一 : Unit 5　Canada—“The True North”(Period 4　Using language: Listening and talking)

unit 5　canada—“the true north”

period 4　using language: listening and talking
整体设计
教材分析
this is the fourth teaching period of this unit. as usual, the teacher will first get students to review what they learned in the last period, and then lead in the new lesson.
we will focus on training students’ listening ability in this period. the listening passage introduces information about the cultural and racial composition of canada. canada is one of the few countries that have an official multicultural policy. the population is changing rapidly and immigrants from china are among the most numerous recently. make sure students go through the exercises before they listen to the tape. this is to sharpen their attention. it will also help them get the gist of the listening text. the teaching procedures may be as follows: first, let students think about and discuss what they know about canada’s population and the fact that it is a country of immigrants. second, go through the incomplete sentences in exercise 2 and guess what the topic of the listening text is. play the tape for students to listen to and decide whether their guessing is right. third, ask them to listen again for them to do exercise 2. fourth, let them listen a third time to check their answers. while they are listening, the teacher should pause and repeat the key sentences to help students understand. when checking the answers, explain some difficult listening points if necessary. in the end, show them the listening text and let them read and retell it. this step can help students understand and grasp the listening material far further.
next, students will listen to a report which li daiyu and liu qian were asked to give telling their new canadian friends about china. the purpose of this listening passage is to allow students to make a comparison between canada and china in terms of geography and natural features. the teacher can let students read the directions and go through the exercises before listening. then ask them to listen to the tape and finish their exercises. they should make notes while listening. when students listen to the text, tell them to ignore the words they don’t know and to concentrate on understanding the gist of the text. perhaps some students will find it hard to listen to and understand listening materials. encourage them not to give up. the more they listen to english, the easier it becomes.
after practicing listening, students are required to talk about some of the major similarities and differences between china and canada. encourage them to say something. don’t always correct the mistakes they have made while they are talking. otherwise, they would feel reluctant and not say anything more.
教学重点
1. develop students’ listening ability.
2. enable students to master different listening skills.
3. let them talk about the major similarities and differences between china and canada.
教学难点
1. get students to listen to and understand the listening materials.
2. let students talk about the major similarities and differences between china and canada.
三维目标
知识目标
1. get students to learn some useful new words and expressions in the listening passages.
2. let students learn about the major similarities and differences between china and canada.
能力目标
1. enable students to catch and understand the listening materials.
2. develop students’ ability to get special information and take notes while listening.
3. get students to learn and talk about the major similarities and differences between china and canada.
情感目标
1. enable students to know more about canada.
2. develop students’ sense of group cooperation and teamwork.

教学过程
→step 1 revision
1. check the homework exercises.
2. ask some students to translate some sentences using noun clauses as the appositive.
1)他登上月球的消息迅速传遍全国。
2)将军下达了战士们立即过河的命令。
3)是否该做这件事, 这一问题使他很烦恼。
4)你不知道我是多么着急。
5)他突然想到敌人可能已经逃出城了。
suggested answers:
1)the news that he had landed on the moon soon spread all over the country.
2)the general gave the order that the soldiers should cross the river at once.
3)the question whether he should do this troubled him.
4)you have no idea how worried i was.
5)the thought came to him that maybe the enemy had fled the city.
→step 2 warming up
1. tell students: turn to page 37. we are going to the part listening.
2. let them in pairs discuss what they know about canada, especially its culture and people.
→step 3 listening
1. let students read the incomplete sentences in exercise 2 and guess what the topic of the listening material they will hear may be before listening.
2. play the tape for them to listen to and decide whether their guessing is right or not.
3. let them listen to the tape again and complete the following sentences with the correct information.
1)canada encourages people to keep ______________.
2)canada is a mixture of ______________.
3)if you live in the province of quebec, ______________.
4)native indians and the inuit are trying to ______________.
5)more than ______________ languages are used in radio and tv programs.
6)you may find areas where ______________ live near each other.
7)the families ______________ are usually all mixed up.
4. they exchange the information and listen to the tape a third time for checking. let them have the correct answers.
5. give 2 or 3 minutes to them to ask questions if they have any.
6. show them the listening text and let them read it.
listening text: (omitted)
7. let them in pairs take turns to ask and answer the following questions.
1)what is a canadian?
2)why do people say that canada is a multicultural country?
8. ask as many pairs as possible to present their conversation to the class.
→step 4 listening on page 69
turn to page 69.
1. ask students to read through the directions and the exercises. make sure they know what to do.
2. let them discuss in pairs what the most important points are for a foreigner to know about china and then predict what the girls will say in their report.
3. play the tape for them to listen to and see whether their prediction is right.
4. have them listen to the tape again and decide if the following sentences are true or false. if false, correct the information.
1)china is over 7000 kilometers from east to west.
2)both china and canada have mountains in the west of the country.
3)the great wall cannot keep the desert’s dust away from beijing.
4)china has 15 neighboring countries while canada only has one.
5)canadians cannot talk with people in their neighboring country because they do not speak english.
5. let them share their information in pairs.
6. play the tape a third time for them to check and have the correct answers.
7. give 2 or 3 minutes for them to ask questions if they have any.
8. show them the listening text and let them read it aloud.
listening text: (omitted)
9. have them first discuss the question and then give their answers to the class.
why might people from canada want to visit hainan?
→step 5 talking
1. show students the map of canada and the map of china and let them read the maps.
2. have them discuss the question in small groups.
what are some of the major similarities and differences between china and canada?
3. give several minutes for them to prepare their report.
4. ask as many of them as possible to present their report to the class.
→step 6 listening task on page 72
1. turn to page 72. tell students: we are listening to the introductions of three famous canadians in different areas of work.
2. let them go through the report charts and make sure they know what to do before listening.
3. have them listen to part 1 and then fill in the chart about oscar peterson.
hometown 
job 
kind of music 
number of recordings and cds 
plays with. . . 
4. have them listen to part 2 and then fill in the chart about dr. nancy olivieri.
hometown 
job 
found a drug that. . . 
refused to. . . 
is a heroine to. . . 
5. have them listen to part 3 and then fill in the chart about wayne gretsky.
is called. . . 
job 
is the best. . . 
he believed in. . . 
he was a star because he scored. . . 
6. allow them two or three minutes to discuss and share their answers.
7. play the whole tape again for them to check and have the correct answers.
8. show them the listening text and let them read it aloud.
listening text: (omitted)
→step 7 summary
in this period, we mainly focus on the listening ability. it’s very important. if your listening is poor, you’d better practice more. the more you listen to english, the better your listening is. remember: practice makes perfect.
→step 8 homework
1. finish off the workbook exercises.
2. read the listening texts again and try to learn more about canada from them.

板书设计
unit 5　canada—“the true north”
listening and talking
1. listening
complete the following sentences with the correct information you hear.
1)canada encourages people to keep ______________.
2)canada is a mixture of ______________.
3)if you live in the province of quebec, ______________.
4)native indians and the inuit are trying to ______________.
5)more than ______________ languages are used in radio and tv programs.
6)you may find areas where ______________ live near each other.
7)the families ______________ are usually all mixed up.
2. talking
what are some of the major similarities and differences between china and canada?
活动与探究
suppose a very important person is visiting your school. you have been asked to introduce this visitor to your class. find information on the internet or in the newspaper or a magazine about this person. make some notes and be prepared to introduce him/her to your class. you should have about four or five pieces of information ready.
you may begin like this:
good morning/afternoon, everybody!
it’s my pleasure to introduce our guest to you today. we are much honored to have ______________ visiting us, because. . .

二 : Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in Second Language A

AppliedLinguistics30/4:461–473?OxfordUniversityPress2009doi:10.1093/applin/amp048AdvanceAccesspublishedon2December2009

Complexity,Accuracy,andFluencyinSecondLanguageAcquisition

1ALEXHOUSENand2FOLKERTKUIKEN

1VrijeUniversiteitBrusseland2UniversiteitvanAmsterdam

INTRODUCTION

Thisspecialissueaddressesageneralquestionthatisattheheartofmuchresearchinappliedlinguisticsandsecondlanguageacquisition(SLA):whatmakesasecondorforeignlanguage(L2)user,oranativespeakerforthatmatter,amoreorlessproficientlanguageuser?

ManyresearchersandlanguagepractitionersbelievethattheconstructsofL2performanceandL2proficiencyaremulti-componentialinnature,andthattheirprincipaldimensionscanbeadequately,andcomprehensively,capturedbythenotionsofcomplexity,accuracyandfluency(Skehan1998;Ellis2003,2008;EllisandBarkhuizen2005).Assuch,complexity,accuracy,andfluency(CAF)havefiguredasmajorresearchvariablesinappliedlinguisticresearch.CAFhavebeenusedbothasperformancedescriptorsfortheoralandwrittenassessmentoflanguagelearnersaswellasindicatorsoflearners’proficiencyunderlyingtheirperformance;theyhavealsobeenusedformeasuringprogressinlanguagelearning.

AreviewoftheliteraturesuggeststhattheoriginsofthistriadlieinresearchonL2pedagogywhereinthe1980sadistinctionwasmadebetweenfluentversusaccurateL2usagetoinvestigatethedevelopmentoforalL2proficiencyinclassroomcontexts.OneofthefirsttousethisdichotomywasBrumfit(1984),whodistinguishedbetweenfluency-orientedactivities,whichfosterspontaneousoralL2production,andaccuracy-orientedactivities,whichfocusonlinguisticformandonthecontrolledproductionofgrammaticallycorrectlinguisticstructuresintheL2(cf.alsoHammerly1991).

Thethirdcomponentofthetriad,complexity,wasaddedinthe1990s,followingSkehan(1989)whoproposedanL2modelwhichforthefirsttimeincludedCAFasthethreeprincipalproficiencydimensions.Inthe1990s,thethreedimensionswerealsogiventheirtraditionalworkingdefinitions,whicharestillusedtoday.Complexityhasthusbeencommonlycharacterizedas‘[t]heextenttowhichthelanguageproducedinperformingataskiselaborateandvaried’(Ellis2003:340),accuracyastheabilitytoproduceerror-freespeech,andfluencyastheabilitytoprocesstheL2with‘native-likerapidity’(Lennon1990:390)or‘theextenttowhichthelanguageproducedinperformingataskmanifestspausing,hesitation,orreformulation’(Ellis2003:342).Downloaded from applij.oxfordjournals.org at Univ of CaliforniaSan Diego on March 4, 2011

462COMPLEXITY,ACCURACY,ANDFLUENCYINSLA

CAFinSLAresearch

Sincethe1990sthesethreeconceptshaveappearedpredominantly,andprominently,asdependentvariablesinSLAresearch.ExamplesincludestudiesoftheeffectsonL2acquisitionofage,instruction,individualityfeatures,tasktype,aswellasstudiesontheeffectsoflearningcontext(e.g.Freed1995;Bygate1999;SkehanandFoster1999;DerwingandRossiter2003;YuanandEllis2003;Collentine2004;Freedetal.2004;Mun?oz2006;KuikenandVedder2007;SpadaandTomita2007).Fromthisdiversebodyofresearch,CAFemergeasdistinctcomponentsofL2performanceandL2proficiencywhichcanbeseparatelymeasuredandwhichmaybevariablymanifestedundervaryingconditionsofL2use,andwhichmaybedifferentiallydevelopedbydifferenttypesoflearnersunderdifferentlearningconditions.

Fromthemid-1990sonwards,inspiredbyadvancesincognitivepsychologyandpsycholinguistics(cf.Levelt1989;Anderson1993),CAFhavealsoincreas-inglyfiguredastheprimaryfociorevenastheindependentvariablesofinves-tigationinSLA(e.g.Skehan1998;Guillot1999;Lennon2000;O’Brienetal.2007;Riggenbach2000;Robinson2001;Housenetal.2005;TowellandDewaele2005;TavakoliandSkehan2005;Larsen-Freeman2006;Segalowitz2007;SkehanandFoster2007;Tonkyn2007;Towell2007;VanDaeleetal.2007;Hilton2008).HereCAFemergeasprincipalepiphenomenaofthepsycholinguisticmechanismsandprocessesunderlyingtheacquisition,repre-sentationandprocessingofL2knowledge.Thereissomeevidencetosuggestthatcomplexityandaccuracyareprimarilylinkedtothecurrentstateofthelearner’s(partlydeclarative,explicitandpartlyprocedural,implicit)interlan-guageknowledge(L2rulesandlexico-formulaicknowledge)wherebycom-plexityisviewedas‘thescopeofexpandingorrestructuredsecondlanguageknowledge’andaccuracyas‘theconformityofsecondlanguageknowledgetotargetlanguagenorms’(Wolfe-Quinteroetal.1998:4).Thus,complexityandaccuracyareseenasrelatingprimarilytoL2knowledgerepresentationandtothelevelofanalysisofinternalizedlinguisticinformation.Incontrast,fluencyisprimarilyrelatedtolearners’controlovertheirlinguisticL2knowl-edge,asreflectedinthespeedandeasewithwhichtheyaccessrelevantL2informationtocommunicatemeaningsinrealtime,with‘controlimprov[ing]asthelearnerautomatizestheprocessofgainingaccess’(Wolfe-Quinteroetal.1998:4).

DefiningCAF

InspiteofthelongresearchinterestinCAF,noneofthesethreeconstructsisuncontroversialandmanyquestionsremain,includingsuchfundamentalquestionsashowCAFshouldbedefinedasconstructs.DespitethebeliefthatweshareacommondefinitionofCAFasresearchersandlanguageteachers,thereisevidencethatagreementcannotbetakenforgrantedandthatvariousdefinitionsandinterpretationscoexist.Accuracy(orcorrectness)isDownloaded from applij.oxfordjournals.org at Univ of CaliforniaSan Diego on March 4, 2011

A.HOUSENandF.KUIKEN463

probablytheoldest,mosttransparentandmostconsistentconstructofthetriad,referringtothedegreeofdeviancyfromaparticularnorm(Hammerly1991;Wolfe-Quinteroetal.1998).Deviationsfromthenormareusuallycharacterizedaserrors.Straightforwardthoughthischaracterizationmayseem,itraisesthethornyissueofcriteriaforevaluatingaccuracyandidentify-ingerrors,includingwhetherthesecriteriashouldbetunedtoprescriptivestandardnorms(asembodiedbyanidealnativespeakerofthetargetlanguage)ortonon-standardandevennon-nativeusagesacceptableinsomesocialcontextsorinsomecommunities(Polio1997;James1998;Ellis2008).Thereisnotthesameamountof(relative)denotativecongruenceintheappliedlinguisticscommunitywithregardtofluencyandcomplexityasthereiswithregardtoaccuracy.Historically,andinlayusage,fluencytypicallyreferstoaperson’sgenerallanguageproficiency,particularlyaschar-acterizedbyperceptionsofease,eloquence,and‘smoothness’ofspeechorwriting(Lennon1990;Chambers1997;Guillot1999;Freed2000;KoponenandRiggenbach2000;Hilton2008).Languageresearchersfortheirparthavemainlyanalyzedoralproductiondatatodetermineexactlywhichquan-tifiablelinguisticphenomenacontributetoperceptionsoffluencyinL2speech(e.g.Lennon1990;Towelletal.1996;Cucchiarinietal.2002;KormosandDe′nes2004).Thisresearchsuggeststhatspeechfluencyisamulti-componentialconstructinwhichdifferentsubdimensionscanbedistin-guished,suchasspeedfluency(rateanddensityofdelivery),breakdownfluency(number,length,anddistributionofpausesinspeech),andrepairfluency(numberoffalsestartsandrepetitions)(TavakoliandSkehan2005).Asbefitstheterm,complexityisthemostcomplex,ambiguous,andleastunderstooddimensionoftheCAFtriad.Forastart,thetermisusedintheSLAliteraturetoreferbothtopropertiesoflanguagetask(taskcomplexity)andtopropertiesofL2performanceandproficiency(L2complexity)(e.g.Robinson2001;Skehan2001).L2complexityinturnhasbeeninterpretedinatleasttwodifferentways:ascognitivecomplexityandaslinguisticcomplexity(WilliamsandEvans1998;Housenetal.2005;DeKeyser2008).Bothtypesofcomplexityinessencerefertopropertiesoflanguagefeatures(items,patterns,structures,rules)or(sub)systems(phonological,morphological,syntactic,lexical)thereof.However,whereascognitivecomplexityisdefinedfromtheperspectiveoftheL2learner-user,linguisticcomplexityisdefinedfromtheperspectiveoftheL2systemortheL2features.Cognitivecomplexity(ordifficulty)referstotherelativedifficultywithwhichlanguagefeaturesareprocessedinL2performanceandacquisition.ThecognitivecomplexityofanL2featureisavariablepropertywhichisdeterminedbothbysubjective,learner-dependentfactors(e.g.aptitude,memoryspan,motivation,L1background)aswellasbymoreobjectivefactors,suchasitsinputsaliencyoritsinherentlinguisticcomplexity.Thus,cognitivecomplexityisabroadernotionthanlinguisticcomplexity,whichisoneofthe(many)factorsthatmay(butneednot)contributetolearningorprocessingdifficulty.Downloaded from applij.oxfordjournals.org at Univ of CaliforniaSan Diego on March 4, 2011

464COMPLEXITY,ACCURACY,ANDFLUENCYINSLA

Linguisticcomplexity,inturn,canbethoughtofinatleasttwodifferentways:asadynamicpropertyofthelearner’sinterlanguagesystematlargeandasamorestablepropertyoftheindividuallinguisticelementsthatmakeuptheinterlanguagesystem.Accordingly,whenconsideredatthelevelofthelearner’sinterlanguagesystem,linguisticcomplexityhasbeencommonlyinterpretedasthesize,elaborateness,richness,anddiversityofthelearner’slinguisticL2system.Whenconsideredattheleveloftheindividualfeaturesthemselves,onecouldspeakofstructuralcomplexity,whichitselfcanbefurtherbrokendownintotheformalandthefunctionalcomplexityofanL2feature(WilliamsandEvans1988;DeKeyser1998;Housenetal.2005).

OperationalizingandmeasuringCAF

Clearly,then,accuracyand,particularly,fluencyandcomplexityaremulti-facetedandmultidimensionalconcepts.Relatedtotheproblemsofconstructvaliditydiscussedabove(i.e.thefactthatCAFlackappropriatedefinitionssupportedbytheoriesoflinguisticsandlanguagelearning),therearealsoproblemsconcerningtheiroperationalization,thatis,howCAFcanbevalidly,reliably,andefficientlymeasured.CAFhavebeenevaluatedacrossvariouslanguagedomainsbymeansofawidevarietyoftools,rangingfromholisticandsubjectiveratingsbylayorexpertjudges,toquantifiablemeasures(frequencies,ratios,formulas)ofgeneralorspecificlinguisticpropertiesofL2productionsoastoobtainmorepreciseandobjectiveaccountsofanL2learner’slevelwithineach(sub)dimensionofproficiency(e.g.rangeofwordtypesandproportionofsubordinateclausesforlexicalandsyntacticcomplexity,numberandtypeoferrorsforaccuracy,numberofsyllables,andpausesforfluency;forinventoriesofCAFmeasures,seeWolfe-Quinteroetal.1998;Polio2001;EllisandBarkhuizen2005;Iwashitaetal.2008).However,criticalsurveysoftheavailabletoolsandmetricsforgaugingCAFhaverevealedvariousproblems,bothintermsoftheanalyticchallengeswhichtheypresentandintermsoftheirreliability,validity,andsensitivity(Polio1997,2001;Wolfe-Quinteroetal.1998;NorrisandOrtega2003;Ortega2003).Alsothe(cor)relationbetweenholisticandobjectivemeasuresofCAF,andbetweengeneralandmorespecific,developmentallymotivatedmeasures,doesnotappeartobestraightforward(e.g.Halleck1995;Skehan2003;RobinsonandEllis2008).

InteractionofCAFcomponents

Anotherpointofdiscussionconcernsthequestiontowhatextentthesethreedimensionsarein(ter)dependentinL2performanceandL2development(Ellis1994,2008;Skehan1998;Robinson2001;Towell2007).Forinstance,accordingtoEllis,increaseinfluencyinL2acquisitionmayoccurattheexpenseofdevelopmentofaccuracyandcomplexityduetothedifferentialdevelopmentofknowledgeanalysisandknowledgeautomatizationinDownloaded from applij.oxfordjournals.org at Univ of CaliforniaSan Diego on March 4, 2011

A.HOUSENandF.KUIKEN465

L2acquisitionandthewaysinwhichdifferentformsofimplicitandexplicitknowledgeinfluencetheacquisitionprocess.Thedifferentialevolutionoffluency,accuracy,andcomplexitywouldfurthermoreresultfromthefactthat‘thepsycholinguisticprocessesinvolvedinusingL2knowledgearedistinctfromacquiringnewknowledge.Toacquirethelearnermustattendconsciouslytotheinputand,perhapsalso,makeeffortstomonitoroutput,butdoingsomayinterferewithfluentreceptionandproduction’(Ellis1994:107).Researcherswhosubscribetotheviewthatthehumanattentionmechanismandprocessingcapacityarelimited(e.g.Skehan1998;Bygate1999;SkehanandFoster1999)alsoseefluencyasanaspectofL2productionwhichcompetesforattentionalresourceswithaccuracy,whileaccuracyinturncompeteswithcomplexity.Learnersmayfocus(consciouslyorsubcon-sciously)ononeofthethreedimensionstothedetrimentoftheothertwo.AdifferentviewisproposedbyRobinson(2001,2003)whoclaimsthatlearnerscansimultaneouslyaccessmultipleandnon-competitionalattentionalpools;asaresultmanipulatingtaskcomplexitybyincreasingthecognitivedemandsofataskcanleadtosimultaneousimprovementofcomplexityandaccuracy.

OVERVIEWOFTHEVOLUME

Astheabovediscussiondemonstrates,manychallengesremaininattemptingtounderstandthenatureandroleofCAFinL2use,L2acquisitionandinL2research.Butdespitethesechallenges,CAFareconceptsthatarestillwidelyusedtoevaluateL2learners,bothinSLAresearchasinL2educationcontexts.WethereforethoughtittimelytotakestockofwhatL2researchonCAFhasbroughtussofarandinwhichdirectionsfutureresearchcouldorshoulddevelop.Withthisbroadgoalinmind,fourcentralarticleswereinvited(byRodEllis;PeterSkehan;JohnNorrisandLourdesOrtega;PeterRobinson,TeresaCadierno,andYasuhiroShirai),andtwocommentaryarticleswerecommissioned(byDianeLarsen-FreemanandGabrielePallotti).Controversialissues

Thefollowingissueswereofferedtothecontributorsasguidelinesforreflec-tionanddiscussion:

(i)CAFasconstructs(definitions,theoreticalbasis,andscope):exactlywhat

ismeantbycomplexity,accuracyandfluency,thatishowcantheybedefinedasconstructs?TowhatextentdoCAFadequatelyandexhaus-tivelycaptureallrelevantaspectsanddimensionsofL2performanceandL2proficiency?Towhatextentarethethreeconstructsthemselvesmulti-componential?Howdotheymanifestthemselvesinthevariousdomainsoflanguage(e.g.phonologyandprosody,lexis,morphology,syntax)?HowdotheyrelatetotheoreticalmodelsofL2competence,L2Downloaded from applij.oxfordjournals.org at Univ of CaliforniaSan Diego on March 4, 2011

466COMPLEXITY,ACCURACY,ANDFLUENCYINSLA

proficiency,andL2processing?AndhowdoCAFrelatetoL2develop-ment(i.e.areCAFvalidindicatorsoflanguagedevelopment?)?

(ii)OperationalizationandmeasurementofCAF:howcanthethreeconstructs

bestbeoperationalizedascomponentsofL2performanceandL2proficiencyinastraightforward,objectiveandnon-intuitivewayinempiricalresearchdesigns?Howcantheybemostadequately(i.e.validly,reliably,andpractically)measured?

(iii)InterdependencyoftheCAFcomponents:towhatextentarethethreeCAF

componentsindependentofoneanotherineitherL2performance,L2proficiency,orL2development?Towhatextentcantheybemeasuredseparately?

(iv)UnderlyingcorrelatesofCAF:whataretheunderlyinglinguistic,

cognitive,andpsycholinguisticcorrelatesofCAF?Howdothethreeconstructsrelatetoalearner’sknowledgebases(e.g.implicit–explicit,declarative–procedural),memorystores(working,short-term,orlong-term),andprocessingmechanismsandlearningprocesses(e.g.atten-tion,automatization,proceduralization)?

(v)ExternalfactorsthatinfluenceCAF:whichexternalfactorscan

influencethemanifestationanddevelopmentofCAFinL2learninganduse?Relevantfactorsincludecharacteristicsoflanguagetasks(e.g.typeandamountofplanning),personalityandsocio-psychologicalfeaturesoftheL2learner(e.g.degreeofextraversion,languageanxiety,motivation,languageaptitude),andfeaturesofpedagogicintervention(e.g.whattypesofinstructionareeffectivefordevelopingeachofthesedimensionswithinaclassroomcontext?).

Thecontributionstothisspecialissueallexplicitlyfocusoneitherone,two,orallthreeoftheCAFconstructsinrelationtooneorseveralofthefiveissueslistedabove,whichinsomecasesareillustratedwithnewempiricalresearch.Wewillnowpresentashortoverviewofthetopicsandquestionsthatareraisedbytheauthorsinthefourcentralarticlesandinthetwocommentaries.Ellis

Thefirstarticle,byRodEllis,addressestheroleandeffectsofonetypeofexternalfactor,planning,onCAFinL2performanceandL2acquisition.Ellisfirstpresentsacomprehensivesurveyoftheresearchonplanning.ThreetypesofplanningseemtoberelevantwithrespecttoCAF:rehearsal,strategicplanning,andwithin-taskplanning.Ellisconcludesthatallthreetypesofplanninghaveabeneficialeffectonfluency,buttheresultsforcomplexityandaccuracyaremoremixed,reflectingboththetypeofplanningandalsothemediatingroleofvariousotherexternalfactors,includingtaskdesign,implementationvariablesandindividualdifferencefactors.

EllisthenprovidesatheoreticalaccountfortheroleofplanninginL2performanceintermsofLevelt’s(1989)modelofspeechproductionandthedistinctionbetweenimplicitandexplicitL2knowledge.RehearsalprovidesanopportunityforlearnerstoattendtoallthreecomponentsinDownloaded from applij.oxfordjournals.org at Univ of CaliforniaSan Diego on March 4, 2011

A.HOUSENandF.KUIKEN467

Levelt’smodel—conceptualization,formulation,andarticulation—andthusbenefitsallthreedimensionsofL2production.Accordingtotheauthor,strategicplanningassistsconceptualizationinparticular,andthuscontributestogreatermessagecomplexityandalsotoenhancedfluency.Unpressuredwithin-taskplanningeasesformulationandalsoaffordstimeformonitoring,thatis,forusingexplicitL2knowledge;inthiswayaccuracyincreases.Skehan

Thesecondarticle,byPeterSkehan,addressestheissueofoperationalizationandmeasurementofCAF.Skehanclaimsthatfluencyneedstoberethoughtifitistobemeasuredeffectively.Inaddition,hearguesthatCAFmeasuresneedtobesupplementedbymeasuresoflexicaluse.Notonlybecauseempir-icalevidencesuggeststhatthelatterisaseparateaspectofoverallperformance,butalsobecauselexicalaccessandretrievalfigureprominentlyinallmodelsofspeechproduction.SkehanalsopointstothelackofnativespeakerdatainCAFresearch.Suchdataareofcrucialimportance,astheyconstituteabaselinealongwhichL2learnerscanbecompared.Skehanpresentsanumberofempiricalstudiesinwhich,foridenticaltasksandsimilartaskconditions,bothnativeandnon-nativeparticipantsareinvolved,andforwhichmeasuresofcomplexity,accuracy(fornon-nativespeakersonly),fluency,andlexiswereobtained.Resultssuggestthatthedifferencebetweennativeandnon-nativeperformanceontasksisrelatedmoretoaspectsoffluencyandlexisthantothegrammaticalcomplexityofthelanguageproduced.Regardingfluency,themajordifferencebetweenthetwogroupsisthepatternofpauselocations:nativespeakersuseend-of-clausepointsformoreeffective,listener-friendlypausing,pausingthereslightlymoreoftenalbeitforshorterperiods,whereasnon-nativespausemoremid-clause.Lexicalperformanceisnoticeablydifferentbetweenthetwogroups,bothintermsoflexicaldensityandoflexicalvariety(i.e.theuseoflessfrequentwords).Especiallyinterestingisthedifferenceindisruptivenessforfluencyoftheuseoflessfrequentwords,asnon-nativesarederailedinspeechplanningwhentheyarepushedtousesuchwordsmorebecauseoftaskdemands.

SkehanalsoconsiderstheissueofinterdependencybetweenCAFmeasures;inparticular,betweenaccuracyandcomplexity,sincepositivecorrelationsbetweenthesetwoaspectshavebeenlesscommonintheliterature.Inordertoaccountforthesecorrelations,SkehanexploresrivalclaimsfromhisownTrade-offHypothesisandRobinson’sCognitionHypothesis.Skehanarguesthatsuchjointraisedperformanceinaccuracyandcomplexityisnotafunctionoftaskdifficulty(asRobinson’sCognitionHypothesiswouldpredict)but,rather,thatitreflectsthejointoperationofseparatetaskandtaskconditionfactors.LikeEllis,SkehanfurthertriestolinktheresearchfindingstoLevelt’s(1989)modelofspeaking.Downloaded from applij.oxfordjournals.org at Univ of CaliforniaSan Diego on March 4, 2011

468COMPLEXITY,ACCURACY,ANDFLUENCYINSLA

Robinson,Cadierno,andShirai

ThearticlebyPeterRobinson,TeresaCadierno,andYasuhiroShiraiexempli-fiesaparticularlyprolificstrandofempiricalresearchonCAF,namelyresearchontheimpactoftaskpropertiesonlearners’L2performance.Theauthorspresentresultsoftwostudiesthatmeasuretheeffectsofincreasingthecom-plexityoftaskdemandsintwoconceptualdomains(timeandmotion)usingspecificratherthangeneralmeasuresoftheaccuracyandcomplexityofL2speechproduction.ThestudiesarecarriedoutwithinthetheoreticalframeworkofRobinson’sCognitionHypothesis.Thishypothesisclaimsthatpedagogictasksshouldbesequencedforlearnersinanorderofincreasingcognitivecomplexity,andthatalongresource-directingdimensionsoftaskdemandsincreasingeffortatconceptualizationpromotesmorecomplexandmoregrammaticizedL2speechproduction.

Thespecificmeasuresusedaremotivatedbyresearchintothedevelopmentoftense-aspectmorphologyforreferencetotime,andbytypological,cross-linguisticresearchintotheuseoflexicalizationpatternsforreferencetomotion.Resultsshowthatthereismorecomplex,developmentallyadvanceduseoftense-aspectmorphologyonconceptuallydemandingtaskscomparedwithlessdemandingtasks,andatrendtomoreaccurate,target-likeuseoflexicalizationpatternsforreferringtomotiononcomplextasks.Byusingspecificmeasuresofcomplexityandaccuracy(alongsidegeneralmeasures),theseauthorsaddresstheissueofmeasurementofCAFintheircontribution.Theycontrasttheeffectivenessoftheseconceptuallyspecificmetricswiththegeneralmetricsforassessingtask-basedlanguageproductionusedinpreviousstudies,andarguefortheuseofboth.Inaddition,Robinson,Cadierno,andShiraialsoargueforahighersensitivityofthespecificmeasureswhichareusedinordertogaugecognitiveprocessingeffectsonL2speechproductionalongselecteddimensionsoftaskcomplexity.

NorrisandOrtega

ThearticlebyJohnNorrisandLourdesOrtegaaddressesthecrucialissueoftheoperationalizationandmeasurementofCAF.TheycriticallyexaminecurrentpracticesinthemeasurementofCAFinL2productiontoillustratetheneedforwhattheycallmoreorganicandsustainablemeasurementprac-tices.Buildingfromthecaseofsyntacticcomplexity,theypointtoimpover-ishedoperationalizationsofmulti-dimensionalCAFconstructsandthelackofattentiontoCAFasadynamicandinter-relatedsetofconstantlychangingsubsystems.Theyobserveadisjunctureamongthetheoreticalclaimsresearchersmake,thedefinitionoftheconstructsthattheyattempttomeasure,andthegrainsizeandfocusoftheoperationalizationsviawhichmeasurementhappens.Furthermore,theyquestioncurrentreasoning,underwhichalinearorco-lineartrajectoryofgreateraccuracy,fluency,andcomplexityisexpected.Instead,theywanttoconsidermeasurementdemandsDownloaded from applij.oxfordjournals.org at Univ of CaliforniaSan Diego on March 4, 2011

A.HOUSENandF.KUIKEN469

thatstemfromadynamic,variable,andnon-linearviewofL2development.Theythereforecallforacloserrelationbetweentheoryandmeasurementandargueforamorecentralroleformulti-dimensionality,dynamicity,variability,andnon-linearityinfutureCAFresearch.

ThisoverviewofthefourcentralarticlesinthisvolumeshowsthattheauthorsapproachCAFfromvariousperspectives,focusondifferentissuesandinves-tigatedistinctresearchtopics.Whattheyshareistheirdesiretobuildfurtherontheresultstodate.ThisiswherethecommentariesbyDianeLarsen-FreemanandGabrielePallotticomein.

Larsen-Freeman

DianeLarsen-Freemanstartsbyremindingusofthefactthat,historically,CAFresearchhascomeoutofthesearchforanL2developmentalindex.ThebigchallengehasalwaysbeenhowtooperationalizeCAF.AccordingtoLarsen-Freemanthemeasureswehavebeenusingtodatemaybetoobluntorother-wiseunsuitablebecausewemaynothavebeenlookingattherightthingsintherightplaces.ShethereforesecondsRobinson,Cadierno,andShirai’ssuggestionnottosticktogeneralmeasures,buttousemorespecificmeasuresandtolookatmoredetailedaspectsofperformance.Shefurtherpointsoutthattheoperationalizationandmeasurementissueiscomplicatedbytheinter-dependencyoftheCAFcomponents.Asmentionedbysomeoftheauthorsinthisvolume,thereisanincreasingamountofevidencethatcomplexity,accuracyandfluencydonotoperateincompleteindependencefromeachother,andthatfindingsobtainedbyCAFmeasuresdependcruciallyontheparticipantsinvolvedandonthecontextinwhichthedataarecollected.Forthosereasons,Larsen-FreemandoesnotexpectmuchfromstudyingtheCAFcomponentsonebyonetoseewhateffecttheyhaveonlearnerperformanceinalinearcausalway.Inherview,suchareductionistapproachdoeslittletoadvanceourunderstanding,asweriskignoringtheirmutualinteraction.Instead,weshouldtrytocapturethedevelopmentofmultiplesubsystemsovertime,andinrelationtoeachother.WithreferencetoWolfe-Quinteroetal.(1998)whohavedemonstratedthatmany,ifnotall,aspectsoflanguagedevelopmentarenon-linear,Larsen-Freemancallsforabroaderconceptualframeworkandformorelongitudinalandnon-linearresearch,inwhichdif-ferenceandvariationoccupyacentralrole.Sheconsidersdynamicorcomplexsystemstheory,inwhichalsomoresociallyorientedmeasuresofdevelopmentareemployed,asthebestcandidateforsuchaframework.

Pallotti

GabrielePallottistartsbysignalingsomedefinitionalandoperationalizationalproblemsofCAFconstructs.AsanexampleofanunresolvedquestioninthisareaheopposesSkehan—whodoubtswhetherlexicalandsyntacticDownloaded from applij.oxfordjournals.org at Univ of CaliforniaSan Diego on March 4, 2011

470COMPLEXITY,ACCURACY,ANDFLUENCYINSLA

complexityare‘differentaspectsofthesameperformancearea’oreventwoseparateareas—toNorrisandOrtega,whoconsidersyntacticcomplexitytobeamulti-dimensionalconstructwithseveralsubconstructs.PallotticonsidersCAFtobeagoodstartingpointfordescribinglinguisticperformance,buttheydonotconstituteatheoryoraresearchprograminthemselves.HeemphasizesthatacleardistinctionshouldbemadebetweenontheonehandCAF,referringtothepropertiesoflanguageperformanceasaproduct,andlinguisticdevelopmentontheother,referringtoaprocess,withitssubdimensionssuchasrouteandrateofacquisition.

InlinewithLarsen-Freeman,andwithspecificreferencetothecontribu-tionsbyNorrisandOrtegaandRobinsonetal.,Pallottiwelcomestheuseofspecificmeasuresinadditiontothemoregeneralones,asonecannotexpectthat‘allsortsoftaskcomplexificationleadtohighercomplexityofanylinguisticfeature.’Hequestions,however,whattheuseofspecificmeasuresmaycontributetotheorizingaboutCAF.Althoughbyusingspe-cificmeasurestherelationshipbetweentaskdifficultyandlinguisticcomplex-itymaybecomemorereliable,‘discoveringsuchrelationshipslooksmorelikevalidatingthetasksaselicitationproceduresforspecificlinguisticfeaturesthanconfirminggeneraltheoriesaboutspeechproduction.’

PallottiagreeswithLarsen-Freeman’scallforamorecentralroleofnon-linearityinL2acquisition.HeillustratesthisbyreferringtoNorrisandOrtega’sexamplethatsyntacticcomplexityasmeasuredbymeansofasubor-dinationratiomaynotalwaysincreaselinearly,butthatsyntacticcom-plexitymaygrowinotherways,forexample,byphrasalandclausalcomplexification.Andalsoforaccuracyitisnotalwaysthecasethat‘moreisbetter’.Hedoesnot,however,embraceLarsen-Freeman’sideathatvaria-tionshouldmovetothefrontofCAFresearch.Thisiswhathecalls‘thenecessaryvariationfallacy’:researchshouldnotonlybeconcernedwithvariationsanddifferences,butalsowithconstantsandsimilarities.Instead,hearguesthatadequacybeincludedasaseparatedimensionofL2productionandproficiency,alongsideCAF.Inthisrespect,hepointstoaninterestingparadox,namelythatmoststudieshaveassessedCAFwithinthecontextsofcommunicativetasks,butveryfewdiscusshowthecommunicationunfoldedandwhetheritwassuccessfulinachievingitsgoals.Adequacy,theappropriatenesstocommunicativegoalsandsituations,shouldbeseenasbothanindependentconstructbasedontasksuccessandasawayofinter-pretingCAFmeasures.

Thedebatecontinues

TheworkpresentedinthisspecialissueonCAFthuspresentsnewperspectivesontheempiricalstudyofCAFinSLA,aswellasraisingimportanttheoreticalandmethodologicalquestions.Crucialtothesequestionsistheneedtofurtherrefinetestinginstrumentsandmeasuresandbetterdefinetheconstructstobemeasuredaswellaslearnerexternalandinternalfactorssurrounding,Downloaded from applij.oxfordjournals.org at Univ of CaliforniaSan Diego on March 4, 2011

A.HOUSENandF.KUIKEN471

affectingandperhapsimpedingthedevelopmentormanifestationofCAFinL2performance.Theseareallissuesforfurtherexploration.WehopethatthearticlesinthisissuewillcontributetofurtherdebateonCAF,sheddinglightonexistingtheoreticalandmethodologicalissuesinthefieldaswellasopeningupnewareasofinquiry.

REFERENCES

Anderson,J.R.1993.RulesoftheMind.LawrenceErlbaum.

Brumfit,C.J.1984.CommunicativeMethodologyinLanguageTeaching.CambridgeUniversityPress.

Bygate,M.1999.‘Qualityoflanguageandpurposeoftask:Patternsoflearners’languageontwooralcommunicationtasks,’LanguageTeachingResearch3:185–214.

Chambers,F.1997.‘Whatdowemeanbyoralfluency?’System25:535–44

Collentine,J.2004.‘Theeffectsoflearningcontextsonmorphosyntacticandlexicaldevel-opment,’StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition26/2:227–48.

Cucchiarini,C.,H.Strik,andL.Boves.2002.‘Quantitativeassessmentofsecondlanguagelearners’fluency:Comparisonsbetweenreadandspontaneousspeech,’TheJournaloftheAcousticalSocietyofAmerica111/6:2862–73.

DeKeyser,R.2008.‘Thecomplexitiesofdefin-ingcomplexity’.PaperpresentedatAAAL2008,1April2008,WashingtonD.C.

Derwing,M.andJ.Rossiter.2003.‘Theeffectsofpronunciationinstructionontheaccuracy,fluency,andcomplexityofL2accentedspeech,’AppliedLanguageLearning13:1–18.Doughty,C.andM.Long(eds).2003.TheHandbookofSecondLanguageAcquisition.Blackwell.

Ellis,R.1994.‘Atheoryofinstructedsecondlanguageacquisition’inN.Ellis(ed.):ImplicitandExplicitLearningofLanguage.AcademicPress.

Ellis,R.2003.Task-basedLanguageLearningandTeaching.OxfordUniversityPress.

Ellis,R.2008.TheStudyofSecondLanguageAcquisition.2ndedn.OxfordUniversityPress.Ellis,R.andG.Barkhuizen.2005.AnalysingLearnerLanguage.OxfordUniversityPress.

Freed,B.1995.‘Whatmakesusthinkthatstudentswhostudyabroadbecomefluent?’

inB.Freed(ed.):SecondLanguageAcquisitioninaStudyAbroadContext.Benjamins

Freed,B.2000.‘Isfluency,likebeauty,theeyes,ofthebeholder?’inH.Riggenbach(ed.):PerspectivesonFluency.TheUniversityofMichiganPress.

Freed,B.,N.Segalowitz,andD.Dewey.2004.‘ContextoflearningandsecondlanguagefluencyinFrench,’StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition26/2:275–301.

Guillot,M.-N.1999.FluencyanditsTeaching.MultilingualMatters.Halleck,G.B.1995.‘Assessingoralproficiency:Acomparisonofholisticandobjectivemeasures,’ModernLanguageJournal79/2:223–34.

Hammerly,H.1991.FluencyandAccuracy:TowardBalanceinLanguageTeachingandLearning.MultilingualMatters.

Hilton,H.2008.‘ThelinkbetweenvocabularyknowledgeandspokenL2Fuency,’LanguageLearningJournal36/2:153–66.

Housen,A.,S.VanDaele,andM.Pierrard.2005.‘Rulecomplexityandtheeffectivenessofexplicitgrammarinstruction’inA.HousenandM.Pierrard(eds):InvestigationsinInstructedSecondLanguageAcquistion.MoutondeGruyter.Iwashita,N.,A.Brown,T.McNamara,andS.O’Hagan.2008.‘Assessedlevelsofsecondlanguagespeakingproficiency:Howdistinct?,’AppliedLinguistics29:24–49.

James,C.1998.ErrorsinLanguageLearningandUse:ExploringErrorAnalysis.Longman.

Koponen,M.andH.Riggenbach.2000.‘Overview:Varyingperspectivesonfluency,’inH.Riggenbach(ed.):PerspectivesonFluency.TheUniversityofMichiganPress.

Kormos,J.andM.De

′nes.2004.‘Exploringmeasuresandperceptionsoffluencyinthespeechofsecondlanguagelearners,’System32/2:145–64.

Kuiken,F.andI.Vedder.2007.‘Taskcom-plexityandmeasuresoflinguisticperformance

Downloaded from applij.oxfordjournals.org at Univ of CaliforniaSan Diego on March 4, 2011

472COMPLEXITY,ACCURACY,ANDFLUENCYINSLA

inL2writing,’InternationalReviewofAppliedLinguisticsinLanguageTeaching45/3:261–84.Larsen-Freeman,D.2006.‘Theemergenceofcomplexity,fluency,andaccuracyintheoralandwrittenproductionoffiveChineselearnersofEnglish,’AppliedLinguistics27/4:590–619.

Lennon,P.1990.‘InvestigatingfluencyinEFL:Aquantativeapproach,’LanguageLearning40:387–417.

Lennon,P.2000.‘Thelexicalelementinspokensecondlanguagefluency,’inH.Riggenbach(ed.):PerspectivesonFluency.TheUniversityofMichiganPress.

Levelt,W.1989.Speaking:FromIntentiontoArticulation.MITPress.

Mun

?oz,C.(ed.).2006.AgeandtheRateofForeignLanguageLearning.MultilingualMatters.

Norris,J.andL.Ortega.2003.‘DefiningandmeasuringSLA’inC.DoughtyandM.Long(eds):TheHandbookofSecondLanguageAcquisition.Blackwell.

O’Brien,I.,N.Segalowitz,B.Freed,andJ.Collentine.2007.‘Phonologicalmemorypredictssecondlanguageoralfluencygainsinadults,’StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition29:557–81.

Ortega,L.2003.‘SyntacticcomplexitymeasuresandtheirrelationshiptoL2proficiency:Aresearchsynthesisofcollege-levelL2writing,’AppliedLinguistics24:492–518.

Polio,C.1997.‘Measuresoflinguisticaccuracyinsecondlanguagewritingresearch,’LanguageLearning47:101–43.

Polio,C.2001.‘Researchmethodologyinsecondlanguagewritingresearch:Thecaseoftext-basedstudies’inT.SilvaandP.K.Matsuda(eds):OnSecondLanguageWriting.LawrenceErlbaum.

Riggenbach,H.(ed.).2000.PerspectivesonFluency.TheUniversityofMichiganPress.

Robinson,P.2001.‘Taskcomplexity,taskdiffi-culty,andtaskproduction:exploringinterac-tionsinacomponentialframework,’AppliedLinguistics22:27–57.

Robinson,P.2003.‘AttentionandmemoryduringSLA’inC.DoughtyandM.Long(eds):TheHandbookofSecondLanguageAcquisition.Blackwell.

Robinson,P.andN.C.Ellis.2008.‘Conclusion:Cognitivelinguistics,secondlanguageacquisi-tionandinstruction:Issuesforresearch’inP.RobinsonandN.C.Ellis(eds):HandbookofCognitiveLinguisticsandSecondLanguageAcquisition.Routledge.

Segalowitz,N.2007.‘Accessfluidity,attentioncontrol,andtheacquisitionoffluencyinasecondlanguage,’TESOLQuarterly41:181–6.Skehan,P.1989.IndividualDifferencesinSecondLanguageLearning.EdwardArnold.

Skehan,P.1998.ACognitiveApproachtoLanguageLearning.OxfordUniversityPress.Skehan,P.2001.‘Tasksandlanguageperfor-mance’inM.Bygate,P.Skehan,andM.Swain(eds):ResearchPedagogicTasks:SecondLanguageLearning,Teaching,andTesting.Longman.

Skehan,P.2003.‘Taskbasedinstruction,’LanguageTeaching36:1–14.

Skehan,P.andP.Foster.1999.‘Theinfluenceoftaskstructureandprocessingconditionsonnarrativeretellings,’LanguageLearning49:93–120.

Skehan,P.andP.Foster.2007.‘Complexity,accuracy,fluencyandlexisintask-basedperformance:Ameta-analysisoftheEalingResearch’inS.VanDaeleetal.(eds):Complexity,AccuracyandFluencyinSecondLanguageUse,LearningandTeaching.Contactforum.

Spada,N.andY.Tomita.2007.‘Thecomplex-itiesofselectingcomplex(&simple)formsininstructedSLAresearch’inS.VanDaeleetal.(eds):Complexity,AccuracyandFluencyinSecondLanguageUse,LearningandTeaching.Contactforum.

Tavakoli,P.andP.Skehan.2005.‘Strategicplanning,taskstructure,andperformancetesting’inR.Ellis(ed.):PlanningandTaskPerformanceinaSecondLanguage.Benjamins.Tonkyn,A.2007.‘Short-termchangesincom-plexity,accuracyandfluency:Developingprogress-sensitiveproficiencytests’inS.VanDaeleetal.(eds):Complexity,AccuracyandFluencyinSecondLanguageUse,LearningandTeaching.Contactforum.

Towell,R.2007.‘Complexity,accuracyandfluencyinsecondlanguageacquisitionresearch’inS.VanDaeleetal.(eds):Complexity,AccuracyandFluencyinSecondLanguageUse,LearningandTeaching.Contactforum.

Towell,R.andJ.-M.Dewaele.2005.‘Theroleofpsycholinguisticfactorsinthedevelopmentoffluencyamongstadvancedlearnersof

Downloaded from applij.oxfordjournals.org at Univ of CaliforniaSan Diego on March 4, 2011

French’inJ.-M.Dewaele(ed.):FocusonFrenchasaForeignLanguage:MultidisciplinaryApproaches.MultilingualMatters.

Towell,R.,R.Hawkins,andN.Bazergui.1996.‘ThedevelopmentoffluencyinadvancedlearnersofFrench,’AppliedLinguistics17:84–119.

VanDaele,S.,A.Housen,F.Kuiken,M.Pierrard,andI.Vedder(eds).2007.Complexity,AccuracyandFluencyinSecondLanguageUse,LearningandTeaching.Contactforum.

VanDaele,S.,A.Housen,andM.Pierrard.2007.‘Psycholinguisticmechanismsunderlyingthemanifestationanddevelopmentof2ndlanguagecomplexity,accuracyandfluency’inS.VanDaeleetal.(eds):Complexity,

A.HOUSENandF.KUIKEN473

AccuracyandFluencyinSecondLanguageUse,LearningandTeaching.Contactforum.

Williams,J.andJ.Evans.1998.‘Whatkindoffocusandonwhichforms?’inC.DoughtyandJ.Williams(eds):FocusonForminClassroomSecondLanguageAacquisition.CambridgeUniversityPress.

Wolfe-Quintero,K.,S.Inagaki,andH.-Y.Kim.1998.SecondLanguageDevelopmentinWriting:MeasuresofFluency,Accuracy,andComplexity.UniversityofHawai‘i,SecondLanguageTeachingandCurriculumCenter.

Yuan,F.andR.Ellis.2003.‘Theeffectsofpre-taskplanningandon-lineplanningonfluency,complexityandaccuracyinL2oralproduction,’AppliedLinguistics24:1–27.

Downloaded from applij.oxfordjournals.org at Univ of CaliforniaSan Diego on March 4, 2011

三 : Language and Culture---语言与文化的关系

Language and Culture

? Introduction

Since human being appeared ,all kinds of languages came into being bir by bit .And with the development of languages ,cultures, varieties of cultures grew ,too .What we can not deny is that there is a intimate relationship between language and culture . There are many ways in which the phenomena of language and culture are intimately related. Both phenomena are unique to humans and have therefore been the subject of a great deal of anthropological, sociological, and even memetic study. Language, of course, is determined by culture, though the extent to which this is true is now under debate. The converse is also true to some degree: culture is determined by language - or rather, by the replicators that created both, memes.

? Language as Determined by Culture

Early anthropologists, following the theory that words determine thought, believed that language and its structure were entirely dependent on the cultural context in which they existed. This was a logical extension of what is termed the Standard Social Science Model, which views the human mind as an indefinitely malleable structure capable of absorbing any sort of culture without constraints from genetic or neurological factors.

In this vein, anthropologist Verne Ray conducted a study in the 1950's, giving color samples to different American Indian tribes and asking them to give the names of the colors. He concluded that the spectrum we see as "green", "yellow", etc. was an entirely arbitrary division, and each culture divided the spectrum separately. According to this hypothesis, the divisions seen between colors are a consequence of the language we learn, and do not correspond to divisions in the natural world. A similar hypothesis is upheld in the extremely popular meme of Eskimo words for snow - common stories vary from fifty to upwards of two hundred.

Extreme cultural relativism of this type has now been clearly refuted. Eskimos use at most twelve different words for snow, which is not many more than English speakers and should be expected since they exist in a cold climate. The color-relativity hypothesis has now been completely debunked by more careful, thorough, and systematic studies which show a remarkable similarity between the ways in which different cultures divide the spectrum.

Of course, there are ways in which culture really does determine language, or at least certain facets thereof. Obviously, the ancient Romans did not have words for radios, televisions, or computers because these items were simply not part of their cultural context. In the same vein, uncivilized tribes living in Europe in the time of the Romans did not have words for tribunes, praetors, or any other trapping of Roman government because Roman law was not part of their culture.

Our culture does, sometimes, restrict what we can think about efficiently in our own language. For example, some languages have only three color terms equivalent to black, white, and red; a native speaker of this language would have a difficult time expressing the concept of "purple" efficiently. Some languages are also more

expressive about certain topics. For example, it is commonly acknowledged that Yiddish is a linguistic champion, with an amazing number of words referring to the simpleminded.

Language is never the entity which has been invented or scripted in isolation. It certainly has evolved gradually with the continuous development of a culture. A culture being a building made of social behaviors, human emotions, or way of expressing feelings, the language has continually adapted accordingly to accommodate these identified notion and gesture of human activity. Finding a symbolism every time to register it in the language, thus contributing to its growth. A language has always been a weapon to express one's ideas and feelings. And the reason enough to make this weapon more efficient to handle one's need of expressing things with intended accuracy. It has been tuned-up with each new finding, getting honed up continually to get its flawless shape with developing culture.

? Cultu Culture and Language - United by Memes

According to the memetic theorist Susan Blackmore, language developed as a result of memetic evolution and is an example of memes providing a selection pressure on genes themselves. The definition of a culture in memetic theory is an aggregate of many different meme sets or memeplexes shared by the majority of a population. Using memetic reasoning, it can be seen that language - itself created by memes and for memes - is the principal medium used for spreading memes from one person to another.

As Blackmore states in The Meme Machine, memes were born when humans began to imitate each other. According to her theory, this event preceded - indeed, had to precede - the development of language. When imitation became widespread, producing selection pressure on genes for successful imitation, memes began to exploit verbalizations for better and more frequent transmission. The end result of this complex process was language, and the anatomical alterations needed for its successful use.

Language, created by memes as a mechanism for ensuring better memetic propagation, has certainly been a success. Today, the vast majority of memes are transmitted via language, through direct speech, written communication, radio or television, and the internet. Relatively few memes are transmitted in a non-linguistic way, and those that are have very specific, localized purposes, such as artwork and photography. Even these media, though nonlinguistic in themselves, assume language and very rarely appear without some sort of linguistic commentary. This might take the form of a critical analysis of an artwork, a caption for a photograph, a voice-over for a video, etc.

? Language as Part of Culture

For many people, language is not just the medium of culture but also is a part of culture. It is quite common for immigrants to a new country to retain their old customs and to speak their first language amid fellow immigrants, even if all present are comfortable in their new language. This occurs because the immigrants are eager to preserve their own heritage, which includes not only customs and traditions but also language. This is also seen in many Jewish communities, especially in older

members: Yiddish is commonly spoken because it is seen as a part of Jewish culture. Linguistic differences are also often seen as the mark of another culture, and they very commonly create divisiveness among neighboring peoples or even among different groups of the same nation. A good example of this is in Canada, where French-speaking natives of Quebec clash with the English-speaking majority. This sort of conflict is also common in areas with a great deal of tribal warfare. It is even becoming an issue in America as speakers of standard American English - mainly whites and educated minorities - observe the growing number of speakers of black English vernacular. Debates are common over whether it is proper to use "Ebonics" in schools, while its speakers continue to assert that the dialect is a fundamental part of the "black culture".

English is far more world wide in its distribution than all other spoken languages. It is an official language in 52 countries as well as many small colonies and territories. In addition, 1/4 to 1/3 of the people in the world understand and speak English to some degree. It has become the most useful language to learn for international travel and is now the de facto language of diplomacy. In 2001, the 189 member countries in the United Nations were asked what language they wish to use for communication with embassies from other countries. More than 120 chose English, 40 selected French, and 20 wanted to use Spanish. Those who wanted English to be the common language included all of the former Soviet republics, Viet Nam, and most of the Arab world. English is also the dominant language in electronic communication, particularly on the Internet. However, the percentage of Internet users who are not native English speakers is increasing rapidly, especially in Asia. In fact, China estimated in 2008 that there are now more people who have online access in their country than in the U.S., which had been the global leader in Internet access.

In reality, the distribution of languages globally is very complex and difficult to easily describe. Numerous migrations of people over the last several centuries have resulted in most large nations now having many different languages. There are at least 165 languages spoken in the United States today. Consequently, it is somewhat misleading to describe the U.S. as being an English speaking country. The same caution applies to other multicultural nations as well.

Some parts of the world have unusually high concentrations of different languages. There are around 900 native languages spoken by the 5-10 million people of New Guinea and its neighboring islands. That is roughly 1/6 of all languages being spoken by far less than 1% of the world's people. Other language high density areas have been native California and the Caucasus Mountains north of Turkey and Iran.

The majority of the languages in the world are unwritten and many of them are disappearing. About 1/2 of the world's languages are no longer spoken by children. This is the first step in the extinction of a language. About 2,000 languages now have less than 1,000 speakers. The most threatened are the indigenous languages of Australia and the Americas. By the end of the 20th century, about 200 Australian languages survived, but more than 1/2 had less than 10

speakers. Two dozen had a single elderly speaker. Young Aborigines now predominantly speak English, especially in urban areas. There has been a similar pattern in California where Indian languages disappeared at the rate of nearly one a year during the late 20th century. Globally, the rate of language loss now is one every two weeks. The areas where indigenous languages are being lost the most rapidly are central South America, Oklahoma and the American Southwest, the Northwest coastal region of the U.S. and Canada, eastern Siberia, and northern Australia.

There are no "primitive" languages. All languages have a system of sounds, words, and sentences that can adequately communicate the content of culture. The languages of the so-called "primitive" peoples are often very complex in their grammatical structures. There seems to be no correlation between a language's grammatical complexity and the technological level of a society or other aspects of culture. However, cultures that have more complex, diverse economies and advanced technologies have larger vocabularies. For instance, English has roughly 615,000 non-technical words. If slang and specialized technical words are added, English has more than 2,000,000 words and is growing at a rate of hundreds to thousands every year. By comparison, German has about 185,000 non-technical words, French may have less than 100,000, and Spanish even fewer. The major reason that English has so many more non-technical words is the fact that as it evolved from its Germanic roots, it acquired words from more than 240 other languages. However, it is unlikely that any one individual knows the meaning of all English words. Most Americans only use 800-1,000 words in everyday conversation. A typical American college student knows 20,000-30,000 words by the time he or she graduates. While this is 20-37 times more than the average person who has not gone to college, it is still less than 2% of all English words.

Every language can create new words to describe new situations and objects. Therefore, it is not surprising that all languages change through time. None is static. However, they change at different rates at different times in response to new social, cultural, and environmental situations. Some nations strongly resist the acquisition of new words from other languages. This has been the case with the French government's response to the relentless invasion of English words in recent decades, especially in pop culture and technology. However, young people in most developed nations eagerly embrace new words regardless of attempts by their governments to retain "language purity."

From hat has been discussed above ,we may safely draw the conclusion that the word men use not only express but shape their ideas .Language is an instrument ;it is even more an environment .It has as much to do with the philosophical and political conditioning of a society as geography or climate .Just as Ludwing Wittgenstein said “the limits of my language are the limits of my world”.

References: ?

?

?

?

?

The Language Instinct How the Mind Works Words and Rules The Meme Machine The Environment of Language

本文标题：language and culture-Unit 5　Canada—“The True North”(Period 4　Using language: Listening and talking)
本文地址： http://www.61k.com/1106836.html