Analyzing Azerbaijani /Persian Bilinguals’ Errors in Persian Verb Production based on 4-M Model

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Author
Assistant Professor, Department of Language and Literature, Farhangian University
Abstract
This paper studies the errors produced by Azari-Turkish/Persian bilinguals using the inflectional morphemes of Persian verb, on the basis of 4-M model. The data were collected from 50 primary bilingual students’ writings in Meshkinshahr villages. The inflectional morphemes of Persian verb were classified in two types: early system morphemes (negative, causative, imperative and passive morphemes) and late outside system morphemes (person/number, tense, aspect, subjunctive morphemes) according to 4-M model. The data Analysis indicates the late outside system morphemes of Persian verb are acquired harder and later than its early system morphemes by bilingual students. It seems there is a relation between different morpheme nature and their acquisition order. Late outside system morphemes are activated later in the production process as required by the grammatical frame of the target language. While early system morphemes are indirectly elected at the same time that content morphemes are directly elected by the speaker’s intentions. The results match Wei (2000) explanation of different morpheme acquisition order based on 4-M model.

This paper studies the errors produced by Azerbaijani /Persian bilinguals using the inflectional morphemes of Persian verb, on the basis of 4-M model. The data were collected from 50 primary bilingual students’ writings in Meshkinshahr villages. 50 subjects were native speakers of Azerbaijani but they had learned Persian (language of instruction) as a second language.The inflectional morphemes of Persian verb were classified in two types: early system morphemes (negative, causative, imperative and passive morphemes) and late outside system morphemes (person/number, tense, aspect, subjunctive morphemes) according to 4-M model. The 4-M model specifies four types of morphemes: content morphemes, early system morphemes, and two types of late system morphemes. The model further subcategorizes late system morphemes into two types: bridges and outsiders. Early system morphemes are activated at the lemma level together with their content morpheme heads for their maximal projection. Unlike content morphemes and early system morphemes, late system morphemes depend on other types of information for their activation, and this information is only available at the level of the formulator, where language specific morphosyntactic patterns must be realized. Information about all types of morphemes is present in lemmas, information about content morphemes and early system morphemes is salient at the conceptual level, and information about late system morphemes becomes salient at the positional level of the formulator.

The data analyzing indicates the late outside system morphemes of Persian verb are acquired harder and later than its early system morphemes by bilingual students. The differences across abstract lexical entries in the mental lexicon cause different degrees of difficulty in acquiring different types of morphemes. The descriptive statistics of the data showed that not all morphemes are produced with equal accuracy. Learner errors with the late system morphemes (person/number) are more frequent than other system morphemes. Both third and 4th grade learners had almost no difficulty in acquiring some early system morphemes (such as negative, causative, imperative and passive morphemes), but they had serious difficulty inaccurately producing the late system morphemes. So the late outside system morphemes of Persian (person/number) are acquired with more difficulty and later in comparison to early system morphemes. It seems there is a relation between different morpheme nature and their acquisition order. Late outside system morphemes are activated later in the production process as required by the grammatical frame of the target language. While early system morphemes are indirectly elected at the same time that content morphemes are directly elected by the speaker’s intentions. So it is the sources of morphemes that can effectively explain why certain learner errors are more frequent and common than others and thus determine the order of second language morpheme accuracy/frequency acquisition. This paper results match Wei (2000) explanation of different morpheme acquisition order based on 4-M model. Wei (2000) concluded that Interlanguage data from early adult Chinese and Japanese learners of Englishas a second language indicate an implicational hierarchy of morpheme acquisition: content morphemes areacquired before any system morphemes, and early system morphemes are acquired before late systemmorphemes

Keywords

Subjects


باطنی، محمدرضا (1364). توصیف ساختمانی دستور زبان فارسی. تهران: امیرکبیر.
پروانه‌پریخانی، حسن (1383). بررسی خطاهای نوشتاری دانش‌آموزان سطح متوسط آذری‌زبان در
یادگیری زبان فارسی (پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد زبان‌شناسی همگانی). تهران: دانشگاه علامه
طباطبایی.
دبیرمقدم، محمد (1364). مجهول در زبان فارسی. مجلۀ زبان‌‌‌‌شناسی، 30 ، 46-31.
دبیرمقدم، محمد (1374). فعل مرکّب در زبان فارسی. مجلۀ زبان‌‌‌‌شناسی، 1 و 2، 46-2.
دستلان، مرتضی؛ محمدابراهیمی، زینب؛ مهدی‌‌بیرقدار، راضیه و روشن، بلقیس (1395). نمود در زبان
فارسی؛ نگاهی نو بر پایۀ رویکرد شناختی بسط استعاری و مولفه‌‌های نمودی. دو ماهنامۀ جستارهای
زبانی، 7 و 2، 86-69.
رحیمیان، جلال (1378). وجه فعل در فارسی امروز. مجلۀ علوم اجتماعی و انسانی شیراز، 14 و 2، 52-41.
عزیزی، نعمت‌‌اللّه و کهزادی، محمد (1393). تحلیل خطاهای انشایی دانش‌‌‌آموزان دوزبانۀ پایۀ پنجم شهر
سنندج. تدریس پژوهی،2 و 1، 32-19.
علوی‌‌مقدم، سیدبهنام و خیرآبادی، معصومه (1391). تحلیل اشکالات نوشتاری دانش‌‌‌آموزان ایرانی غیر
فارسی‌‌‌زبان. فصلنامۀ نوآوری‌‌های آموزشی، 43، 59-43.
مظاهری، جمشید؛ هاشمی، سیدمرتضی و متولی، سیدمهدی (1383). بررسی و تحلیل وجه التزامی در
دستور زبان فارسی. مجلۀ دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی اصفهان، 38، 108-95.
ملکی‌‌مقدم، اردشیر؛ حق‌شناس، علی‌‌محمد و عامری، حیات (1396). بررسی ساختار صرفی فعل فارسی در
چارچوب نظریۀ کلمه و صیغگان. دو ماهنامۀ جستارهای زبانی، 8 و 2، 307-277.
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S.D. (1974). Is there a “natural sequence” in adult
second language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235–244.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language
pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Crystal, D. (1986). Listen to your child. London: Penguin Books LTd.
Dan, H. (2007). An Error Analysis of English Major’s from the Perspective of Inter-
language Theory. Foreign Language Department of Huizhou University.
Evans, V. & M. Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics, An Introduction. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Fuller, J. (2000). Morpheme types in a matrix language turnover: The introduction of
system morphemes from English into Pennsylvania German. International Journal
of Bilingualism. Vol 4, No 1, 45-58.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Moyne, J.(1974). The so-called passive in Persian. Foundation of Language. 12: 249-
267.
Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical
outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Myers-Scotton, C. (2006). Multiple Voices: An introduction to bilingualism. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Myers-Scotton, C. & Jake, J. (2000). Testing the 4-M model: An introduction.
International Journal of Bilingualism. Vol 4, No 1, 1-8.
Perlmutter, D. M. & P. M. Postal (1984). The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law.
In D.M. Persian,Berlin/ New York: Mouton Publishers.
Sattari, A. (2012). An analysis of grammatical errors in Iranian students' English
writings. Iranian EFL Journal, 8(2), 143-157.
Trask, R. L. (1993). A Dictionary of Grammatical terms in Linguistics. London and
New York: Routledge.
Turker, E. (2005). Resisting the grammatical change: Nominal groups in Turkish-
Norwegian codeswitching. International Journal of Bilingualism. Vol. 9, No. 3 &
4, 453- 476.
Wei, L. (2000). Types of morphemes and their implications for L2 morpheme
acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(1), 29ـــ43.