On the Notion of Psychological Reality of Immediate Constituent Structure and Its Implications in Reading Comprehension for Iranian EFL Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v3n2.36Abstract
This study is an attempt to investigate the effect of physical arrangement of sentences on the basis of constituent structures of text type passages on Iranian EFL students' reading comprehension with regard to language proficiency. For this purpose, three English text type passages each consisting of six passages in one of three forms (a) texts with breaks at major constituent boundaries -Between constituents- (b) texts with breaks at minor constituent boundaries -within constituents- and (c) intact texts; were given to 90 students, who were divided into three groups at the same level of proficiency. A 30-item multiple-choice test was used to assess comprehension. To test the hypotheses posed in the study, the collected data were analyzed by ANOVA (one way) and scheffe test was utilized in post hoc analyses. The results of the study indicated that physical arrangement of sentences has a significant effect on students reading comprehension. So, what this research suggests is that constituents play an important role in students sentence perception and that EFL enterprise can enhance students' information- processing and perception by techniques of constituency-awareness on the part of EFL students.References
Alderson, J. C. 2001. Assessing Reading. Cambridge University Press.
Anward, J. 1979. On Communicative Functions Of Syntactic Constructions: Evidence From Swedish. Uppsala: Dept Of Linguistics.
Brigger, S., Dobson, B., Rohlck, T., Spaan, M., Strom. E. 1997. Examination For The Certificate Of Proficiency In English. Oxford University Press.
Carroll, David W. 2004. Psychology Of Language. University of Wisconsin-superior.
Clark, H. H. and Clark, E. V. 1977. Psychology And Language: An Introduction To Psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Celce-murcia, M. & Olshtain, E. 2000. Discourse And Context In Language Teaching. A Guide For Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Elgin, S. H. 1979. What Is Linguistics? Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Fodor, J. A., & Bever, T. G. 1965. The Psychological Reality Of Linguistic Segment. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior.
Garrett, M. F., Bever, T. G., &. Fodor, J. A. 1966. The Active Use Of Grammar In Speech Production: Perception And Psycholinguistics.
Garman, M. 1990. Psycholonguistics. London: Cambridge University Press.
John Upshur, Leslie Palmer, John Harris & Geraldine Way. 1992. Michigan Test Of English Language Proficiency.
Johnson and Johnson. 1998. Encyclopedic Dictionary Of Applied Linguistics.
Levelt, W. J. M. 1974. Formal Grammars In Linguistics And Psycholinguistics, Vol. 3: Psycholinguistic Application. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Liberman, A. M., F. S. Cooper, D. P. Shankweiler and M. Studder-Kennedy. 1967. Perception Of The Speech Code. Psychological Review. 74: 431-61.
McLeod, B. and McLaughlin, B. 1986. Restructuring Or Automaticity? Reading In A Second Language. Language. 36: 109-123.
Perlinell. 1979. Psychological Reality In Phonology. Atheoretical Study. Cambride University Press.
Richards, J. C., and Renandya, W. A. 2002. Methodology In Language Teaching: An Anthology Of Current Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Riverse, W. 1981. Teaching Foreign Language Skills. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Seliger, W. H., & Shohamy, E. 1989. Second Language Research Methods.
Slobin, D. 1971. Psycholinguistics. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Smith, F. 1991. Reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wekker, H., and Haegeman, L. 1995. A Modern Course In English Syntax. Taylor Francis Ltd, United Kingdom.
