姚瑞

【Abstract】：This study investigated whether the productive imitation have positive influence on learning syntactic functions. Twenty children between the ages of 7-11 were divided into two groups： receptive learners （RL）， productive learners （PL）， who were taught 50 simple sentences（5 kinds of simple syntactic structures） .After two days， both of the two groups will have the same exam （True or False） of another 50 grammatically sentences with the same syntactic structures.

【Keywords】： Productive imitation; Receptive imitation; syntactic functions

1.Introduction

Imitation is a powerful learning mechanism. Imitation could be divided into receptive imitation and productive imitation. Receptive imitation means language learners can only recognize the meaning of a word and memorize the original sentences given， while productive imitation means they understand the meaning of target word， how a word functions grammatically in a sentence， or more generally whether they know how to productively use this word in their writing. Then language imitation has a great influence on syntactic functions. Syntax allows human beings to build an infinite number of sentences from a finite number of words. So when the learners are presented the ungrammatical sentence “where are my schoolbag？” RL simply omitted the wrong use of “are”， while PL chose to correct the “are” into “is”. These results replicate the differences of syntactic comprehension between receptive and productive imitation.

Our main research question targeted the relationship between receptive and productive imitation and syntactic functions： does the productive imitation have positive influence on learning syntactic functions， if yes， PL can make correct sentences with the syntactic structure they are learning（Sara Hashemi Shahrakia， Zohreh Kassaian，2011）， while RL cant， and they will learn a similar syntactic structure quicker than RL will， if not， PL also will make a lot of wrong sentences， and wont learn faster than RL.

2.Experiment

The purpose of this experiment was to replicate previous research showing that productive learners correct ungrammatical sentences. In keeping with previous research on elicited imitation， we chose to test this prediction with 9 years old.

2.1. Method

2.1.1.Participants

The participants in this study were 20 non-native speaking children （10 female， 10 male）， born and brought up in China， with a mean age of 9 years （range 7 – 11）. They have the similar learning ability and none of them have ever learnt English.

2.1.2.Materials

Fifty sentences were adopted from the previously mentioned case study by Slobin and Welsh （1973）. And these sentences included twenty-five ungrammatical sentences， for example “Where are my schoolbag？” and “Do he like soccer ball？”. And twenty-five grammatically correct sentences， such as “Where is my schoolbag？” and “Does he like soccer ball？”. In order to compare performance on these sentences to childrens baseline tendency to copy sentences exactly， five kinds of control grammar were generated. And the fifty sentences were matched in terms of grammatical complexity rather than sentence length， for example ‘Where are my schoolbags？ and “Does he like soccer ball？”.

2.1.3.Design

In order to make the results of this experiment clearly， the fifty test sentences were presented in random orders. Children read either the grammatically correct sentences or sentences with grammatical errors in a between-subjects design. The accuracy with which children reproduced the utterances was analyzed.

2.1.4.Procedure

Twenty children were invited into two groups. One group was receptive learners （RL）， and one group was productive learners （PL）. And each group was invited into a quiet room and asked to sit on the chair with the experimenter. All these sentences were grammatically correct sentences. And there were five kinds of grammar system. After each group had the receptive learning and productive learning after two days， they would have the final test （True or False judgment test） in the same classroom.

2.1.5.Scoring procedure

After two days learning， the receptive learners （RL） and productive learners （PL） were tested the results of learning. The final test was a True or False judgment test. They were give fifty grammatically sentences which included twenty-five ungrammatical sentences and twenty-five grammatically correct sentences. At the end， the students were given the True or False judgment test over those five kinds of grammatical points to check their achievements. And one sentence was two points， the minimum score was 0 and the maximum 100.

3.Results

3.1. Data Analysis

To confirm the second research hypotheses， we look at Table 1， which presents the means and standard deviations of the two groups score on the grammar True or False judgment test. The mean of the productive learners group is higher than the mean of the receptive learners group.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of test of True or False judgment Test

Group Score Mean Std. Deviation

RL 100 45 1.29

PL 100 72 0.67

And then， in order to confirm the first research hypotheses， we look at Table 2， which presents the means and standard deviations of the two groups finishing time on the grammar True or False judgment test.

Table 2. Descriptive finishing time statistics of the test

Group Time Mean Std. Deviation

RL 60 45 0.25

PL 60 43 0.18

4.Discussions and Conclusions

The findings of this study provide more evidence to support that， although the Productive learners （PL） were not necessarily master the syntactic structure quicker than receptive learners （RL）， the productive imitation have positive influence on learning syntactic functions. Moreover， this experiment indicates that productive learning is superior to receptive learning not only in developing productive knowledge but also in producing larger gains in receptive knowledge.