Ergatif ve Pasif Arasında Seçim Yapma Eğilimi: İngilizce Öğretmenleri İçin Bir Uygulama

Bu çalışma, anadili İngilizce olan konuşmacıların ergatif ve pasif yapılar arasında seçim yapma eğilimini ve ölçütlerini incelemeye çalıştı. Aktif, pasif ve ergative yapılarda (değişim, büyüme, gelişme, artış, azalma) oluşma ihtimaline sahip beş örnek fiil seçildi ve cümle içindeki ergonomik kullanımları Webster Amerikan sözlüğünden çıkarıldı. Bu fiiller, akademik dergilerde (COCA'ya göre), dergilerde çoğunlukla kullanılan fiil “grow” dışında daha sık görülür. Cümleler pasif eşdeğerleriyle eşleştirilerek toplam on cümle oluşturuldu. Dört yerli (Amerikan) İngilizce konuşmacıdan, her bir çiftte hangi cümlenin kendilerine doğal geldiğini ve onları diğerlerinden ayıran şeyin ne olduğunu belirlemesi istendi. Bulgular, tüm katılımcıların ergatif olanı seçtiğini ve bu eylemlerin herhangi bir dış faktörden kaynaklanmadığını ve eylemin dışarıdan kasıtlı bir müdahale olmadan otomatik olarak gerçekleştiğini açıkladı. Bu çalışma küçük ölçeklerde yapılmasına rağmen, İngilizce öğretmenleri için öğretici etkileri olabilir. Gelecekteki çalışmalar, daha fazla sayıda fiil ve farklı türlerdeki anadili İngilizce olan için araştırmayı uygulayabilir.

The Tendency to Choose Between Ergative and Passive: An Implication for English Teachers

This study was an attempt to examine the tendency and criteria of native speakers of Englishlanguage to choose between ergative and passive structures. Five sample verbs with the possibility ofoccuring in active, passive and ergative constructions (change, grow, develop, increase, decrease) wereselected and their ergative usages in sentences were extracted from Webster American dictionary. Theseverbs occur more frequently in academic context (according to COCA), except for the verb grow that ismostly used in magazines. The sentences were paired with their passive equivalents, making total tensentences. Four native (American) English speakers were asked to determine which sentence in each pairsounded natural to them and what distinguishes them from the other. The findings revealed that all theparticipants chose the ergative one and they clarified that these actions are not caused by any external factorand the action happens automatically without an intentional intervention from outside. Although this studywas carried out in small scales, it can have instructional implications for English teachers. Future studiescan apply the research on greater number of verbs and different varieties of English native speakers.

PDF

___

Abdullayeva, O. (1993). The acquisition of ergative verbs by Turkish EFL students. Unpublished MA Thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara
Butt, M. (2006). The dative-ergative Connection. In B. O, & P. Cabredo HofHerr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 6 (pp. 69-92). The Hague: Thesus.
Cobuild, C. (2005). Collins Cobuild English Grammar. Collins Cobuild.
Davidse, K. (1992). Transitivity/Ergativity: The Janus-headed Grammar of Actions and Events. In M.Davies & L.Ravelli (Eds.) Advances in systemic linguistics: Recent history and practice (pp 105 – 135). London and New York: Pinter
Dixon, R. M. (Ed.). (1987). Studies in ergativity (Vol. 71). Elsevier Science Limited.
Estival, D. & Myhill, J. (1988). Formal and functional aspects of the development from passive to ergative systems. Passive and Voice, 16, 441-524. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.16.15est
Heyvaert, L. (2003). A Cognitive-Functional Approach to Nominalization in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Garner, B. A. (2009). Garner's modern American usage (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Ju, M. K. (2000). Overpassivisation errors by second language learners: The effect of conceptualizable agents in discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 85-111. Doi: 10.1017/S0272263100001042
Kellerman, E. (1978). Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 15, 59-92. Retreived from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED153469 on 22nd Sptember, 2019
Kondo, T. (2005). Overpassivization in second language acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 43(2), 129-161. Doi: 10.1515/iral.2005.43.2.129
Lock, G. (1996). Functional English grammar: An introduction for second language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Massam, D., Johns, A. & Ndayiragije, J. (2006). Ergativity: Emerging issues. Dordrecht: Springer.
Rezai, M. J. & Ariamanesh, A. A. (2012). Acquisition of English unergative and unaccusative structures by Persian EFL learners. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 31(2), 53-85. Retreived from: http://jtls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_498_4f56697aa124c5d10a4705a0452fb337.pdf, On 20nd September, 2019
Schleppegrell, M. J. & Colombi, M. C. (2005). Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power. London: Routledge.
Vollmann, R. (2008). Descriptions of Tibetan ergativity: A historiographical account. Graz: Leykam.
Wiltschko, M. (2006). On 'Ergativity' in Halkomelem Salish. In Alana Johns, Diane Massem, & Juvenal Ndayiragije (Eds.), In ergativity: Emerging issues (pp 197-227). Dordrecht: Springer.
Yılmaz, M. Ş. & Tek, İ. (2016). Usage of ergative verbs across different English proficiency levels. 6th Middle East Technical University English Language Teaching Conference, 6. Retreived from http://www.meltus.fle.metu.edu.tr/index_htm_files/Abstract-Book.pdf, On 18th September, 2019
Yip, V. (1994). Grammatical consciousness-raising and learnability. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp 123-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524605.008
Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In S. M. Gass, & Schacter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 203-221). New York: Cambridge University Press.