an ERP study investigating English garden-path sentences. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 13-45. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01375 
Fodor J. A., Bever T., G., & Garrett, M. (1974). The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar. McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100008124 
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance 12: The Psychology of Reading (p. 559–586). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315630427 
Friederici, A. D., & Hahne, A. (2001). Development patterns of brain activity: Reflecting semantic and syntactic processes. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 24, 231-246. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.24.11fri 
Friederici, A. D., & Kotz, S. A. (2003). The brain basis of syntactic process: Functional imaging and lesion studies. NeuroImage, 20, 8-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.003 
Hagoort, P. (2003). Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(6), 883-899. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903322370807 
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22(3), 369-397. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr272oa 
Hopp, H. (2016). The timing of lexical and syntactic processes in second language sentence comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(5), 1253-1280. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716415000569
Huang, J., Huang, K., & Chang, K. (2021). Disentangling Semantics and Syntax in Sentence Embeddings with Pre-trained Language Models. Computation and language, 13(3), 342-365. https://doi.org/1048550/arXiv.2104.05115 
Juffs, A. (1998). Some effects of first language argument structure and morphosyntax on second language sentence processing. Second Language Research, 14(4), 406-424. https://doi.org/10.1191/026765898668800317 
Keenan, J. M., & Betjemann, R. S. (2008). Comprehension of single words: The role of semantics in word identification and reading disability. In E. L. Grigorenko & A. J. Naples (Eds.), Single-word reading: Behavioral and biological perspectives (pp. 191–209). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Khaghanine­zhad, M. S., & Kaashef, F. (2014). Applying cooperative language learning techniques in Iranian ELT context.  International journal of Language Learning and applied Linguistics world, 5(3), 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2020.1868223 
Khaghaninejad M., Azarian, M., & Javanmardi, F. (2022). A Corpus-Based Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of Objectivity Manifestations in Academic Texts. Journal of Applied linguistics and applied literature: Dynamics and Advances, 10(1), 119-140. https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2022.27325.1333
Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 205-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002 
Kim, A., & Sikos, L. (2011). Conflict and surrender during sentence processing: An ERP study of syntax-semantics interaction. Brain and Language, 118(1-2), 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.03.002 
Khodadady, E., Khaghaninezhad, M. S., Alavi, M., & Pishghadam, R. (2012). Teaching English in academic context: Schema-based or translation-based approach? International Journal of Linguistics, 4(1), 56-89. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i1.1213
Kumar, A., Kabir, A., Vadapalli, R., & Talukdar, P. (2020). Syntax-guided controlled generation of paraphrases. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8(2), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacla00318
Massol, S., Mirault, J., & Grainger, J. (2021). The contribution of semantics to the sentence superiority effect. Scientific Reports, 11, 201-248. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99565-6 
Matar, S., Dirani, J., Marantz, A., & Pylkkänen, L. (2021). Left posterior temporal cortex is sensitive to syntax within conceptually matched Arabic expressions. Scientific Reports, 11, 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86474-x
Miller, A. K. (2014). Accessing and maintaining referents in L2 processing of wh-dependencies. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(2), 167-191. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.2.02mil 
Morgan, E. U., Van der Meer, A., & Vulchanova, M. (2020). Meaning before grammar: A review of ERP experiments on the neuro-developmental origins of semantic processing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 27, 441–464. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01677-8
Müller, O., & Hagoort, P. (2006). Access to lexical information in language comprehension: Semantics before syntax. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(1), 84-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/089892906775249997 
Omaki, A., & Lidz, J. (2015). Linking parser development to acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Language Acquisition, 22(2), 158-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2014.943903 
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading skills. Psychiatry, 50, 1125-1129. https://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/perfettilab/pubpdfs/Reading%20skills.pdf
Pozzan, L., & Trueswell, J. C. (2016). Second language processing and revision of garden-path sentences: a visual word study. Bilingualism, 19(3), 636. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000838 
Prystauka, Y., & Lewis, A. G. (2019). The power of neural oscillations to inform sentence comprehension: A linguistic perspective. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(9), 123-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12347
Robertson, E. K., & Gallant, J. E. (2019). Eye tracking reveals subtle spoken sentence comprehension problems in children with dyslexia. Lingua, 228(1), 1-17. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.06.009 
Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2016). Cognitive psychology. Nelson Education.
Tamimy, M., Setayesh, L., & Khaghanine­jad M. S. (2022). Collectivism and individualism in US culture: An analysis of attitudes to group work. Training, language and culture, 6(2), 20-34. https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442X-2022-6-2-20-34
Tan, Y., Martin, R. C., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2017). Semantic and Syntactic Interference in Sentence Comprehension: A Comparison of Working Memory Models. Frontiers of Psychology, 8(3), 198-230. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00198 
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5), 1632-1634. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7777863 
Traxler, M. J. (2014). Trends in syntactic parsing: Anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good enough parsing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(11), 605-611. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.tics.2014.08.001 
Van Gompel, R. P., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Jacob, G. (2006). The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 335-362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004 
Warren, P. (2013). Introducing psycholinguistics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978531 
Washington, P., & Wiley, R. (2023). The contributions of proficiency and semantics to the bilingual sentence superiority effect. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 26(3), 516-526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728922000748 
Ye, Z., Luo, Y. J., Friederici, A. D., & Zhou, X. (2006). Semantic and syntactic processing in Chinese sentence comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Research, 71(1), 186-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.11.085 
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances
Volume 12, Issue 1
April 2024
Pages 107-128
Files
History
  • Receive Date: 20 May 2023
  • Revise Date: 22 July 2023
  • Accept Date: 03 April 2024
Share
How to cite
Statistics