연구동향 분석
박사

한국어 학습자의 구어 복잡성 연구 : 통사 및 어휘 복잡성을 중심으로

남주연 2015년

논문상세정보
인용/피인용
' 한국어 학습자의 구어 복잡성 연구 : 통사 및 어휘 복잡성을 중심으로' 의 주제별 논문영향력
논문영향력 선정 방법
논문영향력 요약
주제
  • as-unit
  • 구어
  • 내포
  • 다양성
  • 밀도
  • 복잡성
  • 숙달도
  • 어휘
  • 접속
  • 정교도
  • 통사
  • 한국어 학습자
동일주제 총논문수 논문피인용 총횟수 주제별 논문영향력의 평균
1,607 0

0.0%

' 한국어 학습자의 구어 복잡성 연구 : 통사 및 어휘 복잡성을 중심으로' 의 참고문헌

  • 􋺷한국어 사용 빈도 : 1500만 어절 세종형태의미분석말 뭉치 기반􋺸
    강범모 김흥규 한국문화사 [2009]
  • 􋺷한국어 문법론의 개념어 연구􋺸
    이선웅 월인 [2012]
  • 􋺷제2언어 교실 연구 방법론􋺸
    김영주 한국문화사 [2009]
  • 􋺷우리말본(제3판)􋺸
    최현배 정음문화사 [1961]
  • 􋺷우리말 문법론􋺸
    고영근 구본관 집문당 [2008]
  • 􋺷외국인을 위한 한국어 교육의 실제􋺸
    최길시 태학사 [1998]
  • 􋺷외국인 학습자를 위한 초급 한국어 사전 개발􋺸
    배주채 문화관광부 [2000]
  • 􋺷국어문법론강의􋺸
    이익섭 채완 학연사 [1999]
  • 􋺷국어 연결어미의 쓰임􋺸
    남기심 서광학술자료사 [1994]
  • 􋺷국어 어휘론 개설􋺸
    김광해 집문당 [1993]
  • 􋺷국어 부사절의 성립􋺸
    이익섭 태학사 [2003]
  • 􋺷(증보) 한글 맞춤법 강의􋺸
    안병희 이희승 한재영 신구문화사 [2010]
  • 􋺷(개정판)표준국어문법론􋺸
    고영근 남기심 탑출판사 [1993]
  • 􋺷(개정판) 학교문법론􋺸
    이관규 월인 [2002]
  • ｢한국어학당 학습자 말뭉치의 구축과 활용｣, 􋺷언어정보 와 사전편찬􋺸 28
    안의정 한송화 연세대학교 언어정보연구원, 153-189 [2011]
  • ｢한국어의 어미｣, 한국방송통신대학교 평생교육원 편, 􋺷외국어 로서의 한국어학􋺸
    임동훈 한국방송통신대학교 출판부 [2005]
  • ｢한국어능력시험 초급 어휘 목록｣
    김중섭 한국교육과정평가원 [2009]
  • ｢한국어능력시험 중급 어휘 목록｣
    김중섭 한국교육과정평가원 [2010]
  • ｢한국어교육에서의 어휘와 문법 : 조사, 어미의 기본어휘 선정 과정을 중심으로｣, 􋺷한국어학􋺸 57
    한정한 한국어학회, 383-411 [2012]
  • ｢한국어 학습자의 쓰기에 나타난 어휘 다양도 및 어휘 밀도 연 구｣, 􋺷언어과학􋺸 19(1)
    배도용 한국언어과학회, 99-117 [2012]
  • ｢한국어 학습자의 구어에 나타난 어휘 다양성 측정 : D 값을 중심으로｣, 􋺷한국어의미학􋺸 45
    김영주 남주연 한국어의미학회, 69-97 [2014]
  • ｢한국어 쓰기능력 구성요소로서의 어휘에 대한 연구｣, 􋺷이중언 어학􋺸 30
    진대연 이중언어학회, 379-411 [2006]
  • ｢한국어 병렬문의 문법적 위상｣, 􋺷국어학􋺸 56
    임동훈 국어학회, 87-130 [2009]
  • ｢한국어 교육용 문법요소의 위계화에 대하여｣, 􋺷국어교육연구􋺸 23
    민현식 서울대학교 국어교육연구소, 61-130 [2009]
  • ｢한국어 교육 기초 어휘 의미 빈도 사전의 개발 사업 보고서｣
    서상규 문화관광부 [2000]
  • ｢한국어 고급 학습자의 작문에 나타난 어휘의 다양성｣, 􋺷한국어교육􋺸 25(2)
    김영주 박정은 국제한국어교육학회, 1-32 [2014]
  • ｢한국 2-4세 아동의 발화길이에 관한 기초연구｣, 􋺷언어청각 장 애연구􋺸 2
    김영태 한국언어청각 임상학회, 1-25 [1997]
  • 박사
    ｢중국인 한국어 학습자의 작문에 나타난 중간언어 양상 연구｣
    김목아 계명대학교 석사학위논문 [2011]
  • ｢중국어권 학문 목적 학습자 구어 문장의 통사적 특징 과 한계｣, 􋺷우리어문연구􋺸 36
    김의수 김지혜 우리어문학회, 243-291 [2010]
  • ｢중간언어 어휘론 연구의 관제와 전망｣, 􋺷이중언어학􋺸 23
    안경화 이 중언어학회, 167-186 [2003]
  • ｢접속과 내포｣, 􋺷국어학􋺸 60
    유현경 국어학회, 389-426 [2011]
  • ｢이주노동자의 한국어 구어 문장이 지닌 통사적 복잡성 과 그 한계｣
    김의수 손현화 􋺷한국어학􋺸 50, 111-140 [2011]
  • ｢이주노동자용 한국어교재들의 통사적 수준 비교 연구｣, 􋺷한민족어문학􋺸 62
    김은실 김의수 한민족어문학회, 401-426 [2012]
  • ｢유아의 어휘 다양도를 활용한 어휘력 평가 기준 시안｣, 􋺷한국언어문화􋺸 40
    전은진 최용석 한국언어문화학회, 359-376 [2009]
  • ｢외국어로서의 한국어 학습 교재의 문장 분석｣, 􋺷언어학 연구􋺸 14
    김의수 김태성 한국중원언어학회, 39-67 [2009]
  • ｢여성 결혼 이민자의 한국어 발화 특성 : 평균발화길이와 어휘 다양도를 중심으로｣, 􋺷언어와 문화􋺸 8(1)
    김선정 한국언어문화교육학회, 1-17 [2012]
  • ｢쓰기 텍스트 분석을 통한 한국어 학습자의 통사적 숙 달도 측정 연구｣, 􋺷언어와 문화􋺸 5(2)
    박지순 서세정 한국언어문화교육학회, 151-173 [2009]
  • ｢브로카 실어증 환자의 내용어와 기능어의 산출 비교 연구｣, 􋺷 언어청각장애연구􋺸 20(2)
    배진애 한국언어청각임상학회, 12-31 [2005]
  • ｢부사절을 필수적으로 요구하는 구문에 대한 연구｣, 􋺷한국어학􋺸 29
    유현경 한국어학회, 159-185 [2005]
  • ｢보문의 개념과 체계｣, 􋺷국어학􋺸 33
    안명철 국어학회, 337-365 [1999]
  • ｢말뭉치 분석에 기반을 둔 낱말 빈도의 조사와 그 응용｣, 􋺷한 글􋺸 242
    서상규 한글학회, 225-270 [1998]
  • ｢다문화언어 환경 아동의 수용 및 표현어휘능력｣
    김효정 한림대학교 보건대학원 석사학위논문 [2007]
  • ｢그림자료가 지적장애 아동의 어휘다양도와 언어 능력 에 미치는 효과｣, 􋺷학교교육연구􋺸 6(1)
    배슬기 최성규 대구대학교 사범대학부설교육연 구소, 27-37 [2010]
  • ｢국어의 기초어휘에 대한 연구｣, 􋺷국어교육연구􋺸 23(1)
    임지룡 국어교 육연구회, 87-131 [1991]
  • ｢국어 접속문의 통사적 특질에 대하여｣, 􋺷한글􋺸 191
    유현경 한글학 회, 77-104 [1986]
  • ｢국어 어휘의 분야별 분포 양상｣, 􋺷관악어문연구􋺸 27
    조남호 서울대 학교 국어국문학과, 473-496 [2002]
  • ｢교사의 그림책 읽기 상호작용 유형이 중국 출신 다문화가장 유아의 어휘력, 이야기 이해, 이야기 산출에 미치는 영향｣
    이정아 건국대학교 박사학위논문 [2011]
  • 박사
    ｢과제의 복잡성과 친숙성이 학습자 언어 산출에 미치는 영향｣
    이재은 경희대학교 석사학위논문 [2012]
  • ｢SVO 언어권 한국어 학습자들의 작문에 나타난 문장의 복잡성과 다양성 연구｣, 􋺷한국언어문학􋺸 75
    김의수 채문숙 한국언어문학회, 85-112 [2010]
  • ｢CHILDES 코퍼스를 기반으로 한 아동의 영어 굴절형태소 발달 연구｣, 􋺷인지과학􋺸 24(3)
    민명숙 이선영 전종섭 한국인지과학회, 203-235 [2013]
  • 형태소 분석기 (21세기 세종계획 최종 성과물, 년 수정판
    지능형 국립국 어원 언어정보나눔터 http://ithub.korean.go.kr) [2010]
  • 한국어 학습자 중간언어 발화의 정확성과 복잡성을 측정하기 위한 분석도구에 관한 소고
    ( Young Geun Lee ) 국제한국어교육학회 제15차 국제학술대회 발표자료집, 171-175 [2005]
  • 한국어 숙달도와 산출 능력 간의 상관관계 연구
    김영주 􋺷국 어국문학􋺸 164, 국어국문학회, 209-244. [2013]
  • 한·중 아동의 어휘발달순서에 따른 중국어 동사 교육의 중요성
    김종미 􋺷중국문학􋺸 61, 243-265 [2009]
  • 표준국어대사전 (국립국어원 홈페이지 http://stdweb2
    korean.go.kr/main.jsp)
  • 준비시간과 능숙도가 언어 수행에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구 : 영어말하기의 정확성, 유창성, 복잡성을 중심으로
    현세라 성균관대학교 석사학 위논문 [2008]
  • 이야기 산출과제를 이용한 고기능 자폐아동과 정상아동의 어휘다양도 비교연구
    김지은 이화여자대학교 석사학위논문 [2002]
  • 외국어로서의 한국어학
    고성환 한국방송통신대학교 평생교 육원, 한국방송통신대학교 출판부 [2005]
  • 언어샘플 수집 방법 간 평균발화길이와 어휘다양도에 관한 비교 연구
    권도하 정분선 􋺷언어치료연구􋺸 9(1), 한국언어치료학, 1-25. [2000]
  • 국어 어휘론 개설
    심재기 지식과 교양 [2011]
  • 국립국어원 , ｢한국어 교육 어휘 내용 개발(1단계)｣
    연구 책임자 강현 화, 1-263 [2012]
  • 국립국어원 , ｢국제 통용 한국어 교육 표준 모형 개발 2단계 결과 보고 서｣
    연구 책임자 김중섭, 1-316 [2011]
  • 『한국어교육을 위한 한국어 문법론』
    허용 한국문화사 [2003]
  • Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologue oral production, Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.
  • Young, R. (1995). Conversation style in language proficiency interviews. Language Learning, 45(1), 3-45.
  • Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
  • Williams, J. & Evans. J. (1998). What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds): Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Aacquisition. Cambridge University Press.
  • Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_density)
  • Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85-106.
  • Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17(1), 65-83.
  • Van Lier, L. (1989). Reeling, writing, drawling, stretching and fainting in coils: oral proficiency interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 489-508.
  • Van Hout, R. & Vermeer, A. (1988). Spontane taaldata en het meten van lexicale rijkdom in tweede-taalverwerving. Toege-paste Taalwetenshap in artikelen, 32, 108-122.
  • Ure, J. (1971). Lexical density and register differentiation. In G. E. Perren and J. L. M. Trim (Eds.). Applications of linguistics: selected papers of the Second International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Cambridge 1969 (pp.443-452). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tweedie, F. J. & Baayen, R. H. (1998). How variable may a constant be? Measures of lexical richness in perspective. Computers and the Humanities, 32, 323–352.
  • Towell, R. & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multi-lingual Matters.
  • Tomson, G. H. & Tompson, J. R. (1915). Outlines of a method for the quantitative analysis of writing vocabularies. British Journal of Psychology, 8, 52-69.
  • Templin, M. (1957). Certain language skills in children. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
  • Tavakoli, P. & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language. Benjamins.
  • Tavakoli, P. & Foster. P. (2008). Task design and second language performance : The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439-473.
  • Tajima, M. (2003). The effects of planing on oral performance of Japanese as a foreign language. Ph. D. dissertation, Perdue University.
  • Skehan, P., & Foster. P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning 49, 93–120.
  • Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14.
  • Skehan, P. (1998b). Task-based language instruction, In W. Grabe (Ed.) Annual review of Applied Linguistics, Oxford University Press.
  • Skehan, P. (1998a). A cognitive approach to language learning, Oxford University Press.
  • Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. Edward Arnold.
  • Skehan, P. & Foster. P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211.
  • Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2012) Complexity, accuracy, fluency AND lexis in task-based performance. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I., (Eds.). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.199-220)
  • Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2005). Strategic and on-line planning: The influence of surprise information and task time on second language performance. In R. Ellis(ed.). Planningand Task-Performanceina Second language, John Benjamins.
  • Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2001), Cognition and tasks, in Robinson, P. (Ed.) Cognition and second language instruction, Cambridge University Press.
  • Sichel, H. S. (1986). Word frequency distributions and type-token characteristics. Mathematical Scientist, 11, 45–72.
  • Sercu, L., De Wachter, L., Peters, E., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2006). The effect of task complexity and task conditions on foreign language development and performance: Three empirical studies. ITL, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 152, 55-84.
  • Sangarun, J. (2005). The effects of focusing on meaning and form in strategic planning. Language Learning and Language Teaching, 11, 111-142.
  • Rutherford, K. (2001). An Investigation of the Effects of Planning on Oral Production in a Second Language. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Auckland.
  • Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 237-257.
  • Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a Componential Framework for second language task design. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 43(1), 1-32.
  • Robinson, P. (2003). The Cognition Hypothesis, task design and adult task-based language learning. Second Language Studies, 21(2), 45-105.
  • Robinson, P. (2001b). 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.
  • Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.
  • Rietveld. T. & Van Hout. (1993). Statistical Techniques for the Study of Language and Language Behaviour. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Richards, B. J. (1987). Type/Token ratio: What de they really tell us?. Journal of Child Language 14, 201-209.
  • Richards, B. J. & Malvern, D. D. (2000). Accommodation in oral interviews between foreign language learners and teachers who are not native speakers. Studia Linguistica 54, 260–271.
  • Richards, B. J. & Malvern, D. D. (1997). Quantifying lexical diversity in the study of language development. Reading : The University of Reading New Bulmershe Papers.
  • Rescher, N. (1998). Complexity: A philosophical overview. London: Transaction Publishers.
  • Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rahimpour, M. & Yaghoubi-Notash. M. (2007). Examining gender-based variability in task-prompted, monologic L2 oral performance. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(3), 156-179.
  • R v sz, A. (2008). Task complexity, focus on form-meaning connections, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Paper presented at AILA, Essen, Agust 2008.
  • Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik. J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.
  • Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning 47, 101–143.
  • Polat, B. & Kim, Y. (2013). Dynamics of Complexity and Accuracy: A Longitudinal Case Study of Advanced Untutored Development. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1-25.
  • Pimsleur, P., Reed, D. J., & Stansfield, C. W. (2004). Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery(PLAB) - Manual 2004 Edition, Secons Language Testing. Inc.
  • Pica, T., Halliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible outputs as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(1), 63-90.
  • Peterson, C. & McCabe, A. (1983). Developmental Psycholinguistics: Three Ways Looking at a Child's narrative. New York: Plenum.
  • Peirce, C. S. (1906). Prolegomena to an apology for pragmaticism. Monist, 16, 492–546.
  • Pallotti, G. (2009) CAF: Defining, Refining and Differentiating Constructs, Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590-601.
  • Owens, R. E. (2004). Language Disorders: A Functional Approach to Assessment and Intervention (4th Ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic Complexity Measures and their Relationship to L2 Proficiency: A Research Synthesis of College‐level L2 Writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492-518.
  • Ortega, L. (1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 109-148.
  • Ortega, L. (1995). The effect of planning in oral narratives by adult learners of Spanish (Research Note No.15). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
  • Oh, Miyoung & Lee, Haemoon (2012). The Effects of Task Complexity and Task Condition on Learner Language, Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 39-68.
  • Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555-578.
  • Ney, J. W. (1966). Review of Grammatical structures written at three grade levels, Language Learning 16(2), 230-235.
  • Nations, I. S. P. (1996). Vocabulary lists. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington English Language Institute. Occasional Publication N.17.
  • Moder, C. L. & Halleck, G. B. (1998). Framing the language proficiency interview as a speech event: native and non-native speakers' questions. In Young, R. & He, A.W. (Eds.) Talking and testing: discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp.117-146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Milton. J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Milton. J. & Hales, T. (1997). Applying a lexical profiling system to technical English. In A. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds). Evolving models of language. Papers from the Annual meeting of the British Association of Applied Linguists held at the University of Wales, Swansea, September 1996(pp.72-83). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Miller, J. F. & Chapman, R. S. (1981). The relation between age and mean length of utterance in morphemes. Journal of Speech and Hearing Reaearch, 24, 154-161.
  • Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 241-259.
  • Meunier, F. (1998). Computer tools for the analysis of learner corpora. In Granger. S. (Ed.). Learner English on Computer (pp19-37), New York: Longman.
  • Meara, P. & Bell, H. (2001). P_Lex: a simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16, 5-19.
  • McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
  • McLane, J. B. & McNanee, C. D. (1990). Early Literacy. Combridge, MA; Harvard University Press.
  • McKee, G., Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2000). Measuring Vocabulary Diversity Using Dedicated Software. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 15(3), 323-337.
  • McCarthy, P. M. & Jarvis, S. (2007). Vocd: a theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24(4), 459-488.
  • McCarthy, M. J. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxfore University Press.
  • Malvern, D. D. Richards, B. J., Chipere N., & Dur n, P. (2004). Lexical Diversity and Language Development : Quantification and Assessment. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Malvern, D. D. & Richards, B. J. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity, Language Testing, 19(1), 85-104.
  • Malvern, D. D. & Richards, B. J. (1997). A new measure of lexical diversity. In A. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds.). Evolving Models of Lanaguage (pp.58-71). Papers from the Annual Meeting of the BAAL held at the University of Wales, Swansea, September 1996. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • MacWhinney, B. (2013). The CHILDES Project : Tools for Analyzing Talk, Part 1: The CHAT Transcription Format(CHAT Manual), http://childes.psy.cmu.edu (Electronic Edition).
  • MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk, vol.1: The format and programs. (3rd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • M nard, N. (1983). Mesure de la richesse lexicale. Geneva: Slatkine.
  • Loban, W. (1966). The language of elementary school children. (Research Report no.1). Champaign, Ill: National Council of Teachers of English.
  • Lin, Y. H. & Hedgecock, J. (1996). Negative feedback incorporation among high-proficiency and low-proficiency Chinese speaking learners of Spanish. Language Learning 46(4), 567-611.
  • Lightbown. P. M. & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. (3rd Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantative approach, Language Learning, 40, 387–417.
  • Lee, Eunyeon , A Corpus-Based Analysis of Korean EFL High School Students' Interlangauge: Focusing on Function Words
    한양 대학교 대학원 박사학위논문 [2007]
  • Lazaraton, A. (1992). The structural organization of a language interview: a conversation analytic perspective. System 20, 373-386.
  • Laufer, B. & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary Size and Use: Lexical Richness in L2 Written Production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307-322.
  • Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The Emergence of Complexity, Fluency, and Accuracy in the Oral and Written Production of Five Chinese Learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590-619.
  • Kuiken, F., Mos, M., & Vedder, I. (2005). Cognitive task complexity and second language writing performance. In S. Foster-Cohen, M. P. Garc a-Mayo & J. Cenoz (Eds.). Eurosla Yearbook. Vol. 5 (pp. 195-222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (2012). Syntactic complexity, lexical variation and accuracy as a function of task complexity and proficiency level in L2 writing and speaking. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I., (Eds.). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA(pp.143-170). Amsterdam, The Netherlands/ Philadelphia. PA: John Benjamins.
  • Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (2007). Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In M. P. Garcia-Mayo (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.117-135). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Koponen, M. & Riggenbach. H. (2000). Overview: Varying perspectives on fluency, In H. Riggenbach (Ed.): Perspectives on Fluency. The University of Michigan Press.
  • Klein, W. & Dimroth. C. (2009). Untutored second language acquisition, In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.). The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.503–521). Emerald Group Publishing.
  • Kawauchi, C. (2005). The effects of strategic planning on the oral narratives of learners with low and high intermediate L2 proficiency. In R. Ellis (Ed.). Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.143-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Johnson, W. (1944). Studies in language behavior: I. A program of research. Psychological Monographs 56, 1–15.
  • Johnson, M. & Tyler, A. (1998). Re-analyzing the OPI: how much does it look like natural conversation? In Young, R. & He, A. W.(Eds.). Talking and testing: discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 28-51.
  • Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 57-84.
  • Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2001). Can We Predict Task Difficulty in an Oral Proficiency Test? Exploring the Potential of an Information Processing Approach ‐ to Task Design. Language Learning, 51(3), 401-436.
  • Iwashita, N., Brown, A., Mcnamara, T., & O’'hagan, S. (2008). Assessed Levels of Second Language Speaking Proficiency: How Distinct?, Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 24-49.
  • Iwashita, N. (2006). Syntactic Complexity Measures and Their Relation to Oral Proficiency in Japanese as a Foreign Language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(2), 151-169
  • Ishikawa, T. (2007). The effect of manipulating task complexity along the (+/-Here-and-Now) dimension on L2 written narrative discourse. In M. P. Garcia-Mayo (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.136-156). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Ishikawa, T. (1995). Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 51-70.
  • Isbell, R. S., Sobol, J., Lindauer, L., & Lowrance, A. (2004). The Effects of Storytelling and Story Reading on the Oral Language Complexity and Story Comprehension of Young Children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(3), 157-163.
  • Hwang, Eunkyung , Korean EFL college learners' linguistic features in narrative and argumentative writings in terms of CAF
    숙명여자대학교 박사학위 논문 [2013]
  • Hunt, K. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school-children and adult. Monograph of the society for Research into Child Development.
  • Hunt, K. W. (1966). Recent measures in syntactic development. Elementary English, 43, 732-739.
  • Hunt, K. W. (1965), Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Urbana, IL: National Council of teachers of English.
  • Hunt, K. W. (1964). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
  • Housen, A. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency : Definitions, measurement and research. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I., (Eds.). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.1-20) Amsterdam, The Netherlands/ Philadelphia. PA: John Benjamins.
  • Housen, A. & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461-473
  • Homburg, T. J. (1984). Holistic evaluation of ESL compositions: Can it be validated objectively? TESOL Quarterly, 18(1), 87-107.
  • Hilton, H. (2008). The link between vocabulary knowledge and spoken L2 Fuency. Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 153–166.
  • Hess, C. W., Sefton, K. M., & Landry, R. G. (1986). Sample size and type-token ratios for oral language of preschool children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 29(1), 129-134.
  • Hess, C. W., Haug, H. T., & Landry, R .G. (1989). The reliability of type token ratios for the oral language of school age children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 536-540.
  • Harrington, M. (1986). The T-unit as a measure of JSL oral proficiency. Descriptive and Applied Linguistics, 19, 49-56.
  • Halleck, G. B. (1995). Assessing Oral Proficiency: A Comparison of Holistic and Objective Measures. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 223–234.
  • Guiraud, P. (1960). Probl mes et m thodes de la statistique linguistique. Dordrecht: Reidel.
  • Guiraud, P. (1954). Les caracteres statistiques du vocabulaire. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
  • Guillot, M. N. (1999). Fluency and its Teaching. Multilingual Matters.
  • Gilabert, R. (2007). The simultaneous manipulation of task complexity along planning time and (+/-Here-and-Now): Effects on L2 oral production. In M. Garcia-Mayo (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning(pp.44-68). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Gaies, S. J. (1980). T-unit analysis in second language research: Applications, problems and limitations. TESOL Quarterly, 14. 53-60.
  • Freed, B. F. (1978). Foreigner talk: A study of speech adjustments made by native speakers of English in conversation with non-native speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
  • Freed, B. (2000). Is fluency, like beauty, the eyes, of the beholder? in H. Riggenbach (Ed.): Perspectives on Fluency. The University of Michigan Press.
  • Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: a unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375.
  • Foster, P. (1996). Doing the task better: How planning time influences students’ performance. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.) : Challenge and Change in Language Teaching, Heinemann.
  • Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-324.
  • Ellis, R. (2009). The Differential Effects of Three Types of Task Planning on the Fluency, Complexity, and Accuracy in L2 Oral Production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509.
  • Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. (2nd Eds.). Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, R. & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in second Language acquisition, 26(01), 59-84.
  • Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Dur n, P., Malvern, D., Richards, B., and Chipere, N. (2004). Developmental Trends in Lexical Diversity. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 220-242.
  • Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37-53.
  • DeKeyser, R. M. (2008). The complexities of defining complexity. Paper presented at AAAL, Washington D.C.
  • Daller, H., Van Hout, R., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197-222.
  • Crookes, G. V. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(4), 367-383.
  • Chotlos, J. W. (1944). Studies in language behaviour: IV. A statistical and comparative analysis of individual written samples. Psychological Monographs, 56, 75–111.
  • Chaudron, C. (1988), Second language classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Chambers, F. (1997). What do we mean by oral fluency? System 25, 535–544.
  • Carroll, J. B. (1964). Language and thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Bygate, M. (1999). Quality of language and purpose of task: Patterns of learners' language on two oral communication tasks. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 185-214.
  • Bult , B., Housen, A., Pierrard, M., & Van Daele, S. (2008). Investigating lexical proficiency development over time: the case of Dutch-speaking learners of French in Brussels. Journal of French Language Studies, 3(18), 277-298.
  • Bult , B. & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I., (Eds.). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp.21-46). Amsterdam, The Netherlands/ Philadelphia. PA: John Benjamins.
  • Brumfit, C. J. (1984). Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, H. D. (2006). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th Ed.). Longman.
  • Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 390-395.
  • Amsterdam, The Netherlands/ Philadelphia. PA: John Benjamins. Stokes, S. F. & Fletcher, P. (2000). Lexical diversity and productivity in Cantonese-speaking children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 35, 527-541.
  • Albert, A. & Kormos. J. (2004). Creativity and narrative task performance: An exploratory study, Language Learning, 54, 277– 310.