任务类型对英语学习者词语搭配习得的影响研究 The Effect of Task Type on EFL Learners Collocation Acquisition开题报告

1. 研究目的与意义（文献综述包含参考文献）

First of all, I will list some definitions of collocation raised by some famous linguists briefly.

About fifty years ago, the father of collocation study, J. R. Firth (1957), firstly raised collocation as a linguistic term in discussion. In his opinion, collocation can be generally summed up by four items. To begin with, collocation is the company words that keep their relationships with other words. Secondly, collocation is a kind of meaning style. Thirdly, it is mutual expectation and mutual prediction of each company word in habitual collocation. To some extent, Michael Lewis (2000) held the similar ideas to this aspect. He suggested that collocation is common combination of words or the way words combined in predictable ways. This explanation is also approved by Halliday and Cowie. According to the above opinions, we can know that collocation emphasizes the way words co-occur predictably. Last but not least, colligation is an abstract which is superior to collocation. And colligation is the mutual relationship among words, sentences and other grammatical categories. Firth thought that through one word collocating with the other, one could know the words meaning. (Palmer, 1981，p.76).

Secondly, I will review some definition about "task".

In the domain of SLA, both researchers and teachers seek to elicit samples of language use from learners. They all go to "tasks" for help either as an instrument for investigating L2 acquisition or as a tool facilitating L2 learning to occur. As a result, "tasks" hold a central place in current SLA research and also in language pedagogy (Elks, 2003:1). In recent years lots of theoretical arguments have been put forward in favor of task-based approaches to second language pedagogy (Robinson, TingUrving, 1995). The emerging of task-based approaches in the 80s of the 20Th century is a big challenge to education and second language education. Task-based teaching seems to be a natural consequence of the communicative approach (Widdowson, 1978), since it focuses on providing learners with contexts for meaningful activities and practice in the procedural use of language, rather than on developing the learners' declarative knowledge of the component parts of a language in isolation from use一its rules of grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary meaning, etc.. Tasks can provide full opportunities for both input and output requirements, which are believed to be key processes in language learning and foster processes of negotiation, modification, that are the heart of second language learning (RichardRodgers, 2001). Then what exactly is a task?

It is actually hard to define a task precisely and accurately, since the actual task-based teaching is rather complex. The definitions of a task vary according to different researchers. Bygate, Skehan and Swain define a task as "an activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective" (as cited in R. Ellis, 2003:5). Skechan (1998) proposes that a task is an activity in which: meaning is primary; (2) there is some communication problem to solve; (3) there is some sort relationship to comparable real-world activities; (4) task completion has some priority; (5) the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome.

The common ground of the above definition is that "task" is an activity involving any of the language skills (e.g., listening, speaking, reading, writing, translating) with a focus primarily on meaning or a focus on both meaning and form when engaging learners in comprehending and using language so as to achieve linguistic or non-linguistic outcomes. Such an activity requires learners to employ cognitive processes such as selecting, classifying, ordering, reasoning, and evaluating information in order to carry our the task. It is obvious that tasks provide L2 learners accesses to vocabulary learning, receptively or productively, as an important part of linguistic outcome (Zhou, 2007).

Above all, I will refer to some studies on the Involvement Load Hypothesis.

The Involvement Load Hypothesis originated in three concepts: depth of processing, elaboration motivation. The first two concepts were drawn from the field of cognitive psychology and the third from the domain of SLA. Acknowledging the importance of depth of processing (CraikLockhart, 1972) and elaboration (CraikTulving, 1975), and the roles of motivation in information processing (Gray, 1999; Gardner, 1985; YongPerkins, 1995; etc. cited in LauferHulstijn, 2001), Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) developed a motivational-cognitive construct of task-induced involvement, consisting of three basic components: heed, search, and evaluation.

The need component is the motivational, non-cognitive dimension of involvement. Just as Hustijn and Laufer (2001) interpret the notion, in its positive sense, is based on a drive to comply with the task requirements. Two degrees of prominence were suggested for heed: moderate and strong. Need is moderate when it is imposed by the task (e.g., answering reading comprehension questions that require knowledge of previously unknown words) and strong when it is imposed by the learner himself or herself (e.g., looking up a word in a L1-L2 dictionary when writing a composition).

Search and evaluation are the two cognitive dimensions of involvement, contingent upon noticing and deliberately allocating attention to the form-meaning relationship (Schmidt, 1994).

Search refers to the attempt to find the meaning of an unknown L2 word or trying to find the L2 word form expression a concept (e.g. trying to find the L2 translation of an L1 word) by consulting a dictionary or an authority (a teacher). Search is present when learners must seek the meaning of unknown words to complete a task (e.g. dictionary look-up tasks), and absent when no such effort is required (e.g. reading comprehension tasks accompanied by marginal glosses).

Evaluation entails comparing a new word with other words. A specific meaning of a word with other meanings, or combining the word with other words in order to assess whether a word (i.e. a form-meaning pairs) does or does not suit in a given context. Evaluation is moderate when learners must recognize differences between words provided in a given context (e.g. deciding which meaning of a target word best fits the context in which it is encountered) and strong when the task requires making decision about new words and combining them with known words in original contexts (e.g. sentence and composition writing).

Each of the above three factors can be absent or present when processing a word in a natural or artificial designed task. The combination of the factors with their degree of prominence constitutes task-induced involvement load. To operationalize the abstract load into a measurable concept, an involvement index of minus (一) and plus( )is devised, where a minus (一) indicates an absence of a factor, marked as 0 point; a plus( )indicates a moderate presence of a factor, marked as 1 point, and a double plus( )indicates a strong version of an involvement factor, marked as 2 points. Consequently, the involvement index of a task is the accumulative total of the pluses and relevant points.

For example, a task in which learners read a text and answer comprehension questions that require knowledge of unknown words glossed in the margin would receive an involvement load index of 1 because heed is moderate (imposed by the task) and search and evaluation are absent. Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) used two tasks with different involvement load as examples. In the first task, the learners are asked to write original sentence with some new words and these words are translated or explained by the teacher. The task induces a moderate need because it is imposed by external agent (the teacher), no search because the words are glossed and strong evaluation because the learner has to use the new words in a learner-generated context. Then the involvement index of the task is 3(1-0-2). In the second task, the learners are asked to read a text with new words glossed and to answer comprehension questions. The task induces a moderate need to look at the glosses because the learners are extrinsically motivated, but it induces neither search nor evaluation. Thus its involvement index is 1 (1-0-0). Hence, the first task induces a higher involvement load than the second task.

A task's involvement load is "the combination of presence or absence of the involvement factors need, search and evaluation" (LauferHulstijn, 2001:15). Tasks with higher involvement load are deemed more effective for word learning and retention than those with lower involvement load.

The Involvement Load Hypothesis proposes that retention of words when processed incidentally is conditional upon the three factors in a task: heed, search, evaluation, that other factors being equal, words that are processed with higher involvement load be retained better than words which are processed with lower involvement load. Tasks with a higher involvement load will be more effective for vocabulary retention than tasks with a lower involvement load.

2. 研究的基本内容、问题解决措施及方案

the object of the study is the effect of task type on efl learners collocation acquisition among efl learners of same proficiency levels. by studying this, the research is aimed to solve the following questions:

1. is there any significant difference in understanding the collocations between efl learners who perform different learning tasks related to efl collocations?

2. is there any significant difference in producing the collocations between efl learners who perform different learning tasks related to efl collocations?