功能视角下的短语复杂度发展: 学习者背景和任务认知条件的协同作用

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2025.02.012

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

短语复杂度是语言发展的高级阶段,相关研究通过综合性短语复杂度指标探究宏观学习者背景因素或微观任务变量对语言产出的影响,并得出了语言形式的统计规律。但这些研究并没有考虑宏观、微观因素对短语复杂度发展的协同作用,针对语言指标统计规律解释也缺乏语言学理论的支撑。本研究基于国际亚洲英语学习者语料库网络(International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English)中的口语独白语料库(50万词),综合学习者背景因素和任务情境探究对二语学习者口语短语复杂度的影响。基于Halliday功能语法理论视角,对五类精细化短语复杂度指标建立了路径分析模型,并对宏观因素与微观因素进行统计交互。结果表明,学习者背景宏观因素会对口语短语复杂度产生多维效应,任务情境的微观认知条件会影响人际意义的表达并与年龄产生显著交互作用。本研究考察了宏观和微观因素对口语产出影响综合机制,并对短语复杂度的发展给予功能意义的解释。

关键词: 短语复杂度, 形式-功能映射, 学习者背景, 任务准备

Abstract:

Phrasal complexity represents the advanced stage of learner language development. It is often regarded as an important dimension in the investigation of the effects of macro learner backgrounds and micro task-related variables on language production and related research has accumulated ample findings concerning the statistical distribution of linguistic indices. However, the joint effects of macro- and micro-level variables remain under-examined, and the interpretation of statistical patterns of the complexity indices lacks the support from linguistic theory. Therefore, this study explores the effects of learner backgrounds and task cognitive conditions on EFL learners’ oral phrasal complexity based on the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE) (500,000 words). This study establishes a path analysis model combining 5 fine-grained phrasal complexity indices, and investigates the interaction between learner backgrounds and task cognitive conditions (task readiness) through the lens of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar. Results show that the macro-level learner backgrounds generated multi-dimensional effects on oral phrasal complexity while micro-level cognitive conditions interacted with age and affected the expression of interpersonal meaning. This research has converged the effects of macro and micro variables on oral production and provided a functional perspective on the development of learners’ phrasal complexity.

Key words: Phrasal Complexity, Form-function Mapping, Learner Backgrounds, Task Readiness

中图分类号:

H319

吴卓超, 郑咏滟. 功能视角下的短语复杂度发展: 学习者背景和任务认知条件的协同作用[J]. 当代外语研究, 2025, 25(2): 138-153.

WU Zhuochao, ZHENG Yongyan. A Functional Perspective on Phrasal Complexity Development: Effects of Learner Backgrounds and Task Cognitive Conditions[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2025, 25(2): 138-153.

图/表 9

表1

表2

表3

图1

图2

表4

图3

表5

表6

参考文献 27

[1]	Bulté, B. & H. Roothooft. 2020. Investigating the interrelationship between rated L2 proficiency and linguistic complexity in L2 speech[J]. System 91: 102246.
[2]	Bygate, M. 2001. Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language[A]. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (eds). Researching Pedagogical Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing[C]. Harlow: Longman. 23-48.
[3]	Casal, J. E., X. Lu, X. Qiu, Y. Wang & G. Zhang. 2021. Syntactic complexity across academic research article part-genres: a cross-disciplinary perspective[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 52: 100996.
[4]	Favart, M. & J. -M. Passerault. 2009. Acquisition of relations between the conceptual and linguistic dimensions of linearization in descriptive text composition in grades five to nine: A comparison with oral production[J]. British Journal of Educational Psychology 79: 107-130. doi: 10.1348/000709908X289981 pmid: 18315939
[5]	Halliday, M. A. K. & C. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition[M]. London: Continuum.
[6]	Ishikawa, S. 2014. Design of the ICNALE Spoken: A new database for multi-modal contrastive interlanguage analysis[J]. Learner Corpus Studies in Asia and World (2): 63-76.
[7]	Johnson, M. D. & M. Abdi Tabari. 2012. Task planning and oral L2 production: a research synthesis and meta-analysis[J]. Applied Linguistics 43(6): 1143-1164.
[8]	Jiang, J., Bi, P., N. Xie & H. Liu. 2023. Phraseological complexity and low- and intermediate-level L2 learners’ writing quality[J/OL]. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 61(3): 765-790.[2025-02-13]. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2019-0147
[9]	Khatib, M. & M. Farahanynia. 2020. Planning conditions (strategic planning, task repetition, and joint planning), cognitive task complexity, and task type: Effects on L2 oral performance[J]. System 93: 102297.
[10]	Khushik, G. A. & A. Huhta. 2020. Investigating syntactic complexity in EFL learners’ writing across common European framework of reference levels A1, A2, and B1[J]. Applied Linguistics 41(4): 506-532.
[11]	Kyle, K. & S. A. Crossley. 2018. Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 writing using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices[J]. Modern Language Journal 102(2): 333-349.
[12]	Lu, X., J. E. Casal & Y. Liu. 2020. The rhetorical functions of syntactically complex sentences in social science research article introductions[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 44: 1-16.
[13]	Lu, X., J. E. Casal, Y. Liu, et al. 2021. The relationship between syntactic complexity and rhetorical move-steps in research article introductions: Variation among four social science and engineering disciplines[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 52: 101006.
[14]	Mackey, A. & S. M. Gass. 2015. Second Language Research: Methodology and Design (2nd edn.)[M]. Routledge.
[15]	Mostafa, T., Y. Kim & E. Friginal. 2020. Examining a developmentally based measure of L2 oral performances: Does it predict L2 learners’ oral proficiency?[J]. System 89: 102197.
[16]	Norris, J. M. & L. Ortega. 2019. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity[J]. Applied Linguistics 30(4): 555-578.
[17]	Ortega, L. 2012. Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal[A]. In B. Kortmann & B. M. Szmrecsanyi (eds.). Linguistic Complexity: Second Language Acquisition, Indigenization, Contact [C]. Berlin: De Gruyter.127-155.
[18]	Paquot, M. 2019. The phraseological dimension in interlanguage complexity research[J]. Second Language Research. 35: 121-145. doi: 10.1177/0267658317694221
[19]	Robinson, P. 2001. Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring interactions in a componential framework[J]. Applied Linguistics 22(1): 27-57.
[20]	Ruiz-Funes, M. 2015. Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: The effects of task factors and learner variables[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 28: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.001.
[21]	Saito, K. 2015. The role of age of acquisition in late second language oral proficiency attainment[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 37(4): 713-743.
[22]	Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning[M]. Oxford University Press.
[23]	Yoon, H.-J. 2021. Challenging the connection between task perceptions and language use in L2 writing: Genre, cognitive task complexity, and linguistic complexity[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing 54: 100857.
[24]	秦文娟、郑咏滟、冯清琳、贾柔嘉. 2022. 句法复杂度对通用语言能力和学术语言能力的预测效应[J]. 第二语言学习研究(1): 13-26,139.
[25]	邢加新、罗少茜. 2016. 任务复杂度对中国英语学习者语言产出影响的元分析研究[J]. 现代外语(4): 528-538,584-585.
[26]	张萌、周丹丹. 2022. 时间压力下任务重复对二语口语产出的影响[J]. 现代外语(4): 488-499.
[27]	郑咏滟、刘飞凤. 2020. 复杂理论视角下任务复杂度对二语口语表现的影响[J]. 现代外语(3): 365-376.

语言水平	A2	B1下限	B1上限	B2及以上
篇数	400	884	1876	640
学科类别	科学与技术	生命科学	社会科学	人文学科
篇数	1016	148	872	1764

短语修饰语	语料库节选
限定词	a part-time job
形容词性修饰语	his bad habit; public places
所有格	your life experiences
介词性修饰语	influence from the smoke
动词性修饰语	the tax earned from the sale of cigarettes
名词作修饰语	health problem
关系从句作修饰语	people that don’t smoke
非从句副词修饰语	a very real health hazard
连词“and”作修饰语	the people who do not smoke and breathe in secondhand smoke
连词“or”作修饰语	It will make them better as a person, where they will value their jobs or they will value life as it is

短语复杂度指标	语言水平		学科背景		年龄
短语复杂度指标	估计值 (标准误)	显著性 (p)	估计值 (标准误)	显著性 (p)	估计值 (标准误)	显著性 (p)
形容词性修饰语	0.034 (0.017)	0.040	0.043 (0.017)	0.010	0.055 (0.017)	0.001
介词性修饰语	0.065 (0.017)	0.000	0.025 (0.017)	0.268	-0.025 (0.017)	0.144
动词性修饰语	0.104 (0.017)	0.000	0.000 (0.017)	0.978	-0.016 (0.017)	0.329
名词作修饰语	0.024 (0.017)	0.147	-0.003 (0.017)	0.879	-0.024 (0.017)	0.150
非从句副词修饰语	0.055 (0.017)	0.001	0.031 (0.017)	0.064	-0.002 (0.017)	0.912

短语复杂度指标	有准备	无准备	差异性(F值)
形容词性修饰语	1.396 (0.929)	1.379 (0.931)	0.579
介词性修饰语	0.878 (0.759)	0.889 (0.746)	0.654
动词性修饰语	0.168 (0.295)	0.180 (0.312)	0.201
名词作修饰语	0.547 (0.686)	0.582 (0.691)	0.114
非从句副词修饰语	0.194 (0.301)	0.219 (0.346)	0.015

短语复杂度指标	有无准备	语言水平*有无准备	学科背景*有无准备	年龄*有无准备
短语复杂度指标	估计值	估计值	估计值	估计值
形容词性修饰语	0.016
	0.117	-0.037
	0.12	-0.036	-0.001
	0.087	-0.037	-0.002	0.002
介词性修饰语	-0.011
	-0.119	0.04
	-0.13	0.039	0.004
	-0.135	0.039	0.004	0
动词性修饰语	-0.013
	0.022	-0.013
	0.046	-0.011	-0.01
	-0.016	-0.013	-0.011	0.003
名词作修饰语	-0.035
	-0.054	0.007
	-0.038	0.007	-0.006
	-0.118	0.006	-0.008	0.004
非从句副词修饰语	-0.026*
	-0.017	-0.003
	0.000	-0.002	-0.007
	0.164	0.001	-0.003	-0.009*