The Effect of the Bidialectism of Gilaki Intermediate Learners in Contrast To

ELT Voices- International Journal for Teachers of English Volume (6), Issue (4), 52-63 (2016) ISSN Number: 2230-9136 (http://www.eltvoices.in)

The Effect of the Bidialectism of Gilaki Intermediate Learners in Contrast to

Monolinguals of Farsi Speakers in Learning Speaking Skill of English as a Foreign

Language

1 Faridodin Rostami Shirkoohi, 2 Behnam Behforouz 1Department of English Language, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran 2 Department of English Language, University of Buraimi, Al Buraimi, Oman

Corresponding email address [email protected]

Abstract: Bilingualism and bi-dialectism are two near technical terms which may be used incorrectly. Bilingual is defined as having or using two languages especially as spoken with the fluency characteristic of a native speaker. The present research will attempt to examine the relation between knowing two languages and learning a third one. It will be found if those who use two languages, dialects or accents are much more successful during the process of learning a third language or not? 40 Iranian intermediate English as a Foreign Language Learners were selected to participate in this study. A standardized test, PET was conducted in order to ensure that the participants were homogeneous regarding their EFL proficiency. A pre-test was also administered on the writing ability of participants prior to the treatment. The text book which was covered in these classes was Interchange Intro, Third Edition by Cambridge University Press 2005. Classes held in 45 days and 17 sessions. Each session lasted for 1.5 hours. At the end of the course the speaking ability of the learners were tested. The finding of the study revealed that there is a significant difference between learners which speak Gilaki in addition to Farsi language (Group 1) with those of Group 2. Index Terms: Bidialectism, Gilaki, EFL, Monolingual, Farsi Speaker.

1. INTRODUCTION

Iran, as a wide country contains a lot of languages, dialects, and accents. Among them Gilaki dialect has a lot of speakers. This area has a variety of languages and dialects as well as accents (Kalbasi, 1389). Gilaki dialect is also divided into different accents or sub-dialects. But in this study Gilaki dialect, totally, is the main concern. Gilaki dialect is a mem- ber of north-west languages group which, has a lot of common features with Taleshi,Tabari ,Tati ,Kordi, Gomsi and Ghasrani dialects Pourhadi, 2008) This dialect has five main varieties that are different on the basis of phonology, vocabulary and also grammar. These variations are as follows: a. Gilaki which is spoken in Rasht; b. Gilaki which is spoken in the center and west of Gilan (Biepas): The territory of this dialect continued from north to Khomam and Anzali port to some part of Rezvanshahr; from east, Kochesfahan; from west to parts of Shaft and Somesara and Foman from south to Sangar the Rostamabad.. ELT Voices-Volume (6), Issue (4), (2016) 53

c. Gilaki which is spoken in the East of Gilan (Biepish): Extending from South to Siahkal, from West to the Astane Ashrafie, Lashtenesha and Hasan Kiadeh to Kochesfahan and from East is widespread in Langerrood, Rodsar and Kalachay and gradually in the Mazandaran is mixed with the Tabari language. d. Galeshi: Which is spoken in the East Mountains of Rodbar, all parts of Dilaman, Eshkevarat and Amelash near Ton- ekabon? e. Rodbarian Gilaki: which is widespread from south of Gilan to Rostam Abad area, Rodbar, Manjil and Loshan which has some similarities with Tati language (Pour Hadi, 2008).

The present research was an attempt to examine the relationship between knowing two languages and learning a third one. It tried to find if those who used two languages, dialects or accents were much more successful during the process of learning a third language or not. The questions addressed in this study were: 1. Does the bidialectism of the Gilaki EFL learners help them to master speaking of EFL? 2. Which group of the learners (Gilaki bidialects in contrast with monolingual Farsi speakers) is more successful in mastering speaking English as a foreign language? On the basis of above questions the following hypotheses were formulated: H01: The bidialectism of Gilaki EFL learners does not help them master speaking English as a foreign language. H02: The bidialect speakers of Gilaki in contrast with monolingual Farsi speakers are not more successful in mastering speaking of English as a foreign language.

2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 Bilinguals: Description and Types

A bilingual (or multilingual) person is one whose linguistic ability in two (or more) languages is similar to that of a native speaker. It is estimated that half the population of the world are bilinguals (Grosjean, 1982). If a bilingual’s ability in both languages is roughly equal, s/he is known as a balanced bilingual or equilingual; but such individuals are very rare. Often in situations of stress, pronunciation and inaccuracies in usage will show that an apparent equilingual is, in fact, less proficient in one language than another (Baetens, 1986). Still, a person who can pass as native in more than one language except in situations of stress might be said to be ‘more’ bilingual than a so-called receptive (as opposed to productive) bilingual, a person who can understand one of her or his languages without being able to speak or write it well. People who have not used their native language for a long time often find their ability in it reduced to this type, although they will typi- cally regain fluency after a period of exposure to the native language. Such persons are known as dormant bilinguals (Hou- ston, 1972). It is also possible to make distinctions between types of bilingual in terms of the process by which they have reached this status. A natural or primary bilingual is a person whose ability in the languages is the result of a natural process of acquisition, such as upbringing in a bilingual home, or of finding herself or himself in a situation in which more than one language needs to be used, but who has not learnt either language formally as a foreign language (Lamber, 1974). If formal instruction in a foreign language has been received, the bilingual is known as a secondary bilingual. Finally, what one might refer to as a socio-psychological distinction may be drawn between additive bilingualism, in the case of which the bilingual feels enriched socially and cognitively by an additional language, and subtractive bilingualism, in the case of which the bilingual feels that the second language is a cause of some loss with respect to the first. The latter tends to be the case when there is tension between the cultures to which the two languages belong (Condon, 1974; Houston, 1972). 2.2 Bilingual Education 2.2.1. A Definition of Bilingual Education Basically, bilingual education consists of instruction in two languages, one of which is English as a Second Language, 54 Rostami Shirkoohi and Behforouz (2016)

and the other is the native language of the pupils. It also includes a cultural component, whereby students are taught about the history and culture of their own civilization, as well as those of their adopted country. (De Bot & Schreuder, 1993) 2.2.2. The Aims of Bilingual Education “Bilingual education has been in existence for many decades in various parts of the world, where two official languages are recognized within a country (such as Belgium, or Canada), where two or more idioms are used by different groups within a single geographical entity (such as India, or China), or where English has become a lingua franca for de- veloping nations in their struggle for technological). In its ideal form, the purpose of bilingual education is to produce balanced bilingualism biculturalism within the learners, that is to say, the ability to function equally well in two linguistic and cultural contexts (American and native). However, within the United States today, the practical overall aim of this educational innovation is to equalize learning op- portunities for non-English and partial bilingual speakers. On a more specific basis, major objectives may be stated as follows: 1. To enable children to achieve fluency and literacy in both languages. 2. To enable children to function in both cultures. 3. To enable children to progress in academic subjects at the same rate of other children. 4. To enable children to develop a positive self-concept and pride in their dual linguistic and culture1 heritages. (De Bot & Schreuder, 1993) An extension of bilingual education concerns for children of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds reaches their parents as well, for most existing programs emphasize strongly community participation in the planning, development, and evaluation of instructional activities. This particular component in bilingual education serves the practical purpose of providing common grounds of understanding between native and non-native members of the community, by enabling them to exchange views on the general, as well as specialized, needs of all children within the school system. From the stand- point of public school interests and responsibilities, bilingual education includes basically the same goals as those stated for a regular educational sequence; the only variation from the common program is that it seeks to achieve similar aims through different ways. At the same time, a significant implication of bilingual education, on a national basis, is that it fos- ters cultural pluralism in a multi-ethnic society, through maintenance of the language-culture heritages of various groups. (De Bot & Schreuder, 1993) 2.2.3. Approached to Bilingual Education There are two ways of interpreting bilingual Instruction in the context of public school education: as a self-sustained, continuous program (true bilingual education), or as a temporary measure to ease the transfer of non-English or bilingual speakers into the regular school curriculum (transitional bilingual education). 1. True bilingual education is a total program of bilingual learning from the pre-school to the adult education levels, in which parallel subject matter offerings, given in the native and other languages, are made available to all individuals in various institutions. 2. Transition bilingual education is a partial program of bilingual learning at any designated instructional level, whereby the students are offered intensive training in English as a Second Language while receiving subject matter instruction in their native language, until such time as they are able to function adequately in a normal classroom situation. The most prevalent philosophy of bilingual education implemented in programs throughout the United States, is the second one described in the previous paragraph-transitional bilingual education. Its popularity is dictated by purely prag- matic reasons, such as local policy, community wishes, or problems in scheduling, materials acquisition, and qualified per- sonnel selection, it is, in fact, the approach selected in the state of Massachusetts, as reflected in its recently enacted "Tran- sitional Law (De Bot & Schreuder, 1993). 2.2.4. Evaluation in Bilingual Education Testing represents another major area of difficulty in bilingual programs which are, by nature, oriented toward both ELT Voices-Volume (6), Issue (4), (2016) 55

humanistic and behaviorist objectives. While it is possible to measure objectively certain types of bilingual-bicultural be- haviors (pronunciation accuracy, vocabulary and grammatical knowledge, fluency of bilingual-bicultural response, use of gestures, language dominance, cultural knowledge, and the like), it is quite difficult to assess such elusive factors as changes in attitudes, perceptions, self-concepts or understandings which are not open to direct investigation but must be evaluat- ed through inferences and personal Judgment. Thus testing in bilingual education must be rated at best as presently inadequate in terms of currently acceptable standards of accountability, since existing tools of measurement lean heavily toward the measurement of cognitive aspects of bilingual learning, while mostly neglecting its effective and psychomotor factors. Additional obstacles to the appropriate assessment of bilingual achievement may be found in the cultural irrelevance of most available standardized tests (both verbal and nonverbal) to the target population, and in the absence of culturally differentiated norms for the various bilingual groups found in the United States. Under the circumstances, the utilization of such inadequate measuring devices tends to be more deleterious then useful to both the school system and its student population. Many program, therefore, resort either to the development of local norms based upon the identification of "problem" items in standardized tests, or to that of locally prepared pre-post evaluative devices based upon the school curriculum. Whether standardized or local tests are used in bilingual education, a comprehensive model evaluation program includes the following: 1. Subject matter assessment, given in the language in which it is taught and, preferably, by the instructor who teaches it, 2. Language arts assessment in both languages (oral and written), preferably given by the instructor who teaches them. 3. History and cultural knowledge evaluation, given in the language in taught and, preferably, by the instructor who teaches it. 4. Bilingual-bicultural skills evaluation in role-playing situations, verified by an impartial bicultural observer. 5. Human relations evaluation in daily classroom interaction, inferred by the classroom teacher the basis of structured ob- servation reports. 2.3 Theories of Bilingual Lexical Access In speech production (e.g., Costa, Miozzo & Caramazza, 1999) it is assumed that a common semantic system activates in parallel lexicons of both the language-in use and the language-not-in-use. But if both lexicons are activated, how do bilingual speakers select the lexical items they intend to produce in the language in which they want to communicate? Two solutions have been proposed to the problem of lexical selection in the context of non-specific activation of the bilingual's two lexicons. One solution assumes that a lexicon-external device inhibits or dampens the activation of the lexical items of the language-not-in-use, ensuring that their activation levels are lower than those of the lexical nodes of the language-in- use (Costa, Miozzo & Caramazza, 1999). According to these models, the lexical selection mechanism is language non- specific, it considers for selection the lexical items of both languages, and selects the item with the highest activation level. Because of the suppression of activation of the lexical nodes of the language-not-in use, this process invariably results in the selection of a lexical item from the language-in-use even though the selection mechanism is not language specific. The other solution proposes that the lexical selection process is language specific; the selection mechanism considers only the activation levels of lexical nodes of the language-in-use ( Roelfs, 1998 , Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 1998). The assumption is that a lexicon-external device (or a production rule, as argued by Roelofs, 1998) determines which lexicon is to be consulted, and only lexical nodes in that lexicon are considered for selection (Van Hell & Groot, 1998), for a related discussion about lexical access in word recognition in bilingual speakers). In the theoretical framework guiding our research, we follow the standard view of a common conceptual store shared by the two languages of a bilingual (but see Caramazza, 1997). When naming a picture, its semantic representation is activated and it, in turn, sends activation to the bilingual's two lexicons. Crucial to the understanding of the rationale of the following experiments is the assumption that both the response and non-response language lexicons are activated in picture naming. Each lexical node is linked to a set of grammatical properties and to a set of phonological segments and other phonological properties. In this framework, we do not postulate two different levels of lexical representation (the lemma and the lexeme level) between the semantic con- 56 Rostami Shirkoohi and Behforouz (2016)

tent and the phonological segments of a word. Instead, following the proposal by (Starreveld & La Heji, 1995), there is only one lexical layer to which the different sets of information are linked (Starreveld & La Heji, 1995) for a similar proposal). In this model the selection of the target word in the intended language is achieved by means of a selection mechanism that picks out the most highly activated lexical node at a given moment. The degree of activation of non-target lexical nodes (lexical competitors) affects the ease with which the target word will be selected, the greater the degree of activation of competitors the greater the difficulty in selecting the target node. In sum, lexical selection is achieved by a system that does not require the active inhibition of the lexicon-not-in-use (see also Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 1998). The question we address here is whether the lexical selection mechanism considers for selection only the activation levels of the lexical nodes in the lexicon-in use or the activation levels of the lexical nodes in both lexicons of a bilingual speaker. A useful paradigm for this purpose is the picture-word interference paradigm. With this paradigm, it has been shown that the nature of the relationship between the picture and the distracter word affects picture-naming latencies. For example, semantically related distracters (table/chair) interfere more than unrelated distracters (table/finger). This effect supposedly reflects a widely accepted principle of lexical selection-namely, that the ease with which a lexical node is selected depends on the activation level of competing lexical nodes. (e.g., Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 1998; Starreveld & La Heji, 1995 submitted). Assuming the validity of this principle, we can infer which lexical nodes compete for selection by investigating the effects of distracter words on picture naming latencies. In this way, we may be able to determine whether lexical selection by bilingual speakers is language-specific or language-nonspecific. In a series of experiments, Costa et al. (in press) (Roelf, 1998) used the picture-word interference paradigm to investigate whether lexical selection in bilinguals is language specific or language-non-specific. Catalan- Spanish balanced bilinguals were asked to name pictures in their first language (L1 - Catalan) while ignoring distracter words printed either in their L1 (Catalan) or in their second language (L2 - Spanish). The relationship between the distracter word and the picture was manipulated. Of crucial interest is the “identity'' condition between languages (i.e. where pairs are composed of identical elements taken from different languages). In this condition, the distracter word is the translation of the name of the object pictured (picture: taula [Catalan, table], distracter: mesa [Span- ish, table]). We assume that the picture and the word activate a common semantic representation which, in turn, activates in parallel the appropriate lexical nodes in each language (taula [Catalan, table], mesa [Spanish, table]). In other words, semantic representations of words and pictures send activation to the bilingual's two lexicons regardless of the language pro- grammed for response. In the other condition, the ``unrelated'' condition, the two elements (picture and word) do not refer to the same concepts and hence the semantic representations of the pictures and the words activate their corresponding lexical nodes in the two languages. For example, the picture of a ``table'' will activate the Catalan lexical node taula [Catalan, table] and the Spanish lexical node mesa [Spanish, table], and the distracter word dedo [Spanish, finger] will activate the Spanish lexical node dedo [Spanish, finger] and the Catalan lexical node dit [Catalan, finger]. Given these assumptions the language-specific and the language non-specific selection hypotheses predict different outcomes for the identity condition relative to the unrelated condition (Roelfs, 1998).

3. METHOD 3.1 Participants The present paper tried to reach the point that a person who speaks two dialects is more successful learner in contrast with a person who is so-called a mono-dialect. In other words, in this study two groups of learners which will be describe in following lines. In this way the participants divided in two groups. The first group that is bi-dialectal group (Gilaki and Farsi) consists of 20 students and the second group monolingual learners (Farsi) are also 20 students. The numbers of students who take part in this study are 40 students. These students take part in a proficiency test and all are in intermediate level. Students are between 14 and 17 years old.

3.2 Instruments ELT Voices-Volume (6), Issue (4), (2016) 57

The text book which was covered in these classes was Interchange Intro, Third Edition, Cambridge press 2005.classes held in 45 days and 17 sessions. Each session lasts for 1.30 hours. At the end of the course the speaking ability of the learners are tested. CD player and CD of the text book are also used in this study. As mentioned above the book which was used in this study was Interchange Intro Third Edition Cambridge press 2005.This book has 16 lessons, in each session one lesson is covered. Each has some parts that almost are common among the lessons. These parts are as follows: 1. Conversations: This part is a kind of realia. In another word it’s a real conversation. Conversation consists of the grammar points of lesson. Each lesson has two conversations; the first conversation is less difficult than the second one. In this study two different techniques of teaching toward conversations were used. In some lessons at first the teacher asks the students to close their books and listen carefully to the models and explain what happen in the conversation. By this tech- nique a kind of listening-speaking or more technical term perception-production process is emphasized. In the second phase teacher shows that they should open their books and try to follow lines. At the end students act as a character of the conversation. 2. Word Power: In this section of lesson some words (vocabulary) were presented. Each section has two parts. In the first part new words introduce and in the second part, some lessons are writing practices and, some are questions about these words. The teacher role in this part of a lesson is to check the correct pronunciation and say the correct meaning of these words. 3. Snapshot: Parallel with Word Power part of each lesson, Snapshot also offers some vocabulary. But the difference between these two parts is their practicality. In other words, snapshot parts are more practical in contrast with word power sections. Raising the practicality of this part, the teacher asks the learners to use these new vocabularies in their conversations. 4. Grammar Focus: This part of the lesson, as its name implies focuses on grammatical points which is consistent with information present in the conversations. Immediately after presenting grammatical points there are some practices which help both the teacher and the leaner in finding the problem in these points (grammatical). Explaining grammatical points is a controversial point in teaching English. Teacher in this part tries to use examples to clarify these points, in other words, clear explanation about grammar points is prohibited. 5. Pronunciation: Following the communicative purpose of the book, pronunciation gets more attention of the teachers. Mostly, pronunciation focuses on speaking ability of the learners. In other words, this part helps the learners to pronounce the sentences correctly. Practices are likely repetition. Teacher asks the leaner to listen to the model and repeat it. The role of the teacher is to interrupt when the wrong pronunciation takes place. Students should repeat individually or in groups. 6. Listening: Teacher as a guide in a student-centre class plays the CD in this part and asks the students to answer the questions in this part. To feel a sense of responsibility, each question is devoted to each learner.

3.3 Procedure The first group (Gilaki group) is a group which consists of some learners who have some linguistic background knowledge; furthermore of the standard language (Standard Farsi) which were normally taught in schools. In other words, Gilaki group has a dialect (Gilaki) beside Farsi. This group is considering as the group number one (group 1). On the contrary, the second group only speaks the standard Farsi as their language or dialect so this group is the group number two (group 2). The process of teaching in each group is the same. The classes of the first group are held on the odd days in the afternoon (6-7.30) and second group classes are held in the same time in the afternoon on even days. As already mentioned, there are two kinds of test in this study. The first is a proficiency test which establishes a kind of placement test. This one is English Proficiency Test (EPT) which is based on the Standard English grammar. In the first part, the English grammar, the learners should select the best answers. The second part is also English grammar, but some words of these sentences are underlined and only one of them is incorrect. The learner should find this incorrect word. Eng- 58 Rostami Shirkoohi and Behforouz (2016)

lish vocabulary of the learners is tested in part 3. Finally reading comprehension, there are 3 passages which the learners read them and answer the questions. The second test is IELTS speaking test. The Speaking test is made up of three sections. In part 1 the examiner intro- duces her /him and asks the learner to introduce himself. The examiner asks some general questions on familiar topics like home, family, work, studies and interests. This part lasts for 4-5 minutes. In part 2, the examiner gives the learner a task card which asks the learner to talk about a particular topic, including points to include in his talk. Learners have one minute to prepare and make notes. And the examiner asks the learner to talk for 1-2 minutes on the topic. The examiner asks one or two questions on the same topic. In part 3 the examiner asks the learner further questions which are connected to the topic of part 2.These questions were designed to give the learner an opportunity to discuss more abstract issues and ideas. In short, each leaner should participate in three tests. One is proficiency test or placement test which shows the level of the learners. The second one is IELTS speaking test which indicates the level of speaking skill of the learners that is a pre- test. And IELTS speaking test which will be taken at the end of the 17th sessions. One point which should remind is that every set of tests for both groups is same. Learners will be assessed on their performance through the test by certificated IELTS examiner. They will be marked on the four criteria of the IELTS speaking test band description: 1. Fluency and coherence 2. Lexical resource 3. Grammatical range and accuracy 4. Pronunciation

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section provides some statistical information in order to test the research hypotheses which were addressed at the present study. 4.1 Analysis of PET The PET was assigned to the learners in order to check the homogeneity of participants in group1 and group2. Base on the PET analysis the following statistical results were gathered:

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics for Proficiency English Test (PET)

Groups N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

1 20 78.30 1.922 .430

2 20 77.70 2.904 .649 shows that there is no great distinction between mean scores of two groups, but in order to gain more reliable information, an independent t-test was applied and following information was gathered:

ELT Voices-Volume (6), Issue (4), (2016) 59

Table 4.2 Independent Samples Test for PET Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval Sig. Mean Dif- Std. Error of the Difference F Sig. t df (2-tailed) ference Difference Lower Upper Equal variances 3.879 .056 .771 38 .446 .600 .779 -.976 2.176 assumed Equal variances .771 32.969 .446 .600 .779 -.984 2.184 not assumed Since .446 is higher than level of probability at 0.05, then it is revealed that there is no significant difference between group 1 and group2 at the analysis of Proficiency English Test. 4.2 Pre-test The second stage during the statistical analysis of the findings of the study was to scrutinize the results of the pre-test in order to check the degrees of similarity at the proficiency level of participants in speaking and when post-test is compared with the results of the pre-test. The speaking section of IELTS was administered to both groups of participants and the following data was gathered:

Table 4.3

Group Statistics of Pre-test

Pre-test N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Group 1 20 2.4500 .51042 .11413 Group 2 20 2.4300 .51038 .11411

As it is clear from the above table, the distinction of means between two groups of participants was not so great, but in order to achieve most valuable data means differences an independent t-test was applied and the following information was revealed:

Table 4.4 Independent Samples Test of pre-test

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval Sig. Mean Dif- Std. Error of the Difference F Sig. t df (2-tailed) ference Difference Lower Upper Equal variances .000 1.000 .000 38 1.000 .00000 .16141 -.32675 .32675 assumed Equal variances .000 38.000 1.000 .00000 .16141 -.32675 .32675 not assumed 60 Rostami Shirkoohi and Behforouz (2016)

It is shown that at 38 degrees of freedom the amount of level of significance is 1.00 and since 1.00> p= 0.05, then there is no great statistical distinction between results of group 1 and group2 performances.

4.3 Post-test In post-test, an IELTS speaking section was administered to the participants in order to assess their progress. Specially, the purpose of the post-test was to examine a number of scores dispersion after the teaching process. The following information was gathered from the post-test. Table 4.5 Group Statistics of Post -test Post-test N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Group 1 20 4.3500 .74516 .16662 Group 2 20 3.4500 .51042 .11413 Clearly, in contrast with the pre-test participants have some progress in their speaking, of course, the mean of group 1 which exposed to teaching speaking was higher than group 2 but the result of their comparison was significant. Table 4.6 Independent Samples Test of post -test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval Sig. Mean Dif- Std. Error of the Difference F Sig. t df (2-tailed) ference Difference Lower Upper Equal variances .820 .371 4.456 38 .000 .90000 .20196 .49115 1.30885 assumed Equal variances 4.456 33.613 .000 .90000 .20196 .48939 1.31061 not assumed

In this analysis, the level of significant is .0 which is shorter than P-value, i.e. .0>0.05, it means group 1 is more successful than group 2. The following table shows the mean scores of both groups in pre-test and post-test. The comparison indicates that there are significant changes between the mean scores of two groups. Table 4.7 Mean Score Comparison of Pre-Test & Post-Test Groups N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Pre-test 1 control 20 2.4500 .51042 .11413 2 experiment 20 2.4300 .51038 .11411

Post-test 1 control 20 4.3500 .74516 .16662

2 experiment 20 3.4500 .51042 .11413

ELT Voices-Volume (6), Issue (4), (2016) 61

4.4 Discussion In the past decades, a large number of studies have collected evidence that word recognition in one language may be affected by knowledge of words from the other language (Caramazza & Brones, 1979; Altenberg & Cairns, 1983; Nas, 1983; Cristoffanini, Krisner, & Milech, 1989; Beauvillain & Grainger, 1987; De Groot & Nas, 1991; Grainger, 1998). In a study conducted by Yan-Kit Ingrid Leung from University of Essex (2005) which he compared two groups of the learners. A group of the learner consists of learners who are Cantonese–English bilinguals and another group who are Viet- namese monolinguals .He concludes that The L3 group performed significantly better than the L2 group on most of the properties tested. It means, group of the learners who learn third language is more successful in learning third language than those who are monolingual and want to learn second language. (Yan-Kit Ingrid Leung, 2005). For some learners, the goal of second-language learning is to achieve a level of proficiency in the second language that is comparable with the first. At the point where an individual becomes a fluent bilingual, he or she should be able to function in the second language (L2) at a level of linguistic complexity and conceptual ease that accommodates most of the functions that the first language (L1) normally performs. However, the experience of many second language learners who are confined to classroom instruction is that during early stages of learning it is difficult or nearly impossible to reach this goal. Although most individuals appear able to acquire L2 vocabulary, they make errors of lexical form and find themselves unable to use L2 to perform tasks that require conceptual processing. Research on second-language acquisition suggests that adult second-language learners initially access meaning for second language words through the first language. During early stages of L2 acquisition, the salient form of interconnection between the two languages appears to be lexical; word associations between L1 and L2 mediate second-language performance in tasks such as picture naming and translation (Chen and Leung, 1989; Kroll and Curley, 1988). As the second-language learner becomes more proficient, direct conceptual processing of L2 becomes possible, making L2 functionally similar to L1. At other levels of language processing, there is also evidence that L1 phonology and syntax are active during early stages of L2 learning and that second language learners exhibit significant transfer from the first language to the second (e.g., Hancin- Bhatt and Nagy, 1994; MacWhinney, 1997, as cited in Talamas, Kroll, & Dufour, 1999) As mentioned previously, this study tried to answer the research question: which group of the learners (Gilaki learners or Farsi learners) is more successful in speaking English as a foreign language? In other words, the study aimed at examin- ing the relation between knowing two languages (dialects) and learning the third one. The findings of the study revealed that knowing a language in addition of standard language a learner effects learning a third language. In this study, finding shows Gilaki learners are more successful than Farsi learners in learning speaking English as a foreign language. The detailed quantitative procedure of this study and comparison of mean scores between two groups is a witness for the positive effect of bi-dialectism of Gilaki learners.

5. CONCLUSION

Since the focus of this study was on the improvement of speaking skill, a pre-test was given to the learners, which was a sample of IELTS Speaking Test in order to check their knowledge of speaking skill. The textbook which was covered in this study was based on Interchange Intro, Third Edition, Cambridge press, 2005. In the process of teaching, each session lasted for half and an hour which was held in 17 sessions in 45 days. After conducting the treatment to the learners, another IELTS Speaking Test administered to the learners to examine the amount of their progress in speaking as a post-test. This study had two main purposes: (1) to check the possible in- crease in amount of progress in speaking skill of the learners after coverage of the book. (2) To check the possible role of Gilaki dialect of group1 in speaking skill. The study examined the role of being bilingual/ bidialectal in order to learn a new third language. The finding of the study revealed that there is a significant difference between learners which speak Gilaki in addition of Farsi language (Group 1) with those of Group 2. This finding was arrived at, as a result of statistical 62 Rostami Shirkoohi and Behforouz (2016)

procedures which were conducted on the test results of the learners in both groups of 1 and 2 during pre-test and post-test. According to the findings and discussions given above, the present study may have some implications for second/foreign researches. Since learning English for those with two or more languages is easier than monolinguals, based on the findings of this study, then language researchers can handle more complex structures of third language in mind of learners during short period of time. The second implication needs to be supported here is that, working in Iran as a multilingual community supplies comprehensible input for both groups of learners and researchers. Since the sample size was small, generalizing the present study is somehow problematic. Some of the related topics that could be taken up in the future are as follow: 1. This study was done on the basis of intermediate EFL learners; in this case, further research can be carried out on the basis of advance or basic levels of proficiency. 2. This study provided some information about Gilaki students who want to learn English as a third language, more research is also suggested to work learners with various Persian dialect/ accents except Gilaki. 3. The focus of this study was on IELTS speaking test, as a main factor of third language learning, while it is suggested for other studies to consider other aspects of language learning like reading, writing, and listening. 4. The aim of this study was investigating Iranian bilingual learners during learning English as their third language. More- over, various researches are suggested based on multilingual learners of other languages widespread around the world, who want to learn new language except English like, French, Chinese, etc.

REFERENCES

Baetens, B. (1986). Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Multilingual Matters. Clevedon, England.

Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1993). Word Production and the Bilingual Lexicon. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds), The Bi lingual Lexicon (pp. 191-214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?. Cognitive Neuropsychology Journal, 14, 177-208. Condon, Eliane . (1974). Bilingual Education. Linguistic Reporter Journal, 16 (5), 67-75.

Costa, A., Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Lexical Selection in Bilinguals: Do Words in the Bilingual `s Two Lex icons Compete for Selection? Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 365-397.

Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W.J.B. (1998). The BIA model and bilingual word recognition. In J. Grainger and A. Jacobs (eds) Localist Connectionist Approaches to Human Cognition (pp. 189-225). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbau. Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. ELT Voices-Volume (6), Issue (4), (2016) 63

Houston, S.H. (1972). Bilingualism. Academic Press, London.

Kalbasi,Iran.(2010). Farhange Tosifie Gouyesh-haye Zabani [Descriptive Encyclopedia of Varieties Of Language in Iran].Tehran. Pazhoheshgah Olom Ensani.

Lambert, W. E. (1974). Culture and Language as Factors in Learning and Education. In F.E ABOUD & R.D MEADE (eds), Cultural Factors in Learning and Education: Bilingualism. WA: 5th Western Washington Symposium in Learning.

PourHadi, M. (1386). Zabane Gilaki [Gilaki Language]. Elia Publication, Rasht, Iran.

Roelofs, A. (1998). Lemma selection without inhibition of languages in bilingual speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 94-95.

Van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilinguals memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,1 (3), 193-211. Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (1995). Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 686-698.

Author Bio Faridodin Rostami Shirkoohi holds an M.A in English Language Teaching (TEFL) from Islamic Azad university, South Tehran Branch. He is an M.A student in Traditional Languages Studies at Cultural Research Institute in Iran. He was in- volved in teaching at various language institutes for 8 years in different proficiency levels. He is interested in Dialectology and Linguistics.

Behnam Behforouz got his M.A of English Language Teaching in 2012. He is an English Instructor of Foundation De- partment at University of Buraimi in Oman since September 2015. Previously he taught English language courses in various foreign language institutes and universities in Iran. The main area of his research is the relationship between motivation and language learning.