场依存/场独立学习风格在英语输出准确性复杂性流利性方面的差异
|
摘要
个体差异已成为二语习得研究中的重要方面,近年来,场依存和场独立认知风格及其对二语习得的影响被广泛研究。准确性、流利性和复杂性是衡量二语水平的三个方面。许多学者认为语言不是静态不变的,而是动态变化的,在不同的语言环境中,语言使用者的压力、自我认同、目标以及情感因素都会对语言行为造成影响。本研究采用动态描述的方法进行个案跟踪研究,结合对小组均值和个体变化的分析,试图对场依存和场独立学生英语输出的准确性复杂性流利性方面的差异做较全面的描述。
本研究探讨以下三个问题:
1.场依存和场独立学生输出中的流利性、准确性和复杂性的发展模式是什么?他们的英语学习是否呈线性变化?
2.流利性、准确性和复杂性之间的关系怎样?一方面的发展是否会引起另一方面的停滞或倒退?
3.是否场独立学生在书面输出中表现较好,而场依存学生在口语输出中表现较好?本研究主要有以下发现:
首先,语言系统是动态变化的,场依存和场独立学生学生英语输出中的流利性、准确性和复杂性的模式不是线性的。其次,语言水平的三方面,即流利性、准确性和复杂性在输出中各自呈现独立地位,它们相互支撑又相互竞争。其中一方面的发展可能导致另一方面的停滞。再者,在适应变化着的环境的过程中,场依存和场独立学生各自都表现出变化性。学生的语言行为会受到自己语言策略的影响。第四,不仅是两种风格学生遵循不同发展模式,即使是同一风格的学生相互之间的发展模式也大不相同。最后,总体来说,场独立学生书面较好,场依存学生口语较好。若涉及到学习过程,两种风格学生在英语学习与使用中表现出不同优势,在今后教学中应引起关注。
本研究的教学启示有以下几方面:
第一,场依存和场独立学生英语学习的过程是非线性的,教师应当采用形成性评估,注意学生在不同阶段的进步与退化,帮学生提高基础知识。第二,场依存和场独立两个风格学生确实在二语习得过程中有不同的发展模式。教师应了解学生的认知风格,帮助学生发展合适的学习策略,设计有效的任务型教学活动。第三,语言是社会性。教师平时应注意学生的课堂表现,情感变化,学习态度及其他的环境因素,培养学生的学习兴趣。最后,再一次要强调个体差异。教师要设计更多不同类型的任务型教学活动来帮助不同风格的学生。设计教学大纲时要考虑学生的认知风格,使场依存和场独立学生从中受益。
本研究也有许多不足之处。本研究中的被试不是随机抽取的,且样本相对较小。试验时间也不长,研究不够全面,没有对准确性、流利性和复杂性三个方面进行一一比较。但是希望本研究的结果能给语言教师和学习者以及今后的研究者一些启发。
Individual differences became an important aspect in the study of second language acquisition. Cognitive styles such as field-dependence and field-independence and their influences have been much explored in SLA in recent years. Accuracy, fluency and complexity are three dimensions to measure L2 performance. More and more researchers now agree on that language is not fixed but is a dynamic system. Language is used for social action within a context of language use, where pressures, learners’identities, goals and affective states will have a profound effect on language performance. The present study adopts a dynamic descriptive approach to carry out a case study, with the combination of analyses in group average and individual variations to investigate the fluency, accuracy and complexity in the written and oral productions of FD/FI students of English.
In this study, there are three research questions addressed:
(1)What are the developmental patterns of fluency, accuracy and complexity in FD/FI students’outputs and whether FD/FI students’English learning is linearity?
(2)What are the correlations among fluency, accuracy and complexity? Whether development in one dimension can cause stop or regression in another dimension?
(3) Is it true that FD students do better in written work and FI students in oral work if they are at the same level of English proficiency?
The major findings of this study are presented as follows:
Firstly, language is a dynamic system instead of a static and fixed one. The patterns of fluency, accuracy and complexity emerging in both FD students and FI students are not linear.
Secondly, the three dimensions to language proficiency, i.e. fluency, accuracy and complexity, perform independently in written and oral productions. They are supportive and competitive. The development in one dimension can cause another’s stop.
Thirdly, both FD and FI students show variability in their own progress as the result of their adaptations to changing contexts. Students will be influenced by their use of language resources in the process of language performances.
Fourthly, not only FD and FI students follow different patterns in their language progress, but also members in a same group differ greatly between one and another in their productions.
Finally, roughly speaking, FI students do better in written work and FD students in oral work when they are at the same level of English proficiency. But when it comes to process, both styles have their own advantages in English learning and using. More attention should be paid in the future English teaching.
The implications of the present study lie in the following aspects:
Firstly, the developmental patterns of FD and FI students’English production are not linear; there should be more formative assessments used in the process of learning and teaching. Teachers should pay attention to individual progresses at different stages of learning and help the students enhance their underlying knowledge.
Secondly, FD and FI students really take different developmental patterns in their second language learning. Teachers should know students’cognitive styles and help students develop reasonable learning strategies and effective task-based activities.
Thirdly, language is also a social resource. The teachers should have an eye on students’classroom behavior, emotions, attitudes and other contextual influences, and foster their interest in English learning.
At last, individual differences in FD and FI students should be emphasized once again. Teachers should create more different types of task-based activities to help students of different styles. Students’cognitive styles should be taken into account when the teachers plan their teaching syllabus, from which both FD and FI students will benefit.
However, the present study has its own limitations. In the first place, the sample size of this study is relatively small and it was not randomly selected. Secondly, as a case study, an exploratory one, the time of the present study is relatively short. Thirdly, analysis in the present study is not thorough enough as a result of time limitation. The change of one dimension compared with another is not explored. But the results in this study here are hoped to benefit language teachers,students and researchers in this area in the future.
本研究探讨以下三个问题:
1.场依存和场独立学生输出中的流利性、准确性和复杂性的发展模式是什么?他们的英语学习是否呈线性变化?
2.流利性、准确性和复杂性之间的关系怎样?一方面的发展是否会引起另一方面的停滞或倒退?
3.是否场独立学生在书面输出中表现较好,而场依存学生在口语输出中表现较好?本研究主要有以下发现:
首先,语言系统是动态变化的,场依存和场独立学生学生英语输出中的流利性、准确性和复杂性的模式不是线性的。其次,语言水平的三方面,即流利性、准确性和复杂性在输出中各自呈现独立地位,它们相互支撑又相互竞争。其中一方面的发展可能导致另一方面的停滞。再者,在适应变化着的环境的过程中,场依存和场独立学生各自都表现出变化性。学生的语言行为会受到自己语言策略的影响。第四,不仅是两种风格学生遵循不同发展模式,即使是同一风格的学生相互之间的发展模式也大不相同。最后,总体来说,场独立学生书面较好,场依存学生口语较好。若涉及到学习过程,两种风格学生在英语学习与使用中表现出不同优势,在今后教学中应引起关注。
本研究的教学启示有以下几方面:
第一,场依存和场独立学生英语学习的过程是非线性的,教师应当采用形成性评估,注意学生在不同阶段的进步与退化,帮学生提高基础知识。第二,场依存和场独立两个风格学生确实在二语习得过程中有不同的发展模式。教师应了解学生的认知风格,帮助学生发展合适的学习策略,设计有效的任务型教学活动。第三,语言是社会性。教师平时应注意学生的课堂表现,情感变化,学习态度及其他的环境因素,培养学生的学习兴趣。最后,再一次要强调个体差异。教师要设计更多不同类型的任务型教学活动来帮助不同风格的学生。设计教学大纲时要考虑学生的认知风格,使场依存和场独立学生从中受益。
本研究也有许多不足之处。本研究中的被试不是随机抽取的,且样本相对较小。试验时间也不长,研究不够全面,没有对准确性、流利性和复杂性三个方面进行一一比较。但是希望本研究的结果能给语言教师和学习者以及今后的研究者一些启发。
Individual differences became an important aspect in the study of second language acquisition. Cognitive styles such as field-dependence and field-independence and their influences have been much explored in SLA in recent years. Accuracy, fluency and complexity are three dimensions to measure L2 performance. More and more researchers now agree on that language is not fixed but is a dynamic system. Language is used for social action within a context of language use, where pressures, learners’identities, goals and affective states will have a profound effect on language performance. The present study adopts a dynamic descriptive approach to carry out a case study, with the combination of analyses in group average and individual variations to investigate the fluency, accuracy and complexity in the written and oral productions of FD/FI students of English.
In this study, there are three research questions addressed:
(1)What are the developmental patterns of fluency, accuracy and complexity in FD/FI students’outputs and whether FD/FI students’English learning is linearity?
(2)What are the correlations among fluency, accuracy and complexity? Whether development in one dimension can cause stop or regression in another dimension?
(3) Is it true that FD students do better in written work and FI students in oral work if they are at the same level of English proficiency?
The major findings of this study are presented as follows:
Firstly, language is a dynamic system instead of a static and fixed one. The patterns of fluency, accuracy and complexity emerging in both FD students and FI students are not linear.
Secondly, the three dimensions to language proficiency, i.e. fluency, accuracy and complexity, perform independently in written and oral productions. They are supportive and competitive. The development in one dimension can cause another’s stop.
Thirdly, both FD and FI students show variability in their own progress as the result of their adaptations to changing contexts. Students will be influenced by their use of language resources in the process of language performances.
Fourthly, not only FD and FI students follow different patterns in their language progress, but also members in a same group differ greatly between one and another in their productions.
Finally, roughly speaking, FI students do better in written work and FD students in oral work when they are at the same level of English proficiency. But when it comes to process, both styles have their own advantages in English learning and using. More attention should be paid in the future English teaching.
The implications of the present study lie in the following aspects:
Firstly, the developmental patterns of FD and FI students’English production are not linear; there should be more formative assessments used in the process of learning and teaching. Teachers should pay attention to individual progresses at different stages of learning and help the students enhance their underlying knowledge.
Secondly, FD and FI students really take different developmental patterns in their second language learning. Teachers should know students’cognitive styles and help students develop reasonable learning strategies and effective task-based activities.
Thirdly, language is also a social resource. The teachers should have an eye on students’classroom behavior, emotions, attitudes and other contextual influences, and foster their interest in English learning.
At last, individual differences in FD and FI students should be emphasized once again. Teachers should create more different types of task-based activities to help students of different styles. Students’cognitive styles should be taken into account when the teachers plan their teaching syllabus, from which both FD and FI students will benefit.
However, the present study has its own limitations. In the first place, the sample size of this study is relatively small and it was not randomly selected. Secondly, as a case study, an exploratory one, the time of the present study is relatively short. Thirdly, analysis in the present study is not thorough enough as a result of time limitation. The change of one dimension compared with another is not explored. But the results in this study here are hoped to benefit language teachers,students and researchers in this area in the future.
引文
[1]Abraham, R.“Field independence and dependence and the teaching of grammar”, TESOL Quarterly, 1985, 20:689-702.
[2]Arthur, B.“Short-term Changes in EFL Composition Skills”, TESOL, 1979, 79: 330-342.
[3]Atkinson, D.“Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition.”The Modern Language Journal, 2002
[4]Bialystok, E. Communication Strategies: A Psychological analysis of second language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.
[5]Biber, D. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
[6]Brown, H.D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching Peking: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.
[7]Casanave, C.P.“Language development in students’journals”. Journal of second language writing. 1994, 3 (3), 179-201.
[8]Chamot, A.U. & Kupper, L.“Learning strategies in foreign language instruction”, .Foreign Language Annals, 1989.
[9]Chapelle, C. & Roberts, C.“Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language”, Language Learning, 1986, 36:27-45
[10]Chapelle, C. &P. Green.“Field independence/dependence in second language acquisition research”. Language Learning. 1992. 42:47-83
[11]Chen, F.“The Development of L2 Lexis in the Written Production of Undergraduate English Majors in China”. Huazhong University of Science & Technology: Unpublished M.A. thesis, 2004.
[12]Cohen, A.D. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
[13]Cornett, C. E. What You Should Know about Teaching and Learning Styles. Bloomington, 1983.
[14]Cumming, A.“Writing expertise and second language proficiency”. Language Learning, 1989, 39: 81-141.
[15]David J.Weiss.“Criteria for performance evaluation”, Judgment and Decision Making, 2009, 4: 164–174
[16]Diane Larsen-Freeman.“The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English”, Applied Linguistics. 2006, 27/4:590-619
[17]Ehrman, M.E. & Oxford, R.“Cognition plus: correlates of language learning success”. The Modern Language Journal, 1995, 79 (1)
[18]Ejzenberg, R. The juggling act of oral fluency: A psycho-sociolinguistic metaphor. The University of Michigan Press, Michigan, 2000, 287–314.
[19]Ellis. R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
[20]Ellis. R.“Sources of variability in interlanguage”, Applied Linguistics, 1985
[21]Ellis, R. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
[22]Ellis R. Second Language Acquisition .Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Teaching and Learning Press, 2000.
[23]Ferris, D.“Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency”. TESOL Quarterly, 1994.28: 414-421.
[24]Fillmore, C.J. On fluency. Academic Press, New York, 1979. pp. 85–102.
[25]Flahive, D. E. Measures of syntactic complexity in evaluating ESL compositions. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. 1980
[26]Foster, P. and Skehan, P.“The influence of planning and task type on second language performance”Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1996.18, 299-323
[27]Freed, B.F. Perspectives on fluency, The University of Michigan Press, Michigan, 2000.pp. 243–265.
[28]Goldstein, K.M. &S.Blackman. Cognitive Style: Five approaches and relevant research. New York: John Wiley Sons. 1978.
[29]Grant,L.and A.Ginther.“Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences.”Journal of Second Language Writing, 2000, 9(2), 123-145.
[30]Hansen, J. & Stansfield, C.“The relationship between field dependent/independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement”Language Learning, 1981 31(2):349-67
[31]Hansen, L. Field“Dependence-independence and language testing: evidence from six Pacific island cultures”. TESOL Quarterly, 1984. (18):311-324
[32]Harley,B.&King,M.L.“Verb lexis in the written compositions of young L2 learners.”Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1989, 2:415-440
[33]Hieke, A.E.“Linking as a marker of fluent speech”. Language and Speech, 1984. 27:343–354.
[34]Hieke, A.E.“A componential approach to oral fluency evaluation”. Modern Language Journal, 1985, 69: 135–142.
[35]Hirose, K. and M. Sasaki.“Explanatory variables for Japanese students’expository writing in English: an exploratory study”Journal of Second Language Writing, 1994. 3(3), 203-229.
[36]Homburg, T.J.“Holistic evaluation of ESL compositions: Can it be validated objectively”. TESOL Quarterly, 1984, 18, 87-107.
[37]Hunt, K.W. Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research report Champaign, IL: NCTE.ED, 1965
[38]Hyltenstam, K.“Lexical characteristics of near-native second language learners of Swedish”. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1988, 9:67-84.
[39]Janice, P. & A. Marianggela.“Field dependence as a factor in second language communicative production”. Language Learning, 2000,50:529-567.
[40]Ji, X.L.“Developmental Features in L2 writing proficiency of Chinese English majors: an exploratory study”. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Shanghai: The College of English Language and Literature Shanghai International Studies University. 2006.
[41]Jonassen D.H. & Grabowski, B.L. Cognitive Controls. Handbook of Individual Differences ,Learning, and Instruction. London, England, 1993.p78-95.
[42]Krashen, S.D. Second Language Acquisition and SL Learning,. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981.
[43]Kroll, B. Levels of error in ESL composition.Ph.D.dissertation.University of Southern Clifornia, 1982.
[44]Kroll.B.“What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class compositions”. Second language writing: research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp.140-154.
[45]Laufer, B. &P. Nation.“Vocabulary size and use: lexical richness in L2 written production”, Applied Linguistics, 1995, (16):307-322
[46]Larsen-Freeman, D, & Long, M.H..An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London and New York: Longman, 1991
[47]Larsen-Freeman, D.“Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition”, Applied Linguistics, 1997, 18:141-165
[48]Larsen-Freeman, D.“An ESL index of development”, TESOL Quarterly, 1978, 12:439-448.
[49]Lennon, P.“Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach”, Language Learning, 1990, 40: 387–412.
[50]Lennon, P.“The lexical element in spoken second language fluency”, Perspectives on fluency, The University of Michigan Press, Michigan, 2000. pp. 25–42.
[51]Li Yili.“Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task-based e-mail activities”. System, 2000, 28:229-245.
[52]Littlewood, W. Foreign and Second Language Learning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000.
[53]McClure, E.“A comparison of lexical strategies in Ll and L2 written English narratives”. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 1991, 2:141-154.
[54]Messick, S.“Potential Uses of Noncognitive Measurement in Education”Journal of Educational Psychology ,1979.71:281-292.
[55]Naiman,N.and Frohlich,M.&Todesco,A.“The Good Second Language Learner”. TEST Talk, 1975, (6):58-75.
[56]Nunan David. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2003.
[57]Oxford, R. Style Analysis Survey, Leading Style in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston, 1995.
[58]Oxford, R. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know .New York: Newbury House/Harper and Row, 1990.
[59]Pawley, A. and Syder, F.H.“Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency”Language and communication, Amsterdam, 1983, pp., 317–331.
[60]Phillip Bailey, Anthony J. Christine E. Daley.“Using learning style to predict foreign language achievement at the college level”, 2000.
[61]Parvaneh Tavakoli.“Assessing L2 task performance: Understanding effects of task design”Applied Linguistics,2009.
[62]Peter Robinson. Cognition and second Language Instruction .北京:世界图书出版公司北京公司,2007.
[63]Peter Skehan. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
[64]Polio, C.“Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research”Language Learning, 1997, 47(1):101-143
[65]Rehbein, J.“On fluency in second language speech”. Psycholinguistic models of production, Ablex, Norwood, 1987,pp. 97–105.
[66]Rekart, D. and Dunkel, P.“The utility of objective (computer) measures of the fluency of speakers of English as a second language”. Applied Language Learning, 1992,3: 65–85.
[67]Reid, C.“The learning Style preferences of ESL students”. TESOL Quarterly, 1987, 21.
[68]Reid,J.M. Learning styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002
[69]Reppen, R. Variation in elementary student language: a multi-dimensional perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. 1994.
[70]Riding, R.J, A. Glass, & G. Douglas.“Individual Differences in Thinking: Cognitive and Neurophysiological Perspectives”Educational Psychology, 1993 13:267-269.
[71]Riggenbach, H.“Towards an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversation”. Discourse Processes, 1991, 14:423–441
[72]Robison, P.“Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework”Applied Linguistics, 2001, 22:27-57
[73]Sajavaara, K.“Second language speech production: Factors affecting fluency”. Psycholinguistic models of production, Ablex, Norwood, 1987, pp. 45–65.
[74]Schmidt, R.“Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency”Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1992. 14:357–385
[75]Silva, Tony, and Matsuda, Paul Kei. On Second Language Writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001.
[76]Skehan, P.“Individual differences in second language learning”Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1991. 13:275-298
[77]Vanderplank, R.“Pacing and spacing as predictors of difficulty in speaking and understanding English”. English Language Teaching Journal , 1993,47:117–125.
[78]Towell, R., Hawkins, R. and Bazergui, N.“The development of fluency in advanced learners of French”. Applied Linguistics, 1996, 17: 84–119.
[79]Wennerstorm, A.“The role of intonation in second language fluency”. Perspectives on fluency, The University of Michigan Press, Michigan, 2000. pp102–127
[80]Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, and Cox.“Field-dependent and Field-independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications”. Review of Educational Research, 1977. 47(1):1-64.
[81]Witkin, H.A., C.A.Moore, D.R.Goodenough, & P.W.Cox. Psychological Differentiation: Studies of development. New York: Wiley, 1962.
[82]Wolfe-Quintero, K., S.Inagaski, and H. Y. Kim. Second language Development in writing: measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Second language teaching and curriculum center: university of Hawaii at Manoa, 1998.
[83]Yau,M.“The role of language factors in second language writing”Language, Culture and Cognition: A Collection of Studies in First and Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. 1991, 266-283.
[84]Zhang,S.“Cognitive complexity and written production in English as a second language”.Language Learning, 1987, .37:467-481.
[85]陈令君,场依存和场独立特性及其对英语学习影响的研究[D],吉林:吉林大学,2003.
[86]曹爱娣,基于语料库的中国英语专业学生议论文中流利性、准确性和复杂性的发展模式研究[D],扬州:扬州大学,2008.
[87]戴运财,场独立/依靠的认知方式和第二语言习得,《外语教学与研究》,2002,3:203-208
[88]丁梦扬,认知风格对外语教学的启示,《苏州大学学报》2009,3
[89]董茜,外语教学中的场认知风格[D],重庆:重庆大学,2004
[90]范琳,认知方式差异与外语的因材施教,《外语教学》, 2002,3(23):83-88
[91]桂诗春,我国英语专业学生词汇量的调查与分析,《现代外语》,1985,1
[92]何莲珍,王敏,任务复杂度、任务难度及语言水平对中国学生语言表达准确度的影响,《现代外语》, 2003,(2):171-179
[93]纪小凌,中国英语专业学生二语写作中的发展特征:一项探索性研究,上海:上海外国语大学,2006
[94]李寿欣,张忠华,认知方式与教学策略对英文教学效果的研究,《心理科学》, 2003,3(26):519-520
[95]李寿欣,宋广文,王新波,学生认知方式影响文章阅读理解的实验研究,《心理发展与教育》,2001,2:31-34.
[96]李霄翔,鞠红,学龄前儿童第二语言学习中的认知风格研究,《外语学刊》,2009,1
[97]李哲,学习者认知风格的差异性与外语教学,《外语教学》, 2000,3:61–64.
[98]刘润清,吴一安,《中国英语教育研究》,北京:外语教育与研究出版社,2000.
[99]刘春燕,二语习得中的语言输出研究—任务型方法[D],上海:上海外国语大学, 2006.
[100]秦晓晴,第二语言习得中认知方式研究的现状,《外语教学与研究》, 1997,2:40-45
[101]王立非,认知风格研究及其对外语教学的启示,《山东外语教学》, 1998,4:64-69
[102]文秋芳,二语习得跟踪研究的三个基本问题:分类、设计与可比性,《中国外语》2009,3
[103]文秋芳,微变化研究法与二语习得研究,《现代外语(季刊)》, 2003,7
[104]徐琴芳,不同任务下的口语准确性研究,《山东外语教学》,2005,6
[105]谢斯骏,张厚粲,认知方式图形测验的编制与修订说明,北京:北京师范大学出版社, 1998,
[106]杨义玲,任务前准备时间的不同对中国大学英语学习者口语产出的影响[D],兰州:兰州大学, 2008.
[107]杨淑侠,浅谈场独立与英语学习,《陕西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》, 2001,5(30):298-299
[108]张文忠,第二语言口语流利性发展的定性研究,《现代外语(季刊)》2000,23(3):273-283
[109]张雁凌,中国大学生的场独立/依存的认知风格对英语水平的影响,《外国语言文学》(季刊) 2003,4
[110]朱中都,场独立性与场依存性风格对外语学习的影响,《外语与外语教学》, 2002,4:28-31
[2]Arthur, B.“Short-term Changes in EFL Composition Skills”, TESOL, 1979, 79: 330-342.
[3]Atkinson, D.“Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition.”The Modern Language Journal, 2002
[4]Bialystok, E. Communication Strategies: A Psychological analysis of second language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.
[5]Biber, D. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
[6]Brown, H.D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching Peking: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002.
[7]Casanave, C.P.“Language development in students’journals”. Journal of second language writing. 1994, 3 (3), 179-201.
[8]Chamot, A.U. & Kupper, L.“Learning strategies in foreign language instruction”, .Foreign Language Annals, 1989.
[9]Chapelle, C. & Roberts, C.“Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language”, Language Learning, 1986, 36:27-45
[10]Chapelle, C. &P. Green.“Field independence/dependence in second language acquisition research”. Language Learning. 1992. 42:47-83
[11]Chen, F.“The Development of L2 Lexis in the Written Production of Undergraduate English Majors in China”. Huazhong University of Science & Technology: Unpublished M.A. thesis, 2004.
[12]Cohen, A.D. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
[13]Cornett, C. E. What You Should Know about Teaching and Learning Styles. Bloomington, 1983.
[14]Cumming, A.“Writing expertise and second language proficiency”. Language Learning, 1989, 39: 81-141.
[15]David J.Weiss.“Criteria for performance evaluation”, Judgment and Decision Making, 2009, 4: 164–174
[16]Diane Larsen-Freeman.“The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English”, Applied Linguistics. 2006, 27/4:590-619
[17]Ehrman, M.E. & Oxford, R.“Cognition plus: correlates of language learning success”. The Modern Language Journal, 1995, 79 (1)
[18]Ejzenberg, R. The juggling act of oral fluency: A psycho-sociolinguistic metaphor. The University of Michigan Press, Michigan, 2000, 287–314.
[19]Ellis. R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
[20]Ellis. R.“Sources of variability in interlanguage”, Applied Linguistics, 1985
[21]Ellis, R. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
[22]Ellis R. Second Language Acquisition .Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Teaching and Learning Press, 2000.
[23]Ferris, D.“Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency”. TESOL Quarterly, 1994.28: 414-421.
[24]Fillmore, C.J. On fluency. Academic Press, New York, 1979. pp. 85–102.
[25]Flahive, D. E. Measures of syntactic complexity in evaluating ESL compositions. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc. 1980
[26]Foster, P. and Skehan, P.“The influence of planning and task type on second language performance”Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1996.18, 299-323
[27]Freed, B.F. Perspectives on fluency, The University of Michigan Press, Michigan, 2000.pp. 243–265.
[28]Goldstein, K.M. &S.Blackman. Cognitive Style: Five approaches and relevant research. New York: John Wiley Sons. 1978.
[29]Grant,L.and A.Ginther.“Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences.”Journal of Second Language Writing, 2000, 9(2), 123-145.
[30]Hansen, J. & Stansfield, C.“The relationship between field dependent/independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement”Language Learning, 1981 31(2):349-67
[31]Hansen, L. Field“Dependence-independence and language testing: evidence from six Pacific island cultures”. TESOL Quarterly, 1984. (18):311-324
[32]Harley,B.&King,M.L.“Verb lexis in the written compositions of young L2 learners.”Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1989, 2:415-440
[33]Hieke, A.E.“Linking as a marker of fluent speech”. Language and Speech, 1984. 27:343–354.
[34]Hieke, A.E.“A componential approach to oral fluency evaluation”. Modern Language Journal, 1985, 69: 135–142.
[35]Hirose, K. and M. Sasaki.“Explanatory variables for Japanese students’expository writing in English: an exploratory study”Journal of Second Language Writing, 1994. 3(3), 203-229.
[36]Homburg, T.J.“Holistic evaluation of ESL compositions: Can it be validated objectively”. TESOL Quarterly, 1984, 18, 87-107.
[37]Hunt, K.W. Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research report Champaign, IL: NCTE.ED, 1965
[38]Hyltenstam, K.“Lexical characteristics of near-native second language learners of Swedish”. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1988, 9:67-84.
[39]Janice, P. & A. Marianggela.“Field dependence as a factor in second language communicative production”. Language Learning, 2000,50:529-567.
[40]Ji, X.L.“Developmental Features in L2 writing proficiency of Chinese English majors: an exploratory study”. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Shanghai: The College of English Language and Literature Shanghai International Studies University. 2006.
[41]Jonassen D.H. & Grabowski, B.L. Cognitive Controls. Handbook of Individual Differences ,Learning, and Instruction. London, England, 1993.p78-95.
[42]Krashen, S.D. Second Language Acquisition and SL Learning,. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981.
[43]Kroll, B. Levels of error in ESL composition.Ph.D.dissertation.University of Southern Clifornia, 1982.
[44]Kroll.B.“What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class compositions”. Second language writing: research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp.140-154.
[45]Laufer, B. &P. Nation.“Vocabulary size and use: lexical richness in L2 written production”, Applied Linguistics, 1995, (16):307-322
[46]Larsen-Freeman, D, & Long, M.H..An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London and New York: Longman, 1991
[47]Larsen-Freeman, D.“Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition”, Applied Linguistics, 1997, 18:141-165
[48]Larsen-Freeman, D.“An ESL index of development”, TESOL Quarterly, 1978, 12:439-448.
[49]Lennon, P.“Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach”, Language Learning, 1990, 40: 387–412.
[50]Lennon, P.“The lexical element in spoken second language fluency”, Perspectives on fluency, The University of Michigan Press, Michigan, 2000. pp. 25–42.
[51]Li Yili.“Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task-based e-mail activities”. System, 2000, 28:229-245.
[52]Littlewood, W. Foreign and Second Language Learning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000.
[53]McClure, E.“A comparison of lexical strategies in Ll and L2 written English narratives”. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 1991, 2:141-154.
[54]Messick, S.“Potential Uses of Noncognitive Measurement in Education”Journal of Educational Psychology ,1979.71:281-292.
[55]Naiman,N.and Frohlich,M.&Todesco,A.“The Good Second Language Learner”. TEST Talk, 1975, (6):58-75.
[56]Nunan David. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2003.
[57]Oxford, R. Style Analysis Survey, Leading Style in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston, 1995.
[58]Oxford, R. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know .New York: Newbury House/Harper and Row, 1990.
[59]Pawley, A. and Syder, F.H.“Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency”Language and communication, Amsterdam, 1983, pp., 317–331.
[60]Phillip Bailey, Anthony J. Christine E. Daley.“Using learning style to predict foreign language achievement at the college level”, 2000.
[61]Parvaneh Tavakoli.“Assessing L2 task performance: Understanding effects of task design”Applied Linguistics,2009.
[62]Peter Robinson. Cognition and second Language Instruction .北京:世界图书出版公司北京公司,2007.
[63]Peter Skehan. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
[64]Polio, C.“Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research”Language Learning, 1997, 47(1):101-143
[65]Rehbein, J.“On fluency in second language speech”. Psycholinguistic models of production, Ablex, Norwood, 1987,pp. 97–105.
[66]Rekart, D. and Dunkel, P.“The utility of objective (computer) measures of the fluency of speakers of English as a second language”. Applied Language Learning, 1992,3: 65–85.
[67]Reid, C.“The learning Style preferences of ESL students”. TESOL Quarterly, 1987, 21.
[68]Reid,J.M. Learning styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2002
[69]Reppen, R. Variation in elementary student language: a multi-dimensional perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. 1994.
[70]Riding, R.J, A. Glass, & G. Douglas.“Individual Differences in Thinking: Cognitive and Neurophysiological Perspectives”Educational Psychology, 1993 13:267-269.
[71]Riggenbach, H.“Towards an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversation”. Discourse Processes, 1991, 14:423–441
[72]Robison, P.“Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework”Applied Linguistics, 2001, 22:27-57
[73]Sajavaara, K.“Second language speech production: Factors affecting fluency”. Psycholinguistic models of production, Ablex, Norwood, 1987, pp. 45–65.
[74]Schmidt, R.“Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency”Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1992. 14:357–385
[75]Silva, Tony, and Matsuda, Paul Kei. On Second Language Writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001.
[76]Skehan, P.“Individual differences in second language learning”Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1991. 13:275-298
[77]Vanderplank, R.“Pacing and spacing as predictors of difficulty in speaking and understanding English”. English Language Teaching Journal , 1993,47:117–125.
[78]Towell, R., Hawkins, R. and Bazergui, N.“The development of fluency in advanced learners of French”. Applied Linguistics, 1996, 17: 84–119.
[79]Wennerstorm, A.“The role of intonation in second language fluency”. Perspectives on fluency, The University of Michigan Press, Michigan, 2000. pp102–127
[80]Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, and Cox.“Field-dependent and Field-independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications”. Review of Educational Research, 1977. 47(1):1-64.
[81]Witkin, H.A., C.A.Moore, D.R.Goodenough, & P.W.Cox. Psychological Differentiation: Studies of development. New York: Wiley, 1962.
[82]Wolfe-Quintero, K., S.Inagaski, and H. Y. Kim. Second language Development in writing: measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Second language teaching and curriculum center: university of Hawaii at Manoa, 1998.
[83]Yau,M.“The role of language factors in second language writing”Language, Culture and Cognition: A Collection of Studies in First and Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. 1991, 266-283.
[84]Zhang,S.“Cognitive complexity and written production in English as a second language”.Language Learning, 1987, .37:467-481.
[85]陈令君,场依存和场独立特性及其对英语学习影响的研究[D],吉林:吉林大学,2003.
[86]曹爱娣,基于语料库的中国英语专业学生议论文中流利性、准确性和复杂性的发展模式研究[D],扬州:扬州大学,2008.
[87]戴运财,场独立/依靠的认知方式和第二语言习得,《外语教学与研究》,2002,3:203-208
[88]丁梦扬,认知风格对外语教学的启示,《苏州大学学报》2009,3
[89]董茜,外语教学中的场认知风格[D],重庆:重庆大学,2004
[90]范琳,认知方式差异与外语的因材施教,《外语教学》, 2002,3(23):83-88
[91]桂诗春,我国英语专业学生词汇量的调查与分析,《现代外语》,1985,1
[92]何莲珍,王敏,任务复杂度、任务难度及语言水平对中国学生语言表达准确度的影响,《现代外语》, 2003,(2):171-179
[93]纪小凌,中国英语专业学生二语写作中的发展特征:一项探索性研究,上海:上海外国语大学,2006
[94]李寿欣,张忠华,认知方式与教学策略对英文教学效果的研究,《心理科学》, 2003,3(26):519-520
[95]李寿欣,宋广文,王新波,学生认知方式影响文章阅读理解的实验研究,《心理发展与教育》,2001,2:31-34.
[96]李霄翔,鞠红,学龄前儿童第二语言学习中的认知风格研究,《外语学刊》,2009,1
[97]李哲,学习者认知风格的差异性与外语教学,《外语教学》, 2000,3:61–64.
[98]刘润清,吴一安,《中国英语教育研究》,北京:外语教育与研究出版社,2000.
[99]刘春燕,二语习得中的语言输出研究—任务型方法[D],上海:上海外国语大学, 2006.
[100]秦晓晴,第二语言习得中认知方式研究的现状,《外语教学与研究》, 1997,2:40-45
[101]王立非,认知风格研究及其对外语教学的启示,《山东外语教学》, 1998,4:64-69
[102]文秋芳,二语习得跟踪研究的三个基本问题:分类、设计与可比性,《中国外语》2009,3
[103]文秋芳,微变化研究法与二语习得研究,《现代外语(季刊)》, 2003,7
[104]徐琴芳,不同任务下的口语准确性研究,《山东外语教学》,2005,6
[105]谢斯骏,张厚粲,认知方式图形测验的编制与修订说明,北京:北京师范大学出版社, 1998,
[106]杨义玲,任务前准备时间的不同对中国大学英语学习者口语产出的影响[D],兰州:兰州大学, 2008.
[107]杨淑侠,浅谈场独立与英语学习,《陕西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》, 2001,5(30):298-299
[108]张文忠,第二语言口语流利性发展的定性研究,《现代外语(季刊)》2000,23(3):273-283
[109]张雁凌,中国大学生的场独立/依存的认知风格对英语水平的影响,《外国语言文学》(季刊) 2003,4
[110]朱中都,场独立性与场依存性风格对外语学习的影响,《外语与外语教学》, 2002,4:28-31
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |