ภาษาศาสตร์ภาษาอังกฤษ
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing ภาษาศาสตร์ภาษาอังกฤษ by browse.metadata.researchtheme2 "การรับภาษาที่สอง (Second (Foreign) language acquisition)"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- PublicationApplying Communities of Practice Theory to Applied Linguistics ResearchKimura, Julia (Research Department, Chulalongkorn University Language Institute, 2018)If you are reading this, as a child, you probably went to school to learn. However, as we enter adulthood, we do a great deal of learning informally after we have completed compulsory and formal schooling. Although early theories of learning fell under the quantitative paradigm, new qualitative and social theories of learning have now been proposed. Communities of practice theory can help explain how this informal learning is largely a social endeavor. This theory was developed not as a replacement to existing theories of learning, but as an alternative and complementary explanation of how learning is accomplished. In this paper, I first provide an overview of theories of learning in second language acquisition. Next, I describe these social theories of learning, focusing on communities of practice and how this theory has been applied to research in second language acquisition. I then illustrate how I am applying it to my own research on female foreign language teachers in a professional organization in western Japan.
- PublicationErrors in Adjective-Noun Order by Thai and Chinese EFL Learners: Roles of L1 and Language ProfciencyChanakan, Thidanan; Patanasorn, Angkana Tongpoon (School of Liberal Arts, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, 2016)Roles of frst language transfer have been extensively researched during the past decades adopting Contrastive Analysis (CA). However, previous studies have shown that CA has failed to prove and fnd supports for language transfer. This present study examined language transfer from another perspective proposed by Jarvis and Odlin (2000) by examining adjective-noun order errors by Thai EFL learners. In previous studies, adjective-noun order errors by Thai EFL learners, which mainly used the CA, are often claimed to be caused by L1 interference. The present study aimed to examine this claim by adopting the proposed framework by Jarvis and Odlin by Thai and Chinese EFL learners and to investigate the relationship between the adjective-noun order errors and learners’ profciency levels. Two groups of Chinese and Thai participants were purposively selected due to the special characteristics of their frst languages that met Jarvis and Odlin’s L1 transfer framework. The results revealed that both Thai and Chinese EFL learners made similar errors in the adjective noun order. The statistical test showed no signifcant differences between the number of adjective-noun order errors produced by Thai and Chinese learners (p > 0.05). Therefore, the transfer position seemed not to be plausible. A negative correlation was found between language profciency and the number of errors learners produced. This suggests that when learners’ profciency was higher, they tended to produce fewer errors in adjective-noun order errors.
- PublicationInterlanguage Pragmatics: An Investigation of Pragmatic Transfer in Responses to English Tag Questions by L1 Thai LearnersWattananukij, Wattana; Pongpairoj, Nattama (School of Liberal Arts, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, 2022)The research investigated pragmatic transfer in responses to English tag questions by L1 Thai learners based on Interlanguage Pragmatics, specifically pragmatic transfer (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993). The L1 Thai learners were categorized into two groups according to their English proficiency levels: advanced and intermediate. Oral and written discourse completion tasks (Blum-Kulka, 1982) were employed to elicit the participants’ responses to English affirmative and negative tag questions in two modalities, speaking and writing. The major findings cast light on the L1 Thai learners’ problems of responding to English negative tag questions, rather than positive ones, as a result of their strong reliance on the Thai pragmatic norm. The results also suggested that the responses to English negative tag questions by the intermediate group were less native-like than the advanced group’s responses and manifested a higher degree of pragmatic transfer. Concerning pragmatic transfer in the two modalities, responses to English negative tag questions in writing showed a greater degree of pragmatic transfer than those in speaking. The results of the study are expected to elucidate the performance of the L1 Thai learners’ responses to English tag questions in both modalities and their dependence on the Thai pragmatic norm in responding to English tag questions.