There are grammatical markers of tense that are obligatory in English and Korean, ho wever, these grammatical temporal forms are absent in Chinese. Although it is uncontrov ersial that Chinese does not morphologically encode tense, there are several other ways in which temporal information can be encoded (Smith&Erbaugh, 2005). Chinese is an aspect system language which marks aspect. On the contrast, English is a tense system languag e which marks tense. In our review of languages considered in this study, the main focus will be on aspect system and tense system which are illustrated by Chinese, English and Korean. The author will illustrate that the tense and aspect system of Chinese is different from that of Korean and English. Our argument in this paper focuses on three categories which can be referred to as the present, past and future. In chapter one, the motive of re search that difference of aspect and tense expression in Chinese, English and Korea was introduced and the course of this research was mentioned. A contrasting study was conducted in chapter two. As for contrasting the characteristics of three languages, the author hope that this paper would help to learn Chinese, English or Korean easily.

This study examines the effects of the sequence of increasing task complexity in different modalities on the learning of the English past tense of Korean secondary learners. Robinson’s (2007) Cognition Hypothesis argued that learners pay more attention to grammatical forms in complex tasks than in less complex tasks. He suggested that tasks should be sequenced in such a way that resource-dispersing dimensions are first increased in complexity followed by an increase in the complexity of resource-directing dimensions. However, little empirical research has been done on how tasks are sequenced according to their cognitive complexity and how task modality affects second language development in the sequence. Fifty-four learners were divided into an integrated (writing with oral interaction) task group (EG 1), an oral-only task group (EG 2) and a comparison group (CG). After the sequence of six tasks was completed, one-way ANOVA revealed the EGs outperformed the CG significantly on the posttest. The mean score of EG 1 was the highest, while the improvement rate of EG 2 was the highest among the three groups. It is hoped that this result will contribute to building a solid basis on which practitioners can make decisions about sequencing tasks and implementing task modality.