1887
Volume 85, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

L2 learners fall into two major categories in terms of their cognitive styles. The first group comprises the relatively analytical individuals, who are said to be predominantly field independent. The second group, on the other hand, embodies the relatively holistic persons, who are said to be chiefly field dependent. L2 learners are further classified in terms of their hemispheric processing styles. Some learners are left-hemisphere dominant while others are right-hemisphere dominant. The former are thought to be more efficient with analytic processing in which the left hemisphere specializes. By contrast, the latter are described as more efficient with holistic processing in which the right hemisphere specializes. After reviewing the available evidence for the associations between cognitive and hemispheric processing styles, the paper discusses the educational implications of L2 learners' differences with respect to cognitive and hemispheric dimensions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.85-86.06alp
1989-01-01
2019-12-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ABRAHAM, R.G.
    (1983): Relationship between the Use of the Strategy of Monitoring and the Cognitive Style. Studies in Second Language Acquisition6.17–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ALPTEKIN, C.
    (forthcoming): Neurolinguistic Dimensions of Foreign Language Tests. InProceedings of the Seminar. Testing English at University Level (3-5 November 1987). Istanbul : Bogazici University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BEAUMONT, J.G.
    (1983): Methods for Studying Cerebral Hemispheric Function. In A. W. Young (ed.), Functions of the Righ t Cerebral Hemisphere. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BEER, J.
    (1988): Hemispheric Dominance Inferred from Your Style of Learning and Thinking on Reports of Necker Cube Reversals and Maze Learning. Perceptual and Motor Skills66.887–890.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BROWN, H.D.
    (1987): Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BRYDEN, M.P.
    (1966): Left-Right Differences in Tachistoscopic Recognition: Directional Scanning or Cerebral Dominance. Perceptual and Motor Skills29.1127–1134.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CANTO NI-HARVEY, G.
    (1987): Content-Area Language Instruction: Approaches and Strategies. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. CHAPELLE, C. and ROBERTS, C.
    (1986): Ambiguity Tolerance and Field Indepen-dence as Predictors of Proficiency in English as a Second Language. Language Learning36.27–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. CORBALLIS, M.C. and BEALE I.L.
    (1983): The Ambivalent Mind: The Neuropsychology of Left and Right. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DAWSON, G.D.
    (1981): Sex Differences in Dichhaptic Processing. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 53.935–944.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DAY, J.
    (1977): Right Hemisphere Language Processing in Normal Right Handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance3.518–528.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. DULAY, H. , Burt, M. , and Krashen, S.
    (1982): Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. EHRLICHMAN, H. and Weinberger A.
    (1978): Lateral Eye Movements and Hemispheric Asymmetry: A Critical Review. Psychological Bulletin85.1080–1101.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GALLOWAY, L.M.
    (1983): Études cliniques et expérimentales sur la répartition hé-misphérique du traitement cérébral du langage chez les bilingues: modèles théoriques. Langages w2.79–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. GUR, R.E.
    (1975): Conjugate Lateral Eye Movement as an Index of Hemispheric Activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology31.751–757.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. GUR, R.E. , Gur, R.C. , and Harris, L.J.
    (1975): Cerebral Activation, as Measured by Subjects' Lateral Eye Movements, is Influenced by Experimenter Location. Neuropsychologia13.35–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. HANSEN, J. and STANSFIELD, C.
    (1981): The Relationship of Field Dependent-In-dependent Cognitive Styles to Foreign Language Achievement. Language Learning31.349–367.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. HANSEN-STRAIN, L.
    (1984): Field-Dependence-Independence and Language Testing: Evidence from Six Pacific Island Cultures. TESOL Quarterly18.311–324. Second Language Test Performance. TESOL Quarterly21.565–569.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. HARTNETT, D.D.
    (1975): The Relation of Cognitive Style and Hemispheric Preference to Deductive and Inductive Second Language Learning. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Los Angeles: UCLA.
  20. (1980): The Relationship of Analytic and Holistic Cognitive Styles to Second Language Instructional Methods. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. Los Angeles: UCLA.
  21. HECAEN, H. and SAUGUET, J.
    (1971): Cerebral-dominance in Left-handed Subjects. Cortex719–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. KIMURA, D.
    (1969): Cerebral Dominance and the Perception of Verbal Stimuli. Canadian Journal of Psychology15.166–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (1973): The Asymmetry of the Brain. Scientific American228.70–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. KOTIK, B.
    (1975): Investigation of Speech Lateralization in Multilinguals. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Moscow: Moscow State University.
  25. KRASHEN, S.D.
    (1986): The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. KRASHEN, S.D. , Seliger, H. , and Hartnett, D.
    (1974): Two Studies in Adult Second Language Learning. Kritikon Literarum3.220–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. LEVY, J.
    (1985): Right Brain, Left Brain: Fact or Fiction. Psychology Today19.38–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. MCGLONE, J. and DAVIDSON, W.
    (1973): The Relation between Cerebral Speech Laterality and Spatial Ability with Special Reference to Sex and Hand Preference. Neuropsychologia11.105–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. NAIMAN, N. , FRÖHLICH, M. , STERN, H.H. , and TODESCO, A.
    (1978): The Good Language Learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. OLTMAN, P.K. , RASKIN, E. , and WTTKIN, H.A.
    (1971): Group Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, CAL: Consulting Psychologists Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. OLTMAN, P.K. , CHARMION, S. , and GOLDSTEIN, L.
    (1979): Cognitive Style and Interhemispheric Differentiation in the EEG. Neuropsychologia17.699–702.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. PIZZAMIGLIO, L. and ZOCCOLOTTI, P.
    (1977): Laterality and Field Dependence. Paper presented atthe Fifth Annual Meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (1981): Sex and Cognitive Influence on Visual Hemifield Superiority for Face and Letter Recognition. Cortex17.215–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. ROBERTS, C.A.
    (1983): Field Independence as a Predictor of Second Language Learning for Adult ESL Learners in the U.S. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.
  35. ROBINSON, G.L.N.
    (1985): Crosscultural Understanding. New York: Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. SACKHEIM, H.A. , Weiman, A.L. , and Grega, D.M.
    (1984): Effects of Predictors of Hemispheric Specialization on Individual Differences in Hemispheric Activation. Neuropsychologia22.55–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. SCHNEIDERMAN, E.I. and Wesche, M.B.
    (1986): Right-Hemisphere Processing and Foreign Language Aptitude. ITL71.43–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. SHOHAMY, E.
    (1984): Does the Testing Method Make a Difference? The Case of Reading Comprehension. Language Testing1/2.147–170.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. SILVERMAN, A.J. , Adevai, G. , and McGough, W.E.
    (1966): Some Relationships between Handedness and Perception. Journal of Psychosomatic Research10.151–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. STANSFIELD, C. and HANSEN, J.
    (1983): Field Dependence-Independence as a Var-iable in Second Language Cloze Test Performance. TESOL Quarterly17.29–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. STIEBLICH, C.H.
    (1984): Language Learning: A Study on Cognitive Style, Lateral Eye-Movement and Deductive vs. Inductive Learning of Foreign Language Structures. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Montreal: McGill University.
  42. TUCKER, G.H. and SUIB, M.R.
    (1978): Conjugate Lateral Eye Movement (CLEM) Direction and its Relationship to Performance on Verbal and Visuospatial Tasks. Neuropsychologia16.251–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. WEITEN, W. and ETAUGH, C.F.
    (1973): Lateral Eye Movement as Related to Verbal and Perceptual Motor Skills and Values. Perceptual and Motor Skills36.423–428.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. WITKIN, H.A. , GOODENOUGH, D.R. , and KARP, S.A.
    (1967): Stability of Cognitive Style from Childhood to Young Adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology7.291–300.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. WITKIN, H.A. , MOORE, C.A. , GOODENOUGH, D.R. , and COX, P.W.
    (1977): Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and their Educational Implications. Review of Educational Research47.1–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. ZAIDEL, E.
    (1985): Introduction. In D.F. Benson and E. Zaidel (eds.), The Dual Brain: Hemispheric Specialization in Humans. New York: The Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. ZENHAUSERN. R.
    (1978): Imagery, Cerebral Dominance, and Style of Thinking: Unified Field Model. Bulletin of the Psychonomie Society12.381–384.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.85-86.06alp
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error