{"title":"Towards finding a difficulty index for English grammatical terminology","authors":"Mehrdad Yousefpoori-Naeim, S. Baleghizadeh","doi":"10.1075/TERM.00020.YOU","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Despite going through some ups and downs, grammar teaching has always been one of the central issues in the history of second\n language teaching. In order to teach grammar, teachers frequently get involved in metalanguage, which has grammatical terminology\n as one of its major components. Since the nature and use of grammatical terminology in language teaching has remained a\n considerably under-researched area to the day, the present study, originally a doctoral dissertation, was an attempt to find a\n difficulty index for a more or less comprehensive list of English grammatical terms, collected from various sources of English\n grammar. For this purpose, frequency of terms in a researcher-built corpus of EFL/ESL pedagogic grammar textbooks and English\n students’ familiarity with the terms were used as the two main criteria for calculating the difficulty index. A corpus of 14\n grammatical textbooks was created, and then each of the 459 terms in the list was searched for in the textbooks to calculate their\n frequencies as well as ranks in the corpus. Student familiarity with the terms in the list was also measured through a productive\n test of grammatical terminology administered to 72 BA students of English at Shahid Beheshti University in Iran. Based on the\n results, the traditional dichotomy of scientific versus pedagogic terminology was questioned, arguing for an additional category,\n non-pedagogic term. Accordingly, 173 (37.7%) of the terms in the list never appeared in the corpus and thus\n were labelled non-pedagogic. Terms with a large corpus/test rank were reanalyzed to find out about the reasons for the gap.\n Furthermore, the distribution of terms across the corpus textbooks revealed that as the level of the books rises, the number of\n terms also increases, indicating the direct relationship between second language proficiency and metalingual knowledge. Most\n importantly, more than 10 major and minor trends in the use of grammatical terminology in pedagogy were explored and suggested.\n Finally, as the output of the study, 6 equivalent objective tests of pedagogic grammatical terminology were developed for the\n first time in the literature.","PeriodicalId":44429,"journal":{"name":"Terminology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Terminology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/TERM.00020.YOU","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Despite going through some ups and downs, grammar teaching has always been one of the central issues in the history of second
language teaching. In order to teach grammar, teachers frequently get involved in metalanguage, which has grammatical terminology
as one of its major components. Since the nature and use of grammatical terminology in language teaching has remained a
considerably under-researched area to the day, the present study, originally a doctoral dissertation, was an attempt to find a
difficulty index for a more or less comprehensive list of English grammatical terms, collected from various sources of English
grammar. For this purpose, frequency of terms in a researcher-built corpus of EFL/ESL pedagogic grammar textbooks and English
students’ familiarity with the terms were used as the two main criteria for calculating the difficulty index. A corpus of 14
grammatical textbooks was created, and then each of the 459 terms in the list was searched for in the textbooks to calculate their
frequencies as well as ranks in the corpus. Student familiarity with the terms in the list was also measured through a productive
test of grammatical terminology administered to 72 BA students of English at Shahid Beheshti University in Iran. Based on the
results, the traditional dichotomy of scientific versus pedagogic terminology was questioned, arguing for an additional category,
non-pedagogic term. Accordingly, 173 (37.7%) of the terms in the list never appeared in the corpus and thus
were labelled non-pedagogic. Terms with a large corpus/test rank were reanalyzed to find out about the reasons for the gap.
Furthermore, the distribution of terms across the corpus textbooks revealed that as the level of the books rises, the number of
terms also increases, indicating the direct relationship between second language proficiency and metalingual knowledge. Most
importantly, more than 10 major and minor trends in the use of grammatical terminology in pedagogy were explored and suggested.
Finally, as the output of the study, 6 equivalent objective tests of pedagogic grammatical terminology were developed for the
first time in the literature.
期刊介绍:
Terminology is an independent journal with a cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary scope. It focusses on the discussion of (systematic) solutions not only of language problems encountered in translation, but also, for example, of (monolingual) problems of ambiguity, reference and developments in multidisciplinary communication. Particular attention will be given to new and developing subject areas such as knowledge representation and transfer, information technology tools, expert systems and terminological databases. Terminology encompasses terminology both in general (theory and practice) and in specialized fields (LSP), such as physics.