国外关于翻译法习得二语词汇效果的研究综述
二语词汇习得研究综述
二语词汇习得研究综述
外语学习者们毫无疑问，习得外语词汇将决定其后期语言学习的成败。
最近年来习得外语词汇的研究在言语学界颇受瞩目。
本文将对此次研究进行一番综述，从而帮助外语学习者更好地领悟外语。
首先，有关外语词汇习得的研究主要分为提升习得方式、识别工具和学习策略这三大类别。
至于提升习得方式，一般可以采取灵活化贴切的方法。
人们可以利用抽象性或现实性场景和活动让学习者更充分地理解词义，例如游戏、考试等。
而当涉及到识别工具时，近来受到了发展，以电脑、手机等新兴技术开展外语词汇习得活动。
此外，学习者在习得过程中应该采取一定的策略，比如让材料贴近自己实际情况，可以比较有效地刺激良好的学习兴趣。
其次，可以为外语学习者提供有助于词汇习得的一些资源和工具。
目前诸如在线教程、朗读小组、多媒体课件以及专业面授等均可用来提高学习者的语言水平。
同时，市场上也有诸如VLAB等多媒体软件，可以巧妙地帮助学习者习得外语词汇。
最后，针对学习外语词汇习得，可以进行一些有针对性的建议。
首先，学习者应根据自己的实际情况来确定词义，而不是神准模式。
其次，语料应灵活多变，可以使用多种不同类型的材料，避免学习过程变得单一死板生硬。
第三，自学者可以来来回回学习外语词汇，利用间隔效应增强记忆。
最后，可以借助语料相关资源，如果生词量太大，可以寻求同伴讨论交流等。
综上所述，外语词汇习得的研究大放异彩，取得了长足的进步。
学习者也应加以运用，在外语教学实践中取得预期的效果，从而推动语言学习的进程。
二语词汇习得文献综述
二语词汇习得文献综述二语词汇习得研究文献综述摘要：词汇习得在语言学习中占有重要地位。
近些年来，国内外对词汇习得的研究呈现上升趋势，其主要内容涉及对词汇知识的内涵、词汇习得的过程以及词汇学习的方法和策略等。
本文旨在对词汇习得研究加以综述，并在提出这些研究的结果如何为学生二语词汇学习提供指导。
关键词：二语词汇知识理论，二语词汇习得发展过程，二语词汇学习策略引言：词汇在二语学习中有着至关重要的地位，它直接影响学习者学习水平的提高。
一方面，它影响着二语学习者听、说、读、写、译等语言应用能力；另一方面，词汇的学习并非易事，是制约学习者水平提高的瓶颈。
但在国内，语法的重要性曾一度盖过词汇，课堂教学以语法教学为主，词汇则被放在一个最次要的位置。
在最近30年里，二语词汇习得的研究收到了高度的关注，这也表明了人们提高了对二语词汇重要性的认识。
在二语词汇习得领域的研究里，对词汇知识的内涵、词汇习得的过程以及词汇学习的方法和策略的研究较多，也比较有实际的指导作用。
但是，需要指出的是研究者通常是从指导教学的目的出发来做研究的，因此研究的成果主要是为教师和教学服务的。
而在实际的学习过程中，学习者在词汇学习中才占有主导地位，词汇习得的研究应当更多从学习者的角度出发，为学习者学习提供建议。
当然，换一个角度利用这些研究成果，学习者也能从中受益。
一、词汇知识理论框架在学习词汇之前，我们必须知道词汇包含哪几个方面的知识内涵，才能明确词汇学习的目标并完整地掌握一个词。
当今对词汇知识框架的讨论始于1976 年Richards 在TESOL Quarterly 上发表的题为“The role of vocabulary teaching”一文。
Richards(1976)首先提出，掌握一个词，需要掌握不同方面的词汇知识。
到目前为止，被研究者普遍接受、被认为是最完美的词汇知识框架是由Nation(1990)提出的。
他认为，如果外语学习者在词汇使用方面要达到本族语者的程度，就应该掌握如下8个方面的词汇知识，即: (1) 词的口语形式；(2) 词的书写形式；(3) 词的语法行为；(4) 词的搭配形式；(5) 词的使用频率；(6) 该词所应用的文体；(7) 词的意义；(8) 词的语义联想网络。
国际语言学界在第二语言习得研究的研究成果
国际语言学界在第二语言习得研究的研究成果与古一徵双语双脑英语第二自然语言教学系统的研究中的理论与方法比较第二语言习得研究作为一门独立的学科形成于60年代末、70年代初。
概括地说，这一领域的研究是为了系统地探讨第二语言习得的本质和习得的过程，其主要目标是：描述学习者如何获得第二语言以及解释为什么学习者能够获得第二语言。
近40年间，第二语言习得的研究取得了令人瞩目的成就。
有些研究理论试图从宏观上全面解释第二语言习得，也有些理论从具体问题着手，解释具体的语言习得现象。
然而，更多的研究则是以现有的一种或几种理论为基础，通过科学的实证方法来支持或反驳、修正和完善这些理论。
不管是理论研究还是实证调查，它们都加深了我们对第二语言习得的了解。
需要指出的是，尽管第二语言习得研究已经建立了自己作为独立学科的研究体系，但它的发展历史以及当前的研究与很多其它研究领域密切相关，并从不同的角度、在不同的程度上借助这些领域的研究成果，如语言学、神经学、心理学、心理语言学、认知学、社会学、社会语言学、教育学、统计学。
Larsen-Freeman和Long的这本《第二语言习得研究概论》是对几十年来第二语言习得研究的理论和实证调查所作的一次综述性的回顾和讨论。
写作本书时，Larsen-Freeman是美国佛蒙特国际培训学校的高级教师，Long是夏威夷大学的ESL教授，两人都是第二语言习得研究领域里有成就、有影响的专家学者。
本书的讨论涉及偏误分析、中介语理论、语言习得环境、学习者个人差异、认知理论和语言学理论在第二语言习得研究中的应用、课堂学习与第二语言习得的关系等等。
作者的综述比较客观，当涉及某种理论时，一般都介绍其核心原则和基本内容以及相关的实证调查结果，包括支持和批驳这一理论的相关研究。
本书不仅介绍和评述第二语言习得的研究历史和研究现状，还有两章(第二和第三章)对第二语言习得的研究方法作了扼要和实用的介绍。
我们在这里拟对第二语言习得研究的一些重要理论和研究领域作一些简单的介绍，以帮助读者掌握第二语言习得研究的基本脉络，更好地了解各章的内容。
回顾综述二语习得研究方法
结合定量和定性分析结果，全面评估不同学习者的二语习得情况，为 教学和研究提供启示和建议。
07
研究方法的优缺点及适用性
实验研究方法的优缺点
优点
能够控制变量，明确因果关系； 实验结果可重复验证，具有较高 内部效度。
缺点
实验环境可能与真实环境存在差 异，影响外部效度；对实验者和 参与者要求较高，实施难度较大 。
缺点
难以将结论推广至更广泛群体；可能存在主观偏见或信息不 全等问题。
对比研究方法的优缺点
优点
通过比较不同组别或情境，揭示差异和共性；有助于深入理解现象或问题的本质 。
缺点
对比组和实验组的选择可能存在偏差或不匹配；对比过程中可能忽略其他潜在影 响因素。
08
结论与展望
研究结论总结
二语习得受多种因素影响
背景
二语习得研究作为语言学和应用语言 学的重要分支，一直受到广泛关注。 随着全球化的加速和多元文化的交融 ，二语习得研究的重要性愈发凸显。
二语习得研究的重要性
01
02
03
语言交流
二语习得研究有助于提高 语言学习者的交流能力， 促进跨文化交流。
教育改革
二语习得研究为教育改革 提供理论支持和实践指导 ，推动语言教育的创新和 发展。
多样性
03
考虑不同背景、不同阶段的二语学习者，以增加案例的多样性
和广度。
案例分析过程
数据收集
通过访谈、观察、问卷调查等方式收集案例 相关数据。
案例描述
详细描述案例的背景、人物、事件等，呈现 案例的全貌。
数据分析
对收集到的数据进行整理、分类和编码，以 便进行深入分析。
案例解释
分析案例中的关键问题和现象，解释其产生 的原因和影响。
(完整版)国外著名第二语言习得理论综述
国外著名第二语言习得理论综述.人类在普通语言学、心理语言学及认知心理语言学领域认识的深入。
自改革开放以来,特别是近20年来,中国对英语习得的研究取得了很大进展,我国心理语言学家、认知心理语言学家(桂诗春、王初明等)在这一领域做出了极其重要的贡献。
但就第二语言习得理论进行综述及较为详细介绍的文章还不多见。
本文旨在通过对国外三家极有影响的第二语言理论进行较为详细的介绍,使我们对国外同行在这一领域所取得的成就有进一步的了解,有助于我国第二语言习得的研究。
1克拉申的“监察模式”(Monitor model)克拉申的“监察模式”在第二语言习得理论中占有重要地位,曾引起外语教育界广泛关注和讨论。
该理论由S.克拉申在70年代后期发表的一系列论文中(Krashen1977a,1977b,1978a,1978b)论述,并在他撰写的几本专著中得到充实和发展(Krashen1981,1982,1985)。
在“监察模式”理论中,克拉申提出著名的五个假设:习得—学习假设,监察假设,自然顺序假设,输入假设及情感过滤假设。
1.1习得———学习假设(Acguisition-learning hypothesis)克拉申认为,成人第二语言习得者用两种不同的方式获得语言能力。
一是习得,即一种“与小孩习得母语过程相同的下意识过程”(1985,1);二是学习,即“一种有意识的学习语言的过程”(1985,1)。
“习得”来源于自然交际环境中有意义的交流。
谈话者注重的是表达意思,而非语法规则正确与否,对语言表达中的一些错误并不有意识纠正。
与此相反,在语言学习中,发现错误并纠正错误是学习过程的重要环节。
克拉申认为区分语言习得与语言学习的尺码是学习者对语言规则运用的有意识程度,而不是语言环境。
例如,在自然语言环境中,学习可以通过向熟人或朋友询问语法规则来获取语言知识。
同样,在非自然语言环境的教室里,当学生注意力集中在对话、角色扮演、小组讨论等交际活动中时,语言便被习得。
国外近十年二语语篇教学研究综述
国外近十年二语语篇教学研究综述2.石河子大学本科生山东烟台引言语篇教学是针对传统的注重词、句、语法点的方式而提出的，它倡导把教学的重点放在指导学生从篇章的角度理解和把握所学语言材料。
自20世纪50年代以来，语篇分析（discourse analysis）的研究受到越来越多的关注，与之相应的语篇教学也取得了一定的成果。
本研究以“discourse”加“second languages”为关键词，选取了2011—2021十年间共34篇文献，总结了国外关于二语语篇教学的研究成果，阐述了该领域研究的基本趋势、研究方法以及具体的研究内容，最后结合该领域的研究状况提出自己的思考。
一、二语语篇教学研究概况1.研究时间分析本研究以“discourse”和“second langues”为关键词检索了 2011—2021 年国外发表的全部文章。
检索出相关论文106篇，经过归纳整理，从中选出34篇（其中33篇期刊论文，1篇会议论文）语篇教学领域的论文作为本次研究基础数据。
2011-2021十年间，论文分布较为均匀，在2016和2017年出现了小高峰，分别发表了6篇文章，但是在2018年之后的论文数量不多。
1.研究对象分析从研究对象来看，研究的语言形式以英语为主，包含25篇；无明确语言指向的文章有6篇，研究汉语的文章有1篇，其他语种研究的有2篇。
虽然英语研究为主要部分，但是也有其他语种二语习得研究的趋势。
1.研究方法分析研究方法较为多样化，其中实证研究法使用的频率最高，对我们的研究具有借鉴意义，但是研究方法缺乏针对性，同样的方法可以用于多种研究。
二、二语语篇教学研究综述（一）从研究内容看语篇教学1.理论研究学者们从不同的角度探讨了语篇二语教学的理论与内容，占研究总数的41%。
Bel Abbes Neddar（2012）阐明了语篇、语用学、文化之间的关系，以及在语言课堂中整合这三个组成部分的可能性。
NIVJA H. DE JONG（2013）从同一组土耳其语和英语为母语的人（N=51）中获得了第二语言（荷兰语）熟练程度（词汇知识）、第二语言流利程度和第一语言行为的流利程度测量值。
二语习得过程理论国内外研究综述
二语习得过程理论国内外研究综述摘要：本文采用历时文献分析法，以上世纪80年代Krashen提出的“输入假说”为起点，从语言输入、吸收、输出三个角度，对有关二语习得过程的国内外研究进行梳理和述评，最后指出这些理论成果的发展对我国的外语教学所具有的启发意义。
关键词：二语习得；输入；吸收；输出引言第二语言习得过程是指“在自然和指导的情况下通过有意识学习或无意识吸收掌握母语以外的一门语言的过程”（Ellis，1985）。
在二语习得的过程中，输入、吸收与输出是三个最为关键的环节。
“输入”是指在语言学习中，学习者能接收到的并能作为学习对象的语言，输入的形式包括听和读；“吸收”是指被内化并纳入中介语系统的输入部分，从根本上讲，只有被吸收的输入才会对二语习得起作用；“输出”是指学习者在经过输入吸收后产出的语言与信息，输出的形式包括说和写。
随着认知心理学、应用语言学和信息加工理论的发展与渗透，越来越多的研究者开始剖析输入、吸收与输出。
本文将以Krashen“输入假说”为基点，从输入、吸收与输出的角度，对二语习得过程理论的发展过程进行述评，最后阐述其对我国的外语教学具有的启示意义。
一、二语习得过程的研究视角1.输入理论及其发展述评上世纪80年代初，美国南加州大学教授Krashen在他的“监控模式”（the Monitor Model）中首次使用了“可理解输入”（comprehensible input）这一概念，并将可理解输入假说，即“i+1理论”，作为其“监控模式”的核心内容。
根据Krashen （1982）的定义，如果学习者现有的语言水平是i，可理解的语言输入应该是i+1。
i与i+1的缺口或距离，是通过交际过程中的语言结构的调整，以及语言环境所提供的信息和学习者以往的经验来弥补的。
Krashen（1985）进一步指出，最佳的语言输入应具备四个特征：可理解的，有趣且关联的，非语法程序安排的和足够量的。
2.吸收理论及其发展述评Corder（1967）首先将语言输入（input）与吸收（intake）区分开来，他认为输入是学习者可及的，课堂上呈现给学生的语言输入形式不一定能保证语言的吸收，即使是可理解输入也是如此。
二语词汇习得研究综述
二语词汇习得研究综述
随着社会的发展，越来越多的人开始致力于学习一门外语，而学习一门外语的最重要的一环，就是要学习外语的词汇了。
近些年来，国内外学者们对二语词汇习得研究活跃，并取得了一定的成果。
本文对近10年来二语词汇习得研究的最新成果，以及存在的问题和不足，进行了系统的综述。
首先，本文针对二语词汇习得的基本理论，研究了记忆、语义等认知机制，以及发展中的语言默示理论等。
其中，就记忆理论而言，有关学习者的认知负荷等方面也有了许多研究。
同时，就语义方面而言，也研究了有针对性的选择词汇的机制，以及如何用最少的信息记住更多的词汇等。
另外，还有诸多研究针对不同语言背景下，词汇学习的特点等问题，以及如何有效地帮助学习者习得更多的词汇等。
此外，本文也对二语习得中的情境因素也作了相应的研究，比如说语境，话语活动，以及情境模拟等因素如何影响学习者及时识别词汇。
本文也讨论了这些情境因素如何帮助学习者更有效地学习词汇，以及如何有效的使用它们，从而提高学习效果。
然而，此外本文也指出，在当前的二语词汇习得研究中，仍然存在一定的不足，如如何准确评估学习者学习过程中逐步提高的词汇量等，这些需要进一步深入研究。
此外，如何把外语词汇习得的理论应用到教材设计中，以及如何更合理的设计语言教学的实际课程，也是未来研究的重点方向。
综上所述，本文对近10年来二语词汇习得研究的最新成果，以
及存在的问题和不足，进行了系统的综述。
通过分析，我们可以更好地理解词汇学习的过程，以及相关学习策略，从而更好地帮助学习者在语言学习中取得长进。
(完整版)国外著名第二语言习得理论综述
国外著名第二语言习得理论综述.人类在普通语言学、心理语言学及认知心理语言学领域认识的深入。
自改革开放以来,特别是近20年来,中国对英语习得的研究取得了很大进展,我国心理语言学家、认知心理语言学家(桂诗春、王初明等)在这一领域做出了极其重要的贡献。
但就第二语言习得理论进行综述及较为详细介绍的文章还不多见。
本文旨在通过对国外三家极有影响的第二语言理论进行较为详细的介绍,使我们对国外同行在这一领域所取得的成就有进一步的了解,有助于我国第二语言习得的研究。
1克拉申的“监察模式”(Monitor model)克拉申的“监察模式”在第二语言习得理论中占有重要地位,曾引起外语教育界广泛关注和讨论。
该理论由S.克拉申在70年代后期发表的一系列论文中(Krashen1977a,1977b,1978a,1978b)论述,并在他撰写的几本专著中得到充实和发展(Krashen1981,1982,1985)。
在“监察模式”理论中,克拉申提出著名的五个假设:习得—学习假设,监察假设,自然顺序假设,输入假设及情感过滤假设。
1.1习得———学习假设(Acguisition-learning hypothesis)克拉申认为,成人第二语言习得者用两种不同的方式获得语言能力。
一是习得,即一种“与小孩习得母语过程相同的下意识过程”(1985,1);二是学习,即“一种有意识的学习语言的过程”(1985,1)。
“习得”来源于自然交际环境中有意义的交流。
谈话者注重的是表达意思,而非语法规则正确与否,对语言表达中的一些错误并不有意识纠正。
与此相反,在语言学习中,发现错误并纠正错误是学习过程的重要环节。
克拉申认为区分语言习得与语言学习的尺码是学习者对语言规则运用的有意识程度,而不是语言环境。
例如,在自然语言环境中,学习可以通过向熟人或朋友询问语法规则来获取语言知识。
同样,在非自然语言环境的教室里,当学生注意力集中在对话、角色扮演、小组讨论等交际活动中时,语言便被习得。
二语词汇习得研究综述.
1.词汇研究的重要性早期的词汇习得研究综述(Gass,1988指出词汇在二语习得研究中被冷落,但这种局面正在迅速改变(Coady&Huckin,1997。
我们以Studies in Second Lan-guage Acquisition这一期刊为例简单回顾一下过去的三十年中有关词汇研究的文章发表情况(见表1。
表1.词汇研究的文章发表情况汇总(引自Li(2003,这里稍做改动如表1所示,越来越多的学者关注着词汇习得研究。
值得一提的是,Studies in Second Language Acquisi-tion分别于1987年和1999年发行了关于词汇研究的两期专刊,结束了词汇研究被冷落的局面。
1987年收集的文章针对语言学界专注句法研究的事实提醒人们意识到词汇研究的重要性,而1999年的研究则更为深入地探讨二语词汇习得研究的核心问题。
词汇习得研究越来越受重视的原因是多方面的。
从理论语言学的角度来说,各大学派都逐渐将词汇研究放在了重要位置。
比如,在Chomsky最初的理论框架中,句法起初是绝对的研究重心,而发展到今天的最简方案,参数已成为词库的一部分,语言的习得很大程度上可以归结为词汇的习得(Gass&Selinker,2001:188。
Cook& Newson(1996:19也指出了Chomsky理论的这一发展趋势,“以前的Chomsky理论框架认为是句法层面的许多语言侧面如今都被处理为词汇层面。
随着许多规则的删减,句法本身被简化了,而这是以增加词库信息为代价的”。
新近发展起来的认知语言学从一开始就反对将词汇和句法完全割裂开来,认知语言学家们认为词汇,形态学和句法形成一个连续体,他们之间没有本质的区别,都是语言学研究的核心。
从语言习得和语言教学的角度来说,词汇是学习第二语言的基础,过少的词汇量会影响第二语言的听说读写等各方面的能力。
并且,学二语词汇习得研究综述骆涵(中国科学院研究生院外语系北京100049摘要:三十多年来,二语词汇习得研究成为二语习得研究中最热点的下属领域之一。
近十年国内二语词汇习得分析研究综述
近十年国内二语词汇习得分析研究综述1. 引言1.1 研究背景二语词汇习得一直是第二语言习得领域的重要研究课题。
随着全球化的推动，越来越多的人选择学习第二语言，二语词汇习得的研究也变得愈发重要。
国内在这方面的研究也日益活跃起来，近几年来涌现了许多优秀的学者和论文。
二语词汇习得作为第二语言习得的重要组成部分，对提高语言学习者的语言能力具有至关重要的意义。
二语词汇习得的研究仍面临着诸多挑战，如何更好地理解二语词汇习得的规律并提出有效的教学策略是目前亟需解决的问题。
对近十年国内二语词汇习得研究进行综述，对于深入了解该领域的研究现状、发展趋势以及指导未来的研究方向具有积极的意义。
1.2 研究意义二语词汇习得一直是第二语言习得领域中备受关注的研究课题。
近年来，随着全球化的发展和国际交流的增加，二语习得者对于词汇的掌握变得愈发重要。
研究二语词汇习得的意义日益凸显。
二语词汇习得的研究可以帮助我们更好地了解语言习得的规律和过程。
通过深入研究二语词汇的习得，可以揭示出不同语言学习者在习得过程中存在的共性和差异性，有助于我们更全面地理解语言习得的机制。
对于教学实践来说，二语词汇习得研究的成果可以为语言教学提供科学依据和指导。
通过了解二语词汇习得的规律和影响因素，我们可以更有针对性地设计教学方法和策略，帮助学习者更快地掌握词汇，提高语言运用能力。
二语词汇习得研究的深入可以促进语言习得理论的发展和完善。
通过对二语词汇习得的研究，可以推动语言习得理论与实践的结合，为语言学习研究领域带来新的思路和突破。
研究国内二语词汇习得的意义重大且迫切，对于推动语言习得研究的发展和提升语言教学的效果具有重要意义。
2. 正文2.1 二语词汇习得概述二语词汇习得是指学习者在掌握母语基础上学习第二语言时，获取和掌握目标语言的词汇知识的过程。
在二语习得过程中，词汇习得一直是学习者和研究者关注的重点之一。
二语词汇习得的概述包括了词汇习得的定义、研究对象、发展历程等内容。
二语习得研究文献综述
中国二语习得研究文献综述摘要：二语习得研究作为一门独立的、交叉学科已有30年的历史。
本文通过对国内二语习得研究的综述和评析，进而指出研究中存在的问题和研究趋势关键词:二语习得；综述；研究趋势引言第二语言习得研究可以追溯到20世纪60年代末、70年代初。
一般认为S.P.Corder 在1967年发表的The significance of learner's errors以及Selinker1972年发表的Interlanguage两篇文章是这个领域的开端。
三十多年来，全球范围内的二语习得研究蓬勃发展。
中国的二语习得研究起步较晚，开始于20世纪80年代初。
自1984年，鲁健骥将第二语言学习者的语言“错误”和“中介语”的概念引入对外汉语教学领域，到现在有20多年的历史。
二语习得涉及语言学、语言教学、神经语言学、心理语言学等诸多学科。
正如Ellis(1994)在评价二语习得研究的发展时所指出的，“第二语言习得研究已经成为涉及领域非常广泛的学科。
与此同时,这门学科在某种程度上也成为一个界限非常模糊的研究领域。
”文秋芳、王立非（2004）指出，二语习得主要涉及三大领域：中介语研究；学习者内部因素研究；学习者外部因素研究。
二.中国二语习得研究中国的二语习得研究大致分为三个阶段：（一）80年代的汉语习得研究80年代初，汉语习得研究还没引起足够的重视。
研究集中用于错误分析，基本上是建立在学习者的错误与目的语之间对比的基础上，这种基于结果的错误分析难以系统考察学习者的习得过程，难以解释学习者汉语偏误产生的复杂原因。
如鲁健骥（1984）、王初明（1989）等。
（二）90年代的汉语习得研究90年代的汉语习得研究引起了对外汉语界的高度重视。
这个时期，汉语研究主要集中在三个方面：即偏误分析、中介语研究、习得过程研究。
随着第二语言习得研究理论的不断引进以及汉语习得研究的发展，90年代的汉语习得过程研究逐渐形成了一个新的研究领域，即基于汉语本身特点的研究。
二语习得的研究综述
exposed to numerous stimuli in their environment. The response they give to
such stimuli will be reinforced if successful, that is if some desired outcome
practice makes perfect; in other words, learning would
take place by imitating and repeating the same
structures time after time. Second, teachers needed to
30+
The Recent History of Second Language Learning Research
Chomskyan Revolution
以转换 – 生成语法著称的乔式语言结构理论。1957年 因他的《句法结构》的发表而使语言学研究革命化。 到 60年代中期，Chomsky开始强调语言对研究人类心 灵所起的关键作用。他认为语言学应视为认知心理学 的一个分支，这一观点主要在《语言与心理》中作了 论证。正是他思想的这一方面广泛吸引了语言学以外 的学者，特别是在哲学界和心理学界。
35
The Recent History of Second Language Learning Research
Behaviorism in Linguistics
In the behaviorist view, language leaning is seen like any other kind of
In the 1950s and early 1960s, theorizing about language learning was still very much an adjunct to the practical business of language teaching. However, the idea that language teaching methods had to be justified in terms of and underlying learning theory was well established. At that time the general learning theory dominant in mainstream psychology was behaviorism.
二语词汇习得研究综述
二语词汇习得研究综述
随着社会的不断发展，外语的重要性也在日益增加。
全球化的脚步使得人们对外语的需求也与日俱增，诸如中文、英语、日语等外语已经成为丰富人们生活的不可或缺的元素。
而外语词汇的习得是学好一门外语的基础，因而外语词汇的研究也受到越来越多的关注。
本文将对外语词汇习得研究作综述。
从单词习得的角度，外语词汇习得研究可以分为两大方面全词习得和部分词习得。
全词习得是指学习者可以根据某个单词的所有语义理解其含义，而部分词习得则是指学习者只能根据某个单词的部分含义理解其含义。
全词习得主要通过单词来检测，而部分词习得则通过词汇及文本理解来检测。
另外，从语言习得的角度，外语词汇习得也有其独特的研究方式。
例如，一些研究者将重点放在外语习得者实际使用语言的情境中，关注习得者认知外语词汇的方法，而另一些研究者则把目光放在外语教学中，关注有效教学方式，以提高学习者的外语词汇习得能力和外语水平。
此外，从学习者的角度，外语词汇习得的研究也有其独特的视角。
一方面，研究者致力于研究学习者的口头和书面表达能力，以发现学习者的发展状况；另一方面，研究者也会关注学习者的词汇知识结构，以准确发现其词汇能力的发展。
本文综述了外语词汇习得研究的几个不同视角，从单词习得、语言习得以及学习者视角分别进行了梳理，旨在为外语词汇习得研究做
出更全面的认识。
这项研究不仅有助于改进外语词汇教学方法，而且也为外语词汇习得者提供了更多的可能性，从而促进外语习得的不断改善。
而未来外语词汇习得的研究，将可以从更加深入的角度展开，关注更多的认知因素，全面解析外语词汇习得的本质和规律。
国内外第二语言词汇习得研究综述
语言教学与研究2007年第4期国内外第二语言词汇习得研究综述孙晓明提要 本文旨在探讨第二语言词汇习得研究的发展现状,主要关注与词汇教学密切相关的问题,包括词汇知识的界定、词汇量的测量、词汇发展模式、词汇学习策略、影响词汇习得的因素以及伴随性词汇学习和直接词汇学习等问题,以期推动汉语词汇习得研究的发展,为对外汉语词汇教学提供参考。
关键词 第二语言词汇习得;词汇第二语言学习者在习得目的语的过程中,必须掌握语言的三大要素:语音、词汇和语法。
其中,词汇习得是第二语言习得的核心,贯穿着语言习得的全过程。
第二语言词汇习得研究曾一度被认为是“语言习得研究中被忽视的领域”(Meara1980),研究水平比较低,同时缺乏理论性和系统性。
但20世纪90年代以来,词汇习得开始引起语言习得领域研究者的广泛关注,并取得了较为丰厚的研究成果。
和国外研究相比,国内汉语词汇习得研究起步较晚,研究开展得也不多。
一 词汇知识的界定研究者在开展词汇习得研究之前,都必须回答一个问题:什么是词汇知识?词汇知识的界定是进一步研究的基础,而研究词汇知识的最根本的目的是界定学习者掌握词汇的标准。
1.1词汇知识的界定我们认为,词汇是复杂的语言系统的一部分,具有系统性,并不是一个个具体词汇的简单的聚合。
因此,学习者习得词汇也绝非简单地记忆目的语的一个个词。
Nati on(2001)指出,学习个体词汇知识和系统的词汇知识是不同的。
前者只需通过记忆达到认知的目的;后者则是一个复杂的过程,需要掌握拼写规则和语音系统。
已有的研究并未刻意区分这两个概念,而研究者对于词汇知识的界定则是从个体词汇的角度出发的。
Cr onbach(1942)的定义奠定了词的多维性界定的基础,包括概括性、应用性、准确性、灵活性以及词的宽度。
R ichards(1976)进一步提出了掌握一个词的七个标准,包括词频、语域、句法特征和语义特征、屈折变化(包括基本形式和派生形式)、联想(包括同义联想和词间联想)、概念意义和一词多义。
国外第二语言词汇习得研究综述
语言教学与研究2002年第1期国外第二语言词汇习得研究综述Ξ宋 刚提要 第二语言词汇习得研究具有跨学科的特点,本文从第二语言习得角度对国外词汇习得研究作一综述。
因英语作为第二语言的词汇习得研究成果显著,所以本文将其作为重点。
文中以20世纪80年代、90年代的词汇习得研究为中心,主要论及其理论依据、研究方法、具体成果等,并简单介绍1980年以前的研究。
关键词 第二语言习得;词汇第二语言(L2)词汇习得研究与语言教学、语言习得研究的发展紧密相关。
历史上,语法习得研究在语言教学、语言习得中始终占据着中心地位,而词汇、语音习得研究则居于次要地位,今天基本上仍然是这种局面。
然而,词汇是语言不可或缺的组成部分,语言教学不可能撇开词汇教学。
词汇习得研究自然不容忽视,很多学者也逐渐认识到词汇习得的重要性,并且致力于词汇习得的研究。
一 第二语言词汇习得研究的发展对第二语言词汇习得的认识直接影响着相关研究的发展。
语法习得研究一直占据着第二语言习得(SLA)的中心地位。
部分学者虽然早就认识到词汇习得的重要性,也初步进行了一些研究,在一定程度上推动了第二语言教学,但是这些有限的研究存在很多不足。
这种状况一直延续到20世纪70年代末。
进入80年代,SLA全面、深入的发展促进了对L2词汇习得的认识,L2词汇习得越来越受关注,出现了一批有实际价值的著作。
本文根据L2词汇习得研究的发展情况,将其划分为三个阶段:(1)1980年以前的研究, (2)20世纪80年代的研究,(3)20世纪90年代的研究。
1.1980年以前的研究对1980年以前的研究,Meara(1980,1984)、Sharwood(1984)等按照各自的理解发表过不同的评价。
较悲观的看法认为,这一时期的研究较分散,大部分无理论支持,仅有的理论也不成系统;专门研究或文章较少,多为语法语音研究的副产品;以英语作为L2的词汇习得研究为主。
较积极的观点则认为,不少研究涉及了L2词汇习得的不同方面,只是仍有待发展。
二语习得研究现状综述及未来发展方向_英文_
135Current Trends in SLA Rresearch and Directions for Future DevelopmentMichael H. L ONG University of Maryland, USAAbstractSLA is a broad interdisciplinary field. Its theories and research findings have potential relevance for a number of significant social issues. They include first language acquisition, theoretical linguistics, neurolinguistics, language acquisition in abnormal populations, language teaching, and language in education. Work in the field is motivated by the need to solve practical problems in those areas, but also by sheer intellectual curiosity. Second language learning, the object of study, is an internal, individual, in part, innately specified, cognitive process. SLA ’s natural home, it follows, lies within cognitive science. There, it can make substantial contributions over and above understanding how second, including foreign, languages are learned, why adults often fail when children are so successful, the role of metalinguistic knowledge and of explicit and implicit learning, the role of the linguistic environment, and more. The fact that not only natural experiments, but also real ones, are possible (and legal) with adults means that SLA research can throw light on such matters as the dissociation of language and cognition, maturational constraints on learning, relationships among affective and cognitive variables, and other factors typically confounded in simultaneous language and cognitive development in children. The potential SLA contribution is well illustrated by work on the so-called Critical Period Hypothesis.SLA is also a young science, most work having been conducted since the 1980s. The field shows its youth in a number of ways, disagreements as to the proper scope of inquiry and, not unrelated, an intemperate rush to theory being just two of them. The American philosopher of science Larry Laudan ’s concept of “research tradition ” offers a way of seeing the wood from the trees with respect to multiple theories in any field, and his “problem-solving ” notion is a useful yardstick when it comes to the comparative evaluation of theories of SLA. Substantive future progress, and arguably, the prospects of future research in the field as a whole, will require greater clarity and maturity in these areas.Key words: second language acquisitionCurrent Trends in SLA Research and Directions for Future DevelopmentHistory and scope of SLASecond language learning has fascinated observers for a long time. Valuable diary studies of child bilingualism were published as early as the first years of the twentieth century (for a historical listing, see Hatch, 1978: 3-9). As shown by the coverage in textbooks, however, SLA as a modern field of study is generally accepted as dating from the late 1960’s, meaning that the discipline as we know it today is still relatively young by the standards even of the social sciences.Modern second language acquisition (SLA) research encompasses non-native language development (but also simultaneous childhood bilingualism) by children or adults learning naturalistically and/or with the aid of formal instruction, as individuals or in groups, in foreign, second language, or lingua franca settings. “Second” includes third, fourth, etc., “language” includes dialect, and “acquisition” includes attrition and loss. SLA is a broad church, in other words; some think too broad, others not broad enough.Yet while the field has expanded rapidly and diversified during the past 40 years, the principal motivations for studying SLA have remained constant, and in my opinion, will continue to do so. In addition to sheer intellectual curiosity, at least six broad academic and professional areas can be identified, many of whose participants have an interest in SLA, and some of whose work, equally, is of interest to SLA researchers. All six areas fall within the purview of cognitive science, although not all work in them can be considered truly scientific. It is worth reminding ourselves of what those areas are. For one thing, most researchers are usually preoccupied with just one or two of them, and can forget what drives other work.First language acquisitionSome problems in first language acquisition (L1A) are difficult or even impossible to resolve using first language data alone. The fact that not only natural experiments but also real ones are possible (and legal) with consenting adults means that SLA research can throw light on such matters as relationships between language development and cognitive development, and among affective and cognitive variables. These and other factors are typically confounded in simultaneous language and cognitive development in children, but (with some exceptions) are distinct in adult L2 acquirers. Testing rival claims about putative sensitive periods for language development is another question to which answers can be provided by research on adult SLA. (We will return to work on maturational constraints and the so-called Critical Period Hypothesis.)Theoretical linguisticsLike much L1A research, a considerable number of SLA studies are motivated by, and in some cases chiefly of interest to, theoretical linguists. Thus, claims by Keenan and Comrie (1976, and elsewhere) about typological markedness and relative clause formation across languages have inspired a continuing line of work on the development of relative clauses in an L2 (Doughty, 1991; Eckman et al., 1988; Gass, 1982; and Hamilton, 1994, among others). Studies testing various aspects of theories of Universal Grammar in SLA (e.g., 136Michael H. L ONGSchwartz & Gubala-Ryzak, 1992; White, 1991, 2003) are so numerous as to have spawned their own journal, Second Language Research, and their own annual conference, GASLA (Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition), but still to figure prominently in many others. L2 work conducted within other linguistic frameworks, notably, O’Grady’s general nativist, emergentist theory (O’Grady, 1996, 2003, 2005; O’Grady, Lee, & Kwak, H.-Y., 2009; Wolfe-Quintero, 1996) is gathering pace.NeurolinguisticsThere is an obvious mutual interest among neurolinguists and SLA researchers in almost any advance in our understanding of how, when and where linguistic knowledge develops and is represented in the brain, and of neurophysiological conditions or changes that can affect the location, timing or developmental process. Frameworks as different as Minimalism and connectionism involve explicit assumptions or claims about cerebral development and linguistic knowledge, and many SLA theories implicitly or explicitly recognize the potential impact of such phenomena as lateralization, localization, myelinization, modularity, and biologically based sensitive periods for language development. The same is true of several related areas of inquiry, such as first language acquisition and language learning in abnormal populations. Advances in brain sciences have stimulated interesting work in SLA, but the benefits have by no means been all on one side (see, e.g., Albert & Obler, 1978; Beretta, 2009; Jacobs, 1988; Jacobs & Schumann, 1992; Kroll & Sunderman, 2003; Paradis, 2004, 2009; Schumann, 1998; Schumann, Crowell, Jones, Lee, Schuchert & Wood, 2004).Language learning in abnormal populationsThe misfortunes of abnormal populations often create “natural experiments”, in which people attempt language acquisition in unusual circumstances, e.g., without sight or hearing, often relatively late in life (Curtiss, 1988; Newport, 1990), or without being able to negotiate their linguistic environment, as in cases of socially isolated hearing children of deaf parents (Sachs, Bard & Johnson, 1981) or of child neglect, but not abuse (Culp, Watkins, Lawrence, Letts, Kelly & Rice, 1991). These “experiments” have often provided insights into language acquisition in normal populations (see, e.g., Curtiss, 1980). It is heartening when some degree of reciprocity is achieved, therefore, and (S)LA research findings with normal populations prove useful to members of disadvantaged groups, such as the hearing impaired (Berent, 1996; Strong, 1988).An outstanding example is the work of Cummins (1984) on the educational testing of immigrant children, and specifically the means of differentiating learning disabilities from difficulties caused by the education (and sometimes by the testing itself) being conducted through the medium of what for the children concerned is a second language. Many an immigrant child has been consigned to the “learning disabled” category, or worse, by a teacher or tester unfamiliar with normal processes and problems in L2 development.Another example is the influence of research on the role of various kinds of input and conversation for first and second language learning on the design of a language intervention program for Down’s Syndrome children (see Mahoney, 1975, for an early137Current Trends in SLA Research and Directions for Future Developmentreport). Language intervention for some mentally different populations involves many of the same questions about manner, place, and timing as does conventional language teaching to adults. Mahoney successfully circumvented the problem created by an inadequate ratio of clinicians to patients in need of language intervention by investing a few hours a week in training the parents in how to converse optimally with their children, so that they could provide a linguistically nurturing environment in the home. Research findings on the adjustments made by native speakers conversing with non-natives became a useful source of information in his work.Language teachingThe most obvious and widespread use of SLA theory and research is to improve second and foreign language teaching. SLA, after all, is the process language teaching is designed to facilitate. SLA theory and research findings have influenced language teaching in many ways over the years. For instance, evidence of developmental sequences in interlanguage development (Ortega, 2009), the modulated role of L1 – L2 differences (Kellerman & Sharwood-Smith, 1986; Odlin, 1989, 2003), the inevitability and constructive role of errors, and constraints on learnability and teachability (Pienemann, 1984), have resulted in a healthy skepticism regarding the psycholinguistic viability of structural syllabuses and, in general, of synthetic approaches to language teaching. In their place, and motivated in part by the same theory and research findings, the field is currently witnessing (i) wider use of non-linguistic units of analysis, notably “task”, in syllabus design (Doughty & Long, 2003; Long, 1985, 2000; Long & Crookes, 1992; Long & Norris, 2000; Robinson, 2003, 2009; Skehan, 2001), (ii) a renewed appreciation of the roles of both explicit processes (DeKeyser, 2003) and implicit processes (Ellis, 2005; Williams, 2009) in language learning, e.g., the potential of implicit negative feedback, as provided by recasts (Li, 2010; Long, 2007; Mackey & Goo, 2007), instead of the traditional dependence on models (positive evidence) in classroom instruction, (iii) recognition of the insufficiency and inefficiency of a pure diet of incidental learning via an exclusive focus on meaning, or communication (Hulstijn, 2003; Norris & Ortega, 2000), and (iv) an interest in focus on form as a psycholinguistically motivated alternative to the traditional oscillation between focus on forms and an exclusive focus on meaning (Long & Robinson, 1998).Numerous conclusions have been drawn over the years about how best to teach, and about how best not to, conclusions influenced strongly, although far from exclusively (rightfully so), by work in SLA (see, e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998). Publications regularly appear, one of whose principal purposes is to survey SLA theory and research findings for language teachers (see, e.g., Doughty, 2003; Gass, 1997; Lightbown & Spada, 1993; Long, to appear; Long & Doughty, 2009). Views differ sharply as to the usefulness to date of SLA research in this regard, as well as to its potential for helping language teachers, but its impact on second and foreign language teaching has been pervasive and undeniable.Language in educationJust as important, and potentially affecting the educational life chances of hundreds of 138Michael H. L ONGmillions of children and young adults around the world, are the implications of SLA theory and research for the design, implementation, and evaluation of educational programs, often whole education systems, delivered through the medium of a second language. Whatever one’s views as to the merit of particular proposals, work by Cummins, Genesee, Krashen, Lightbown, Swain, and others has had a major impact on bilingual, sheltered-subject-matter, and immersion education in both foreign and second language settings (see, e.g., California State Department of Education, 1984; Cummins, 2009; Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2009; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). The field has rich, thus far largely untapped, potential for education in second dialect situations, too (for some initial proposals, see Malcolm, 1994; Sato, 1989; Siegel, 1999, 2003), and for educational language planning in general.In numerous countries on all five continents, if they have access to education and training programs at all, children and adults currently must often receive their classes through what is a second language for them, and sometimes both for them and their teachers (see, e.g., Watson-Gegeo & Gegeo, 1995). Most of the L2 literature related to such situations to date, while important, has treated macro-issues of politics, economics, education and sociolinguistics, rather than work at the micro level of syllabus and materials design, methodology, and classroom processes. Both are needed if an analysis is to constitute a truly explanatory “thick explanation” (Watson-Gegeo, 1992). The situation is slowly changing, however. While SLA research has begun to influence individual educational decision-makers in a few of these societies—a trend that can be expected to grow in the coming years—the linguistic rights of minority groups are under ever more severe attack in some countries, with the situation in present-day Arizona being a particularly dire case (Long & Adamson, in press).Intellectual curiositySLA presents numerous fascinating puzzles, many of the basic ones being discussed by Bley-Vroman (1990) in his paper on the “logical problem of foreign language learning”. Why is it, for example, that almost all child L1A is successful, and on the face of it, effortlessly so, whereas SLA by almost all (many would say all) adults ends in partial failure? Why do so many failures occur even when adult SLA is attempted by people of high intelligence, clear motivation, ample opportunity to acquire, and also with what would seem to be the distinct advantage of having learned at least one language, the native tongue, successfully already? Transfer of training would predict comparable success with a similar task, SLA. This and other mysteries attract some SLA scholars, much like mountains attract some climbers, “because they are there”. Unlike the puzzles to be found in newspapers and airport kiosks, however, once solved, problems in SLA will tell us something about the human mind.Problems in SLAAs noted earlier, most SLA research dates from the mid-1960s. The vast majority of work139Current Trends in SLA Research and Directions for Future Developmenthas been completed since 1980, in fact. SLA is a young science, in other words, even by the standards of the social sciences. The field’s immaturity is visible in a number of ways. At a fundamental level, disagreements exist as to its proper scope. At one extreme, for many researchers (see, e.g., Gregg, 1996, 2003; Schwartz, 1998, 1999; White, 2003), the appropriate focus is fairly narrowly constrained by linguistic theory, in particular, the property theory of innate linguistic competence as defined in the work of Noam Chomsky and his followers. At the other extreme, it is argued that acquisition occurs through language use and the functioning of a processor, not an innate language acquisition device (e.g., O’Grady, 2005; Ellis, 2011). In the broad center, one finds the majority of active SLA researchers, most operating within a (non-generative) cognitive framework of some kind (see, e.g., DeKeyser, 2006; Doughty & Long, 2003; Gass & Mackey, 2011; Long, 2011; Ritchie & Bhatia, 1996; Robinson, 2003), and working on such issues as implicit and explicit learning (DeKeyser, 2003; Ellis, 1994; Williams, 2009), incidental and intentional learning (Hulstijn, 2003), automatization (Segalowitz, 2003), developmental sequences (Pica, 1983), variation in interlanguage development (Romaine, 2003), input and interaction (Gass, 1997), language processing (Jiang, 2004; Gor & Cook, 2010; Pienemann, 1998), negative feedback (Chaudron, 1977), fossilization (Han & Odlin, 2006; Lardiere, 1998; Long, 2003), age effects (Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003; Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2009; Granena & Long, 2011), language aptitude (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2008; Doughty, 2002; Granena, 2012; Skehan, 2012), attention and memory (Robinson, 2003), and other individual difference variables (Robinson, 1992). Disagreements over the field’s scope and related methodological issues has led to fragmentation during the past two decades, with separate conferences and journals forming for this or that school of thought, and a growing tendency for researchers with some orientations simply to ignore work carried out within a different framework.Not unrelated to these developments, and another indication of immaturity, is theory proliferation. By some counts, there are as many as 40-60 “theories” of SLA, or at least, theories in SLA (for recent surveys, see Long, 2007a; Mitchell & Miles, 1998; VanPatten & Williams, 2007). Postmodernists like Lantolf (1996, 2002) welcome this state of affairs, since, as relativists, in their view, there is no objective reality, no facts of the matter; all knowledge is socially constructed, theories are just metaphors, no theory is better than others, and more theories generate more research.1 Each of these assertions has been challenged (see, e.g., Gregg, 2000, 2002; Jordan, 2004; Long, 1997, 2007b), and certainly do not reflect the views of the vast majority of those who actually do SLA research. Most SLA researchers, like scientists everywhere, are rationalists of one kind or another, not relativists, and from that perspective, theory proliferation is one of the chief obstacles to progress (see, e.g., Beretta, 1991; Gregg, 1993, 2000, 2002; Gregg, Long, Jordan & Beretta, 1997; Long, 1993, 2007c). Theories embody the field’s interim understandings of how second languages are learned and why they often are not. Identifying flawed theories constitutes progress, therefore, whereas a multiplicity of theories, especially oppositional ones, including those with known weaknesses, obstructs progress.Decades of work in the history and philosophy of science have provided numerous potential criteria for the evaluation of (SLA) theories, in absolute terms or comparatively. 140Michael H. L ONGThey include internal consistency, non-tautologousness, systematicity, modularity, clarity, explanatory adequacy, predictive adequacy, scope, generality, lack of ad hocness, extendability, fruitfulness, consistency with accepted theories in other fields, experimental testability, ability to make quantitative predictions, simplicity, falsifiability, fertility as a paradigm for puzzle-solving, explanatory power, ability to account for different kinds of data, ability to account for phenomena different from those for which the theory was invented to explain, novel predictive successes, ability to account for data a rival theory cannot handle, simplicity/parsimony, consistency, generality, empirical adequacy, proven fertility, unproven fertility/generative potential, continuity/rationality, a pragmatic (‘get on with things’) relationship with experiment, and ability to resolve fundamental conceptual difficulties. For explanations of the criteria, sample applications, and evaluation, see Darden (1991), Laudan (1990), Laudan & Laudan (1989), and Long (1993).An alternative approach to the problem of theory proliferation can be found in the work of the American philosopher of science Larry Laudan (see, e.g., Laudan, 1977, 1996; Laudan & Laudan, 1989; Long, 2007c; Riggs, 1992). Laudan’s concept of research tradition offers a way of seeing the wood from the trees with respect to multiple theories in any field, and of putting some order into the picture.2 Research traditions, a technical term in his theory of theory change, group together theories with a shared ontology, and agreed-upon methodological ground rules. Unlike (some) theories, research traditions are not directly testable; they can survive the demise of one of their particular subordinate theories. To take an easy example, while oppositional, the Weak Continuity/ Minimal Trees and Full Transfer/Full Access positions are properly viewed as theories in the same generative research tradition. Vainikka, Young-Scholten, Eubank, Schwartz, Sprouse, Lardiere, Hawkins, White, and others involved in the “access” debate agree on the existence of an innate language faculty and on its approximate contents (in children), on underlying linguistic competence as the proper domain of inquiry, on acceptable research methods, e.g., the use of grammaticality judgment tests, and on the standards to be met by their analyses. They play, that is, by the same rules. Perhaps less obviously, Krashen’s, Long’s, and Swain’s Input, Interaction, and Output Hypotheses arguably belong to the same research tradition, Schuman’s Acculturation Model (Schuman, 1986) and Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model (Gardner, 1988) to another Social-Psychological tradition, work by Huebner (1983), Sato (1990), Tomlin (1990) and others to a Functionalist tradition, and so on.Laudan’s “problem-solving” notion is a useful yardstick when it comes to the comparative evaluation of theories and an approach to measuring scientific progress (see, e.g., Laudan, 1977). In Laudan’s view,...the aim of science is to secure theories with high problem-solving effectiveness. From this perspective, science progresses just in case successive theories solve more problems than their predecessors. (Laudan, 1996: 78)There are two kinds of problems (Laudan, 1996: 79), empirical and conceptual. Empirical problems include (a) potential problems—things accepted as facts about the world for141Current Trends in SLA Research and Directions for Future Developmentwhich there is as yet no explanation, (b) solved, or actual, problems—claimed facts about the world which have been explained by one or more theories, and (c) anomalous problems—problems solved by rival theories, but not by the theory in question.3 (Note that potential or unsolved problems need not be anomalies by this analysis.) Conceptual problems include (a) internal inconsistency or ambiguous theoretical mechanisms, (b) assumptions made that run counter to other theories, prevailing metaphysical assumptions, or widely accepted epistemology and methodology, (c) violation by a theory of the research tradition of which it is a part, and (d) failure by a theory to utilize concepts from more general theories to which it should be logically subordinate. A theory, Laudan says, achieves solutions to empirical problems, or solves a problem, when it entails a statement of the problem, and to conceptual problems when it avoids a conceptual difficulty of its predecessor. Many different theories may solve the same empirical or conceptual problem, so a theory’s worth will depend, among other things, on how many, and the importance, or weight, of, problems it solves.Potential empirical problems for a minimally adequate theory of SLA include widely accepted findings, or problems—salient facts about SLA the theory needs to explain. Researchers may disagree over just how widely accepted some SLA findings really are, but by way of illustration, most would accept the following two examples (see Bley-Vroman, 1990; Long, 1990a, Spolsky, 1989, for many others).1. Age differences. Older starters outpace younger ones in the early stages of the acquisition of morphology and syntax (a rate advantage), but exhibit inferior ultimate attainment. Following a period of peak sensitivity from birth to age six, vanishingly few achieve native-like abilities in any linguistic domain if first exposure comes later than age 12 for phonology, lexis and collocations, and the mid-teens for morphology and syntax (for data and reviews of findings, see Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2009; DeKeyser, 2012; DeKeyser & Larson-Hall, 2005; Granena & Long, 2011; Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003; Long, 1990b; Newport, 2002). What accounts for these and other well attested age differences in SLA?2. Autonomous syntax. Interlanguages exhibit features with no obvious source in either the L1 or the L2. Obvious examples include well-documented common developmental sequences in the acquisition of L2 structures (English negation, German word order, etc.), regardless of learners’ age, L1, or (classroom, naturalistic, or mixed) acquisition context (Ortega, 2009). Some interlingual structures in those sequences, e.g., pre-verbal negation in the L2 Swedish of L1 speakers of Turkish (Hyltenstam, 1978), are difficult to explain, since both source and target language have post-verbal negation. Another case is the use of pronominal copies in L2 Swedish (Hyltenstam, 1984) and English (Pavesi, 1986) by native speakers of languages, e.g., Italian, which, like Swedish and English, disallow them. What mechanisms, language-specific or general cognitive systems, and/or characteristics of the linguistic environment underlie these and other widely attested patterns in interlanguage development, especially those not easily explained as a product of L1 transfer or L2 input: common errors and error types, accuracy orders, developmental sequences, gradual approximation (cf. sudden, categorical learning), stabilization, and fossilization?4 Laudan’s proposal is that theories should be evaluated comparatively in terms of 142Michael H. L ONGthe number and importance of problems like these that they solve. Judgment is needed with respect to such matters as the weight to be ascribed to problems, whether to count some phenomena as single problems or as clusters of related ones, and how early in the development of a theory to apply the problem-solving criterion, but there is little doubt that Laudan’s approach holds considerable promise for the field of SLA, and perhaps for other areas of cognitive science.Current and future research directionsIf one compares the coverage of the major SLA textbooks and handbooks, it quickly become obvious that there is broad agreement as to the most interesting and salient problems in the field, and, perhaps to a slightly lesser extent, the appropriate research methods with which to address them. While not an exhaustive list, I believe most experts accept the following as central issues in SLA, and I believe they are, therefore, the most likely foci of future research programs: age differences and potential biological constraints on (second) language acquisition; the existence, scope and limits on the availability of innate linguistic knowledge; language universals and cross-linguistic influence; processes in interlanguage development; the role of implicit and explicit learning; the relative importance of positive and negative evidence and of variation in the linguistic environment; individual differences in such factors as language aptitude, memory, attention, and executive control; and the relative importance of cognitive trait variables, and affective state variables, e.g., intelligence and language aptitude, and attitude and motivation, respectively. I also believe far more attention will be paid, and needs to be paid, to comparative theory evaluation.Not one of the items on the list is a new issue or research topic. Where innovation is more likely is not so much in issues as in the research methods employed to address them. Examples include eye-tracking, brain imaging, measures imported from L1 psychology and psycholinguistics, and new L2 measures, e.g., of language aptitude, that take into account the last 40 years of research findings in SLA and cognitive science.To illustrate, while research on corrective recasts has been appearing in the literature for about 20 years, it has relied on behavioral data, i.e., records of speech of writing. It is only recently (2009) that eye-tracking methodology has been applied to the problem, and the results of the first two such studies, impressive enough in themselves, show what a methodological innovation can contribute to an existing research program.O’Rourke (2008) conducted eye-tracker research on computer-mediated conversation that provided behavioral evidence of learner focus on form and noticing leading to uptake. Gaze and keystroke data showed a student briefly interrupting her focus on communication to attend to the information contained in recasts, often involving her in reading and re-reading her native interlocutor’s responses, comparing the input with her own output, and then incorporating the information in her subsequent output. O’Rourke writes:143。
儿童二语习得国内外研究简述
儿童二语习得国内外研究简述【摘要】本文梳理了国内外儿童二语习得研究现状。
认为：国内儿童第二言语习得的研究应努力开发适合国情的学前儿童二语教学模式。
【关键词】儿童；二语习得；研究简述幼儿语言能力的发展始终是语言学研究最重要的课题之一。
关于幼儿语言能力发展的研究已经从母语习得扩展到第二语言习得领域。
国外幼儿二语习得研究已开展一百多年，而国内幼儿二语习得的历史仅短短二十多年。
在早期的研究中，国内外的专家学者从应用语言学、心理学、教育学角度分析了儿童二语习得过程。
本文旨在梳理已有研究成果，为未来的研究开辟道路。
一、儿童第二语言习得国外研究现状早在上世纪中叶，国外的语言学家、心理学家、学前教育学家就开始对儿童习得语言的行为进行了实验和深刻的理论研究。
1、二语习得的最佳年龄儿童二语习得研究中最著名的成果就是“关键期假说”。
1953年心理学家Penfield 最早提出人类学习语言的过程中存在“最佳年龄”，学习语言的能力与大脑的发育进程相关，一般是在10岁以前。
在20世纪60年代，Lenneberg的研究证实了孩子们可以很容易地习得语言是因为人类的大脑受到2岁至青春期大脑中语言习得机制的影响。
这种优势完全是出自于生理因素。
这就是著名的“关键期假说”（2007，彭坚）。
补充这一理论的是1964年Benjamin S.Bloom提出的儿童智力发展曲线研究。
该研究指出，人类智力在4岁时已经发展了50%，到8岁时已达到成年人的80%。
这一经典论断对后来的学前教育理论与教学实践都具有重大的指导意义（1964，Bloom）。
如今，我国学前教育阶段开设英语课程的时期一般在幼儿园中班开始，而小学生入学年龄一般为6、7周岁，这正好符合了这一论断。
2、儿童与成年人第二语言习得的比较Sarah Smith曾在“二语习得与年龄因素”一文中指出，第二语言的学习与学习者的年龄之间存在紧密的联系。
想要深入地了解其它文化，就需要在儿童早期进行第二语言的学习。
外国学习者汉语作为第二语言语用习得研究综述
外国学习者汉语作为第二语言语用习得研究综述语用习得研究是二语习得研究中的重要课题。
本文梳理了第二语言习得研究领域中关于第二语言语用能力的构成、汉语第二语言语用习得、二语语用能力的测试与评估等三方面重要研究成果，以期为今后的汉语作为二语的语用习得研究服务。
标签：第二语言语用习得综述一、引言语用习得及语用能力发展问题一直是第二语言习得研究中的重要问题。
自Hymes（1972）提出交际能力以来，语用能力作为其重要的组成部分得到二语习得研究的极大关注。
关于二语语用习得的研究经历了一系列发展变化：从关注汉语学习者的言语行为、礼貌问题到发现会话含义、预设、话语标记语等语用特征对学习者语用发展的重要意义；从重视学习者单一的言语行为实施到综合分析其语用意识、语用理解、话语产出的整体语用能力；从静态地分析学习者的语用知识到动态地考察学习者在会话中的互动语言行为、关注学习者在会话中的互动语用能力。
这些在不同研究理念、研究方法下取得的研究成果为我们今后开展汉语二语语用习得研究提供了很好的借鉴。
下文具体梳理和总结关于第二语言语用能力的构成、汉语第二语言语用习得研究、语用能力的测试与评估、第二语言语用能力发展等方面的重要研究成果。
二、第二语言语用能力的的界定及构成要素Thomas（1983）将语用能力分为语用语言能力、社会语用能力，前者指理解和运用具体语言形式对应的话语功能以达成施为用意的能力；后者指根据交际的身份、地位权势、社会距离等社交因素而在具体场景理解和产出得体话语的能力。
Bachman（1990：84-98）同样对语用能力进行了界定与分类，他将语用能力分为施为能力和社交语言能力。
施为能力指“交际者在话语表达过程中结合特定语境传递和理解施为用意的能力”，社交语言能力指“交际者对具体语言使用语境特征所决定的语用规范的敏感程度或控制能力”。
李民、肖雁（2012）认为，通过比较，Bachman（1990）讨论的施为能力和社交语言能力分别对应Thomas （1983）提出的语用语言能力和社会语用能力。