【作者】 王涛；

【导师】 郝玫；

【作者基本信息】 太原理工大学 ， 外国语言学及应用语言学， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 个体差异已成为二语习得研究中的重要方面,近年来,场依存和场独立认知风格及其对二语习得的影响被广泛研究。准确性、流利性和复杂性是衡量二语水平的三个方面。许多学者认为语言不是静态不变的,而是动态变化的,在不同的语言环境中,语言使用者的压力、自我认同、目标以及情感因素都会对语言行为造成影响。本研究采用动态描述的方法进行个案跟踪研究,结合对小组均值和个体变化的分析,试图对场依存和场独立学生英语输出的准确性复杂性流利性方面的差异做较全面的描述。本研究探讨以下三个问题:1.场依存和场独立学生输出中的流利性、准确性和复杂性的发展模式是什么?他们的英语学习是否呈线性变化?2.流利性、准确性和复杂性之间的关系怎样?一方面的发展是否会引起另一方面的停滞或倒退?3.是否场独立学生在书面输出中表现较好,而场依存学生在口语输出中表现较好?本研究主要有以下发现:首先,语言系统是动态变化的,场依存和场独立学生学生英语输出中的流利性、准确性和复杂性的模式不是线性的。其次,语言水平的三方面,即流利性、准确性和复杂性在输出中各自呈现独立地位,它们相互支撑又相互竞争。其中一方面的发展可能导致另一方面的停滞。再者,在适应变化着的环境的过程中,场依存和场独立学生各自都表现出变化性。学生的语言行为会受到自己语言策略的影响。第四,不仅是两种风格学生遵循不同发展模式,即使是同一风格的学生相互之间的发展模式也大不相同。最后,总体来说,场独立学生书面较好,场依存学生口语较好。若涉及到学习过程,两种风格学生在英语学习与使用中表现出不同优势,在今后教学中应引起关注。本研究的教学启示有以下几方面:第一,场依存和场独立学生英语学习的过程是非线性的,教师应当采用形成性评估,注意学生在不同阶段的进步与退化,帮学生提高基础知识。第二,场依存和场独立两个风格学生确实在二语习得过程中有不同的发展模式。教师应了解学生的认知风格,帮助学生发展合适的学习策略,设计有效的任务型教学活动。第三,语言是社会性。教师平时应注意学生的课堂表现,情感变化,学习态度及其他的环境因素,培养学生的学习兴趣。最后,再一次要强调个体差异。教师要设计更多不同类型的任务型教学活动来帮助不同风格的学生。设计教学大纲时要考虑学生的认知风格,使场依存和场独立学生从中受益。本研究也有许多不足之处。本研究中的被试不是随机抽取的,且样本相对较小。试验时间也不长,研究不够全面,没有对准确性、流利性和复杂性三个方面进行一一比较。但是希望本研究的结果能给语言教师和学习者以及今后的研究者一些启发。更多还原

【Abstract】 Individual differences became an important aspect in the study of second language acquisition. Cognitive styles such as field-dependence and field-independence and their influences have been much explored in SLA in recent years. Accuracy, fluency and complexity are three dimensions to measure L2 performance. More and more researchers now agree on that language is not fixed but is a dynamic system. Language is used for social action within a context of language use, where pressures, learners’identities, goals and affective states will have a profound effect on language performance. The present study adopts a dynamic descriptive approach to carry out a case study, with the combination of analyses in group average and individual variations to investigate the fluency, accuracy and complexity in the written and oral productions of FD/FI students of English.In this study, there are three research questions addressed:(1)What are the developmental patterns of fluency, accuracy and complexity in FD/FI students’outputs and whether FD/FI students’English learning is linearity?(2)What are the correlations among fluency, accuracy and complexity? Whether development in one dimension can cause stop or regression in another dimension?(3) Is it true that FD students do better in written work and FI students in oral work if they are at the same level of English proficiency?The major findings of this study are presented as follows:Firstly, language is a dynamic system instead of a static and fixed one. The patterns of fluency, accuracy and complexity emerging in both FD students and FI students are not linear.Secondly, the three dimensions to language proficiency, i.e. fluency, accuracy and complexity, perform independently in written and oral productions. They are supportive and competitive. The development in one dimension can cause another’s stop.Thirdly, both FD and FI students show variability in their own progress as the result of their adaptations to changing contexts. Students will be influenced by their use of language resources in the process of language performances.Fourthly, not only FD and FI students follow different patterns in their language progress, but also members in a same group differ greatly between one and another in their productions.Finally, roughly speaking, FI students do better in written work and FD students in oral work when they are at the same level of English proficiency. But when it comes to process, both styles have their own advantages in English learning and using. More attention should be paid in the future English teaching.The implications of the present study lie in the following aspects:Firstly, the developmental patterns of FD and FI students’English production are not linear; there should be more formative assessments used in the process of learning and teaching. Teachers should pay attention to individual progresses at different stages of learning and help the students enhance their underlying knowledge.Secondly, FD and FI students really take different developmental patterns in their second language learning. Teachers should know students’cognitive styles and help students develop reasonable learning strategies and effective task-based activities.Thirdly, language is also a social resource. The teachers should have an eye on students’classroom behavior, emotions, attitudes and other contextual influences, and foster their interest in English learning.At last, individual differences in FD and FI students should be emphasized once again. Teachers should create more different types of task-based activities to help students of different styles. Students’cognitive styles should be taken into account when the teachers plan their teaching syllabus, from which both FD and FI students will benefit.However, the present study has its own limitations. In the first place, the sample size of this study is relatively small and it was not randomly selected. Secondly, as a case study, an exploratory one, the time of the present study is relatively short. Thirdly, analysis in the present study is not thorough enough as a result of time limitation. The change of one dimension compared with another is not explored. But the results in this study here are hoped to benefit language teachers,students and researchers in this area in the future.更多还原