1887
Volume 152, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper presents a theoretical framework to estimate the effectiveness of second language tasks in which the focus is on the acquisition of new linguistic items, such as vocabulary or grammar, the so-called focused tasks (R. Ellis, 2003). What accounts for the learning impact offocused tasks? We shall argue that the task-based approach (e.g. Skehan, 1998, Robinson, 2001) does not provide an in-depth account of how cognitive processes, elicited by a task, foster the acquisition of new linguistic elements. We shall then review the typologies of cognitive processes derived from research on learning strategies (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994), from the involvement load hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001), from the depth of processing hypothesis (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) and from connectionism (e.g Broeder & Plunkett, 1997; N. Ellis, 2003). The combined insights of these typologies form the basis of the multi-feature hypothesis, which predicts that retention and ease of activation of new linguistic items are improved by mental actions which involve a wide variety of different features, simultaneously and frequently. A number of implications for future research shall be discussed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017862
2006-01-01
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, J R.
    (2000) Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th ed.). New York: Worth.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arievitch, I. M. , & Haenen, J. P. P.
    (2005) Connecting sociocultural theory and educational practice: Galperin's approach. Educational Psychologist, 40(3), 155–165.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aitchison, J.
    (1994) Words in the mind. An introduction to the mental lexicon (2nd ed.). Oxford, Cambridge: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baddeley, A.
    (1997) Human memory. Theory and practice: Hove: Psychology Press
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2003) Working memory and language: an overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bechtel, W. , & Abrahamsen, A.
    (2002) Connectionism and the mind, parallel processing, dynamics and evolution in networks (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bereiter, C.
    (1991) Implications of connectionism for thinking about rules. Educational Researcher, 20(3),10–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bransford, J. D. , Brown, A. L. , & Cocking, R. R.
    (Eds.) (2000) How people learn. Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington D. C: National Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Breen, M.
    (1987) Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp.23–46). London: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Broeder, P. , & Plunkett, K.
    (1997) Connectionism and second language acquisition. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit/earning of/anguages (2nd ed., pp.421–453). London, San Diego: Academic Press Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bygate, M. , Skehan, P. , & Swain, M.
    (2001) Researching pedagogic tasks. Second language learning, teaching and testing: Harlow: Pearson
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown, S. , & Craik, F.
    (2000) Encoding and retrieval of information. In E. Tulving & F. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp.93–107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chamot, A. , & O'Malley, M.
    (1994) Language learner and learning strategies. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp.371–392). London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cowan, N.
    (2005) Working memory capacity. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Craik, F. , & Lockhart, R.
    (1972) Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11 ,671–684.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Craik, F. , & Tulving, E.
    (1975) Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104,268–294.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Croft, W. , & Cruse, D.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Driessen, C. , Haenen, J. , & Westhoff, G.
    (2002) A critical analYSis offoreign language learning tasks. In S. Selander & M. Tholey (Eds.), New educational media and textbooks (Vol.9, pp.162–180). Stockholm: Stockholm Institute of Education Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Doughty, C.
    (2001) Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, N.
    (2001) Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.33–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2003) Constructions, chunking and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of SLA (pp.63–103). Malden, Oxford, Victoria: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ellis, R.
    (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gasser, M.
    (1990) Connectionism and universals of second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 179–199.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gazzaniga, M. , Ivry, R. , & Mangun, G.
    (2002) Cognitive neuroscience. The biology ofthe mind. New York: Norton.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hulstijn, J. H. , & Laufer, B.
    (2001) Some empirical evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51(3),539–558.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Laufer, B.
    (1997) What's in a word that makes it hard or easy: some intralexical factors affecting the learning of words. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary. Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.140–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Laufer, B. , & Hulstijn, J.
    (2001) Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Levelt, W. J. M.
    (1989) Speaking. From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Uttlewoord, w.
    (2004) The task-based approach: some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 319–326.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lockhart, R. , & Craik, F.
    (1990) Levels of processing: a retrospective commentary on a framework for memory research. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 44(1), 87–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Markovitsch, H.
    (2000) Neuroanatomy of memory. In E. Tulving & F. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp.465–484). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. McClelland, J.
    (2000) Connectionist models of memory. In E. Tulving & F. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp.583–596). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. McClelland, J. , Rumelhart, D. , & Hinton, G.
    (1986) The appeal of parallel distributed processing. In D. Rumelhart & J. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing. Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. (Vol.1: Foundations, pp.3–44). London: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Nation, I. S. P.
    (1990) Teaching and learning vocabulary. Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Nunan, D.
    (2004) Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Pienemann, M.
    (1998) Language processing and second language development: processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Richards, J.
    (1976) The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10(1),77–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Richards, J. C. , & Rodgers, T. S.
    (2001) Approaches and methods in language teaching (6th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Rumelhart, D.
    (1989) The architecture of mind: a connectionist approach. In M. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp.133–159). London: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Robinson, P.
    (2001) 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: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (2005) Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL. International review of applied linguistics in language teaching, 43.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Rumelhart, D. , & Ortony, A.
    (1977) The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. Anderson , R. Spiro & W. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquiSition of knowledge (pp.99–135). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Schmidt, R.
    (2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Skehan, P.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Swan, M.
    (2005) Legislation by hypothesis: The case of Task-Based Instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3),376–401.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Westhoff, G.
    (2004) The art of playing a pinball machine. Characteristics of effective SLAtasks. Babylonia(3), 58–62., www.babylonia-ti.ch
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Willis, J.
    (1996) A framework for task-based learning. Essex: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017862
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