Ocena użyteczności języka ojczystego (polskiego) w uczeniu się gramatyki języków obcych (angielskiego i rosyjskiego): wyniki badań

• Authors: Aleksandra Wach , Marina Jakowlewa-Pawlik
• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

PL

This article reports a study which gathered Polish learners’ opinions about the usefulness of L1-based techniques in learning L2 English and L3 Russian grammar. The results reveal a negative correlation between the length of study and the level  of positive evaluations of the usefulness of L1-based clues. Although L1 was generally considered more useful in learning Russian, the evaluations differed considerably in relation to particular structures in both languages.

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Studia Rossica Posnaniensia
• Year: 2016
• Issue: 41
• Pages: 473-486

Dates

published

2018-06-20

Contributors

author

Aleksandra Wach

author

Marina Jakowlewa-Pawlik

References

• Butzkamm W., Caldwell J., 2009. The bilingual reform: A paradigm shift in foreign language teaching, Tübingen: Narr.
• Dakowska M., 2003. Current controversies in foreign language didactics, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
• De Bot K., Jaensch C., 2015. What is special about L3 processing, “Bilingualism: Language and Cognition” no. 18, s. 130–144.
• Gnuzmann C., 2009. Translation as language awareness: overburdening or enriching the foreign language classroom?, [w:] Translation in second language learning and teaching, red. A. Witte, T. Harden, A. Ramos de Oliveira Harden, Oxford–Berno: Peter Lang, s. 53–77.
• Gozdawa-Gołębiowski R., 2003. Interlanguage formation: A study of the triggering mechanisms, Warszawa: Instytut Anglistyki UW. Hall G.,
• Cook G., 2012. Own-language use in language teaching and learning, “Language Teaching” no. 45, s. 271–308.
• Hentschel E., 2009. Translation as an inevitable part of foreign language acquisition, [w:] Translation in second language learning and teaching, red. A. Witte, T. Harden, A. Ramos de Oliveira Harden, Oxford–Berno: Peter Lang, s. 15-30.
• Jessner U., 2008. Teaching third languages: Findings, trends and challenges, „Language Teaching” no. 41, s. 15–56.
• Kellerman E., 1979. Transfer and non-transfer: Where we are now, “Studies in Second Language Acquisition” no. 2, s. 37–57.
• Kemp C., 2007. Strategic processing in grammar learning: Do multilinguals use more strategies?, “International Journal of Multilingualism” no. 4, s. 241–261.
• Krashen S., 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Larson - Hall J., 2010. A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS, New York: Routledge.
• Nassaji H., Fotos S., 2001. Teaching grammar in second language classrooms, New York: Taylor & Francis.
• Norris, J., Ortega L., 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis, “Language Learning” no. 50, s. 417–528.
• Pawlak M., 2006. The place of form-focused instruction in the foreign language classroom, Poznań–Kalisz: Wydawnictwo UAM. Rada Europy, 2001. Europejski system opisu kształcenia językowego: uczenie się, nauczanie, ocenianie, Warszawa: CODN.
• Rutherford W., 1987. Second language grammar: learning and teaching, Harlow: Pearson Education.
• Scheffler P., 2013. Learners’ perceptions of grammar translation as consciousness raising, “Language Awareness” no. 22, s. 255–269.
• Spada N., Lightbown P., 1999. Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition, “The Modern Language Journal” no. 83, s. 1–22.
• Swan M., 2011. Grammar, [w:] The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics, red. J. Simpson, London: Routledge.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/strp.2016.41.43