Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Objectives of the Study
Questionnaire
Piloting the Questionnaire
The Questionnaire Reliability
The Questionnaire Validity
Data Analysis
Results and Discussion
Findings Related to the Students
Findings Related to the Teachers
Foreground Background
Discourse Hypothesis
Methods
Materials and Procedures
Analysis
Limitations and Future Research
Review of the Literature
Procedures
Conclusion and Limitations
Research Questions
Methodology
Data Collection and Analysis
Response to the Open-Ended Question
The Present Study
Procedure and Participants
Conclusion
Literature Review
Task Materials
Study 1
Oral Production Data Results
Discussion
Introduction
Participants
Method
Materials
Procedure
Results
Participants Scores Features of Writing
Conclusion and Implications
Limitations of the Study
References
All Topics
Education
Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education

An Argument for Holism part 1 March 2013

Profile image of Roger C NunnRoger C Nunn

Abstract

Definitions of ‘holism’ in applied language studies need to remain broad enough to allow for true epistemological diversity and reject prematurely coherent impermeable systems that do not reflect the present state of knowledge in our field. In Part 1 of this two-part paper, I focus on definitional issues arguing that the atomistic parts of any whole are related within a complex, but fluid, organic system and are more easily understood in relationship to other parts of that system. After considering the relationship between holistic and atomistic phenomena, I argue that ecological studies (Van Lier, 2002), while providing groundbreaking new insights into the holistic nature of applied language study, appear to exclude context-independence as a legitimate perspective. My definition above is therefore closely associated with Pappamihiel and Walser’s (2009) characterization of complexity theory. Epistemological diversity and complexity lead us to accept dynamism, unpredictability and instability as natural conditions of our field which cannot be ignored.

Related papers

Complexity, Emergence, and Causality in Applied Linguistics
Jeremie Bouchard

Springer eBooks, 2021

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

View PDFchevron_right
Introduction: Linguistic complexity
Bernd Kortmann

De Gruyter eBooks, 2012

The present volume endeavors to summarize a workshop held at the Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) in May 2009 about "Linguistic complexity in interlanguage varieties, L2 varieties, and contact languages". The presentations at the workshop, and the essays in this volume, reflect the intricacies of thinking about complexity in three major contact-related fields of (and schools in) linguistics: creolistics, indigenization and nativization studies (i.e. in the realm of English linguistics, the "World Englishes" community), and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research. The authors in this volume are all leading linguists in different areas of specialization, and they were asked to elaborate on those facets of linguistic complexity which are most relevant in their area of specialization, and/or which strike them as being most intriguing. The result is a collection of papers that, when viewed collectively, may raise more questions than it does answer-but such is the way good science advances. And the fact of the matter is that linguistic complexity is complicated. This general introduction is structured as follows. In Section 1, we review the literature on linguistic complexity to provide a backdrop against which the contributions in this volume are to be read. In Section 2, we sketch the objectives of this volume. Section 3 provides summaries of the contributions in this book, and contextualizes them in the context of the volume as a whole.

View PDFchevron_right
Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics
Diane Larsen-Freeman

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2007

This book introduces complexity theory as a metaphor or supra-theory for systems in applied linguistics. Change and heterogeneity are central to complexity theory and to the resonances that we find with applied linguistics systems. Principles of complexity theory are explained, drawing on work in the biological, psychological and social sciences. These principles include descriptions of change over time (system dynamics) that work for all levels and scales: movement from temporary and relative stability through adaptive behaviours to the emergence of new patterns not amenable to reductive explanations. Seeing applied systems as complex, adaptive and dynamic opens up new conceptualisations of properties and activities, enables new questions about how people use, learn and teach languages, and demands new ways of investigating behaviour and development.

View PDFchevron_right
Agency, Structure and Realism in Language and Linguistics
Craig Jordan-Baker

I hereby declare that this thesis has not been and will not be, submitted in whole or in part to another university for the award of any other degree.

View PDFchevron_right
Tallman, Adam J.R. Review of Nefdt, Ryan. 2023. ‘Language, Science and Structure: A Journey into the Philosophy of Linguistics’. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780197653098." In Philosophy of Science, 2024.
Adam J R Tallman

Philosophy of Science, 2024

I provide a review of Nedft's new book on the philosophy of linguistics.

View PDFchevron_right
Complexity as a Paradigm for Social Sciences and Linguistics: Theoretical Basis and Perspectives
M. Àngels Massip i Bonet

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Complexity, Future Information Systems and Risk, 2020

This article discusses the relevance and significance of the use of complexity as a scientific paradigm in social and human sciences, focusing on linguistics. For this, a review of the concept of paradigm is made, and its evolution in the last decades. In this framework, the controversy between quantitative and qualitative methods and their validity in the twentieth century is discussed. In this dichotomy, we claim that the theory of complexity is prepared to assume the use of the so-called Mixed Methods Research (MMR). The paper develops the impact of Complex Systems (CS) and Complex Adaptive systems (CAS) in science, as well as the epistemological and methodological implications this entails. Moreover, natural language is defined as a CAS. In general, the article defends the adoption of this paradigm in linguistics, both in synchronous and diachronic research, providing some examples of these new lines of study. In spite of the still emerging nature of some formulations, we envision a deep theoretical breakthrough in linguistics thanks to this interdisciplinary perspective.

View PDFchevron_right
Complexity versus spontaneity?: non-negotiable elements in the constitution of two interactional corpora
Adam Wilson, Mathilde Guardiola

The interdisciplinary nature of linguistics often leads to similar research questions being investigated using diverse corpora. In this paper, special attention is given to two key concerns in the corpora design: spontaneity and complexity. It is shown that spontaneity and complexity are not necessarily incompatible but often become the centre point of early methodological choices. These choices are here termed "non-negotiables" and it is demonstrated how these non-negotiables lead to obligations, constraints and concessions in the data collection process which shape the corpus. It is argued that the existence of different nonnegotiables, influenced by different theoretical approaches, lead directly to the creation of different corpora. These different corpora then allow complementary lights to be shed on similar objects of study. Certain central theoretical concerns - spontaneity, complexity, generalisability and data co-construction - are also discussed. The paper concludes that an improvement in the description and diffusion of these decision processes would promote increased and improved interdisciplinary collaboration.

View PDFchevron_right
Transdisciplinary research methods and complexity theory in applied linguistics: introduction to the special issue
Ali H Al-Hoorie

International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 2022

Complexity theory/dynamic systems theory (CDST) has captured the imagination of many in the field of applied linguistics (Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Lynne Cameron. 2008. Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Ortega, Lourdes & Zhao Hong Han (eds.). 2017. Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins). As recent syntheses of the growing number of CDST-informed strands of applied linguistics research illustrates, it has emerged as an important influence on applied linguists' thinking (see Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2017. Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In Lourdes Ortega & Zhao Hong Han (eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman, 11-50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins). The fact that CDST has continued to permeate questions throughout the field is to be expected and welcomed.

View PDFchevron_right
Editors' introduction: some concepts and issues in linguistic theory
ADRIANA BELLETTI

On Nature and Language, 2002

Editors' introduction: some concepts and issues in linguistic theory 1 The study of language in a biological setting Dominant linguistics paradigms in the first half of the twentieth century had centered their attention on Saussurean "Langue," a social object of which individual speakers have only a partial mastery. Ever since the 1950s, generative grammar shifted the focus of linguistic research onto the systems of linguistic knowledge possessed by individual speakers, and onto the "Language Faculty," the species-specific capacity to master and use a natural language (Chomsky 1959). In this perspective, language is a natural object, a component of the human mind, physically represented in the brain and part of the biological endowment of the species. Within such guidelines, linguistics is part of individual psychology and of the cognitive sciences; its ultimate aim is to characterize a central component of human nature, defined in a biological setting. The idea of focusing on the Language Faculty was not new; it had its roots in the classical rationalist perspective of studying language as a "mirror of the mind," as a domain offering a privileged access to the study of human cognition. In order to stress such roots, Chomsky

View PDFchevron_right
Time for a sea-change in linguistics: Response to comments on ‘The Myth of Language Universals’
Stephen c. Levinson

Lingua, 2010

This special issue replays many of the quarrels that have bedeviled the discipline over the last fifty years. Most of these disputes are undignified and ill-informed, and do not serve the discipline well (see e.g. . Nevertheless, there is much at stake -in particular the hearts and minds of young scholars whom we hope will advance linguistics. The new generation have excellent instincts for changes in the academic landscape, and they will look for fresh approaches with a clear sense of mission. Discussions of the sort in this special issue are not the place then to make cheap debating points. We all have a sense of a tipping point in the language sciences, and the question is: What is the way forward?

View PDFchevron_right

References (362)

  1. Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Christie, A. (2001 [1916]). The Mysterious affair at Styles and the secret adversary) Naples Florida USA: Trident Press International.
  3. Cvetek, S. (2008). Applying chaos theory to lesson planning and delivery. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(3), 247-256.
  4. Dörnyei, Z. (2009a). The antecedents of task behavior: a dynamic systems account of task motivation. Plenary Address presented at the 3 rd Biennial Conference on Task-based Language Teaching, Lancaster UK.
  5. Dörnyei, Z. (2009b). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. Language Learning 59: Suppl. 1, 230-248.
  6. Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3 rd .Edition). London: Arnold.
  7. Huang, Y. (2006). Anaphora and the pragmatics-syntax interface in Horn, L. and Ward, G. The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp.288-314.
  8. Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory in R. Huxley and E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods. London, New York: Academic Press, pp. 3-28.
  9. Leather, J.,& Van Dam, J. (2003). Towards an ecology of language acquisition. In J. Leather & J. Van Dam (Eds.), Ecology of language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 1-30.
  10. Moser, P.K. (2002). Oxford Handbook of Epistemology. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  11. Nunn, R. (2006). Designing holistic units for task-based learning in P. Robertson & R. Nunn (Eds.) Study of second language acquisition in the Asian context, Asian EFL Journal Press, British Virgin Islands & Seoul, Korea, pp. 396-420.
  12. Nunn, R. (2011). Improving method-in-use through classroom observation. The International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL) 49 pp. 55-70.
  13. Pappamihiel, N and T. Walser. (2009). English language learners and complexity theory: Why current accountability systems do not measure up. The Educational Forum, 73, 133-40.
  14. Rowland, G. (2007). Performance improvement assuming complexity performance Improvement Quarterly, 20 (2),117-136.
  15. Sacks, H. E.Schegloff. & G. Jefferson. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turntaking for conversation. Language: 50.4, 696-735.
  16. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse Oxford: Blackwell.
  17. Seedhouse, P. (2010). Locusts, snowflakes and recasts: Complexity theory and spoken interaction. Classroom Discourse 1(1), 4-24.
  18. Sharrock, W. & B. Anderson. (1986). The ethnomethodologists. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
  19. Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. London: Longman.
  20. Van Lier, L. (2002), An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics in C. Kramsch, (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum, pp.140-164.
  21. Aguilar, R. (2005). Sources, methods and triangulation in needs analysis: A critical perspective in a case study of Waikiki hotel maids. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second language needs analysis, (pp. 127-165). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Al-Busaidi, S. (2003). Academic needs of EFL learners in the intensive English language program at the Sultan Qaboos University in the Sultanate of Oman. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
  23. Al-Dugaily, A. J. (1999). Towards the study of the ESP courses and students needs in the faculty of Engineering, Sana'a University. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Science and Technology, Sana'a, Yemen.
  24. Al-Husseini, S. (2004). An analysis of English needs of Omani students on vocational and technical course with implementation for the design of foundation year English language program. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leeds. UK.
  25. Al-Saadi, S. H. (2008). Effective evaluation of students' writing: An applied perspective. Journal of the English for Specific Purposes Special Interest Group, 31, 31-34.
  26. Borg, S. (2003). Teachers cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81-109.
  27. Bosher, S., & Kmalkoski, K. (2002). From needs analysis to curriculum development: Designing a course in Health-Care communication for immigrant students in USA. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 59-79.
  28. Brecht, R., & Rivers, W. (2005). Language needs analysis at the societal level. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 79-104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Cid, E., Granena, G., & Tragant, E. (2009). Constructing and validating the foreign language attitudes and gal surveys (FLAGS). System, 37, 496-513.
  30. Coleman, H. (1998). Analysing language needs in large organizations. English for Specific Purposes, 7, 135-169.
  31. Connor-Linton, J. (1996). The Arlington curriculum development model. Foreign Language Annals, 29(2), 139-151.
  32. Cowling, J. (2007). Needs analysis: Planning a syllabus for a serious of Intensive workplace course at a leading Japanese company. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 426-442.
  33. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. NJ: Pearson Education.
  34. Davies, A. (2006). What do learners really want from their EFL course? ELT Journal, 60, 3-12.
  35. Deutch, Y. (2003). Needs analysis for academic legal English courses in Israel: A model of setting priorities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 125-146.
  36. Elisha-Primo, I., Sandler, S., Goldfrad, K., Ferenz, O. &, Perpignan, H. (2010). Listening to students' voices: A curriculum renewal project for an EFL graduate academic program. System, 38, 457-466.
  37. Ferch, T (2005). Goal One, Communication standards for learning Spanish and level one Spanish textbook activities: A content analysis. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Akron, USA.
  38. Ferris, D. (1998). Students' views of academic aural/oral skills: A comparative needs analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 289-318.
  39. Graves, K. (2001). A framework of course development processes. In D. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovation in English language teaching (pp. 178-196). London, UK: Routledge.
  40. Hobelman, Paul & Wiriyachitra, Arunes. (1995). A balanced approach to the teaching of intermediate -level writing skills to EFL students. In Thomas Kral (Ed.), Creative English teaching forum (pp. 122-126). Washington, DC: English Language Program Division.
  41. Holiday, A., & Cooke, T. (1982). An ecological approach to ESP. In Alan Water (Ed.), Lancaster practical papers in English language education (pp. 124-140). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
  42. Holliday, A. (1992). Tissue rejection and informal order in ELT projects: Collecting the right Information. Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 403-424.
  43. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning centred approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  45. Kaewpet, C. (2009). Communication needs of Thai civil engineering students. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 266-278.
  46. Kandil, A. (2009). Needs analysis and the Arab learners. TESOL Arabia, Special Interest Groups, LI-SIG Archives. Retrieved October 16, 2010 from http://www.ilearn.20m.com/research/needs.htm
  47. Keen, J. (2006). English for specific purposes for the law programme at Taylor's college: A needs analysis. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
  48. Kittidhaworn, P. (2001). An assessment of the English-language needs of second-year Thai undergraduate engineering students in a Thai Public University in Thailand in relation to the second-year EAP Program in engineering. Unpublished PhD thesis, West Virginia University. USA.
  49. Krohn, N. (2008). The Hebrew language needs of Rabbinical students in the conservative movement. Unpublished PhD thesis, Columbia University, USA.
  50. Long, M., & Norris, J. (2000). Task based language teaching and assessment. In M. Byran (ed.) Encyclopaedia of language teaching (pp. 597-603). London, UK: Routledge.
  51. Long, M. H. (2005a). Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 19-76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ministry of Education. (2010). English language syllabus 2010 primary (Foundation) & Secondary (Normal [Technical]). Language. Singapore.
  52. Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London, UK: Sage.
  53. Nelson, M. (2000). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  54. Neuman, W. (2001). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  55. Nunan, D. (2001) Action research in language education. In D. Hall & A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovation in English language teaching (pp. 197-207). London, UK: Routledge.
  56. Orafi, S. M. & Borg, S. (2009). Intentions and realities in implementing communicative curriculum reform. System, 37, 243-253.
  57. Pavelich, J. L. (1973). Teaching writing to foreign students. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 3, 103 -108.
  58. Purpura, J. E., & Graziano-King, J. (2004). Investigating the foreign language Nneeds of professional school students in international affairs: A case Study, Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistic, 4(1). Retrieved October 1 st , 2010 from http://www.tc.columia.edu/academic/tesol/Webjournal/archives/htm.
  59. Read, J. (2008). Identifying academic language needs through Diagnostic Assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 183-190.
  60. Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press.
  61. Richards, J. C. (2004). Second language writing. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press.
  62. Robinson, P. (1991). ESP today: A practitioner guide. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
  63. Shuja'a, A. (2004). Business English in Yemen: An empirical study of Needs Analysis. Unpublished PhD thesis, Deemed University, India.
  64. Spada, N., Barkaoui, K., Peters, C., So, M., & Valeo, A. (2009). Developing a questionnaire to investigate second language Learners' preferences for two types of form-focused instructions. System, 37, 70-81.
  65. Taillefer, G. (2007). The professional language needs of economic graduates: Assessment and perspectives in the French context. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 135-155.
  66. Wang, H. (2006). An implication study of the English as a Foreign Language curriculum polices in the Chinese Tertiary context. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queen's University, Canada.
  67. Waters, A., & Vilches, (2001). Implementing ELT innovation: A needs analysis framework. ELT Journal, 55(2), 33-141.
  68. West, R. (1994). Needs analysis in language teaching. Language Teaching, 27, 1-19.
  69. Zohrabi, M. (2008). Researching into curriculum components. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 49-69.
  70. Anderson, R. & Shirai, Y. (1996). The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition: The pidgin-creole connection. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 527-570). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  71. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). The telling of a tale: Discourse structure and tense use in learner's narratives. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Monograph 3 (pp.144-161). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language.
  72. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1995). A narrative perspective on the development of the tense/aspect system in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 263-291.
  73. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1998). Narrative structure and lexical aspect: Conspiring factors in second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 471-508.
  74. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). From morpheme studies to temporal semantics: Tense-aspect research in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 341-382.
  75. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: form, meaning, and use. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  76. Dahl, O¨. (1984). Temporal distance: Remoteness distinctions in tense-aspect systems. In B. Butterworth, B. Comrie, & O¨ . Dahl (Eds.), Explanations for language universals (pp. 105-122). The Hague: Mouton
  77. Dry, H. (1981). Sentence aspect and the movement of narrative time. Text, 1, 233-240.
  78. Dry, H. (1983). The movement of narrative time. Journal of Literary Semantics, 12, 19- 53.
  79. Flashner, V. E. (1989). Transfer of aspect in the English oral narratives of native Russian speakers. In H. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in language production (pp. 71-97). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  80. Godfrey, D. (1980). A discourse analysis of tense in adult ESL monologues. In D. Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 92-110). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  81. Hopper, P. J. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In T. Givo´n (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax (pp. 213-241). New York: Academic Press.
  82. Housen, A. (1994). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: The Dutch interlanguage of a native speaker of English. In C. Vet & C. Vetters (Eds.), Tense and aspect in discourse (pp. 257-291). New York: Mouton.
  83. Housen, A. (1998). Inherent semantics versus discourse-pragmatics in the L2 development of tense-aspect. In Diàz, L. & Pérez, C. (Eds.), Views on the acquisition and use of a second language (pp. 299-312). Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra Press.
  84. Kumpf, L. (1984). Temporal systems and universality in interlanguage: A case study. In F. Eckman, L. Bell, & D. Nelson (Eds.), Universals of second language acquisition (pp. 132-143). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  85. McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (323-338). New York: Oxford.
  86. Noyau, C. (1990). The development of means for temporality in the unguided acquisition of L2: Cross-linguistic perspectives. In H. W. Dechert (Ed.), Current trends in European second language acquisition research (pp. 143-170). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  87. Polio, C. & Gass, S. (1997). Replication and reporting: A commentary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 499-508.
  88. Reinhart, T. (1984). Principles of gestalt perception in the temporal organization of narrative texts. Linguistics, 22, 779-809.
  89. Schumann, J. (1987). The expression of temporality in basilang speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 21-41.
  90. Tre´vise, A. (1987). Toward an analysis of the (inter)language activity of referring to time in narratives. In C. W. Pfaff (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 225-251). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  91. Asher, J. (1977). Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher's guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.
  92. Bachman, L. F (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  93. Barrera Pardo, D. (2004). Can pronunciation be taught? A review of research and implications for teaching. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 17, 31-44.
  94. Benrabah, M. (1997). Word-stress: A source of unintelligibility in English. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 157-165.
  95. Brinton, D., Goodwin, J., & Celce-Murcia, M. (2006). The common core, intelligibility, and pronunciation standards: What pronunciation specialists think? Speak out! 36(1), 26-32.
  96. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
  97. Brown, H. D. (2005). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
  98. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical basis of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
  99. Catford, J., & Pisoni, D. (1970). Auditory vs. articulatory training in exotic sounds. Modern Language Journal, 54, 477-488.
  100. Celce-Murcia, M. (2000). Teaching pronunciation as communication. In J. Morley (Ed.), Current perspectives on pronunciation (p. 105). Washington DC: TESOL.
  101. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (1996). Teaching pronunciation: A reference for teachers of other languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  102. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  103. Champagne-Muzar, C., Schneiderman, E. I., & Bourdages, J. S. (1993). Second language accent: The role of the pedagogical environment. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 143-160.
  104. Couper, G. (2003). The value of an explicit pronunciation syllabus in ESOL teaching. Prospect, 18(3), 53-70.
  105. Dalton. D. (2002). Some techniques for teaching pronunciation. Retrieved May 1, 2002 from: http://iteslj.org/techniques/ Dalton-pronunciation.html
  106. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 1-16.
  107. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379-397.
  108. Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Pronunciation instruction for "fossilized" learners: Can it help? Applied Language Learning, 8, 217-235.
  109. Derwing, T. M., & Rossiter, M. J. (2002). ESL learners' perceptions of their pronunciation needs and strategies. System, 30, 155-166.
  110. Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,
  111. Flege, J. E. (1992). Speech learning in a second language. In C. A. Ferguson & C. Stoel Gammon (Eds.), Phonological development: Models, research, implications (pp. 565- 604). Timonium, MD: York Press.
  112. Fraser, H. (2000). Coordinating improvements in pronunciation teaching for adult learners of English as a second language. Canberra: Detya (ANTA Innovative Project).
  113. Fraser, H. (2002, October). Change, challenge, and opportunity in pronunciation and oral communication. Paper presented at the English Australia Conference, Canberra, Australia.
  114. Fraser, H. (2006). Helping teachers help students with pronunciation: A cognitive approach. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 21, 80-94.
  115. Gilakjani, A. P., & Ahmadi, S. M. (2011). The impact of authentic listening materials on Iranian EFL learners' English listening comprehension. The Iranian EFL Journal, 7(3), 157-165.
  116. Gorbani, M. R. (2011). The impact of phonetic instruction on Iranian students' listening ability enhancement. Asian EFL Journal, 52(2), 24-35.
  117. Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: British Council.
  118. Hall, S. (1997, March). Integrating pronunciation for fluency in presentation skills. Paper presented at the meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Orlando, USA.
  119. Henning, W. A. (1964). Phoneme discrimination training and student self-evaluation in the teaching of French pronunciation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Indiana.
  120. Hockett, C. F (1972). Learning pronunciation. In K. Croft (Ed.), Readings on English as a second language (p. 68). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers.
  121. Jacobs, B. (1988). Neurobiological differentiation of primary and secondary language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 303-338.
  122. Jahangard, A. (2008). Evaluation of EFL materials taught at Iranian public high schools. Iranian EFL Journal, 1, 31-49.
  123. Kelly, G. (2000). How to teach pronunciation. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited.
  124. Krashen, S. D. (1988). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Prentice Hall Regents.
  125. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Hayward, California: Alassany Press.
  126. Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.
  127. Leather, J., & James, A. (1991). The acquisition of second language speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 305-331.
  128. Lee, S. T. (2008). Teaching pronunciation of English using computer assisted learning software: An active research study in an institute of technology in Taiwan. Unpublished masters' thesis, Australian Catholic University, Victoria, Australia.
  129. Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundation of language. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  130. Lesley, T., Hansen, C., & Zukowski-Faust, J. (2005). Interchange & passages: Placement and evaluation packages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  131. Lund, K. (2003). Age and accent. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from http://inet.dpb.dpu.dk/infodok/sprogforum/Espr26/Lund-eng.PDF
  132. Madden, M., & Moore, Z. (1997). ESL students' opinions about instruction in pronunciation. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 3(1), 15-32.
  133. Marinova-Todd, S., Marshall, B., & Snow, E. C. (2000). Three misconceptions about age and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 9-34.
  134. Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of other languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 481-520.
  135. Morley, J. (1994). A multidimensional curriculum design for speech pronunciation instruction. In J. Morley (Ed), Pronunciation pedagogy and theory: New ways, new directions (pp. 64-90). Illinois: Pentagraph Print.
  136. Munro, M. J. (2008). Foreign accent and speech intelligibility. In J. G. Hansen Edwards, & M. L. Zampini (Eds.). Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 193-218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  137. Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45, 73-97.
  138. Naiman, N. (1992). A communicative approach to pronunciation teaching. In P. Avery & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Teaching American English pronunciation (pp. 163-171). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  139. Nakashima, T. (2006). Intelligibility, suprasegmentals, and L2 pronunciation instruction for EFL Japanese learners. Retrieved November 3, 2011 from: http://libopa.fukuoka- edu.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10780/14/1/1003.pdf
  140. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston: Thomson Publishing.
  141. Pennington, M. C. (1994). Recent research in L2 phonology: Implications for practice. In J. Morley (Ed.), Pronunciation pedagogy and theory: New ways, new directions (pp. 92-107). Illinois: Pentagraph Print.
  142. Roach, P. (1983). English phonetics and phonology: A practical course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  143. Ruhmke-Ramos, N. K., & Delatorre, R. (2011). The effects of training and instruction on the perception of the English interdental fricatives by Brazilian EFL learners. Retrieved June 6, 2011 from http://www.abralin.org/abralin11_cdrom/artigos/Nadia_Ramos.pdf
  144. Scarcella, R., & Oxford, R. L. (1994). Second language pronunciation: State of the art in instruction. System, 22(2), 221-230.
  145. Schmitt, N. (Ed.) (2002). An introduction to applied linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
  146. Senel, M. (2006). Suggestions for beautifying the pronunciation of EFL learners in Turkey. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 2(1), 111-125.
  147. Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-169.
  148. Suenobu, M., Kanzaki, K., & Yamane, S. (1992). An experimental study of intelligibility of Japanese English. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 146-153.
  149. Vitanova, G., & Miller, A. (2002). Reflective practice in pronunciation learning. The Internet TESL Journal, 8(1). Retrieved November 10, 2010, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Vitanova-Pronunciation.html.
  150. Wong, R. (1993). Teaching EFL pronunciation: Why, what and how? Retrieved March 26, 2011 from http://www.creativeproed.com/teaching/teaching-efl-pronunciation- why-what-and-how/index.html
  151. Wrembel, M. (2001). Innovative approaches to the teaching of practical phonetics. In J. A. Maidment & E. Estebas-Vilaplana (Eds), The Proceedings of phonetics teaching & learning (pp. 63-66). London: UCL.
  152. Yarmohammadi, L. (1969). English consonants and learning problems for Iranians: A contrastive sketch. TESOL Quarterly, 3, 231-236.
  153. Yates, L., & Zielinski, B. (2009). Give it a go: Teaching pronunciation to adults. Sydney: The AMEP Research Centre.
  154. Zielinski, B. (2003). Intelligibility in speakers of English as a second language. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from http://www.englishaustralia.com.au/ea_conference03/proceedings/pdf/040F_Ziekinski .pdf (24) To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses (compensation) (M=3.57).
  155. If I cannot think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing. (compensation) (M=3.52).
  156. I pay attention when someone is speaking English. (meta-cognitive) (M=3.45).
  157. If I do not understand something in English, I asked the other person to slow down or say it again. (social) (M=3.66).
  158. In contrast, 7 items had a low level of frequency. The least used strategies were from the subcategories of cognitive, metacognitive, and memory strategies including:
  159. I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember the meaning. (memory) (M=2.47).
  160. I used flashcards to remember new English words. (memory) (M=2.45)
  161. I write notes, messages, letters, and reports in English. (cognitive) (M=1.98).
  162. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English. (meta-cognitive) (M=2.32).
  163. I look for people I can talk to in English. (meta-cognitive) (M=2.44) Interesting comparisons can be made between the findings of this study and the findings of the study of 381 freshmen from the same university (Sheu, 2009). The sophomore students appeared to use a number of strategies more frequently than the freshmen.
  164. Firstly, sophomore students scored over 3.4 in 5 strategies, while the freshmen only scored over 3.4 for one item (item 24): To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses. In contrast, the strategies with the least frequency of use were relatively similar References
  165. Brown, H. D. (2002). Strategies for success: A practical guide to learning English. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
  166. Chamot, A. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 71-84). London: Prentice Hall International.
  167. Chamot, A. (1993). Student responses to learning strategy instruction in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 65, 24-35.
  168. Chamot, A. & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22 (1), 13-24.
  169. Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1, 14-26.
  170. Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130.
  171. Chang, C. S. (1992). A study of language learning strategies that overseas Chinese students in the United States employed and the relation of their strategy used to oral proficiency and other factors. The Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the R. O.C., (pp. 443-470). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
  172. Chang, H. F. (2003). Listening strategy use of high-and low-level technology college students. Selected papers from the Twelfth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 164-172). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
  173. Chiang, M.-Y., & Liao, P. (2002). The study of learning strategies used by applied English majors in junior college. Journal of Chungchou, 16, 309-326.
  174. Ehrman, M. (1990). The role of personality type in adult language learning: An ongoing investigation. In T.S. Parry & C.W. Stansfield (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 126-178). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  175. Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R.L. (1989) Effects of sex differences, career choices and psychological type on adult learning strategies. Modern Language Journal, 73, 1-13.
  176. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  177. Fewell, N. (2010). Language learning strategies and English language proficiency: an investigation of Japanese EFL university students. TESOL Journal, 2, 159-174
  178. Gan, Z., Humphreys, G.. & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2004). Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL students in Chinese universities. Modern Language Journal, 88 (2), 229-244.
  179. Green, J. M. & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297.
  180. Gronlund, N. E. (1985). Measurement and evaluation in teaching (5th ed.). New York: MacMillan.
  181. Gu, Y. (2002). Gender, academic major and vocabulary learning strategies of Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 33 (1), 35-54.
  182. Hsiao, T.Y. & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 368-383.
  183. Hsu, L. & Wang, P. L. (2006). A Study on English graduation threshold and English learning motivation. Journal of Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, 35, 51-67.
  184. Huang, S. C. & Tzeng, C. (2000). Learning strategies used by high English proficiency learners in Taiwan. Selected papers from the Ninth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 367-372). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
  185. Kaylani, C. (1996). The influence of gender and motivation on EFL learning strategies. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (Technical Report #13) (pp. 75-88). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
  186. P. N. (1995). Strategies associated with proficiency and predictors of strategy choice: A study on language learning strategies of EFL students at three educational levels in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington.
  187. Lan, R. & Oxford, R. (2003). Language learning strategy profiles of elementary school students in Taiwan. IRAL, 41, 339-379.
  188. Lee, K. O. (2003). The relationship of school year, sex and proficiency on the issue of learning strategies in learning English of Korean junior high school students. Asian- EFL Journal. Retrieved August 10, 2010 from http://ww.asian-efl- journal.com/sep_03_ok.pdf
  189. Liang, T. (2009). Language learning strategies---The theoretical framework and some suggestions for learner training practice. English Language Teaching, 2(4), 199-206.
  190. Liu D. (2004). EFL proficiency, gender and language learning strategy use among a group of Chinese technological institute English majors. ARECLS E-Journal, 1(A5). Retrieved August 5, 2010 from http://www.ecls.ncl.ac.uk/publish/Volume1/Dongyue/Dongyue.htm LTTC [Language Training and Testing Center], (2009). Language Testing. Retrieved from October 25, 2011, from http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/academics/e_statistics.htm LTTC [Language Training and Testing Center], (2010). Language Testing. Retrieved from April 10, 2010, from http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/E_LTTC/languagetesting.htm
  191. Magogwe, J. & Oliver, R. (2007). The relationship between language learning strategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in Botswana. System, 35, 338-352.
  192. Mullins, P. (1992). Successful English language learning strategies of students enrolled in the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States International University, San Diego, CA.
  193. Nam, C. &Oxford, R. L. (1998). Portrait of a future teacher: Case study of learning styles, strategies, and language disabilities. System, 26, 51-63.
  194. Nunan, D. (1991). Methods in second language classroom-oriented research: A critical review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 249-274.
  195. O'Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  196. Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of studies with implications for teacher training. System, 17, 235-247.
  197. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
  198. Oxford, R. L. (1993). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: update and ESL suggestions. TESOL Journal, 2 (2), 18-22.
  199. Oxford, R.L. (1996), Why is Culture Important for Language Learning Strategies? In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (Technical Report #13) (pp. ix-xv). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
  200. Oxford, R. L. & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.
  201. Oxford, R. & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning, System, 23(2), 153-157
  202. Park, G. P. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2): 211-221.
  203. Peng, I. N. (2002). EFL Motivation and strategy use among Taiwanese senior high school learners. Unpublished master's thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
  204. Phillips, V. (1991). A look at learner strategy use and EFL proficiency. The CATESOL Journal,4, 54-67.
  205. Politzer, R. L. (1983). An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviors and their relation to achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(1), 54- 67.
  206. Radwan, A. A. (2011). Effects of L2 proficiency and gender on choice of language learning strategies by university students majoring in English. The Asian EFL Journal, Quarterly Edition, 13(1), 115-163.
  207. Rees-Miller, J. (1993). A critical appraisal of learner training: Theoretical bases and teaching implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 679-689.
  208. Rubin, J. (1975). What the 'good language learner' can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41- 51.
  209. Rubin, J. (1987). Learner Strategies: theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15-30). Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice Hall International.
  210. Sheu, C. M. (2009). An investigation into English learning strategies of ability-grouped In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (Technical Report #13) (pp. 205-210). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
  211. Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL Learners' beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27, 515-535.
  212. Yang, N. D. (2002, April). Learning Strategy Training in a Freshman English Course. Paper presented at the 36th annual meeting of International Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.
  213. Yu, L. (2003). Learning strategies and their relationship to listening comprehension-A report on Non-English majors in a medical university in China. Teaching English in China, 26 (4), 3-11.
  214. Keywords: communication skills development, students' leadership skills development, co-curricular activities, cooperative learning, student involvement, language proficiency References
  215. Axinn, W. G., Fricke, T. E., & Thornton, A. (1991). The micro demographic community- study approach: Improving survey data by integrating the ethnographic method. Sociological Methods and Research, 20(2), 187-217.
  216. Barnett, B. G., Basom, M. R., Yerkes, D. M., & Norris, C. J. (2000). Cohorts in educational leadership programs: Benefits, difficulties, and the potential for developing school leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 255-282.
  217. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1990). Quantitative data analysis for social scientists. London: Routledge.
  218. Chang, S. M. (1990). The impacts of colleges on students [In Chinese].
  219. Taipei, Taiwan: Teacher Chang Culture Press.
  220. Chen, G. M. (1992). Communication adaptability and interaction involvement as predictors of cross-cultural adjustment. Communication Research Reports, 9(1), 33-41.
  221. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. The American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39, 3-7.
  222. Chu, H. N. R. (2008). Shyness and EFL learning in Taiwan: A study of shy and non-shy college students' use of strategies, foreign language anxiety, motivation, and willingness to communicate. Unpublished Masteral Thesis. University of Texas at Austin.
  223. Cocurricular. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved January 11, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cocurricular
  224. Coldstream, P. (1997). Training minds for tomorrow's world: On independence, curiosity, and effectiveness. Higher Education in Europe, 22(4), 507-515.
  225. Cooperation. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved January 13, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Cooperation
  226. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 197-334.
  227. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  228. Evans, S., & Green, C. (2001). Language in post-colonial Hong Kong: The roles of English and Chinese in the public and private sectors. English World-Wide, 22(2), 247-268.
  229. Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, B., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2005). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  230. Hsu, J. F., & Gregory, S. R. (1995). Developing future hotel managers in Taiwan: From an industry viewpoint. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14(3-4), 261-269.
  231. Hu, Y. L., Ching, G. S., & Chao, P. C. (2012). Taiwan student engagement model: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 1(1), 69-90.
  232. Huang, Y. R., & Chang, S. M. (2004). Academic and cocurricular involvement: Their relationship and the best combinations for student growth. Journal of College Student Development, 45(4), 391-406.
  233. Johnson, D. W. (1993). Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness and self-actualization (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  234. Kaiser, H. (1970). A second generation Little-Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415.
  235. Kang, S. M. (2002). Factors to consider: Developing adult EFL students' speaking abilities. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: an anthology of current practice (pp. 201-211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  236. Liao, C. T. (2006). The correlations between shy college EFL students in Taiwan and their English learning Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Pennsylvania State University.
  237. Mok, K. H. (2005). Fostering entrepreneurship: Changing role of government and higher education governance in Hong Kong. Research Policy 34, 537-554.
  238. Nunnally, J. C., & Bemstein, L. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw- Hill.
  239. Peterson, S. E., & Miller, J. A. (2004). Comparing the quality of students' experiences during cooperative learning and large-group instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 123-134.
  240. Schutz, R. (2006). English made in Brazil [Electronic Version]. Retrieved March 22, 2006, from http://frankherles.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-history-of-the-english- language/
  241. Teo, C. H. (2000). Speeches. Retrieved January 11, 2010, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2000/sp22012000.htm
  242. Toastmasters International District 67. (2009). English club. Retrieved December 27, 2009, from http://www.toastmasters.org.tw/d67web/en/clubs/club-english.htm
  243. Tsai, S. (1998). The effects of cooperative learning on teaching English as a foreign language to senior high school students. Unpublished Masteral thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
  244. Zaharia, E. S., & Gilbert, E. (2005). The entrepreneurial university in the knowledge society. Higher Education in Europe, 31(1), 31-40.
  245. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  246. Figura, K., & Jarvis, H. (2007). Computer-based materials: A study of learner autonomy and strategies. System, 35(4), 448-468.
  247. Hamilton, T. (1986). London adventure. Cambridge: The British Council in association with Cambridge University Press.
  248. Jarvis, H. (2012). Computers and learner autonomy: Trends and issues. ELT Research Papers 12(2), The British Council, London.
  249. Jarvis, H. & Szymczyk, M. (2010). Student views on learning grammar with web and book-based materials. English Language Teaching Journal. 61(1), 32-44.
  250. Jarvis, H. (2008a). Computers and independent study: Practices and perceptions of students. In P. Torres and R. Marriot, (Eds), Handbook of research on e-learning lethodologies for language acquisition. (pp. 367-386). PA: Information Science Reference.
  251. Jarvis, H. (2008b). Resource centres and self-study: Issues in computer assisted language learning. In E. O'Doherty, (ed.) The fourth education in a changing environment conference book 2007. (pp. 137-154). California: Informing Science Press.
  252. Jarvis, H. (2005). Technology and change in English language teaching (ELT). Asian EFL Journal. 7(4), 213-227.
  253. Jarvis, H. (2004). Investigating the classroom applications of computers on EFL courses at higher education institutions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(2), 111- 137.
  254. Jarvis, H. (1997). Word processing and writing skills: Practical applications to language teaching text books. British Journal of Education Technology. 28(3), 165-175.
  255. Jonassen, D. & Land, S. (2011) 2 nd edition. Theoretical foundations of learning environments. New York: Routledge.
  256. Jones, C. (1992). Storyboard. London: Wida Software/Eurocentres.
  257. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
  258. Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
  259. Schmenk, B. (2005). Globalizing learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 107-118.
  260. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning. 2(1).
  261. Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24(1), 86-97.
  262. Vygotsky L. S. (1978). Mind and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  263. Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (2000) (Eds.) Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  264. Benson, P., & Voller, P. (Eds.). (1997). Autonomy and independence in language learning. Harlow, UK: Longman.
  265. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  266. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  267. Burger, J. M. (1987). Increased performance with increased personal control: A self- presentation interpretation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 350-360.
  268. Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97-110.
  269. Corah, N. L., & Boffa, J. (1970). Perceived control, self-observation, and response to aversive stimulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(1), 1-4.
  270. Cordova, D. L., & Lepper, M. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8(4), 715-730.
  271. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
  272. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquirty, 11(4), 227-268.
  273. Dember, W. N., Galinsky, T. L., & Warm, J. S. (1992). The role of choice in vigilance performance. Journal of the Psychonomic Society, 30(3), 201-204.
  274. Derryberry, D., & Tucker, D. M. (1994). Motivating the focus of attention. In P. M. Neidenthal & S. Kitayama (Eds.), The heart's eye: Emotional influences in perception and attention (pp. 167-196). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  275. Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137-157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  276. Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. In Z. Dornyei (Ed.), Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning (pp. 3-32). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
  277. Dörnyei, Z., & Tseng, W.-T. (2009). Motivational processing in interactional tasks. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 117-134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  278. Dworkin, G. (1988). The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  279. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  280. Geer, J. H., Davison, G. C., & Gatchel, R. I. (1970). Reduction of stress in humans through nonverdical perceived control of aversive stimulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(4), 731-738.
  281. Geer, J. H., & Maisel, E. (1972). Evaluating the effects of the prediction-control confound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(3), 314-319.
  282. Gilabert, R. (2004). Task complexity and L2 oral narrative production. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Barcelona, Spain). Retrieved from http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/TDX-1220105-085713/index_an.html.
  283. Gilabert, R. (2007). Affective perception of task complexity in oral narratives. In M. Amengual (Ed.), Aprendizaje y uso del lenguaje en la sociedad de la información y la comunicación. Mallorca, Spain: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat de les Illes Balears.
  284. Glass, D. C., Singer, J. E., & Friedman, L. N. (1969). Psychic cost of adaptation to an environmental stressor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(3), 200-210.
  285. Gorsuch, G. J. (1998). Yakudoku EFL instruction in two Japanese high school classrooms: An exploratory study. JALT Journal, 20(1), 6-32.
  286. Horowitz, E. K., Horowitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.
  287. Iyengar, S., & DeVoe, S. E. (2003). Rethinking the value of choice: Considering cultural mediators of intrinsic motivation. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 129-174). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
  288. Iyengar, S., & Lepper, M. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 349-366.
  289. Iyengar, S., & Lepper, M. (2002). Choice and its consequences: On the costs and benefits of self-determination. In A. Tesser, D. A. Stapel & J. V. Wood (Eds.), Self and motivation: Emerging psychological perspectives (pp. 71-96). Washington. DC: American Psychological Association.
  290. Iyengar, S., Lepper, M., & Ross, L. (1999). Independence from whom? Interdependence with whom? Cultural perspectives on ingroups versus outgroups. In D. A. Prentice & D. T. Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pp. 273-301). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
  291. Johnson, W. (1944). Studies in language behavior: I. A program of research. Psychological Monographs, 56(1-15).
  292. Jones, J. (1995). Self-access and culture: Retreating from autonomy. ELT Journal, 49(3), 228-234.
  293. Julkunen, K. (1989). Situation-and task-specific motivation in foreign language learning and teaching. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
  294. Julkunen, K. (2001). Situation-and task-specific motivation in foreign language learning. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 29-41). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
  295. Kormos, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2004). The interaction of linguistic and motivational variables in second language task performance, Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht (Vol. 9, pp. pp. 19).
  296. Kotrlik, J. W., & Williams, H. A. (2003). The incorporation of effect size in information technology, learning, and performance research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 21(1), 1-7.
  297. Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 311-328.
  298. Langer, E. J., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(2), 191-198.
  299. Linacre, J. M. (1997). KR-20 / Cronbach alpha or Rasch reliability: Which tells the "truth"? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 11(3), 580-581.
  300. Linacre, J. M. (2007). Winsteps (Version 3.63.2) [Computer Software]. Chicago: Winsteps.
  301. Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. E. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123-167). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
  302. MacIntyre, P. D. (1998). Language anxiety: A review of the research for language teachers. In D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere. Toronto: McGraw-Hill.
  303. MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
  304. MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K., & Clément, R. (1997). Biases in self rating of second language proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47(2), 265- 287.
  305. Malvern, D. D., & Richards, B. J. (1997). A new measure of lexical diversity. In A. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving models of language. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  306. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Cultural variation and self-concept. In J. Strauss & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), The self: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 18-48). New York: Springer.
  307. Monty, R. A., Rosenberger, M. A., & Perlmuter, L. C. (1973). Amount of locus of choice as sources of motivation in paired-associates learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 16-71.
  308. Nicholson, P., & Sakuno, R. (1982). Explain yourself! An English conversation book for Japan. Tokyo: PAL Limited.
  309. Pervin, L. A. (1963). The need to predict and control under conditions of threat. Journal of Personality, 31, 570-585.
  310. Poupore, G. (2008). Socio-affective dimensions of small group EFL tasks: Motivation, group dynamic, and the effect of task topic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England.
  311. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research (Expanded Edition, 1980, Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
  312. Reim, B., Glass, D. C., & Singer, J. E. (1971). Behavioral consequences of exposure to uncontrollable and unpredictable noise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1(1), 44-56.
  313. Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45(1), 99-140.
  314. Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  315. Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.
  316. Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631-678). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  317. Robinson, P. (2007, September). Rethinking-for-speaking and L2 task demands: The Cognition Hypothesis, task classification and sequencing. Paper presented at the International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, Honolulu, HI.
  318. Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 119-140). Harlow, UK: Longman.
  319. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
  320. Sethi, S. (1997). Choice and its discontents: A new look at the role of choice in intrinsic motivation. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University.
  321. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  322. Skehan, P. (2007, September). Tradeoff and Cognition: Two hypotheses regarding attention during task-based performance. International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, Honolulu, HI.
  323. Stotland, E., & Blumenthal, A. L. (1964). The reduction of anxiety as a result of the expectation of making a choice. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 18(2), 139-145.
  324. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. References American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D. C.: American Educational Research Association.
  325. Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  326. Bagheri, M. S. & Fazel, I. (2011). EFL Learners' beliefs about translation and its use as a strategy in writing. The Reading Matrix, 11(3), 292-301.
  327. Bailey, S. (2011). Academic writing: A handbook for international students (3 rd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
  328. Cohen, A. D. & Brooks-Carson, A. (2001). Research on direct versus translated writing: Students' strategies and their results. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 169-188.
  329. Costa, M. J. (2008). The literary translator's many ways of being faithful. Yearbook of Comparative and general literature, 54, 137-143.
  330. Dávid, G. (2007). Investigating the performance of alternative types of grammar items. Language Testing, 24(1), 65-97.
  331. Gao, H. (2011). The construct validity of the writing subtest in CET4: A study based on the internal structure of test items and the rating process. Foreign Language Teaching and Testing, 1(4), 33-41.
  332. Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions. American Psychologist, 18, 19-52.
  333. He, Y. (2009). L1 influence on L2 writing: Process and product. CELEA Journal, 32(2), 3-15.
  334. He, Y. & Chen, Y. (2004). Analysis of the writing test of CET4 and CET6. Journal of Lingling University, 25(6), 238-231.
  335. Hu, C. (1999). Writing in English. Nanning: Guangxi Education Press.
  336. Kobayashi, H. & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning, 42(2), 183-215.
  337. Lay, N. D. S. (1982). Composing processes of adult ESL learners: A case study. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 406.
  338. Le, V.N., Gallagher, L. P., & Kupermintz, H. (1999). Construct validation of mathematics achievement: Evidence from interview procedures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
  339. Levy, D. (2009，June 16). Using quotations, paraphrases and summaries in essays --- Webinar transcript. Retrieved December 24, 2011, from http://www.slideshare.net/donnalevy/using-quotations-paraphrases-and-summaries-in- essays.
  340. Liao, P. (2006). EFL learners' beliefs about and strategy use of translation in English learning. Regional Language Center Journal, 37(2), 191-215.
  341. Liu, B. (2003). Analysis of the CET4 and CET6 writing subtest. Journal of Hefei University of Technology, 17(3), 108-111.
  342. Liu, Y. & Zhang, J. (2004). Understanding the prompt of the writing subtest in TEM8. Foreign Language Teaching, 25(6), 85-88.
  343. McNamara, T. (2000). Language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  344. Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5-11.
  345. Mickan, P., Slater, S., & Gibson, C. (2000). A study of the response validity of the IELTS writing subtest. In R. Tulloh (Ed.), International English Language Testing System research reports 3(1), 29-48. Canberra: IELTS Australia Pty Ltd. National College English Testing Committee. (2006). CET-6 test syllabus and sample test paper (Rev. ed.). Shanghai, China: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. National Medical Examination Center. (2009). Syllabus of the National English Qualification Test for Medical Doctoral Candidates. Retrieved December 29, 2011, from http://www.doc88.com/p-555043498.html.
  346. Nida, E. A. & Taber, C. R. (1982). The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: Brill. Office of Assessment, Florida Department of Education. Florida writing assessment program: Description of writing scores. Retrieved December 24, 2010, from http://www.fldoe.org/asp/fw/fwapscor.asp.
  347. Ono, M. (2011). Japanese and Taiwanese university students' summaries: A comparison of perceptions of summary writing. Journal of Academic Writing, 1(1), 191-205.
  348. Sager, J. C. (1994). Language engineering and translation: Consequences of automation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  349. Steering Committee of College Foreign Language Teaching. (2010). TEM-8 test syllabus. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
  350. St. Pierre, P. (1996). Translation as writing across Languages: Samuel Beckett and Fakir Mohan Senapati. Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction, 9(1), 233-257.
  351. Uzawa, K. (1996). Second language learners' processes of L1 writing, L2 writing, and translation from L1 into L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(3), 271-294.
  352. Wolfersberger, M. (2003). L1 to L2 writing process and strategy transfer: A look at lower proficiency writers. TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 7(2), 1-15.
  353. Wyrick, J. (2010). Steps to writing well with additional readings (11 th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth.
  354. Yang, H. & Weir, C. J. (1998). A study on the validity of CET 4 and 6. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
  355. Zhai, L. (2008). Comparison of two writing processes: Direct versus translated composition (Comparaison des deux processus d'ecriture: Composition direct versus composition traduite). Cross-Cultural Communication, 4(1), 8-17.
  356. Zhao, R. (2010). The analysis of usefulness in CET4 writing subtest. Read and Write Periodical, 7(8), 15-16.
  357. Zheng, W. (2009). On the validity of CET writing subtest. Journal of Changchun Finance College, 96(2), 68-70.
  358. Zou, S. (1998). A Report on the TEM validity project. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
  359. APPENDIX A -Summary Writing Test References
  360. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  361. Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  362. Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Related papers

An Argument for Holism part 2 June 2013
Roger C Nunn

In ‘An Argument for Holism Part 1’ (Nunn, 2013), I focused on the meaning of holism within applied language studies considering in detail the relationship between focused atomistic studies and holistic views of epistemological diversity (Moser’s, 2002). In addition, I compared Moser’s view of holism with ecological views. While fully accepting the importance of context, I suggested that context-independence is also a legitimate focus. As such, my characterization of ‘holism’ is more closely associated with complexity theory (Pappamihiel and Walser, 2009 and Cvetek, 2008), emphasizing the need to take the unpredictable and unstable nature of complexity into account. In part 2, I explore the implications of views of holistic diversity in relation to just a few important areas in our field: language and discourse use, motivation, assessment, task-based curriculum and materials planning. I provide evidence and specialist support for my view that all of these areas are essentially holistic and that recent scholarship in these areas seems to require us to situate focused atomistic studies within a broader framework.

View PDFchevron_right
Language as a Complex Adaptive System: Towards an Integrative Linguistics
María Angels Massip Bonet

The author justifies the title of this chapter by offering a general approach to the perspective of complexity and introducing the wide range of language used in connection with complexity. There is an introduction to terminology as redefined within the framework of complexity because we think that agreement on the terminology of the main concepts will provide a basis of common language for all the chapters of this book. The objective of the chapter is to promote progress in the formulation and dissemination of transdisciplinary knowledge from the perspective of complexity, with special regard to its application in the field of language, the tool used to convey both thought and method. For this to happen, it is necessary to rethink science, including the human sciences, by means of an approach that cross-cuts disciplines and takes into account all those aspects which will allow us to find a shared language. This is because human phenomena require a way of thinking that is able to account for the interrelated and systematic nature of its internal and external dynamics. The development of a complex perspective will drive us toward a deeper understanding of human phenomena in general since they may well be the most complex in existence. This chapter also aims to set out guidelines for developing a vision of linguistics guided by the perspective of complexity.

View PDFchevron_right
4 Language as a Complex Adaptive System: Towards an Integrative Linguistics
Àngels Massip Bonet

The author justifies the title of this chapter by offering a general approach to the perspective of complexity and introducing the wide range of language used in connection with complexity. There is an introduction to terminology as redefined within the framework of complexity because we think that agreement on the terminology of the main concepts will provide a basis of common language for all the chapters of this book. The objective of the chapter is to promote progress in the formulation and dissemination of transdisciplinary knowledge from the perspective of complexity, with special regard to its application in the field of language, the tool used to convey both thought and method. For this to happen, it is necessary to rethink science, including the human sciences, by means of an approach that cross-cuts disciplines and takes into account all those aspects which will allow us to find a shared language. This is because human phenomena require a way of thinking that is able to account for the interrelated and systematic nature of its internal and external dynamics. The development of a complex perspective will drive us toward a deeper understanding of human phenomena in general since they may well be the most complex in existence. This chapter also aims to set out guidelines for developing a vision of linguistics guided by the perspective of complexity.

View PDFchevron_right
Complexity and language contact: A socio-cognitive framework [Complejidad y contacto lingüístico: un marco sociocognitivo] [Complexitat i contacte lingüístic: un marc sociocognitiu]
Albert Bastardas-Boada

In: Mufwene, S. S., F. Pellegrino, & C. Coupé (eds.), Complexity in language. Developmental and evolutionary perspectives. Pp. 218-243., 2017

Throughout most of the 20th century, analytical and reductionist approaches have dominated in biological, social, and humanistic sciences, including linguistics and communication. We generally believed we could account for fundamental phenomena in invoking basic elemental units. Although the amount of knowledge generated was certainly impressive, we have also seen limitations of this approach. Discovering the sound formants of human languages, for example, has allowed us to know vital aspects of the ‘material’ plane of verbal codes, but it tells us little about significant aspects of their social functions. I firmly believe, therefore, that alongside a linguistics that looks ‘inward’ there should also be a linguistics that looks ‘outward’, or one even that is constructed ‘from the outside’, a linguistics that I refer to elsewhere as ‘holistic’ though it could be identified by a different name. My current vision is to promote simultaneously the perspective that goes from the part to the whole and that which goes from the whole to the parts, i.e., both from the top down and from the bottom up. This goal is shared with other disciplines which recognize that many phenomena related to life are interwoven, self-organising, emergent and processual. Thus, we need to re-examine how we have conceived of reality, both the way we have looked at it and the images we have used to talk about it. Several approaches now grouped under the label of complexity have been elaborated towards this objective of finding new concepts and ways of thinking that better fit the complex organisation of facts and events.

View PDFchevron_right
From language shift to language revitalization and sustainability: a complexity approach to linguistic ecology
Nicola Vaiarello

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2020

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Human Behavioral Ecology
  • Teaching English as a Second Lan...
  • Scholarship of Teaching and Lear...
  • Teacher Education
  • Scholarly Editing
  • Editing of Journals
  • Applied Linguistics
  • Ecology
  • Holistic Education
  • Teaching English As A Foreign La...
  • Teachers' professional development
  • ESL/EFL Writing
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved