A process approach to listening comprehension : types of processing.

Karolina Kotorowicz-Jasińska

A process approach to listening

comprehension : types of processing.

Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature 33, 157-168

2009

L IT E R A T U R E 33, 2009, h t t p ://w w w .l s m l l . u m c s .l u b l i n . p l

Karolina Kotorowicz-Jasińska

Maria Curie-Skłodowska University,

Lublin, Poland

A process approach to listening comprehension.

Types of processing.

A tr a d itio n a l w a y o f lo o k in g a t lis te n in g is fro m th e a n g le o f its fin a l o u tc o m e , n a m e ly c o m p r e h e n s io n (F ie ld 1 9 9 8 , 2 0 0 8 ). M a n y a p r a c titio n e r te n d to f o c u s e x c e s s iv e a tte n tio n o n th e p r o d u c t o f lis te n in g in th e fo rm o f a n s w e r s to c o m p r e h e n s io n q u e s tio n s a n d fa il to c o n s id e r a s p e c ts o f l is te n e r ’s b e h a v io u r o r th e r o u tin e s fo r h a n d lin g th e in c o m in g s p e e c h . In s e c o n d la n g u a g e a c q u is itio n lite ra tu re , h o w e v e r, it is c o m m o n to d iv id e lis te n in g in to a n u m b e r o f c o m p o n e n t p r o c e s s e s , w h ic h c o n s titu te a f r a m e w o r k fo r in v e s tig a tin g lis te n in g c o m p re h e n s io n .

T h e f o llo w in g a r tic le p r o v id e s a n in s ig h t in to th e p r o c e s s e s b y w h ic h th e lis te n e r c o m p r e h e n d s a te x t. It a ls o e x a m in e s v a r ie tie s o f in p u t th a t th e lis te n e r a tte n d s to , to g e th e r w ith th e ty p e s o f p r o c e s s in g in v o lv e d . 1. T h e d u a l n a tu r e o f lis te n in g c o m p r e h e n s io n p ro c e s s e s A n u m b e r o f s e c o n d la n g u a g e lis te n in g r e s e a r c h e rs p o in t to th e d u a l n a tu r e o f lis te n in g c o m p r e h e n s io n , u n d e r lin in g tw o m a jo r a s p e c ts o f th e p r o c e s s ( D riv e n a n d O a k e s h o tt- T a y lo r 1984, L u n d 1991, B u c k 2 0 0 1 , F ie ld 2 0 0 8 ). T h e f irs t o n e , u n a n im o u s ly r e f e r re d to a s d e c o d in g ,

in v o lv e s tr a n s f e r r in g th e a c o u s tic in p u t th a t th e lis te n e r r e c e iv e s in to m e a n in g f u l f o rm s o f la n g u a g e (F ie ld 2 0 0 8 ). In o r d e r to m a k e s e n s e o f th e s p e e c h s ig n a ls , th e re c e iv e r e m p lo y s a n u m b e r o p e ra tio n s , r a n g in g f o rm tr a n s la tin g a c o u s tic c u e s in to s o u n d s , th r o u g h id e n tif y in g w o rd s a n d p h ra s e s , to tr a c in g g r a m m a tic a l p a tte r n s in th e a u d ito r y in p u t th e y a r e e x p o s e d to . In o th e r w o rd s , th e d e c o d in g c o m p o n e n t o f lis te n in g c o m p r e h e n s io n ta k e s p la c e o n a n u m b e r o f le v e ls , e a c h o f w h ic h r e q u ir e s th e lis te n e r to e n g a g e in s e v e r a l d if f e r e n t p r o c e s s e s (T a b le 1 ).

Table 1. Examples of important L1 decoding processes (Field 2008: 115)

· Phoneme level

Identifying consonants and vowels Adjusting to speakers’ voices

· Syllable level

Recognising syllable structure

Matching weak syllables and function words

· Word level

Working out where words begin and end in connected speech Matching sequences of sounds to words

Identifying words which are not in their standard forms Dealing with unknown words

· Syntax level

Recognising where clauses and phrases end Anticipating syntactic patterns

Checking hypothesis

· Intonation group level

Making use of sentence stress Recognising chunks of language Using intonation to support syntax

Reviewing decoding at intonation group level

B a s e d o n its m u ltid im e n s io n a lity , th e d e c o d in g s ta g e o f lis te n in g c o m p re h e n s io n c a n b e f u rth e r d iv id e d in to s e v e r a l s te p s , e a c h d e a lin g w ith a d if f e r e n t a s p e c t o f th e in p u t a n d , a s a re s u lt, c a llin g f o r d if fe re n t ty p e s o f p r o c e s s in g ( D riv e n a n d O a k e s h o tt- T a y lo r 1 984, R o s t 2 0 0 2 ). T h e c o n tin u u m o f lis te n in g p r o c e s s e s b e g in s w ith th e r e c e p tio n a n d

c o n v e r s io n o f s o u n d w a v e s b y th e a u d ito r y s y s te m in th e b ra in , i.e. n e u r o lo g ic a l p r o c e s s in g o f a c o u s tic in p u t. O n c e th is is c o m p le te d , lis te n e rs n e e d to a s s ig n m e a n in g to th e s o u n d s th e y h e a r b y m e a n s o f lin g u is tic p ro c e s s in g , w h ic h in v o lv e s a n u m b e r o f o p e r a tio n s . F irs t, th e r e c e iv e r d is c r im in a te s b e tw e e n a n d c a te g o r is e s th e s o u n d s th r o u g h , w h a t R o s t (1 9 9 4 ) c a lls ‘c a te g o ric a l p e r c e p tio n ,’ c o n s is tin g o f a n u m b e r o f p h o n o lo g ic a l p r o c e d u r e s o f s p e e c h p e r c e p tio n . L a te r , th e lis te n e r e m p lo y s w o r d r e c o g n itio n p ro c e s s e s , w h ic h a r e b e lie v e d to c o n s titu te th e b a s is o f s p o k e n la n g u a g e c o m p r e h e n s io n a n d e m e r g e a s a s ig n ific a n t p r e d ic to r o f lis te n in g c o m p re h e n s io n s u c c e s s (M e c a r tty 2 0 0 0 , F ie ld 2 0 0 3 , R o s t 2 0 0 2 , R o s t 2 0 0 6 ).

W h ile s e m a n tic c o n s id e r a tio n s te n d to d o m in a te u n d e r s ta n d in g a n d it h a s b e e n p r o v e d th a t f o r a n y h ig h e r - le v e l c o m p re h e n s io n p r o c e s s e s to ta k e p la c e , a s u f f ic ie n t a m o u n t o f le x ic a l r e c o g n itio n m u s t o c c u r (B o n k 2 0 0 0 , F lo w e r d e w a n d M ille r 2 0 0 5 ), it is n o t th e fin a l s te p in lin g u is tic d e c o d in g . In o r d e r to u n d e r s ta n d th e la n g u a g e in th e in p u t, th e in c o m in g s p e e c h n e e d s to b e m a p p e d o n to th e g r a m m a tic a l m o d e l o f th e la n g u a g e (R o s t 2 0 0 2 ). T h e a p p lic a tio n o f g ra m m a tic a l r u le s a n d u s in g th e k n o w le d g e o f th e lin g u is tic s y s te m to d iv id e w o r d s in to m e a n in g f u l c o n s titu e n ts is d e f in e d a s p a r s in g (R o s t 1 9 9 4 , F lo w e r d e w a n d M ille r 2 0 0 5 ). B y c o m b in in g w o r d s in to p h r a s e s a n d a tta c h in g p h r a s e s to c la u s e s , g r a m m a tic a l p a r s in g s ig n if ic a n tly c o n tr ib u te s to c o m p re h e n s io n a n d a llo w s th e lis te n e r to c r e a te a p r o p o s itio n m o d e l o f th e in c o m in g s p e e c h (R o s t 2 0 0 2 ), w h ic h u n d e r g o e s f u rth e r p r o c e s s in g d u r in g th e s e c o n d o f th e tw o m a jo r o p e r a tio n s w h ic h th e lis te n in g c o m p re h e n s io n e n ta ils , n a m e ly m e a n in g b u ild in g .

T h e la tte r p h a s e o f lis te n in g , r e f e r r e d to a s ‘e n c o d in g ’ (O a k e s h o tt- T a y lo r 1 9 8 4 ), ‘c o m p r e h e n s i o n ’ (L u n d 1991) o r ‘m e a n in g - b u ild i n g ’ (F ie ld 2 0 0 8 ), is d e s c r ib e d a s th e c o n s tru c tio n o f m e a n in g w ith th e u s e o f b o th d e c o d e d la n g u a g e a n d th e l is te n e r ’s p r io r k n o w le d g e . It h a s b e e n s u b s ta n tia te d th a t d e c o d in g a t th e le v e l o f s o u n d s , w o rd s a n d g r a m m a r h e lp s th e lis te n e r d e a l w ith th e in p u t to a lim ite d e x te n t a n d a r r iv e m e r e ly a t a lite r a l m e a n in g o f a n u tte r e d s e n te n c e , w h ic h fa lls s h o r t o f th e tr u e c o m p re h e n s io n o f w h a t th e s p e a k e r m e a n s . F o r th e lis te n e r to f u lly u n d e r s ta n d th e m e s s a g e s e n t, i.e. to e x p a n d th e

m e a n in g o f th e m e s s a g e c o n v e y e d b y th e w o r d s u tte re d , a d d th e in c o m in g p ie c e s o f in f o r m a tio n to th e o v e ra ll p ic tu re o f th e ta lk a n d d e c ip h e r th e s p e a k e r ’s in te n tio n s , h e o r s h e n e e d s to d r a w u p o n th e ir k n o w le d g e o f th e w o r ld a s w e ll a s th e c o n te x tu a l c lu e s in th e d is c o u rs e . T h e c o m p le x ity o f th e m e a n in g - b u ild in g s ta g e o f lis te n in g c o m p re h e n s io n is s h o w n in T a b le 2, w h e r e b y d if fe r e n t k in d s o f p r o c e s s e s in v o lv e d in th e s ta g e a r e d is p la y e d .

A p a r a lle l c a n b e d r a w n b e tw e e n F i e l d ’s (2 0 0 8 ) m e a n in g - b u ild in g s ta g e a n d w h a t R o s t (2 0 0 2 ) c a lls p r a g m a tic a n d p s y c h o lin g u is tic p r o c e s s in g , w h ic h s e e m to b e c o m p o n e n t p a rts o f th e e n c o d in g p h a s e . A s s ta te d a b o v e , lin g u is tic d e c o d in g is o n ly th e f irs t s te p o f lis te n in g c o m p r e h e n s io n , w h ic h r e q u ir e s th e r e c e iv e r to a d d r e s s th e c o n te x t in w h ic h th e s p e e c h a c t o c c u rs , a n d in f e r th e s p e a k e r ’s in te n tio n s , i.e. to p r o c e s s th e in p u t f ro m th e p r a g m a tic p e r s p e c tiv e . A ls o , m e a n in g - b u ild in g p h a s e in v o lv e s p s y c h o lin g u is tic p ro c e s s in g , r e f e r rin g d ir e c tly to c o m p re h e n s io n , a n d e m b ra c e s s u c h s te p s a s r e la tin g la n g u a g e to c o n c e p ts in th e l is te n e r ’s m e m o r y a n d to r e f e r e n c e s in th e r e a l w o rld , u p d a tin g m e n ta l m o d e ls o r b u ild in g m e n ta l r e p r e s e n ta tio n s o f th e d is c o u r s e (V a n D ijk 1 9 8 7 ).

E v id e n tly , in o r d e r to f u lly u n d e r s ta n d s p o k e n la n g u a g e , th e re a re s e v e r a l ty p e s o f k n o w le d g e to b e d r a w n u p o n : p h o n o lo g ic a l, s e m a n tic , s y n ta c tic , p r a g m a tic o r f a c tu a l k n o w le d g e a b o u t th e w o r ld , w h ic h s e e m s to c o n f ir m th e c o m p le x ity a n d m u ltid im e n s io n a lity o f th e lis te n in g p r o c e s s ( F lo w e rd e w a n d M ille r 2 0 0 5 ). A t th e s a m e tim e , th e d u a l n a tu re o f lis te n in g e m e rg e s , a s a ll th e p r o c e s s e s in v o lv e d fa ll in to tw o m a jo r g r o u p s o f d e c o d in g a n d e n c o d in g . T h e k e y d if fe r e n c e b e tw e e n th e tw o s ta g e s lie s in th e m a te r ia l th a t is p r o c e s s e d d u rin g e a c h o f th e m (F ie ld 2 0 0 8 ). W h ile d e c o d in g is s tr ic tly c o n n e c te d w ith in p u t (i.e. th e la n g u a g e o f th e m e s s a g e ), m e a n in g b u ild in g a p p e a r s to b e h ig h ly r e lia n t o n c o n te x t (p ie c e s o f e v id e n c e a n d in f o r m a tio n in a d is c o u r s e w h ic h g o b e y o n d its lite r a l m e a n in g ) . B a s e d o n th e k in d o f m a te r ia l d e a lt w ith , th e lis te n e r a p p lie s v a r io u s k n o w le d g e s o u r c e s in tw o d is tin c tiv e m a n n e r s : b o tto m -u p a n d to p - d o w n , w h ic h w ill n o w b e d is c u s s e d in g r e a te r d e ta il.

Table 2. Examples of important L1 meaning-building processes (Field 2008: 117)

· ‘Context’: using knowledge sources

Drawing upon: world knowledge - topic knowledge - cultural knowledge

Analogy with other similar listening encounters

· Deriving meaning

Storing the literal meaning of an utterance Accepting an appropriate meaning Checking understanding

· Adding to the meaning

Making inferences Dealing with pronouns Dealing with ambiguity

· Selecting information

Selecting relevant information Recognising redundant information

· Integrating information

Carrying forward what has been said so far Connecting ideas

Self-monitoring for consistency

· Recognising the overall argument structure

Noticing connecting words used by the speaker (On the other

hand...)

2. B o tto m -u p a n d to p - d o w n p r o c e s s in g

A s s ta te d a b o v e , c o m p re h e n s io n p r o c e s s e s r e ly o n s e v e r a l ty p e s o f in f o rm a tio n . U n d e r s ta n d in g ta k e s p la c e w h e n th e m e s s a g e a n d d if fe r e n t k in d s o f k n o w le d g e a r e m a tc h e d a g a in s t e a c h o th e r (F a e rc h a n d K a s p e r 1 9 8 6 ). T h e m a tc h in g p r o c e s s b e g in s e ith e r w ith e x tra c tin g in f o r m a tio n f ro m th e in p u t a n d in te g r a tin g it w ith th e e la b o r a te k n o w le d g e s y s te m o r w ith p r e d ic tin g p o s s ib le m e a n in g o n th e b a s is o f p r io r k n o w le d g e a n d in te r p r e tin g th e in p u t in th e lig h t o f th e c re a te d e x p e c ta tio n s . In th e f irs t c a se , th e lis te n e r a tte n d s to in d iv id u a l u n its o f

m e a n in g a n d c o m b in e s th e m in a h ie ra rc h ic a l o rd e r, f o rm p h o n e m e to d is c o u r s e le v e l ( F lo w e rd e w a n d M ille r 2 0 0 5 , V a n d e r g r if t 2 0 0 7 ). In o th e r w o rd s , th e r e c ip ie n t r e s p o n d s to p e r c e p tu a l in f o rm a tio n a n d e n g a g e s in d a ta -d riv e n , b o tto m - u p p r o c e s s in g (F ie ld 1 999, V a n d e r g r if t 2 0 0 3 ). In th e s e c o n d s c e n a rio , th e lis te n e r u s e s c o n te x t a n d p rio r k n o w le d g e to m a k e in f e r e n c e s a n d b u ild a c o n c e p tu a l f r a m e w o r k o f th e d is c o u rs e , e m p lo y in g k n o w le d g e - d r iv e n , to p - d o w n p r o c e s s in g . C le a rly , lis te n e r s a p p ly d if f e r e n t k n o w le d g e s o u r c e s u s in g to p - d o w n a n d b o tto m -u p p r o c e s s e s , w h ic h , m e ta p h o r ic a lly , r e f le c t a h ie ra rc h ic a l v ie w o f th e s ta g e s th r o u g h w h ic h lis te n in g p r o c e e d s (F ie ld 1999) a n d c a n b e g r a p h ic a lly c a p tu r e d in th e S p e e c h R e c o g n itio n F ra m e w o r k a s s h o w n in F ig u r e 1.

Figure 1. Speech Recognition Framework (Celce-Murcia and Olshtein 1993: 104).

A m a tte r o f p a r tic u la r in te r e s ts to s e c o n d la n g u a g e a c q u is itio n s c h o la r s is h o w e x a c tly th e r e c ip ie n t o f th e m e s s a g e a tte n d s to th e m e a n in g c o n v e y e d . It h a s b e e n p ro v e d th a t la n g u a g e p r o c e s s in g is “m a s s iv e ly p a r a lle l ( ...) [and] in te r a c t iv e ” (M c C le lla n d a n d E lm a n 1 9 8 1 : 119). In s te a d o f b u ild in g u n d e r s ta n d in g s ta r tin g w ith e ith e r b a s ic lin g u is tic u n its o r w ith th e u s e o f p r e v io u s k n o w le d g e , lis te n e rs

p r o c e s s th e in p u t in b o th d ir e c tio n s s im u lta n e o u s ly , s o th a t to p - d o w n a n d b o tto m -u p p r o c e s s e s c lo s e ly in te r a c t a n d in f lu e n c e e a c h o th e r (F ie ld 1999, C e lc e - M u r c ia a n d O ls h ta in 2 0 0 0 , R o s t 2 0 0 2 , F lo w e r d e w a n d M ille r 2 0 0 5 , V a n d e r g r if t 2 0 0 3 ). It h a s b e e n s u b s ta n tia te d th a t in p r o fic ie n t lis te n e rs to p - d o w n a n d b o tto m -u p p r o c e s s e s in te r a c t in s u c h a w a y th a t d e f ic ie n c ie s in in f o r m a tio n o n o n e le v e l a r e c o m p e n s a te d f o r w ith th e in f o rm a tio n p r o v id e d o n th e o th e r le v e l (P e te rs o n 1 991). S u c h p r e m is e f in d s c o n f ir m a tio n in I n te r a c tiv e C o m p e n s a to r y H y p o th e s is d e v e lo p e d b y S ta n o v ic h (1 9 8 0 , c ite d in F ie ld 2 0 0 8 , T s u i a n d F u llilo v e 1 9 9 8 ), p r o v id in g a n e x p la n a tio n fo r h o w r e a d e r s 1 u n d e r s ta n d te x ts d e s p ite c e r ta in d if f ic u ltie s (F ig u re 2). I f th e r e c ip ie n t d e c o d e s th e lin g u is tic m e s s a g e s u c c e s s fu lly , o r w h e n th e c o n f id e n c e in in p u t is h ig h , th e c o m p e n s a to r y v a lu e o f to p - d o w n p r o c e s s in g is r e d u c e d a n d th e a p p lic a tio n o f p r io r k n o w le d g e w ill s e rv e th e p u r p o s e o f e n r ic h in g f u lly d e c o d e d m e s s a g e . H o w e v e r , w h e n th e r e a d e r o r lis te n e r c a n n o t r e ly o n th e in p u t d u e to th e ir d e f ic ie n c ie s in th e lin g u is tic k n o w le d g e , to p - d o w n a p p r o a c h w ill b e a c r u c ia l e le m e n t in a r r iv in g a t th e m e a n in g o f th e te x t.

1 Research into listening comprehension draws heavily upon the findings of second language reading studies. As it is often assumed that comprehension is a general construct involving different modalities, many researchers and theoreticians use research results on reading to hypothesise about listening comprehension (Vandergrift 2006).

HIGH CONFIDENCE IN INPUT LOW ССИШЕКСЕ IK INPUT

Figure 2. Stanovich’s Interactive Compensatory Hypothesis (Field 2008: 134).

The corollary of such a view is that the interaction between top-

down and bottom-up processing depends to a large extent on second

language proficiency. According to Stanovich’s perspective, poor

listeners make considerable use of top-down processes employing

them compensatorily to build the meaning of a text. On the other

hand, some researchers have demonstrated that beginner-level L2

listeners devote so much attention to perceptual operations at a word

level that little capacity remains for activating top-down knowledge

(Peterson 1991) and that below a certain threshold of language

proficiency listeners are unable to activate higher level operations

(Anderson and Lynch 1988). Also, studies have shown that bottom-up

processing is more important for listeners of poor language

proficiency, as they cannot use background knowledge effectively

(Tsui and Fullilove 1998). A similar view seems to be held by Wilson

(2003), who postulates the primacy of bottom-up processes, which, in

the heyday of Comprehension Approach were considerably

undervalued. He suggests that the ultimate goal of listening

comprehension is to hear and understand what is actually uttered,

w ith o u t th e n e e d to c o m p e n s a te fo r th e d e f ic ie n c ie s o f b o tto m -u p sk ills . S u m m in g u p , th e re m a y b e little a g r e e m e n t a s to th e d e g re e in w h ic h L 2 le a r n e r s r e ly o n to p - d o w n a n d b o tto m -u p p ro c e s s e s , y e t a ll m o d e ls o f th e lis te n in g p r o c e s s s e e m to a c k n o w le d g e th e tw o a s p e c ts o f c o m p re h e n s io n . A v a r ie ty o f la b e ls h a v e b e e n g iv e n to th e tw o ty p e s o f p r o c e s s in g , r a n g in g fro m ‘p e r c e p tu a l’ o r ‘h ig h e r - le v e l o p e r a tio n s ’ (P e te r s o n 2 0 0 1 ), th r o u g h ‘lo w e r- a n d h ig h e r - le v e l p r o c e s s in g ’ ( F a e rc h a n d K a s p e r 1 9 8 6 ), to “a p p r e h e n d in g lin g u is tic in f o r m a ti o n ” a n d “r e la tin g th a t in f o rm a tio n to a w id e r c o n t e x t” (C a rre l a n d F r e e d le 1 9 7 2 ). H o w e v e r, d e s p ite th e m u ltip lic ity o f te rm s

(...) scholars seem to have arrived at similar conceptualisations of listening comprehension, and the fact that they use different terminology suggests that they have arrived at this understanding more or less independently. This adds considerable credibility to the two-stage view of listening (Buck 2001: 52). a n d e n d o r s e s th e d u a l n a tu re o f o ra l d is c o u rs e c o m p re h e n s io n . References

Anderson A., Lynch T. (1988): Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bonk W. J. (2000): Second language lexical knowledge and listening comprehension.

International Journal ofListening 14, pp. 14-31.

Buck G. (2001): Assessing Listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Celce-Murcia M., Olshtein E. (2000): Discourse and Context in Language Teaching:

A Guide for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Celce-Murcia M. (Ed.). (2001): Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Carrell J. B., Freedle R. O. (1972): Language Comprehension and the Acquisition o f

Knowledge. Washington: V.H. Winston and Sons, Inc.

Driven R., Oakeshott-Taylor J. (1984): Listening comprehension (Part I). Language

Teaching 17, pp. 326-343.

Fearch C., Kasper G. (1986): The role of comprehension in second language learning.

Applied Linguistics 7 (3), pp. 257-274.

Field J. (1998): Skills and strategies: towards a new methodology for listening. ELT

Journal 52 (2), pp. 110-118.

Field J. (2003): Promoting perception: lexical segmentation in L2 listening. ELT

Field J. (2008): Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Flowerdew J., Miller L. (2005): Second Language Listening: Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Horowitz R., Samuels S. J. (eds.) (1987): Comprehending Oral and Written

Language. London: Academic Press, Inc.

Lund R. J. (1991): A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal 75 (2), pp. 196-204.

McClelland J. L., Elman J. L. (1986): Interactive processes in speech perception: The TRACE model. In Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L. Parallel Distributed

Processing, Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 58-121.

Mecarrty F. (2000): Lexical and grammatical knowledge in reading and listening comprehension by foreign language learners of Spanish. Applied Language

Learning 11 (2), pp. 323-348.

Mendelson D. J. (1994): Learning to Listen. A Strategy-based Approach for the

Second-Language Learner. San Diego: Dominie Press.

Peterson P. W. (2001): Skills and strategies for proficient listening. In Celce-Murcia M. (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle, pp. 87-100.

Rost M. (1994): Introducing Listening. London: Penguin.

Rost M. (2002): Teaching and Researching Listening. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

Rost M. (2006): Areas of research that influence L2 listening instruction. In Uso-Juan E., Martinez-Flor A. (eds.). Current Trends in the Development and Teaching o f

the Four Skills. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 47-74.

Rumelhart D. E., McClelland J. L. (1986): Parallel Distributed Processing Vol.2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Tsui A., Fullilove J. (1998): Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance. Applied Linguistics 19 (4), pp. 432-451.

Uso-Juan E., Martinez-Flor A. (eds.). (2006): Current Trends in the Development and

Teaching o f the Four Skills. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Vandergrift L. (2003): From prediction through reflection: guiding students through the process of L2 listening. The Canadian Modern Language Review 59 (3), pp. 425-440.

Vandergrift L. (2006): Second language listening: listening ability or language proficiency? The Modern Language Journal. 90 (1), pp. 6-18.

Vandergrift L. (2007): Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching40, pp. 191-210.

Van Dijk T. A. (1987): Episodic models in discourse processing. In Horowitz R., Samuels S. J. (eds.) Comprehending Oral and Written Language. London: Academic Press, Inc., pp. 161-195.

Wilson M. (2003): Discover listening - improving perceptual processing. E LT