Age/order of Vocabulary Acquisition Effects in the ...

Language Related Research

Vol.5, No.5 (Tome 21), January, February & March 2015

Age/order of Vocabulary Acquisition Effects in the Foreign Language: A Lexical Decision Task Mohammad Momenian1, Reza Nilipour2∗∗, Reza Ghafar Samar3, Mohammad Oghabian4 1. Ph.D. student, Department of English Language Teaching, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran 2. Professor in Speech Therapy, University of Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran 3. Associate professor, Department of English Language Teaching, Tarbiat Modares University 4. Associate Professor in Medical Physics, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran. Receive: 20/4/2013

Accept: 29/6/2013

This study is intended to report the effect of age of acquisition on lexical decision latencies in a group of Persian-English bilinguals. Forty freshman university students were requested to perform the lexical decision task in a counter-balanced design using DMDX software on laptop. Forty five English words and several pseudowords as fillers were selected for the stimuli. The stimuli were selected based on three different levels of AOA, and were checked against the Persian version of Snodgrass and Vanderwart Naming Battery. Thirty words were matched in their AoA in both Farsi and English, and then divided into early acquired (Group 1) and late acquired words (Group 2). The third group consisted of 15 words, which were later acquired in Persian but early acquired in English. In so doing, we wanted to explore whether processing of L2 words was dependent on the first language AoA of the same words or not. The findings revealed that the second language (L2) age of acquisition had an effect on lexical decision latencies regardless of the age of acquisition of words in Persian. The means of both groups (1 and 3) pertaining to the early acquired words in English were significantly lower than those of the late acquired group (2), implying that perhaps L2 mental lexicon has its own system of representation and processing in beginner bilinguals contrary to the majority of models on L2 mental lexicon and theories, supporting a critical period in learning a second language. The findings of this study have implications for form-meaning interface and dissociation of declarative vs. procedural memory in bilingual mental lexicon research. Accordingly, future research should take into account the important role of AoA in foreign language mental lexicon ‫ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬

∗ Corresponding Author’s E-mail: [email protected]



representation and processing. Keywords: Lexical decision, Age of acquisition, Order of acquisition, Reaction time. Introduction: AoA is considered one of the most significant and influential predictors in language processing both in the first language and second language (Barry, Hirsh, Johnston & Williams, 2001; Carroll & White, 1973; Ellis & Morrison, 1998; Gerhand & Barry, 1999; Ghafar Samar, Tabasi Mofrad & Akbari, 2014; Kremin, Hamerel, Dordain, Wilde & Perrier, 2000; Morrison, 2000; Morrison, Chappel, & Ellis, 1997). An important question is whether words in the second language follow AoA patterns of their translation equivalents in the first language, or they have their own AoA patterns in the second language. For instance, how is a word which acquired early in the first language but learned late in the second language processed in the latter? Does AoA of the same word in the first language have any effect on the processing of the word in the second language? The current study intended to answer these questions in beginner second language learners using a lexical decision task. We followed a convenience sampling in this study. Forty male beginner language learners participated in this study. All of these participants were late bilinguals; they learned English after puberty. Forty five words were selected from Persian version of Snodgrass and Vanderwart object naming battery (Bakhtiar; Nilipour & Weekes, 2013). These words were then classified into three categories based on their AoA patterns: 1/3 of them were learned early in persian and English, 1/3 were learned late in Persian and English, and 1/3 were acquired late in their first language, but learned early in English. We also created some pseudo-words to be used in the task. We used DMDX software in order to measure participants’ reaction times in the lexical decision task. A repeated-measures ANOVA was used for analysis purposes. The results of this analysis revealed that these three groups of words significantly differed in their reaction times. The results showed that the words which were learned early in both Persian and English had the lowest mean, in other words, these words were processed faster than the other two groups. However, those words which were learned late both in Persian and English had the highest reaction time mean. Surprisingly, those words which were



acquired late in Persian, but early in English were processed faster than the words which were learned late in both languages, but slower than the ones which were learned early in both languages. These findings show that if the words in the second language followed first language AoA patterns, then we should not have witnessed a difference between processing time between these word categories since both of them were acquired late in Persian. Generally speaking, our study showed that words in the second language have their own processing patterns which are of course not completely immune to the first language effects. The fact that first language AoA does not affect the processing of second language words may support the other findings that the origin of AoA effects is not in the semantic system, rather it is lexical. The participants of this study were all beginner learners of English. This may explain why their second language words were still influenced by their associations with the first language, but as they obtain further proficiency in the second language, two distinct mental lexicons each catering for one of the two languages may grow. What the findings of this study may offer to the theories of mental lexicon in bilinguals is that they should seriously take into consideration the relationship between AoA and second language proficiency of bilinguals if they want to portray a comprehensive picture of both languages in a bilingual. Reference: • Alario, F.-X.; L. Ferrand; M. Laganaro; B. New; U. H., Frauenfelder & J. Segui (2004). “Predictors of picture naming speed”. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. Vol. 36. pp. 140 - 155. • Bakhtiar, M.; R. Nilipour & B. S. Weekes (2013). “Predictors of timed picture naming in Persian”. Behavior Research Methods. Vol. 44 (3). pp. 834 - 841. • Barry, C.; C. M Morrison & A. W. Ellis (1997). “Naming the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures: Effects of age of acquisition, frequency and name agreement”. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol. 50 A. pp. 560 - 585. • Barry, C.; K. W. Hirsh; R. A Johnston & C. L. Williams (2001). “Age of acquisition, word frequency, and the locus of repetition priming of picture naming”. Journal of Memory and Language. Vol. 44. pp. 350 375. • Brown, G. D. A. & F. L. Watson (1987). “First in, first out: Word learning age and spoken word frequency as predictors of word familiarity


•

•

• •

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•


and word naming latency”. Memory and Cognition.Vol. 15. pp. 208 216. Brysbaert, M.; M. Lange & I. Van Wijnendaele (2000). “The effects of age of acquisition and frequency of occurrence in visual word recognition: Further evidence from Dutch”. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. Vol. 12. pp. 65- 85. ---------------- ; I. Van Wijnendaele & S. De Deyne(2000). «Age of acquisition effects in semantic tasks». Acta Psychologica. V. 104. pp. 215 - 226. Butler, B. & S. Hains. (1979). «Individual differences in word recognition latency». Memory and Cognition. V. 7. pp. 68 - 76. Carroll, J. B. & M. N. White. (1973). “Word frequency and age-ofacquisition as determiners of picture-naming latency”. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol. 25. pp. 85 - 95. Costa, A.; M. Miozzo & A. Caramazza (1999). “Lexical selection in bilinguals: Do words in the bilingual’s two lexicons compete for selection?”. Journal of Memory and Language. Vol. 41. pp. 381 - 391. Cuetos, F.; A. W. Ellis & B. Alvarez (1999). “Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures in Spanish”. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers. Vol. 31. pp. 650 - 658. Davis, S. M. & M. H. Kelly (1997). “Knowledge of English noun-verb stress difference by native and nonnative speakers”. Journal of Memory and Language. Vol. 36. pp. 445 - 460. De Bot, K. (1992). “A bilingual production model: Levelt’s speaking model adapted”. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 13. pp. 1- 24. Ellis, A. W. & M. A. Lambon Ralph (2000). “Age of acquisition effects in adult lexical processing reflect loss of plasticity in maturing systems: Insights from connectionist networks”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. Vol. 26. pp. 1103 - 1123. Ellis, A.W. & C.M. Morrison (1998). “Real age of acquisition effects in lexical retrieval”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. Vol. 24. pp. 515 - 523. Gerhand, S. & C . Barry (1998). “Word frequency effects in oral reading are not merely age-of-acquisition effects in disguise”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. Vol. 24. pp. 267 - 283. Gerhand, S. & C. Barry (1999). “Age of acquisition, frequency and the role of


•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


phonology in the lexical decision task”. Memory and Cognition. Vol. 27. pp. 592 - 602. Ghafar Samar, R. et al. (2014). “Cognitive differences in picture naming between Persian-English bilingual males and females”. Journal of Language Related Research.Vol. 5 (2). pp. 161-178 [In Persian]. Gilhooly, K. J. & M. L. M. Gilhooly (1980). “The validity of age-ofacquisition ratings”. British Journal of Psychology. Vol. 71. pp. 105 110. Gilhooly, K. J. & F. L. Watson (1981). “Word age-of-acquisition effects: A review”. Current Psychological Research. Vol. l. pp. 269 - 286. Harm, M. W., & M. S. Seidenberg (1999). “Phonology, reading and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models”. Psychological Review. Vol. 106. pp. 491-528. Harm, M. W. & M. S. Seidenberg (2004). “Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes”. Psychological Review, Vol. 111. pp. 662-720. Hell, J.G. & M. B. de Groot (1998). “Disentangling context availability and concreteness in lexical decision and word translation”. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol. 51 A. pp. 41 - 63. Hino, Y. & S. J. Lupker (1996). “Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. Vol. 22. pp. 1331 - 1356. Humphreys, G.W.; C. J. Price & M. J. Riddoch (1999). “From objects to names: A cognitive neuroscience approach”. Psychological Research. Vol. 62. pp. 118 - 130. Izura, C., & Ellis, A. W. (2002). “Age of acquisition effects in word recognition and production in first and second languages”. Psicológica. Vol. 23. 245-281. Kremin, H.; M. Hamerel; M. Dordain; M. De Wilde & D. Perrier (2000). “Age of acquisition and name agreement as predictors of mean response latencies in picture naming of French adults”. Brain and Cognition. Vol. 43. pp. 286 - 291. Kroll, J. F. & E. Stewart (1994). “Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations”. Journal of Memory and Language. Vol. 33. 149 - 174.



• Johnston, R. A. & C. Barry (2006). “Age of acquisition and lexical processing”. Visual Cognition. Vol. 13. pp. 789 - 845. • Juhasz, B. J. (2005). “Age-of-acquisition effects in word and picture identification”. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 131. pp. 684 - 712. • Levelt, W. J. M.; A. Roelofs & A. S Meyer (1999). “A theory of lexical access in speech production”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Vol. 22. pp. 1 - 75. • Marinova-Todd, S. H.; D. B Marshall & C. E. Snow (2000). “Three misconceptions about age and L2 learning”. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 34. pp. 9 - 34. • Monaghan, J. & A. W Ellis (2002). “What, exactly, interacts with spelling-sound consistency in word naming? “. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition. Vol. 28 (1). pp. 183 - 206. • Morrison, C. M.; T. D Chappell & A. W. Ellis (1997). “Age of acquisition norms for a large set of object names and their relation to adult estimates and other variables”. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol. 50 A. pp. 528 - 559. • ----------------- & A. W. Ellis (1995). “The roles of word frequency and age of acquisition in word naming and lexical decision”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition. Vol. 21. pp. 116 - 133. • ------------------. (2000). “Real age of acquisition effects in word naming and lexical decision”. British Journal of Psychology. Vol. 91. pp. 167 180. • Nemat-zadeh, Sh. et al. (2013). "Levels of complexity of ss and so type relative clauses in preschool persian speaking children". Journal of Language Related Research. Winter. Vol. 4. pp. 221-244 [In Persian]. • Newport, E. L. (1990). “Maturational constraints on language learning». Cognitive Science. Vol. 14. pp. 11 - 28. • Pérez, M. A. (2007). “Age of acquisition persists as the main factor in picture naming when cumulative word frequency and frequency trajectory are controlled”. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol. 60. pp. 32 - 42. • -------------- & C. Navalón (2005). “Objective - AoA norms for 175 names in Spanish: Relationships with other psycholinguistic variables, estimated - AoA, and data from other languages”. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. Vol. 17. pp. 179 - 206.



• Pind, J. & H. B. Tryggvadóttir (2002). «Determinants of picture naming times in Icelandic». Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. Vol. 43. pp. 221 - 226. • Rogers, T. T. & J. L. McClelland. (2008). «Precis of semantic cognition and parallel distributed processing approach». Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Vol. 31. pp. 689 -749. • Snodgrass, J. G. & M. Vanderwart (1980). “A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory.Vol. 6. pp. 174 - 215. • Steyvers, M. & J. B. Tenenbaum (2005). “The large-scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth”. Cognitive Science. Vol. 29. pp. 41-78. • Turner, J. E.; T. Valentine & A. W Ellis (1998). “Contrasting effects of age of acquisition and word frequency on auditory and visual lexical decision”. Memory and Cognition. Vol. 26. pp. 1282 - 1291. • Weekes, B. S.; H. Shu; M- L. Hao; Y.- Y. Liu & L.- H. Tan (2007). “Predictors of timed picture naming in Chinese”. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. Vol. 39. pp. 335 - 342. • Yamazaki, M.; A. W. Ellis; C. M. Morrison & M. A. Lambon Ralph (1997). “Two age of acquisition effects in the reading of Japanese Kanji”. British Journal of Psychology. Vol. 88. pp. 407- 421

‫ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ‪ /‬ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب واژﮔﺎن در زﺑﺎن دوم‪:‬‬ ‫ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ در دو زﺑﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎي ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ‪ -‬اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻣﺆﻣﻨﻴﺎن‪ ،1‬رﺿﺎ ﻧﻴﻠﻲﭘﻮر‪ ،*2‬رﺿﺎ ﻏﻔﺎرﺛﻤﺮ‪ ،3‬ﻣﺤﻤﺪﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﻘﺎﺑﻴﺎن‬

‫‪4‬‬

‫‪ .1‬داﻧﺸﺠﻮي دﻛﺘﺮي آﻣﻮزش زﺑﺎن اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ‪ ،‬داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺗﺮﺑﻴﺖ ﻣﺪرس‪ ،‬ﺗﻬﺮان‪ ،‬اﻳﺮان‬ ‫‪ .2‬اﺳﺘﺎد ﮔﻔﺘﺎردرﻣﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﻋﻠﻮم ﺑﻬﺰﻳﺴﺘﻲ و ﺗﻮاﻧﺒﺨﺸﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻬﺮان‪ ،‬اﻳﺮان‬ ‫‪ .3‬داﻧﺸﻴﺎر آﻣﻮزش زﺑﺎن اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ‪ ،‬داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﺗﺮﺑﻴﺖ ﻣﺪرس‪ ،‬ﺗﻬﺮان‪ ،‬اﻳﺮان‬

‫درﻳﺎﻓﺖ‪92/1/31 :‬‬

‫ﭘﺬﻳﺮش‪92/4/8 :‬‬

‫ﭼﻜﻴﺪه‬ ‫ﻫﺪف از ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺔ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ‪ /‬ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب واژﮔﺎن در زﻣﺎن ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ در‬ ‫دوزﺑﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎي ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ‪ -‬اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ اﺳﺖ‪ 40 .‬داﻧﺸﺠﻮي ﺳﺎل اول داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻟﺤﺎظ ﻣﻬﺎرت زﺑﺎن دوم در‬ ‫ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﺒﺘﺪي ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ در اﻳﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺷﺮﻛﺖ ﻛﺮدﻧﺪ‪ 45 .‬ﻛﻠﻤﺔ اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ و ﺗﻌﺪادي ﺷﺒﻪﻛﻠﻤﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ﻣﺤﺮك‪،‬‬ ‫اﻧﺘﺨﺎب و ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از ﻧﺮماﻓﺰار ‪ DMDX‬اراﺋﻪ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪ .‬اﻳﻦ ‪ 45‬واژه ﺑﻪ ﺳﻪ ﮔﺮوه ﻣﺠﺰا ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪15 :‬‬ ‫ﻛﻠﻤﻪ ﻫﻢ در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ و ﻫﻢ در اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺑﻪﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ؛ ‪ 15‬ﻛﻠﻤﻪ ﻫﻢ در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ و ﻫﻢ در‬ ‫اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺑﻪﻛﻨﺪي ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ و ‪ 15‬ﻛﻠﻤﻪ در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ ﺑﻪﻛﻨﺪي‪ ،‬وﻟﻲ در اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺑﻪﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ‬ ‫ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﺪف از اﻳﻦ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢﺑﻨﺪي اﻳﻦ ﺑﻮد ﻛﻪ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ آﻳﺎ ﭘﺮدازش و ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ در زﺑﺎن دوم‬ ‫ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻣﻌﺎدلﻫﺎي اﻳﻦ ﻛﻠﻤﺎت در زﺑﺎن اول ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻳﺎ اﻳﻦﻛﻪ واژﮔﺎن در زﺑﺎن دوم از‬ ‫اﻟﮕﻮي ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﺧﻮد ﭘﻴﺮوي ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺮاي ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ و ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ دادهﻫﺎ از آزﻣﻮن ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده‬ ‫ﻛﺮدﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﻧﺸﺎن داد زﻣﺎن ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ در ﻟﻐﺎﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ در زﺑﺎن دوم ﺑﻪﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه‬ ‫ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪﻃﻮر ﻣﻌﻨﺎداري از ﻟﻐﺎﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪﻛﻨﺪي ﻳﺎد ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺘﺮ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﺒﺎرت دﻳﮕﺮ‪ ،‬ﺳﻦ‪/‬‬ ‫ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻟﻐﺎت در زﺑﺎن دوم‪ ،‬ﺻﺮف ﻧﻈﺮ از ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻫﻤﺎن ﻟﻐﺎت در زﺑﺎن اول‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻣﻌﻨﺎداري‬ ‫در ﭘﺮدازش اﻳﻦ ﻟﻐﺎت در زﺑﺎن دوم داﺷﺖ‪ .‬ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ اﺛﺮات ﺳﺎزﻧﺪهاي را در روﺷﻦ ﻛﺮدن‬ ‫ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ دوزﺑﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎ و ﻧﺤﻮة ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲ و ﭘﺮدازش در اﻳﻦ ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ ﺧﻮاﻫﺪ داﺷﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫واژﮔﺎن ﻛﻠﻴﺪي‪ :‬ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب‪ ،‬زﺑﺎن دوم‪ ،‬ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬زﻣﺎن واﻛﻨﺶ‪.‬‬ ‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬

‫∗ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪة ﻣﺴﺌﻮل ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ‪:‬‬

‫‪E-mail: [email protected]‬‬

‫دوﻣﺎﻫﻨﺎﻣﺔ ﺟﺴﺘﺎرﻫﺎي زﺑﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫د‪ ، 5‬ش‪) 5‬ﭘﻴﺎﭘﻲ ‪ ،(21‬ﺑﻬﻤﻦ و اﺳﻔﻨﺪ ‪ ،1393‬ﺻﺺ‪250-229‬‬

‫‪ .4‬اﺳﺘﺎد ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻚ ﭘﺰﺷﻜﻲ‪ ،‬داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﻋﻠﻮم ﭘﺰﺷﻜﻲ ﺗﻬﺮان‪ ،‬ﺗﻬﺮان‪ ،‬اﻳﺮان‬

‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻣﻮﻣﻨﻴﺎن و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران‬

‫ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ‪/‬ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب‪...‬‬

‫‪ .1‬ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ‬ ‫ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ و ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب واژﮔﺎن ﻫﻢ در زﺑﺎن اول و ﻫﻢ در زﺑﺎن ﺧﺎرﺟﻲ‪ ،‬از‬ ‫ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ در ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲ و ﭘﺮدازش واژﮔﺎن در اﻏﻠﺐ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎت زﺑﺎن ﻗﻠﻤﺪاد ﻣﻲﺷﻮد‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺣﺎل ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪاي درﺑﺎرة ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب در ﭘﺮدازش واژﮔﺎن زﺑﺎن ﺧﺎرﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪوﻳﮋه در‬ ‫ﻣﻴﺎن زﺑﺎنآﻣﻮزان ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ اﻧﺠﺎم ﻧﺸﺪه اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮاﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪﻃﻮر ﻗﻄﻌﻲ ﻣﻌﻠﻮم ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ آﻳﺎ‬ ‫ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي و ﭘﺮدازش ﻟﻐﺎت زﺑﺎن اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ )ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان زﺑﺎن ﺧﺎرﺟﻲ( ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻫﻤﺎن‬ ‫ﻛﻠﻤﺎت در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ اﺳﺖ ﻳﺎ ﺧﻴﺮ؟ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ اﻳﻦﻛﻪ آﻳﺎ ﻓﺮاﮔﻴﺮي و ﭘﺮدازش واژهاي ﻣﺜﻞ ‪ cat‬در‬ ‫اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺑﺮاﺳﺎس ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي ﻫﻤﺎن واژه در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ اﺳﺖ و ﻳﺎ اﻳﻦﻛﻪ ﺑﺪون در ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ‬ ‫ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي اﻳﻦ ﻟﻐﺖ در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ از اﻟﮕﻮي ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي ﺧﻮد در زﺑﺎن ﺧﺎرﺟﻲ ﭘﻴﺮوي ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ؟‬ ‫آﻧﭽﻪ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﺔ اﺻﻠﻲ اﻳﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺑﻮده و از اﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﻧﻈﺮي ﺑﺴﻴﺎري ﺑﺮﺧﻮردار اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬اﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ‬ ‫اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ آﻳﺎ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ در اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ )زﺑﺎن ﺧﺎرﺟﻲ( ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻫﻤﺎن‬ ‫ﻛﻠﻤﺎت در اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان زﺑﺎن دوم ﻳﺎ ﺑﺮاﺳﺎس ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻃﻪ در زﺑﺎن اول‬ ‫)ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ( ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد؟‬ ‫ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎت‪ ‬ﭘﺮدازش و ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲ واژﮔﺎن در دوزﺑﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪوﻳﮋه زﺑﺎنآﻣﻮزان ﻣﺒﺘﺪي‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﻛﻲ‬ ‫از اﻳﻦ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﭘﺮدازش واژﮔﺎن در زﺑﺎن دوم ﻣﻨﻌﻜﺲﻛﻨﻨﺪة ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻫﻤﺎن واژﮔﺎن در‬ ‫زﺑﺎن ﻣﺎدري‪ /‬اول ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺔ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﺪ در روﺷﻦ ﻛﺮدن اﻳﻦ دﻳﺪﮔﺎه ﻛﻤﻚ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻳﺎﻧﻲ داﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪاي در روانﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ زﺑﺎن در ﭘﻲ آن اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺳﻦ‬ ‫اﻛﺘﺴﺎب واژﮔﺎن در زﺑﺎن اول و زﺑﺎن ﺧﺎرﺟﻲ را در ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ ﻟﻐﺎت اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ در‬ ‫دوزﺑﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎي ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ‪ -‬اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻗﺮار دﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﺒﺎرت دﻳﮕﺮ‪ ،‬اﻳﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ در ﭘﻲ‬ ‫ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ اﻳﻦ ﻧﻜﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ آﻳﺎ ﭘﺮدازش ﻟﻐﺎت زﺑﺎن دوم ﺑﻪ ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻫﻤﺎن ﻟﻐﺎت در زﺑﺎن اول‬ ‫واﺑﺴﺘﻪ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻳﺎ اﻳﻦﻛﻪ ﭘﺮدازش اﻳﻦ ﻟﻐﺎت در زﺑﺎن دوم از اﻟﮕﻮي ﺧﺎص ﺧﻮد ﭘﻴﺮوي ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺔ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺑﺎ اﺗﺨﺎذ روﻳﻜﺮدي ﻋﻠﻤﻲ و ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از زﻣﺎن واﻛﻨﺶ در ﭘﻲ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺆال‬ ‫زﻳﺮ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬آﻳﺎ ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب واژﮔﺎن در زﺑﺎن اول و زﺑﺎن ﺧﺎرﺟﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮي ﺑﺮ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬ ‫واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ ﻫﻤﺎن ﻟﻐﺎت در زﺑﺎن ﺧﺎرﺟﻲ دارد؟‬

‫ﺟﺴﺘﺎرﻫﺎي زﺑﺎﻧﻲ‬

‫دورة ‪ ،5‬ﺷﻤﺎرة ‪) 5‬ﭘﻴﺎﭘﻲ ‪ ،(21‬ﺑﻬﻤﻦ و اﺳﻔﻨﺪ ‪1393‬‬

‫‪ .2‬ﭘﻴﺸﻴﻨﻪ و ﭼﺎرﭼﻮب ﻧﻈﺮي ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ‬ ‫ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ در روﻧﺪ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي زﺑﺎن‪ ،‬زودﺗﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﻨﺪ ﺳﺮﻳﻊﺗﺮ از ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ‬ ‫دﻳﺮﺗﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺸﺨﻴﺺ داده ﺷﺪه و ﭘﺮدازش ﺷﻮﻧﺪ ;‪(Alario & et al., 2004‬‬ ‫‪Johnston & Barry, 2006; Pind & Tryggvadóttir, 2002; Weekes & et al., 2007; Pérez,‬‬ ‫‪ .(2005 & 2007‬ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب‪ 1‬ﺑﺮ ﭘﺮدازش واژﮔﺎن‪ ،‬ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ از ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺑﺴﺎﻣﺪ‪ 2‬ﻛﻠﻤﺎت‬

‫اﺳﺖ و در ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎت ﻣﺘﻌﺪدي ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ار آنﻫﺎ ﻋﺒﺎرتاﻧﺪ از‪ :‬ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪن‬ ‫‪3‬‬

‫ﺗﺼﺎوﻳﺮ اﺷﻴﺎ & ‪(Vide. Barry; Morrison & Ellis, 1997; Barry & et al, 2001; Carroll‬‬

‫)‪White, 1973; Ellis & Morrison, 1998, Ghafar Samar; Tabasi Mofrad & Akbari, 2014‬؛‬ ‫ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪن ﻳﺎ ﺧﻮاﻧﺪن ﻛﻠﻤﺎت‪(Vide. Morrison; Chappell & Ellis, 1997; Barry & et al., 4‬‬ ‫)‪2000; Gerhand & Barry, 1999‬؛ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ‪ 5‬ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮي ‪;(Vide. Butler & Hains, 1979‬‬

‫)‪ Gerhand & Barry, 1999; Morrison; Chappell & Ellis, 1997‬و ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﺷﻨﻴﺪاري )‪.(Vide. Turner; Valentine & Ellis, 1998‬‬

‫ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي‪ 6‬در اﻏﻠﺐ زﺑﺎنﻫﺎ ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﻢاﻛﻨﻮن ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ‬ ‫ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي ﺑﺮاي ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪن ﺗﺼﺎوﻳﺮ در زﺑﺎن اﺳﭙﺎﻧﻴﺎﻳﻲ)‪ ،(Vide. Cuetos; Ellis, & Álvarez, 1999‬در‬ ‫ﻓﺮاﻧﺴﻮي )‪ ،(Vide. Kremin, et al., 2000‬ﺑﺮاي ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪن ﻛﻠﻤﺎت در ﻫﻠﻨﺪي ;‪(Vide. Brysbaert‬‬

‫)‪ Lange & Van Wijnendaele, 2000‬و ﺑﺮاي ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪن ﻋﻼﺋﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺠﻲ‬

‫‪7‬‬

‫در ژاﭘﻨﻲ‬

‫)‪ (Vide. Yamazaki; Ellis; Morrison & Lambon Ralph, 1997‬ﮔﺰارش ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺗﻤﺎم اﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎت ﺷﺎﻣﻞ آزﻣﻮدﻧﻲﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﻪ زﺑﺎن ﻣﺎدرﻳﺸﺎن ﻣﺴﻠﻂ ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﺒﺎرت دﻳﮕﺮ اﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎت ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب در زﺑﺎن اول را ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﻗﺮار دادهاﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮاﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات‬ ‫ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻛﻪ در اﻳﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎت ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻮﻋﻲ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺗﻲ ﺑﻮد ﻛﻪ‬ ‫در دوران اوﻟﻴﺔ ﻛﻮدﻛﻲ و در دوران ﺑﻌﺪ از ﻛﻮدﻛﻲ و ﻳﺎ ﺑﺰرﮔﺴﺎﻟﻲ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺳﺎلﻫﺎي اوﻟﻴﺔ ﻛﻮدﻛﻲ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ از ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪﭘﺮدازان ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ﻳﻚ دورة ﺑﺤﺮاﻧﻲ‪ 8‬ﺑﺮاي اﻛﺘﺴﺎب‬ ‫زﺑﺎن ﻗﻠﻤﺪاد ﻣﻲﺷﻮد)‪.(Newport, 1990;Vide. Marinova-Todd; Marshall & Snow, 2000‬‬

‫ﺻﺮف ﻧﻈﺮ از درﺳﺘﻲ ﻳﺎ ﻧﺎدرﺳﺘﻲ ﻣﻔﻬﻮم دورة ﺑﺤﺮاﻧﻲ ﺑﺮاي ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي زﺑﺎن‪ ،‬ﺑﺪون ﺷﻚ زﻣﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات ﻋﺼﺒﻲ ﻋﻤﺪهاي در ﻣﻐﺰ ﻛﻮدك‪ ‬در ﺣﺎل رﺷﺪ رخ ﻣﻲدﻫﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻛﻮدك در ﺣﺎل ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫)‪Age of Acquisit ion (AoA‬‬ ‫‪2 Frequency‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪P icture naming‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪W ord reading‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪Lexical decision‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪AoA effects‬‬ ‫‪7 Kanj i characters‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪Critical period‬‬



‫واژﮔﺎن اوﻟﻴﻪ اﺳﺖ و اﻳﻦ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮات ﻣﻤﻜﻦ اﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻮﻧﻪﻫﺎي ﻣﺘﻌﺪدي ﺑﺎ روﻧﺪ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي زﺑﺎن ﻣﺎدري‬ ‫در ارﺗﺒﺎط ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﻲﺗﻮان ﻓﺮض ﻛﺮد ﻛﻪ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب در زﺑﺎن ﻣﺎدري ﺑﺰرﮔﺴﺎﻻن ﺗﻔﺎوتﻫﺎﻳﻲ را در‬ ‫ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺖ ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲ‪ 9‬واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ در ﻃﻮل و ﻳﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ از دورة رﺷﺪ اﻳﻦ ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪﻫﺎي ﻋﺼﺒﻲ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ‬ ‫ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‪ ،‬آﺷﻜﺎر ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻳﻚ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﻛﻪ ﻧﺸﺎن ﻣﻲدﻫﺪ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ اﺳﺖ اﻳﻦ ﻓﺮض درﺳﺖ ﻧﺒﺎﺷﺪ و‬ ‫اﻳﻦﻛﻪ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي ﻣﻤﻜﻦ اﺳﺖ ﺑﺮاي ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎي ﺑﻌﺪ از دوران اوﻟﻴﺔ ﻛﻮدﻛﻲ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬در ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺔ ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪن ﻋﻼﺋﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺠﻲ ژاﭘﻨﻲ ﮔﺰارش ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ ‪(Vide. Yamazaki, et‬‬

‫)‪ .al., 1997‬در اﻳﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﮕﺮان دو اﻟﮕﻮي ﻣﺘﻔﺎوت از ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي را ﻛﻪ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻨﺎداري ﺑﺮ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪن ﻛﺎﻧﺠﻲ داﺷﺖ‪ ،‬ﺗﺸﺨﻴﺺ دادﻧﺪ؛ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي واژﮔﺎن ﮔﻔﺘﺎري‬ ‫ﺑﻮد ﻛﻪ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻋﻼﺋﻢ ﻧﺸﺎن داده ﻣﻲﺷﺪﻧﺪ و دﻳﮕﺮي ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي ﺧﻮد ﻋﻼﺋﻢ )ﺣﺮوف‬ ‫ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎري( ﺑﻮد‪ .‬ﻛﻮدﻛﺎن ژاﭘﻨﻲ در ﺳﻦ ‪ 7‬ﺳﺎﻟﮕﻲ ﺷﺮوع ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮاﻧﺪن ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ و ﻳﻚ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺔ ﻣﻨﻈﻢ‬ ‫را ﻛﻪ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ در ﭼﻪ ﺳﺎﻟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻛﺪامﻳﻚ از ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎ و ﻋﻼﺋﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﺠﻲ را ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻓﺮاﺑﮕﻴﺮﻧﺪ‪،‬‬ ‫دﻧﺒﺎل ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮاﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮاي ﻳﻚ ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﻛﺎﻣﻼٌ آﺷﻜﺎر اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻋﻼﺋﻢ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ در ﭼﻪ ﺳﻨﻲ‬ ‫ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‪ .‬در ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺔ ﻳﺎﻣﺎزاﻛﻲ و ﻫﻤﻜﺎران )‪ ،(1997‬ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي ﻋﻼﺋﻢ ژاﭘﻨﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻨﺎدارﺗﺮي ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي ﻛﻠﻤﺎت در زﺑﺎن ﮔﻔﺘﺎر داﺷﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮاﻳﻦ ﻣﻲﺗﻮان ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‬ ‫ﻛﻪ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎري ﺑﺮاﺳﺎس ﺗﻔﺎوتﻫﺎ در زﻣﺎن ﺑﻮد ﻛﻪ ﻓﺮاﺗﺮ از ﻫﺮ دورة ﺑﺤﺮاﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﺑﺮاي اﻛﺘﺴﺎب زﺑﺎن اول ﺑﻮد‪.‬‬ ‫روش دﻳﮕﺮ ﺑﺮاي ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﻣﻨﺸﺄ و ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ ﻳـﺎدﮔﻴﺮي‪ ،‬ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌـﺔ اﻳـﻦ ﻧﻜﺘـﻪ اﺳـﺖ ﻛـﻪ آﻳـﺎ‬ ‫ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮاﺗﻲ در زﺑﺎنﻫﺎي دوﻣﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ از اواﺧﺮ ﻛﻮدﻛﻲ ﻳـﺎ ﺑﺰرﮔﺴـﺎﻟﻲ ﻓـﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘـﻪ ﺷـﺪهاﻧـﺪ‪ ،‬وﺟـﻮد‬ ‫دارد؟ ﻛﺸﻒ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي در زﺑﺎنﻫﺎي دوم ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﺪ ﭘﻴﺎﻣـﺪﻫﺎي ﻧﻈـﺮي ﻗﺎﺑـﻞ ﺗـﻮﺟﻬﻲ داﺷـﺘﻪ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺮاون و واﺗﺴﻮن )‪ (1987‬ﭘﻴﺸـﻨﻬﺎد ﻛﺮدﻧـﺪ ﻛـﻪ ﺗـﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺳـﻦ اﻛﺘﺴـﺎب ﺑـﻪ دﻟﻴـﻞ ﺗﻔـﺎوت در ﻛﻴﻔﻴـﺖ‬ ‫ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲ واﺟﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺳﺮﻳﻊﺗﺮ‪ /‬ﻛﻨﺪﺗﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬آنﻫﺎ اﻋﺘﻘـﺎد داﺷـﺘﻨﺪ ﻛﻠﻤـﺎﺗﻲ ﻛـﻪ‬ ‫زودﺗﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ از ﻟﺤﺎظ واﺟﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮرت ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﻲﺷـﻮﻧﺪ؛ در ﺻـﻮرﺗﻲﻛـﻪ ﻛﻠﻤـﺎﺗﻲ‬ ‫ﻛﻪ دﻳﺮﺗﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪﻃﻮر واﺟﻲ ﺗﻜﻪﺗﻜﻪ ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨـﺎﺑﺮاﻳﻦ ﺑﺎزﻳـﺎﺑﻲ آنﻫـﺎ در ﻣﻐـﺰ‬ ‫آﻫﺴﺘﻪ اﻧﺠﺎم ﻣﻲﺷﻮد؛ زﻳﺮا ﺑﺮاي ﻓﺮاﻳﻨﺪ ﺗﻜﻤﻴﻞ واﺟـﻲ ﻧﻴـﺎز ﺑـﻪ زﻣـﺎن دارﻧـﺪ )ﻓﺮﺿـﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻣـﻞ واﺟـﻲ‪.(10‬‬ ‫اﮔﺮﭼﻪ ﺑﻪ اﻳﻦ ﻓﺮﺿﻴﻪ در ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎت ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ اﺷﺎره ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬اﻣﺎ ﺷﻮاﻫﺪ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﺑﺮاي اﻳﻦ روﻳﻜـﺮد وﺟـﻮد‬ ‫‪9 Representation‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪Phonological Com pleteness hypothesi s‬‬



‫ﻧﺪارد‪ .‬ﻫﻤﭽﻮن ﺑﺮاون و واﺗﺴﻮن ﺗﻌﺪادي از ﻣﺤﻘﻘـﺎن دﻳﮕـﺮ ﺗـﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺳـﻦ ﻳـﺎدﮔﻴﺮي را ﻣﺮﺑـﻮط ﺑـﻪ ﺳـﻄﺢ‬ ‫ﺧﺮوﺟـﻲ واﺟـﻲ ﻣـﻲداﻧﻨـﺪ ‪(Barry & et al, 2000; Ellis & Morrison, 1995; Gilhooly & Watson,‬‬ ‫‪1981).‬‬

‫اﻟﻴﺲ و ﻻﻣﺒﻮنراﻟﻒ )‪ (2000‬دﻟﻴﻞ دﻳﮕﺮي را ﺑﺮاي ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب اراﺋﻪ دادﻧﺪ‪ .‬آنﻫﺎ‬ ‫ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎد ﻛﺮدهاﻧﺪ راﺑﻄﺔ ﻣﻴﺎن ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎ )ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ﻣﺜﺎل‪ ،‬رواﺑﻂ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻲ و ﺷﻜﻞ واﺟﻲ‪/‬‬ ‫اﻣﻼﻳﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﻪ( در واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ زودﺗﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ دﻳﺮﺗﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ‬ ‫ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺗﺮ اﺳﺖ‪ .‬آنﻫﺎ ﻧﺸﺎن دادﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ اﮔﺮ ﺷﺒﻜﻪﻫﺎي ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪﮔﺮا‪ 11‬ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﻣﻮارد را زودﺗﺮ از‬ ‫ﻣﻮارد دﻳﮕﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪ؛ ﻣﻮاردي ﻛﻪ زودﺗﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‪ ،‬از ﻓﺮﺻﺖﻫﺎ ﺑﺮاي ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻧﻘﺎط‬

‫‪12‬‬

‫ارﺗﺒﺎﻃﻲ ﺑﺮاي ﻣﻮرد ﻧﻈﺮ ﺧﻮد اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﻮاردي ﻛﻪ ﺑﻌﺪاٌ وارد ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ ﺗﺎﺣﺪي‬ ‫ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﻨﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﻣﺠﺪد اﻳﻦ رواﺑﻂ دﺳﺖ ﺑﺰﻧﻨﺪ‪ ،‬اﻣﺎ ﺗﻼﺷﺸﺎن ﺑﺮاي ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻛﺎري ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻣﻮارد‬ ‫زود ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه‪ -‬ﻛﻪ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﺎن در ﻛﻨﺎر آنﻫﺎ در ﺣﺎل ﺗﻘﻮﻳﺖ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ -‬ﺧﻨﺜﻲ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد‪ .‬ﺣﺘﻲ ﺑﻌﺪ‬ ‫از آﻣﻮزش اﺿﺎﻓﻲ روي ﻣﻮارد زودﺗﺮ و دﻳﺮﺗﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮد ﺷﺒﻜﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﺪاري از‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪاي ﻛﻪ زودﺗﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ اداﻣﻪ ﻣﻲدﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮاﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي ﺑﺮاي‬ ‫ﻫﺮ راﺑﻄﻪاي‪ ،‬ﻧﻪﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ‪ ،‬آوا و ﻳﺎ اﻣﻼي ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻫﺮﻳﻚ از ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎ‬ ‫اﻋﻤﺎل ﻣﻲﺷﻮد‪ .‬ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب‪ ،‬ﺧﺼﻮﺻﻴﺖ ذاﺗﻲ ﺧﻮد ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﭘﺪﻳﺪهاي‬ ‫اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ در ارﺗﺒﺎط ﺑﻴﻦ ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ وﺟﻮد ﻣﻲآﻳﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮﻳﺴﺒﺎرت‪ ،‬ونوﻳﺠﻴﻨﻨﺪال و دودﻳﻦ )‪ (2000‬ﺑﺮ اﻳﻦ ﺑﺎورﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻣﻤﻜﻦ اﺳﺖ ﻳﻚ‬ ‫اﺻﻞ ﺳﺎزﻣﺎندﻫﻨﺪه در ﺧﺮوﺟﻲ واژﮔﺎن و ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢﻫﺎي ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ و ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺖ ﺧﻮد ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﺪ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻲ از ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬اﻳﻦ روﻳﻜﺮد ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎﻳﻲ را ﺑﺮاي ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات اﺣﺘﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺳﻦ‬ ‫اﻛﺘﺴﺎب زﺑﺎن دوم دارد‪ .‬ﺑﻪﻃﻮر ﻛﻠﻲ ﺑﺎور ﺑﺮ اﻳﻦ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎي ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲِ ﻳﻜﺴﺎﻧﻲ در‬ ‫ﭘﺮدازش ﻛﻠﻤﺎت در زﺑﺎن اول و دوم درﮔﻴﺮ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ;& ‪(De Bot, 1992; Costa; Miozzo‬‬

‫)‪ .Caramazza, 1999; Hell & de Groot, 1998; Kroll & Stewart, 1994‬اﮔﺮ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي ﻳﻚ‬ ‫ﻛﻠﻤﻪ در زﺑﺎن دوم ﺷﺎﻣﻞ اﻳﺠﺎد ارﺗﺒﺎط ﺑﻴﻦ اﺷﻜﺎل اﻣﻼﻳﻲ و واﺟﻲ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ )زﺑﺎن دوم( ﺑﺎ‬ ‫ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎي ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ ازﭘﻴﺶﻣﻮﺟﻮد )زﺑﺎن اول( درﺳﺖ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮاﻳﻦ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي ﻛﻪ‬ ‫ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮرت ذاﺗﻲ در ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎي ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ وﺟﻮد دارﻧﺪ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻟﻐﺎت زﺑﺎن دوم ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﻨﺘﻘﻞ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ؛‬ ‫ﺑﻪﻃﻮريﻛﻪ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب در زﺑﺎن دوم‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﻌﻜﺲﻛﻨﻨﺪة ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺮﺑﻮط در‬ ‫‪11 Connectio nist networks‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪strength‬‬



‫زﺑﺎن اول ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬در ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪ ،‬اﮔﺮ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﺧﺼﻮﺻﻴﺖ ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎي واﺟﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‬ ‫)‪ (Vide. Brown & Watson, 1987‬و ﻳﺎ ﺧﺼﻮﺻﻴﺖ رواﺑﻂ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻛﻠﻤﻪ و ﻣﻌﻨﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‬ ‫)‪ ،(Vide. Ellis & Lambon Ralph, 2000‬ﭘﺲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي در زﺑﺎن دوم ﺑﺎﻳﺪ‬ ‫ﻣﻨﻌﻜﺲﻛﻨﻨﺪة ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻛﻠﻤﺎت در زﺑﺎن دوم ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻫﻤﺎن ﻛﻠﻤﺎت در‬ ‫زﺑﺎن اول‪.‬‬ ‫در ﺣﺎل ﺣﺎﺿﺮ دو ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺑﺮاي ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ رﻗﺎﺑﺖ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬اوﻟﻴﻦ‬

‫ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ‬

‫‪13‬‬

‫ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪه ﻣﻲﺷﻮد ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮاﺳﺎس آن ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻳﻚ ﺧﺼﻮﺻﻴﺖ ذاﺗﻲ‬

‫ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎي ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ واژﮔﺎن اﺳﺖ )‪ .(Vide. Brysbaert & et al., 2000‬در اﻳﻦ روﻳﻜﺮد‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات‬ ‫ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب در ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪن اﺷﻴﺎ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ از ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ اﺳﺖ و در ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ از‬ ‫ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪن ﻛﻠﻤﻪ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ )‪.(Vide. Barry & et al., 2001; Morrison & Ellis, 1995‬‬

‫اﻣﺎ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ اﺳﺖ ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب‪ 14‬ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺖ ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲ آنﻫﺎ را ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻗﺮاردﻫﺪ؟ ﻳﻚ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ اﺳﺘﻴﻮرز و ﺗﻨﻨﺒﻮم )‪ (2005‬اراﺋﻪ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ‪ .‬آنﻫﺎ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎد دادﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ‬ ‫ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪ رﺷﺪ داﻧﺶ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ اﻳﻦ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ زودﺗﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪﺷﺪه در ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ دﻳﺮﺗﺮ‬ ‫ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪﺷﺪه ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮرت ﭘﺎﻳﺪارﺗﺮي در ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ داﻧﺶ ﻳﻚ ﻓﺮد )ﺣﺎﻓﻈﺔ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ‪ (15‬ذﺧﻴﺮه‬ ‫ﻣﻲﺷﻮﻧﺪ؛ درﺣﺎﻟﻲﻛﻪ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﻛﻪ دﻳﺮﺗﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‪ ،‬در ﺷﺒﻜﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻛﻤﺘﺮي ﻣﺘﺼﻞ‬ ‫ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ و در ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ از ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺖ ﻛﻤﺘﺮي در ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﻛﻪ زودﺗﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‬ ‫ﺑﺮﺧﻮردارﻧﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﻚ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺰﻳﻦ ﺑﺮاي ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻧﻘﺸﻪﺑﺮداري‪ 16‬اﻟﻴﺲ و راﻣﺒﻮنراﻟﻒ )‪(2000‬‬ ‫اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻣﻮﻧﺎﻗﺎن و اﻟﻴﺲ )‪ (2002‬ﺑﺴﻂ داده ﺷﺪ‪ .‬در اﻳﻦ ﻓﺮﺿﻴﻪ‪ ،‬رﻳﺸﺔ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات‬ ‫ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﺑﺮاﺳﺎس رﻓﺘﺎر ﻳﻚ ﺷﺒﻜﺔ ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪﮔﺮا ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎي ﺗﻮزﻳﻊﺷﺪه‪ 17‬ﺑﻪ‬ ‫اﻳﺠﺎد ارﺗﺒﺎط ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﮕﻮﻫﺎي ورودي‪ 18‬و ﺧﺮوﺟﻲ‪ 19‬ﻣﻲﭘﺮدازد‪ ،‬ﺑﻨﺎ ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺷﺒﻜﻪﻫﺎﻳﻲ‬ ‫ﺑﻪﻃﻮر ﮔﺴﺘﺮده در ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎت زﺑﺎن و ﺣﺎﻓﻈﻪ ﻣﻮرد اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪاﻧﺪ & ‪(Vide. Harm‬‬ ‫)‪ .Seidenberg, 1999 & 2004; Rogers & McClelland, 2008‬ﺣﺴﺎﺳﻴﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ‬ ‫اﻛﺘﺴﺎب در ﺷﺒﻜﻪﻫﺎي ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪﮔﺮا ﺑﻪ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺖ ﭘﻴﺶﺑﻴﻨﻲ رواﺑﻂ ورودي‪ -‬ﺧﺮوﺟﻲ ﺑﻪ اﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﻲ اﺳﺖ‬ ‫ﻛﻪ ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻧﻘﺸﻪﺑﺮداري ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﺮاه ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ اﻳﻦ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻓﺮض ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ‬ ‫‪13 Sem antic hy pothesis‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫‪Order of acquisition‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪Sem antic mem ory‬‬

‫‪17‬‬ ‫‪Distribu ted‬‬ ‫‪18 Input‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬ ‫‪Output‬‬



‫اﻛﺘﺴﺎب در ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺖﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ راﺑﻄﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎي ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ و ﺷﻜﻞ ﻛﻠﻤﻪ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫اﻳﻦ اﻣﻜﺎن ﻛﻪ ﭘﺮدازش واژﮔﺎن زﺑﺎن دوم ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﺪ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺳﻦ ﻳﺎ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻫﻤﺎن‬ ‫واژﮔﺎن در زﺑﺎن دوم ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺳﻂ اﻳﺰورا و اﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ .‬آنﻫﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ‬ ‫اﻛﺘﺴﺎب زﺑﺎن اول و دوم را در آزﻣﻮدﻧﻲﻫﺎي اﺳﭙﺎﻧﻴﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ را ﺑﻌﺪ از ‪ 10‬ﺳﺎﻟﮕﻲ‬ ‫ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﻗﺮار دادﻧﺪ )‪ .(Vide. Izura & Ellis, 2002‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ از‬ ‫ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪن اﺷﻴﺎ و ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ در اﺳﭙﺎﻧﻴﺎﻳﻲ )زﺑﺎن اول(‪ ،‬ﻧﺸﺎندﻫﻨﺪة ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب‬ ‫زﺑﺎن اول ﺑﻮد‪ .‬اﻣﺎ زﻣﺎﻧﻲﻛﻪ آزﻣﻮدﻧﻲﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ )زﺑﺎن دوم(‪ ،‬اﺷﻴﺎ را ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪﻧﺪ و ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬ ‫واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﮔﻮﻳﺎي وﺟﻮد ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮات ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب در زﺑﺎن دوم آزﻣﻮدﻧﻲﻫﺎي ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ‬ ‫ﺑﻮد‪ .‬آنﻫﺎ در ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ و ﺗﺸﺨﻴﺺ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ در روﻧﺪ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي زﺑﺎن دوم زودﺗﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه‬ ‫ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ در ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻮاردي ﻛﻪ دﻳﺮﺗﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺳﺮﻳﻊﺗﺮ ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫آﻧﭽﻪ از اﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﻧﻈﺮي ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮي ﺑﺮﺧﻮردار اﺳﺖ اﻳﻦ واﻗﻌﻴﺖ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬ ‫واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ در اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ )زﺑﺎن دوم( ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻫﻤﺎن ﻛﻠﻤﺎت در اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان زﺑﺎن‬ ‫دوم‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد ﺗﺎ ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻃﻪ در زﺑﺎن اوﻟﺸﺎن‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺎنﻃﻮر ﻛﻪ اﻳﺰورا و‬ ‫اﻟﻴﺲ )‪ (2002‬اﺷﺎره ﻛﺮدهاﻧﺪ اﻳﻦ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﻣﻲﺗﻮاﻧﻨﺪ ﺑﺮاي ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎت ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺸﻜﻞآﻓﺮﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ؛ زﻳﺮا‬ ‫اﮔﺮ واژﮔﺎن زﺑﺎن اول و دوم در ﺑﺎزﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲﻫﺎي ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ‪ -‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﻲ ﻣﺸﺘﺮك ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‬ ‫)‪ ،(Costa, Miozzo & Caramazza, 1999; Vide. De bot, 1992‬ﭘﺲ واژﮔﺎن زﺑﺎن دوم ﺑﺎﻳﺪ از‬ ‫وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎي ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب ﻣﻌﺎدلﻫﺎي ﻫﻤﺎن ﻛﻠﻤﺎت در زﺑﺎن اول ﺑﺮﺧﻮردار ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ .‬آﻧﭽﻪ اﻳﺰورا و‬ ‫اﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻨﺪ ﺑﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎت ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ ﺳﺎزﮔﺎري ﻧﺪاﺷﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲرﺳﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮي واژﮔﺎن زﺑﺎن‬ ‫دوم ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪي از وﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺨﺼﻮص ﻫﻤﺎن زﺑﺎن اﺳﺖ را اﻳﺠﺎد ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .3‬روش ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ‬ ‫در اﻳﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ‪ 40‬داﻧﺸﺠﻮي ﭘﺴﺮ ﺳﺎل اول داﻧﺸﻜﺪة ﻓﻨﻲ داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﻗﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ﻧﻤﻮﻧﺔ در دﺳﺘﺮس‪،‬‬ ‫ﺷﺮﻛﺖ داﺷﺘﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﮔﺮوه ﺳﻨﻲ ‪ 20 - 18‬ﺳﺎل ﺗﻌﻠﻖ داﺷﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﻤﺎم ﺷﺮﻛﺖﻛﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎن در اﻳﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ‬ ‫ﺑﻪ ﻟﺤﺎظ ﻣﻬﺎرت زﺑﺎن دوم‪) 20‬اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ( در ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﺒﺘﺪي ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ و ﺑﻪ ﻏﻴﺮ از ﻛﻼسﻫﺎي زﺑﺎن ﻣﺪرﺳﻪ‬ ‫در ﻫﻴﭻ ﻛﻼس زﺑﺎن دﻳﮕﺮي ﺷﺮﻛﺖ ﻧﻜﺮده ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺮاي اﻧﺠﺎم ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ‪ ،‬اﺑﺘﺪا دو ﭘﻴﻜﺮة‪ 21‬زﺑﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫‪20 Proficiency‬‬ ‫‪21‬‬ ‫‪Corpus‬‬



‫ﺟﺪاﮔﺎﻧﻪ را از ﻛﺘﺎبﻫﺎي زﺑﺎن اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ دورة راﻫﻨﻤﺎﻳﻲ و ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﻪ ﺗﻬﻴﻪ ﻛﺮدﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﺳﭙﺲ ‪ 45‬ﻛﻠﻤﻪ از‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺨﺔ ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ آزﻣﻮن ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪن اﺳﻨﺎدﮔﺮاس و وﻧﺪروارت‪ 22‬را ﺑﺮاي اﺳﺘﻔﺎده در ﺗﻤﺮﻳﻦ‪ 23‬ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ‬ ‫واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﻛﺮدﻳﻢ )‪ .(Vide. Bakhtiar; Nilipour & Weekes, 2013‬از اﻳﻦ ‪ 45‬ﻛﻠﻤﻪ )ﭘﻴﻮﺳﺖ‬ ‫‪ 30 (1‬ﻛﻠﻤﻪ در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ ﺑﻌﺪ از ﺳﻦ ‪ 4‬ﺳﺎﻟﮕﻲ )ﻛﻠﻤﺎت دﻳﺮﻳﺎب( و ‪ 15‬ﻛﻠﻤﻪ ﻗﺒﻞ از ﺳﻦ ‪ 4‬ﺳﺎﻟﮕﻲ‬ ‫)ﻛﻠﻤﺎت زودﻳﺎب( ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺳﭙﺲ ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از ﭘﻴﻜﺮهﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ از ﻛﺘﺎبﻫﺎي زﺑﺎن‬ ‫اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ اﻳﺠﺎد ﻛﺮده ﺑﻮدﻳﻢ‪ ،‬ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب و ﺑﺴﺎﻣﺪ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻛﻠﻤﺎت را در زﺑﺎن اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ‬ ‫ﻛﺮدﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب در زﺑﺎن دوم اﻳﻦ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ در دورة راﻫﻨﻤﺎﻳﻲ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ‬ ‫ﺷﺪه ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان ﻛﻠﻤﺎت زودﻳﺎب و ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ در دورة دﺑﻴﺮﺳﺘﺎن ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪﻋﻨﻮان‬ ‫ﻛﻠﻤﺎت دﻳﺮﻳﺎب ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢﺑﻨﺪي ﺷﺪﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺮ اﻳﻦ اﺳﺎس ﻣﻌﺎدلﻫﺎي اﻳﻦ ‪ 45‬ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ را از اﻳﻦ ﭘﻴﻜﺮة‬ ‫اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ اﺳﺘﺨﺮاج ﻛﺮدﻳﻢ‪ 15 :‬ﻛﻠﻤﻪ ﻫﻢ در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ و ﻫﻢ در اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ زود ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ؛ ‪15‬‬ ‫ﻛﻠﻤﻪ ﻫﻢ در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ و ﻫﻢ در اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ دﻳﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ و ‪ 15‬ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﻗﻴﻤﺎﻧﺪه در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ زود‬ ‫ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ‪ ،‬اﻣﺎ ﺑﺮﻋﻜﺲ در اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ در دورة دﺑﻴﺮﺳﺘﺎن دﻳﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﺪف از‬ ‫اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ‪ 15‬ﻛﻠﻤﺔ آﺧﺮ اﻳﻦ ﺑﻮد ﺗﺎ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺷﻮد آﻳﺎ ﭘﺮدازش ﻟﻐﺎت در زﺑﺎن دوم )اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ( واﺑﺴﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ‬ ‫ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب آنﻫﺎ در زﺑﺎن اول )ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ( ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻳﺎ اﻳﻦﻛﻪ ﻟﻐﺎت در زﺑﺎن دوم اﻟﮕﻮي وﻳﮋة ﺧﻮد را‬ ‫دارﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺳﭙﺲ ﺑﺮاﺳﺎس ﻗﻮاﻋﺪ واﺟﻲ‪ -‬اﻣﻼﻳﻲ زﺑﺎن اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ ﺗﻌﺪادي ﺷﺒﻪﻛﻠﻤﻪ‪) 24‬ﭘﻴﻮﺳﺖ ‪ (2‬را ﺑﺮاي‬ ‫اﺳﺘﻔﺎده در آزﻣﻮن ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ اﻳﺠﺎد ﻛﺮدﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﻣﻨﻈﻮر از ﺷﺒﻪﻛﻠﻤﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻤﻪاي اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮاﺳﺎس‬ ‫ﻗﻮاﻧﻴﻦ آواﻳﻲ و واﺟﻲ ﻳﻚ زﺑﺎن ﻣﻮرد ﻗﺒﻮل اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬اﻣﺎ در واﻗﻊ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻛﻠﻤﻪاي در آن زﺑﺎن وﺟﻮد‬ ‫ﻧﺪارد‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮاي اﻳﻦﻛﻪ ﺑﺘﻮاﻧﻴﻢ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ آزﻣﻮدﻧﻲﻫﺎ را در ﻫﺰارم ﺛﺎﻧﻴﻪ ﺛﺒﺖ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪ ،‬از ﻧﺮماﻓﺰار ‪DMDX‬‬

‫اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻛﺮدﻳﻢ‪ .‬اﻳﻦ ﻧﺮماﻓﺰار ﻳﻜﻲ از راﻳﺞﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻧﺮماﻓﺰارﻫﺎﻳﻲ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ روانﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎن و‬ ‫ﻋﺼﺐﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎن زﺑﺎن ﺑﺮاي اراﺋﺔ ﻣﺤﺮك و ﺛﺒﺖ زﻣﺎن ﭘﺎﺳﺦ آنﻫﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻣﻲﺷﻮد‪ .‬ﻧﻮع آزﻣﻮﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﻛﻪ در اﻳﻦ ﻧﺮماﻓﺰار ﺑﺮاي اراﺋﺔ ﻣﺤﺮك ﻃﺮاﺣﻲ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﻮد‪ .‬ﺑﻪ اﻳﻦ ﺻﻮرت ﻛﻪ ﻛﻠﻤﻪ‬ ‫و ﻳﺎ ﺷﺒﻪﻛﻠﻤﻪ ﺑﺮاي ‪ 1,5‬ﺛﺎﻧﻴﻪ روي ﺻﻔﺤﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﭙﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺶ درﻣﻲآﻣﺪ و ﺷﺮﻛﺖﻛﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎن در اﻳﻦ‬ ‫زﻣﺎن ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻲﮔﺮﻓﺘﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ آﻧﭽﻪ روي ﺻﻔﺤﺔ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺶ اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻳﻚ ﻛﻠﻤﻪ اﺳﺖ ﻳﺎ ﻳﻚ ﺷﺒﻪﻛﻠﻤﻪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﭘﺎﺳﺦ آزﻣﻮدﻧﻲﻫﺎ را از ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺻﻔﺤﻪﻛﻠﻴﺪ ﻛﺎﻣﭙﻴﻮﺗﺮ ﺛﺒﺖ ﻣﻲﻛﺮدﻳﻢ؛ ﺑﻪ اﻳﻦ ﺻﻮرت ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ آنﻫﺎ‬ ‫آﻣﻮزش ﻣﻲدادﻳﻢ ﻛﻪ اﮔﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ آنﻫﺎ آﻧﭽﻪ در ﺻﻔﺤﺔ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﻨﺪ ﻛﻠﻤﻪ اﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻴﺪ ‪shift‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬ ‫‪Snodgrass and Vanderwart Naming Battery‬‬ ‫‪23 Task‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫‪Pseudo words‬‬



‫راﺳﺖ و اﮔﺮ ﺷﺒﻪﻛﻠﻤﻪ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻠﻴﺪ ‪ shift‬ﭼﭗ را ﻓﺸﺎر دﻫﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺗﻤﺎم ﻛﻠﻤﺎت و ﺷﺒﻪﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﺑﻪ‬ ‫ﺻﻮرت ﺗﺼﺎدﻓﻲ در آزﻣﻮن ﻗﺮار ﻣﻲﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﺗﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮي ﺑﺮ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻧﺪاﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .4‬ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ و ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ دادهﻫﺎ‬ ‫ﺑﺮاي اﻳﻦﻛﻪ در اﻳﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ از ﺳﻪ دﺳﺘﻪ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﺘﻔﺎوت ﺑﺮاﺳﺎس ﺳﻦ اﻛﺘﺴﺎب در زﺑﺎن دوم اﺳﺘﻔﺎده‬ ‫ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ و آزﻣﻮدﻧﻲﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻫﺮ ﺳﻪ دﺳﺘﻪ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ دادهاﻧﺪ‪ ،‬آزﻣﻮن آﻣﺎري ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮاي ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ و ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬

‫ﭘﺎﺳﺦﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻣﻮرد اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻗﺮار ﮔﻴﺮد‪ ،‬آزﻣﻮن ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ اﻧﺪازهﻫﺎي ﺗﻜﺮارﺷﻮﻧﺪه‬

‫‪25‬‬

‫و‬

‫ﻧﺮماﻓﺰاري ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮاي ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ آﻣﺎري ﻣﻮرد اﺳﺘﻔﺎده ﻗﺮار ﮔﻴﺮد‪ ،‬ﻧﺮماﻓﺰار ‪ SPSS‬اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﺮاﺳﺎس ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎي ﺟﺪول ‪ 1‬ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻫﺮ ﺳﻪ ﮔﺮوه از ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﻣﺘﻔﺎوت ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ‬ ‫واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻢ در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ و ﻫﻢ در اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ زود ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‪ 891 ،‬ﻫﺰارم ﺛﺎﻧﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ‬ ‫واژﮔﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻢ در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ و ﻫﻢ در اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ دﻳﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‪ 1098 ،‬ﻫﺰارم ﺛﺎﻧﻴﻪ و ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻟﻐﺎﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ دﻳﺮ‪ ،‬وﻟﻲ در اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ‪ ،‬زود ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‪ 1004 ،‬ﻫﺰارم ﺛﺎﻧﻴﻪ اﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺟﺪول ‪ 1‬ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ زﻣﺎن واﻛﻨﺶ ﺑﻪ ﻫﺮﻳﻚ از ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻟﻐﺎت‬ ‫ﮔﺮوه ﻟﻐﺎت‬ ‫‪ .1‬ﻫﻢ در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ و ﻫﻢ در اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ زود ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‬

‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ در‬ ‫ﻫﺰارم ﺛﺎﻧﻴﻪ‬ ‫‪891‬‬

‫اﻧﺤﺮاف ﻣﻌﻴﺎر‬ ‫‪1880/39‬‬

‫‪ .2‬ﻫﻢ در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ و ﻫﻢ در اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ دﻳﺮ ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‬

‫‪1098‬‬

‫‪2701/85‬‬

‫‪ .3‬در ﻓﺎرﺳﻲ دﻳﺮ‪ ،‬وﻟﻲ در اﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ زود ﻓﺮاﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ‬

‫‪1004‬‬

‫‪2103/55‬‬

‫ﺳﺆاﻟﻲ ﻛﻪ در اﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﻣﻄﺮح اﺳﺖ اﻳﻦ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺒﻴﻨﻴﻢ آﻳﺎ اﻳﻦ ﺳﻪ ﮔﺮوه از ﻟﻐﺎت ﺗﻔﺎوت‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻨﺎداري ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ دارﻧﺪ؛ ﺳﭙﺲ اﮔﺮ ﺗﻔﺎوت ﻣﻌﻨﺎداري در ﺳﻄﺢ ‪ 0/05‬ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪه ﺷﺪ ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از‬ ‫آزﻣﻮن ‪ Bonferroni‬ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ دﻗﻴﻘﺎٌ ﻛﺪامﻳﻚ از اﻳﻦ ﺳﻪ ﮔﺮوه ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﺗﻔﺎوت ﻣﻌﻨﺎداري دارﻧﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ وارﻳﺎﻧﺲ در ﺟﺪول ‪ 2‬ﻧﺸﺎندﻫﻨﺪة اﻳﻦ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ زﻣﺎن ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺑﻪ ﻫﺮ ﺳﻪ ﮔﺮوه از‬ ‫ﻟﻐﺎت در ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﻌﻨﺎداري )‪ (p