The Extroverted Vs. the Introverted Personality and Second Language Learning 1 Paula Kezwer There have been a number ofstudies done to try to explain the effects of outgoingness versus reservedness on second language learning. The results of these studies have often been contradictory with some showing a clear correlation between extroversion and success in learning a second language, others failing to demonstrate that there is a positive correlation between outgoingness and second language proficiency. This paper presents a survey of all the major INTRODUCTION studies dealing with the influence ofextroversion on second language learning. It is argued that among the reasons for the discrepancies in research results are the wide variety and dubious validity ofthe personality assessment instruments used; the nature of the tasks used to determine second language proficiency; and the structure ofclassroom interaction. The implications of extroversion and introversion for classroom teaching are also considered.
Examine According to Carlson, Brack, Laygo, Cohen, and Kirkscey, the specific competencies that are necessary, and the appropriate contexts for their application, are still poorly understood (Williams 2006). Social work literature is laden with suggestions for cultural competencies. These competencies are often organized into categories for self-awareness, attitudes, skills, and knowledge that are echoed in parallel standards for counseling psychology “multicultural competence” (Williams 2006 also cited from another source). Social Work has used these categories with additional emphasis on multilevel practice and continuums of competency (Williams 2006). Beyond those contributions, Boyle and Springer (2001) claim that there may be hundreds of conceptual definitions of cultural competence and related concepts like ethnic-sensitive, cross-cultural, and multicultural practice (Williams 2006).
Operant conditioning deals with more cognitive thought process. These two forms of learning have similarities and differences. Their similarities are that they both produce basic phenomena. One such phenomenon is acquisition. Both types of conditioning result in the inheritance of behavior (Corey, text).
(2000) and Bonnano (2001: 69). Evaluation of information is added to the list by Goldstein & Blackman (1978), Messick (1984) and Riding and Rayner (1998). Ackerman (1994) sees cognitive style as manifesting itself in the “…..construction of personal expressions and cultural artefacts through alternative approaches to problem-solving, decision- making and the communication of ideas.” Saracho (1989, 1997) also stresses the processing role of cognitive style arguing that since student’s process different kinds of information, their cognitive styles influence how they employ various types of information. In contrast, Driver (2000) sees cognitive style as concerning the way we organize information and adds that our cognitive styles may conflict with information processing preferences in that we may, ourselves, question why we always go about something in a way we know not to be the best in a particular context. Wallach & Kogan (1965) view cognitive styles as adaptive control mechanisms of the ego that mediate needs and the external environment.
Not only are there different principles and contexts to consider, but there are also cultural barriers. According to “Cultural Barriers to Effective Communication”(1998) there are three ways culture can interfere with communication. The
An evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the two theories will follow. Finally, each approach will be discussed in respect to the agency-structure dualism. This dualism is concerned with individual ability to change and whether this is as a result of personal agency or social/biological structures. Trait theory was developed by Eysenck and Rachman (1965,cited in Butt,2007) and belongs to the mainstream, experimental approach to individual differences (Butt,2007). The aim of trait theory is to produce general principles of why people behave differently in different situations.
However, priming introduces a fluid aspect to studies of cross-cultural usage of pronouns since specific context can induce favorability toward either collectivist or individualistic mindsets (Oyserman & Lee, 2008). This tendency to either segregate or connect appears to interact with interpersonal assessments. Perceived reasons for individual behaviors by members of individualistic cultures are more likely to result from judgments based on ascribed attributes or traits, while those made by members of interdependent cultures are more apt to incorporate contextual or situational elements (Church et al., 2006; Na & Kitayama, 2011). Perhaps one of the clearest examples of this dichotomy exists in Western academic traditions, which continue to be subject to European notions of separateness that have produced what Gusa (2010) describes as an
They try to understand the connection of language to culture and vice versa. Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Whorf, theorized that language determines culture. According to their theory, members of different cultures see the world differently because they draw upon different linguistics to interpret it. Later this theory became known as the Sapir-Whorf
The Relationship between Cultural Norms and Language Patterns 【Abstract】 For a long time, the relationship between culture and language is the focus of linguists. This article expresses how cultural norms shape language patterns at the lexical level. The aim is to explain that cultural norms, rather than language patterns, should be regarded as the first cause. 【Key Words】 cultural norms; language patterns; first cause 1. Introduction Culture and language are indispensible for our life.
Finally, I discuss what the demise of the difficulty assumption portends for the metaphor debate. 1. The ‘Difficulty Assumption’ In philosophical debates, the difficulty of paraphrasing (the metaphorical meanings of) metaphorical sentences is often accepted. [2] Among the theorists who have endorsed this assumption, in one form or another, are Max Black (1954), Donald Davidson (1978), John Searle (1979a), Merrie Bergmann (1982), Richard Moran (1989), Marga Reimer (2001), and Samuel Guttenplan (2005). But to what uses do they put the assumption?