The Handbook of Second language Aquisition

合集下载

Second language acquisition

12Second language acquisitionLourdes OrtegaIntroductionThe fi eld of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is a branch of applied linguistics that has a history extending over half a century. It investigates the human capacity to learn additional languages during late childhood, adolescence, or adulthood, once the fi rst language, in the case of monolinguals, or the fi rst languages, in the case of bilinguals and multilinguals, have been acquired. SLA researchers strive to shed light on four overarching questions:1 How do humans learn additional languages after they have learned their first?2 In what ways is the learning of an additional language different from the learning of languages for which exposure is available from birth, and in what ways might it be similar?3 What factors contribute to the variability observed in rates and outcomes of additional language learning?4 What does it take to attain advanced language and literacy competencies in a language that is learned later in life?SLA shares its interest in explaining human language development with two other fi elds, both of which study fi rst language acquisition from the womb to right before children enter school. These are Bilingual First Language Acquisition (BFLA), which examines language development among infants and children when they grow up surrounded by two or more languages from birth (De Houwer 2009), and First Language Acquisition (FLA), also known as Child Language Acquisition, which investigates how infants and children learn their fi rst language when they grow up surrounded by one language only (Clark 2003).The di ff erences in focus between these two fi elds and SLA are important. First, in the fi elds of bilingual and monolingual fi rst language acquisition, infants and toddlers are investigated at the critical point in life when they are discovering human language, as instantiated in the speci fi c language(s) that their carers happen to speak to them. By contrast, all participants in SLA studies will already be relatively mature users of at least one language, often more. Theirexisting language competencies will in fl uence their learning of the language that is being added to their repertoire. Second, at the point of fi rst language acquisition, infants and toddlers must 171develop socially and conceptually in tandem with developing linguistically. On the other hand, adults, adolescents, and even children as young as four or fi ve, can be expected to bring to the task already relatively sophisticated and increasingly fi ne-tuned social and conceptual structures. Finally, BFLA and FLA researchers typically assume naturalistic conditions of language learning, because infants and toddlers learn language by being surrounded by meaningful language use and in the absence of instruction. SLA researchers, on the otherhand, investigate language learning in any possible context, ranging from naturalistic acquisition within a non-instructional community (e.g. a neighbourhood, a church group, the workplace,or during regular schooling that happens to occur in a new language), to formal instruction of various kinds (e.g. tutorials or self-access; second, foreign, or heritage language classrooms; or classroom-engineered immersion settings), and often a combination of the two. This being so, instruction is an important area of study in SLA (see Larsen-Freeman, this volume).SLA theories in historical perspectiveScholars have written about how people learn second languages and how to best teach foreign languages since ancient times. When in the late 1960s SLA emerged as a formal research community, it did so shaped by these long-standing interests in language learning and teaching. Additional in fl uences came from more speci fi c developments in the fi eld of FLA, which atthe time had been transformed by a process of theoretical renewal in reaction against the prevailing behaviourist view of language acquisition and had begun to yield exciting empiricalfi ndings about how children who grow up monolingual learn their mother tongue (e.g. Brown 1973).The awakenings of SLA: interlanguageThe years 1967 and 1972 mark the publication of two seminal papers by Pit Corder andLarry Selinker that are often associated with the awakenings of the fi eld because of the importance of the arguments they put forth. At an empirical level, they called to questionthe dominant practice of contrastive analysis, which looked for acquisition answers in the exhaustive comparison of the linguistic inventories of the language pairs involved in the learning task, the fi rst language and the target language. Instead, Corder (1967) and Selinker (1972) argued researchers must turn for evidence to the actual language produced by learnersas they try to communicate in the target second language (L2). This meant examining the‘errors’ learners produce not as something to be pre-empted or remedied but as objects ofstudy that hold great value for understanding L2 acquisition. At the theoretical level, the behaviourist view of language acquisition as mere habit formation was rejected and replacedby a novel conceptualization of acquisition as creative construction. For the fi rst time, learners were viewed as active and rational agents who engaged in the discovery of underlying L2 rules. They formed hypotheses about the language, tested them, and employed a number of cognitive and social strategies to regulate their learning. These developments made interlanguage investigations during the 1970s and 1980s increasingly more focused on cognitiveand psycholinguistic aspects of acquisition. Nevertheless, a few SLA researchers also working within the interlanguage tradition turned their attention to exploring the potential of quantitative sociolinguistic theories of variation for the study of L2 development (e.g. Tarone 1988).Once the foundations of interlanguage as a novel and distinct object of inquiry were laidout, there was a justi fi cation for the need for a fi eld that would investigate additional language Lourdes Ortega172development in its own right. After these beginnings, several broad phases can be distinguished in the history of SLA. The narrative depiction of orderly historical trends that followsbelow is only a convenient shorthand that undoubtedly obscures more complicated developments.From fi rst theories to the cognitive and linguistic emphases of the 1990sBy the early 1980s, the fi rst attempt at a formal theory of L2 acquisition was mustered in the United States by Stephen Krashen (1985). Known as the Monitor Model, this theory became (and has remained) popular with language teachers. In a nutshell, Krashen proposed that:(a) the core ingredient of additional language learning is meaningful, comprehensible input;(b) the processes of additional language acquisition are implicit and subconscious and any explicit and conscious processes that may be summoned in the classroom can only help careful monitored performance but will have little e ff ects on true language knowledge or on spontaneous performance; and (c) the main obstacles to additional language learning for adults stemfrom a ff ective inhibitions. Despite its popularity, already in the mid-1980s the Monitor Model was evaluated as being too metaphorical to lend itself to proper empirical investigation. The strongest critiques were levelled by SLA scholars who were well versed in skills acquisition theory from the fi eld of psychology (e.g. McLaughlin 1987), and also by scholars who had begun applying Universal Grammar theory from the fi eld of linguistics to the disciplinarySLA project (e.g. Gregg 1984). In both cases, the criticisms also served to carve intellectual spaces for these newer kinds of SLA theories.Thus, as the 1980s came to a close, the SLA research community had already developed several theoretically distinct proposals for explaining L2 acquisition. One view (Krashen 1985) was that L2 acquisition occurs within dimensions de fi ned largely by input and a ff ect and operating mostly at the unconscious level. Another position (McLaughlin 1987) held that learning an additional language is a complex, cognitive process similar to any other human learning (cooking, playing chess, riding a bike, thinking mathematically, knowing history); as such, it involves great amounts of experience aided by attention and memory and it must include the development of su ffi cient declarative knowledge about the language and su ffi cient deliberate practice to eventually support fully automatic use of language. A third view (White1989) was that the mental grammar of second language learners must be explained by the relative contributions of two forces that guide tacit language knowledge formation and thatare independent from other cognitive operations, and even relatively independent from surroundingambient experience, namely abstract knowledge of Universal Grammar (which thehuman species is endowed with at birth) and more speci fi c knowledge of a given fi rst language (which is imprinted in the mind of language users during the critical years of learning a fi rst language or languages).Particularly during the 1990s, these varied SLA research e ff orts were strengthened to thepoint of cohering into what looked like one of two dominant approaches. A cognitiveinteractionist prism (Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991) was strongly in fl uenced by Swiss psychologistJean Piaget and easily accommodated within it the interlanguage research traditionas well as the skills acquisition theory. It called for the examination of L2 acquisition as thesum contributions of learner-internal factors, such as attention and memory, and learnerexternal factors, such as the interactions o ff ered to learners in the target language and thequality of any formal instruction they might seek. By contrast, a formal linguistic SLA prism (Hawkins 2001; White 1989) was strongly in fl uenced by US linguist Noam Chomsky andfl ourished out of the strides made by this linguistic theory during the late 1980s. This research Second language acquisition173programme sought to tease out the degree to which Universal Grammar knowledge, knowledge stemming from the fi rst language, or a combination of the two, guided the constructionof mental L2 grammars. These two traditions have enjoyed continuity at both empirical and theoretical levels up to the present day, thus leading to considerable accumulation of disciplinary knowledge in the areas to which they have been applied.The fate of other foundational SLA work, by comparison, appeared less promising. SLA researchers’ interest in Krashen’s Monitor Model had quickly waned. Likewise, the quantitative sociolinguistic forays into SLA heralded by a few interlanguage researchers (e.g. Tarone1988) had seemingly remained of interest to only a minority in the fi eld. It would take a few more years for the fi eld to return to their important argument that language learning is fundamentally social.Theoretical expansions: socioculturalism and emergentismAlready in the mid-1990s, however, two new theoretical forces joined the fi eld and begannew SLA traditions that soon would grow enormously in vitality. One is the study ofL2 acquisition through the sociocultural theory of mind developed by Russian psychologistLev Vygotsky, a contemporary of Piaget, and led in SLA by James Lantolf (Lantolf1994). The other is the application of the usage-based, emergentist family of theories developed in cognitive science and initiated in SLA by Nick Ellis (1996) and Diane Larsen-Freeman (1997). The coexistence of the two better established approaches with the two youngbut bold newcomers created epistemological tension and led to the gradual articulation ofdi ff erences.On the one hand, the two psychologically oriented approaches, cognitive-interactionist and sociocultural, consider the learner’s mind and the surrounding environment as essential dimensions of inquiry, but they di ff er radically in their position as to how the two should be investigated. For the cognitive-interactionist approach (well synthesized by Larsen-Freemanand Long 1991), mind and environment are analytically separable, and the in fl uences stemming from one or the other should be isolated as learner-internal and learner-external factors,so that then their interactions can be investigated. This position is also known as interactionismin the fi rst language development literature (see Bohannon and Bonvillian 2009). Mechanisms that explain how the linguistic data available in the surrounding external environment are used for internally driven learning invoke cognitive constructs such as noticing, when new features of language become available, even if most fl eetingly, for conscious recognition. Environmental constructs of importance include negotiation for meaning, wheninterlocutors edit and reformulate their own and each other’s language as they strive to make themselves understood, and negative feedback, when interlocutors wittingly or unwittinglyo ff er potential evidence that a language choice may not be sanctioned by the speech community. By contrast, for the Vygotskian sociocultural approach (fi rst synthesized at book lengthby Lantolf and Thorne 2006), mind is irrevocably social, and therefore it can only be investigated holistically in the unfolding process of social action and interaction. The construction ofnew knowledge (including knowledge of an additional language) arises in the social plane and gradually becomes internalized psychologically by the individual. Mechanisms that explainhow new linguistic knowledge and capable behaviour come about invoke social processes such as mediation of activity by language through private speech (audible speech directed to the self), social speech (speech by more expert others with the aim to help regulate action by novices), and inner speech (inaudible speech directed to the self for self-regulation). Another important construct related to learning is the zone of proximal development. This refers to an Lourdes Ortega174emergent quality of collaborative social action by which knowledge that by itself would be above the current competencies of one or more of the participants becomes momentarily attainable through joint context-sensitive collaboration, thus potentially being available for individual, independent use at a later point.The formal linguistic approach and the emergentist approach to SLA, too, exhibit key differences amidst critically intersecting interests. Both are vested in explaining language developmentas part of cognitive science, but they clash in their incompatible assumptions aboutwhat human language is and about the relative contributions that nature and nurture make toits development. Formal linguistic SLA researchers (Wakabayashi, this volume) adhere to radical nativism, modularity, and rule-based representationism. That is, they believe languageis a biologically given faculty unique to the human species (nativism), operating independently from other cognitive faculties used to learn and process other kinds of knowledge (modularity), and encoded as a system of abstract rules of the sort that have been described in formal linguistic grammars (rule-based representationism). In sharp contrast, emergentist, usage-basedSLA researchers (Ellis, this volume) are empiricist, generalist, and associationist. In other words, they hold that language in each individual emerges out of massive amounts of experience with the linking of form and meaning through language use that is driven by the species’social need to communicate (empiricism), enabled by simple memory and attention processing mechanisms that are the same as employed for all other cognitive functions (generalism), and self-organized out of the human brain’s unique capacity to implicitly and mandatorily tally the statistical properties and contextual contingencies of the linguistic input they experience over a lifetime (associationism).SLA after the social turnThe tensions brie fl y outlined above were only the tip of the iceberg of a wider social turn (Block 2003) which continued to gain momentum in the late 1990s. Not only Vygotskian socioculturalists (e.g. Pavlenko and Lantolf 2000) but also many other scholars from the widerfi eld of applied linguistics criticized the SLA research community for investigating L2 acquisitionin a-social and decontextualized ways (e.g. Firth and Wagner 1997).The crisis fuelled by the social turn has left the fi eld richer in theories and approaches.Among the most important new contributors, we fi nd less cognitively and more socially minded approaches that have undertaken the task to re-specify in social terms all key elementsin the SLA equation. Thus, if Vygotskian SLA already beginning in the mid-1990s o ff ered are-speci fi cation of cognition as fundamentally social (Thorne and Tasker, this volume), since then other SLA theories have contributed formal ways of studying additional languagelearning as social in terms of grammar, oral interaction, learning, and sense of self. Speci fi cally, grammar and language are theorized as social in systemic functional linguistics forSLA (Young, this volume); oral interaction is rede fi ned as social in conversation analysis as well as in other discourse approaches to additional language learning (Hellermann 2008;Young 2009); learning itself is understood as social in language socialization (He, this volume); and sense of self is reconceptualized as irrevocably social in identity theory (Norton, this volume).Key themes in SLA researchMany themes have attracted attention in SLA, of which I have selected fi ve that I consider tobe fundamental areas of SLA inquiry.Second language acquisition175Age: what are the effects of an early or a late start?The question of age is perhaps the most investigated, debated, and misunderstood of all research areas in SLA, most likely because of its extraordinary theoretical and educational importance. No researcher denies that starting age greatly a ff ects the eventual success of additional language learning. Success, naturally, is in the eye of the beholder, and we must not forget to ask: Who is to judge success: the researcher, the teacher, one of many stakeholders in the life of the additional language user, or the user him- or herself? When success is strictly understood in linguistic terms as determined by researchers, then it is an empirically established fact that people who begin learning an additional language by naturalistic immersionvery early in life tend to attain high levels of linguistic competence, often (but not always) similar to others who begin learning the same language at birth. By comparison, people who begin learning an additional language later in life, and particularly any time after the end of adolescence, exhibit much greater variability in their levels of linguistic attainment. In addition, the majority (although not all) of late-starting language users will develop functionalabilities in the new language that are di ff erent from and seemingly less pro fi cient than the functional abilities of others who begin learning the same language at birth.What is hotly debated and remains without a de fi nitive research answer is what precisely explains the observed age e ff ects. Proponents of the critical period hypothesis (e.g. Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam 2009) believe that the explanation is biological, in that they posit a maturational, time-locked schedule after which it is no longer possible to learn a language in exactly the same ways and to exactly the same high degrees of competence as any individual does between birth and age three or four. Sceptics of the critical period hypothesis (e.g.Hakuta 2001), on the other hand, point at alternative, non-biological reasons for the attestedage e ff ects, all of which are related to the many di ff erences in experience (linguistic and nonlinguistic)between infants and adults. For one, it may be that a later start leads to di ff erentialresults because one or more other languages have been learned so well already (Flege 1999). This argument warrants careful consideration, given that late starters and early starters alikeare usually compared to people who grew up by birth with only one language and therefore exhibit monolingual competence. Yet, monolingual competence cannot be expected tobe identical to multilingual competence (Cook 2008). It may also be that the diverging linguistic competencies we observe at increasingly older starting ages are re fl ective of the varied social, educational, and emotional complications as well as the varied demands on time and pursuits that come with adult life, compared to the more uniform and restricted lives thatinfants and toddlers lead before they enter school.The age debate has been further complicated in recent years by research conducted in foreign language contexts, where the availability of input is severely limited (e.g. two or three hours a week of foreign language study, in many school systems). Under such conditions, and when results have been evaluated at the point of high school graduation, beginning a couple of years earlieror later during elementary or middle school made no sizable overall di ff erence (Muñoz 2008). As Muñoz notes, the empirical evidence accumulated from foreign language contexts suggeststhat age is confounded with another variable that must always be evaluated when interpreting critical period and age-related SLA studies: the quantity and quality of the ambient input. Crosslinguistic in fl uences stemming from already known languagesA second important theme in SLA research is how previously known languages, and particularly the mother tongue, in fl uence the process of learning an additional language. BothLourdes Ortega176strategically and unknowingly, learners rely on their fi rst language and on other languages they know in order to accomplish something that is as yet unknown to them in the second language. In their comprehensive appraisal of this domain, Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008) identifyseveral noteworthy insights from accumulated research. One is the realization that crosslinguistic phenomena can slow down the pace of learning in cases of language areas wherenegative transfer occurs, but also accelerate learning and facilitate development in many areas where positive transfer occurs (e.g. for language pairs that are typologically or genetically related and whose lexicons contain many helpful cognates, as in Spanish-English creatividad = creativity). Second, similarities in a given language pair can often lead to greater learningdif fi cultiesthan di ff erences do (e.g. in the case of false friends, as when assuming that the words actualmente in Spanish and actually in English mean the same thing). A third well-attestedfi nding is that crosslinguistic in fl uences are not linearly related to pro fi ciency; instead,di ff erentareas of the languages of the individual can result in interactions at some levels of pro fi ciency and not others.The in fl uence that the mother tongue has on the construction of the new grammar is alsoan important area of research for scholars who work with formal linguistic theories (Wakabayashi, this volume). However, their goals are di ff erent from those of most of the research surveyed by Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008). SLA formal linguistic researchers aim to tease out the di ff erences in the initial and end states of grammar knowledge that obtains when one language is learned by birth, on the one hand, and when a second language is added laterin life, on the other. A number of theoretical positions are considered empirically plausible, which are contained within two extremes. At the one extreme, full access to Universal Grammar is proposed and the in fl uence of the L1 is believed to be minimal. This position assumesthat fi rst and second language acquisition are fundamentally similar in nature. At the other extreme, no access to Universal Grammar is posited during L2 acquisition and the L1 isa ff orded a central position in the construction of the L2 grammar. That is, after learning thefi rst language from birth by recourse to Universal Grammar, any subsequent language learning is thought to be accomplished through the more detailed knowledge structures instantiatedby the particular fi rst-language grammar that is known already, and by resorting to processing mechanisms that are fundamentally di ff erent (Bley-Vroman 2009) from those employed by the infant learning a language or languages from birth to the pre-school years.Environment and cognition: what are their contributions to additional language learning?From the beginnings of the fi eld, much SLA research has focused on human interactionsand the discourse strategies in them that bring about potentially useful opportunities for learning. We know a great deal about how linguistically mature interlocutors can facilitate additional language learning by rewording their messages through simpli fi cations and elaborations,by asking for clari fi cations and expansions, and by using language that is appropriate, interesting, and yet slightly above the level of their interlocutors (Long 1996). From socioculturally oriented studies of the environment for SLA, we also know that many additional language learners are actively involved in their own learning processes, both regulating challenges and maximizing learning opportunities as they seek environmental encounters (Brouwer and Wagner 2004; Donato 1994; Kinginger 2004). Finally, we also know that interactionis not a panacea, and that learning opportunities may not be actualized at all when interlocutors are not invested in communicating with each other, when they are antagonisticor, even worse, prejudiced, or (ironically) when they are so emotionally and intellectually Second language acquisition177engaged in communication that their attention glosses over the formal details of what is newto them in the L2.Much SLA research since the mid-1990s has investigated issues related to memory, attention, and awareness and how they constrain what can be learned of the additional language, particularly through interaction and formal instruction. While it is clear that the more deliberate attention L2 users pay to new language, the more they learn (Schmidt 1995), it is alsoclear that much of a new language is learned via implicit attentional processes of extraction of meaning-form correspondences and their associated frequencies and distributions of occurrence (Ellis, this volume). More recently, SLA researchers have turned to the study of theproperties of the linguistic data a ff orded by the environment, often using tools from corpus analysis, and how these properties are processed for learning by the cognitive architecture. Progress in this area will no doubt accelerate in coming years under the impulse of usagebased, emergentist perspectives, since they place the lion’s share of acquisition with the statisticaland form-and-meaning properties of the input as these interact with the learner’s attentional capacities. There is already fi rm empirical support, for example, that language features that are highly frequent in the input are acquired earlier by L2 learners, provided that they are also phonologically salient and semantically prototypical (e.g. argument structure in Ellis and Ferreira-Junior 2009).Three approaches to explaining variability of L2 learning across individualsIt has always been noted that adolescents and adults who learn an additional language presenta daunting landscape of variability in terms of rates, processes, and outcomes by the time they (or the researchers who investigate them) can say they are ‘done’ with L2 learning. This issueof variability across individuals has been investigated from three perspectives.The perspective with the longest tradition is known as individual di ff erences research and draws on social psychological constructs and methods (see Dörnyei 2005). This research is quantitative and correlational, and it assumes multiple causal variables interacting and contributingtogether to explaining variation systematically. We know from SLA research onindividual di ff erences that people di ff er in how much of a gift they have for learning foreign languages and that this natural ability can be measured with precision via language aptitude tests. In general, we can expect aptitude scores and achievements scores (e.g. end-of-course grades, teacher evaluations, and even pro fi ciency scores) to pattern together by about 16 to 36 per cent overlap. Motivation is another source of individual di ff erence that has been investigated particularly energetically by SLA researchers over the years, and several theories haveshed light on di ff erent qualities of motivation that are important in sustaining and nourishing learning e ff orts, including integrative motivation, self-determined motivation, and motivation guided by the positive concept of an L2-speaking self (see Dörnyei 2005).A second perspective that can help explain individual variability is socio-dynamic and draws from complexity theory and dynamic systems theory, which are recent approaches within the emergentist family of SLA theories. As Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008) note, in thesocio-dynamic approach all research is made to be centrally and primarily about variability. Indeed, variability is thought to be an inherent property of the system under investigation and increased variability is interpreted as a precursor for some important change in the system as well. This novel perspective calls for the use of new analytical methods that are quantitative, as in the traditional perspective, but also innovatively di ff erent because they are stochastic and non-causal, that is, based on probabilistic estimations that include the possibility of random variations and fl uctuations tracked empirically over time (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron Lourdes Ortega1782008). The new variability-centred framework can be applied to any area of SLA, from。

参考文献——精选推荐

参考文献1.交际法英语教学和考试评估，徐强，上海外语教育出版社2002. 12.英语教学策略论，王笃勤外语教学与研究出版社2003. 93.语言问题求教集，王宗炎，外语教学与研究出版社2003.34.现代语言学的特点和发展趋势，戚雨村，上海外语教育出版社2001. 25.A New Introduction to Pragmatics新编语用学概要, 何兆熊, 上海外语教育出版社2001.86.中国大学生英语作文评改毛荣贵Dorine S.Houston 上海交通大学出版社1998. 47.英语教师行动研究，王蔷外语教学与研究出版社2002，118.Concise History of the English Language 英语简史, 费尔南德。

莫塞，水天同等译，外语教学与研究出版社，2000。

89.英语课堂教学形成性评价研究, 罗少茜，外语教学与研究出版社2003. 4nguage, Culture and Translating, Eugene A. Nida 上海外语教育出版社, 1999,911.The Learner-centered Curriculum A Study in Second Language Teaching, David Nunan 学习者为中心的课程研究, 上海外语教育出版社, 2000, 312.Linguistics, H.G. Widdowson语言学, 上海外语教育出版社, 2000, 313.Sociolinguistics, Bernard Spolsky社会语言学, 上海外语教育出版社, 2000, 314.Psycholinguistics, Thomas Scovel心理语言学上海外语教育出版社, 2000, 315.Second Language Acquisition, Rod Ellis第二语言习得, 上海外语教育出版社, 2000, 316.Pragmatics, George Y ule语用学上海外语教育出版社, 2000, 3nguage and Culture, Clair Kramsch语言与文化, 上海外语教育出版社, 2000, 318.英语词汇学教程, A Survey of English Lexicology, 汪榕培，卢晓娟，上海外语教育出版社, 1998, 419.The English Language，R. W.Burchfield，话说英语，牛津大学出版社，外研社1992, 120.A Survey of Modern Second Language Learning & Teaching, 王立菲，现代外语教学论，上海教育出版社, 2000,1121.A History of English Language Teaching, A. P.R. Howatt语言教学史, 上海外语教育出版社, 1999, 622.具有中国特色的英语教学法, 上海外语教育出版社, 2000, 823.Context and Culture in Language Teaching, Claire Kramsch语言教学的环境与文化, 上海外语教育出版社, 1999, 1224.Teaching Language as Communication, H. G. Widdowson语言教学交际法, 上海外语教育出版社, 1999, 1225.Aspects of Language Teaching, H. G. Widdowson语言教学面面观, 上海外语教育出版社,1999, 1226.Discourse and Literature, Guy Cook话语与文学, 上海外语教育出版社, 1999, 1227.外语教学心理学, 朱纯, 上海外语教育出版社, 2000, 328.V ocabulary, Semantics and Language Education词汇、语义学和语言教育, 外语教学与研究出版社，剑桥大学出版社Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Cambridge University Press29.Principles of Course Design for Language Teaching, Hatch and Brown语言教学课程设计原理, 外语教学与研究出版社，剑桥大学出版社Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Cambridge University Press30.Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Y alden语言学习与语言教学的原则, 外语教学与研究出版社，剑桥大学出版社Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Cambridge University Press31.Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics: A Handbook for Language Teaching,Johnson and Johnson应用语言学百科词典：语言教学手册, 外语教学与研究出版社，剑桥大学出版社Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Cambridge University Press 32.A Course in Language Teaching Practice and Theory, Ur 语言教学教程：实践与理论, 外语教学与研究出版社，剑桥大学出版社Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Cambridge University Press剑桥应用语言学丛书（外研社）General Linguistics普通语言学Aronoff, M．et aI．(eds) The Handbook of Linguistics语言学综览Beaugrande，R．D．Linguistic Theory：The Discourse of Fundamental Works语言学理论：对基要原著的语篇研究Bloomfield．L．Language语言论Poole，S．An Introduction to the study of Speech语言学入门Radford，A．et a1．Linguistics：An Introduction语言学教程Robins．R．H General Linguistics普通语言学概论Spair，E Language: An Introduction to the Studyof Speech 语言论：言语研究导论Saussure．F．D Course in General Linguistics普通语言学教程Yule．G The Study of Language Second edition语言研究Phonetics and Phonology 语音学与音系学Chen．M．Y Tome Sandhi：Patterns across Chinese Dialects汉语方言的连读变调模式Clark，J．et al An htroduction to Phonetics and PhonologySecond edition语音学与音系学入门Cruttenden，A．(ed) Gimson’s Pronunciation of English Sixth Edition吉姆森英语语音教程Gussenhoven．C．et al Understanding Phonology音系学通解Kager．R Optimality Theory 优选论Roach．P English Phonetics and Phonology：A Practical Course Secondedition 英语语音学与音系学实用教程Syntax句法学Baltin，M．et a1．(eds) The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory当代句法理论通览Chomsky，N Knowledge of Language：Its Nature，Origin，and Use语言知识：其性质、来源及使用Cook．V Chomsky's Universal Grammar：An Introduction Second edition乔姆斯基的普遍语法教程Ouhalla，J Introducing Transformational Grammar：From Principles and Parameters to Minimalism Second edition转换生成语法导论：从原则参数到最简方案Radford．A Syntax：A Minimalist Introduction句法学：最简方案导论Radford．A Transformational Grammar：A First Course转换生成语法教程Smith．N Chomsky：Ideas and Ideals乔姆斯基：思想与理想Semantics语义学Lappin，S．(ed) The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory当代语义理论指南Lyons,J Linguistic Semantics An Introduction语义学引论Saeed，J．I Semantics语义学Morphology 形态学Matthews．P．H．Morphology Second edition形态学Packard，J．L The Morphology of Chinese：A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach 汉语形态学：语言认知研究法Pragmatics 语用学Mey，J．L． Pragmatic：An Introduction Second edition语用学引论Levinson．S．C Pragmatics语用学Peccei，J．S Pragmatics语用学Sperber，D．et al Relevance：Communication and Cognition Second edition关联性：交际与认知Verschueren，J Understanding Pragmatics语用学新解Discourse Analysis话语分析Brown．G．et al Discourse Analysis话语分析Gee，J．P An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory & Method话语分析入门：理论与方法Philosophy 0f Language语言哲学Austin，J．L How to Do Things with Words Second edition如何以言行事Grice．H．P Studies in the Way of Words言辞用法研究Searle，J．R Speech Acts：An Essay in the Philosophy of Language言语行为：语言哲学论Searle，J．R Expression and Meaning：Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts 表述和意义：言语行为研究Language 0rigin语言起源Aitchison，J． The Seeds of Speech：Language Origin and Evolution言语的萌发：语言起源与进化History of Linguistics语言学史Robins，R．H． A Short History of Linguistics Fourth edition语言学简史Lexicography词典学Bej 0int，H Modern Lexicography：An Introduction现代词典学入门Cowie．A．P English Dictionaries for Foreign Learners：A History英语学习词典史Hartmann．R．R．K．et al Dictionary of Lexicography词典学词典Stylistics文体学Leech．G．N A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry英诗学习指南：语言学的分析方法Leech．G．N．et al Style in Fiction：A Linguistic Introduction to EnglishFictional Prose小说文体论：英语小说的语言学入门Thomborrow，J．et al Patterns in Language：Stylistics for Students of Languageand Literature语言模式：文体学入门Wright，L．et al Stylistics：A Practical Coursebook 实用文体学教程Typology语言类型学Croft．W． Typology and Universals语言类型学与普遍语法特征Anthropological Linguistics人类语言学Foley，W． An Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction人类语言学入门Sociolinguistics 社会语言学Coulmas，F．(ed) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics社会语言学通览Crystal．D English as a Global Language英语：全球通用语Fasold．R The Sociolinguistics of Language社会语言学Hudson．R．A Sociolinguistics Second edition社会语言学教程Wardhaugh，R Introduction to Sociolinguistics Third edition社会语言学引论Psycholinguistics心理语言学Aitchison，J The Articulate Mammal：An Introduction to PsycholinguisticsFourth edition 会说话的哺乳动物：心理语言学入门Carroll．D．W Psychology of Language Third edition语言心理学Intercultural Communication文化交际Samovar．L．A．et al Communication Between Cultures Second edition跨文化交际Scollon．R．et aI． Intercultural Communication：A Discourse Analysis跨文化交际：语篇分析法Translatology 翻译学Taylor Baker．M． In Other Words：A Coursebook on Translation换言之：翻译教程Bell．R．T Translation and Translating：Theory and Practice翻译与翻译过程：理论与实践Cognitive Linguistics认知语言学Taylor，J．R Linguistic Categorization：Prototypes in Linguistic TheorySecond edition 语言的范畴化：语言学理论中的类典型Ungerer，F．et al An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics认知语言学入门Functional Linguistics功能语言学Bloor．T．et al The Functional Analysis of English：A Hallidayan Approach英语的功能分析：韩礼德模式Halliday，M．A．K An Introduction to functional Grammar Second edition功能语法导论Leech．G．N Halliday，M．A．K Language as Social Semiotic：The Social Interpretationof Language and Meaning作为社会符号的语言：从社会角度诠释语言与意义Halliday，M．A．K．et al Cohesive English英语的衔接Thompson．G Introducing Functional Grammar功能语法入门Historical Linguistics历史语言学Lehmann，W．P． Historical Linguistics：An Introduction Third edition历史语言学导论Trask．R．L Historical Linguistics历史语言学Corpus Linguistics语料库语言学Biber．D．et a1． Corpus Linguistics 语料库语言学Kennedv，G． An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics语料库语言学入门Statistics in Linguistics语言统计学Woods．A．et al． Statistics in Language Studies 语言研究中的统计学History of the English Language 英语史Baugh．A．C．et al A History of the English Language Fourth Edition英语史Freeborn．D From old EnglishtoStandard Englishecond edition英语史：从古代英语到标准英语First Language Acquisition 第一语言习得Foster-Cohen，S．H． An Introduction to Child Language Development儿童语言发展引论Goodluck．H． Language Acquisition：A Linguistic Introduction从语言学的角度看语言习得Peccel，J．S． Child Language New edition 儿童语言Second Language Acquisition第二语言习得Cohen．A．D Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language学习和运用第二语言的策略Cook．V Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition语言学和第二语言习得Cook．V Second Language Learning and Language Teaching Second edition 第二语言学习与教学James，C Errors in Language Learning and Use：Exploring Error Analysis 语言学习和语言使用中的错误：错误分析探讨Larsen-Freeman．D．et a1 An Introduction Second Language Acquisition Research第二语言习得研究概况Nunan．D Second Language Teaching and Learning第二语言教与学Reid，J．M Learning Styles in the ESL／EFL Classroom ESL／EFL英语课堂上的学习风格Richards，J．C．et al Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms第二语言课堂教学反思Language Education语言教育Brown．H．D Principles of Language Learning and Teaching Third edition语言学习和语言教学的原则Brown．H．D Teaching by Principles： An Interactive Approach to LanguagePedagogy 根据原理教学：交互式语言教学Brown，J．D The Elements of Language Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to Program Development语言教学大纲要素：课程设计系统法Harmer，J How to Teach English怎样教英语Hatch，E．et a1 Vocabulary, Semantics and Language Education词汇、语义学和语言教育Johnson，K An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching外语学习与教学导论Richards，J．et a1 Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching语言教学的流派Trudgill，P．et al International English Third edition英语：国际通用语Ur．P A Course in Language Teaching：Practice and Theory语言教学教程：实践与理论Research Method研究方法McDonotlgh，J．et al Research Methods for English Language Teachers英语教学科研方法Slade．C Form and Style：Research Papers，Reports，Theses Tenth edition如何写研究论文与学术报告Thomas，J．et al. (eds) Using Corpora，for Language Research用语料库研究语言Wray，A．et al Projects in Linguistics：A Practical Guide to Researching Language 语言学课题：语言研究实用指南Testing测试学Alderson，J．C．et al Language Test Construction and Evolution语言测试的设计与评估Bachman，L．F．et al Interfaces between Second Language Acquisition and LanguageTesting Research 第二语言习得与语言测试研究的接口Davies。

二语习得Second Language Acquisition教学内容

not enough for the learner to be exposed to it through comprehensible input. The learner must actually notice what it is in that input that makes the meaning. This idea has raised a considerable amount of interest in the context of instructed second language learning.
explicit knowledge
L2 Input
noticed input
ห้องสมุดไป่ตู้
comprehended input
intake
implicit knowledge
L2 output
Second Language Acquisition
Noticing In order for some feature of language to be acquired, it is
Second Language Acquisition
Implicit learning is coming to learn the underlying structure of a complex stimulus environment by a process which takes place naturally, simply and without conscious operations. Explicit learning is a more conscious operation where the individual makes and tests hypotheses.

The transfer of second language acquisition

The transfer of second language acquisition【Abstract】Language transfer is a very important phenomenon in second language acquisition（SLA），which many linguists and psychologists would like to research. People who learn second language must be familiar with the rules of their mother tongue，so they often transfer those rules into the second language unconsciously，and then transfers appear. Language transfer divided into positive and negative transfer. The article use Odlin' s definition of language transfer in SLA.【Key words】language transfer；error；over-use；avoidanceChapter 1 IntroductionFor several years，language transfer is always a heat topic in second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. Language transfer is not only a simple language phenomenon，but a complex cognitive process in phycological linguistic and applied linguistic fields. Therefore，the linguists who in different fields and at different periods give different definitions of language transfer. We know that there are so many different explanations about language transfer，but I cannot elaborate it from all different aspects. Therefore，I just explain it by usingOdlin' s definition，so it means that I will ignore theinter-linguistic influence in language transfer，but only focus on the influence from mother tongue to second language acquisition（SLA）. Therefore，we call language transfer as “L1 transfer”here.“L1 transfer”concludes positive transfer and negative transfer. The positive transfer facilitates the SLA，on the contrary，the interference from L1 to L2 acquisition is negative transfer.Chapter 2 The positive and negative transfer in SLA2.1 The transfer of pronunciationThe most direct L1 transfer is to use L1 pronunciation rules to replace target language pronunciation rules. Pronunciation transfer is caused by transferring L1 pronunciation to target language，so the pronunciation system of target language which learners formed is influenced by his L1 pronunciation. The pronunciation of Chinese characters and English words are all composed by syllables. Pinyin conclude initials and finals，finals have simple vowel and compound vowel，while English phonetic alphabet conclude vowel and consonant，vowel has monophthong and diphthong. The initials of Chinese syllable are same as the initial consonant of English syllable，finals are same as vowels of English syllable. There are many similaritiesin pronunciation between initials of pinyin and consonant of English phonetic alphabet. Therefore，most Chinese won't make a mistake when they pronounce these phonemes，like /p/、/b/、/t/、/d/、/k/、/g/、/f/，because they can easily find the corresponding pronunciation. Therefore，it will easily caused positive transfer. However，because Chinese （Sino-Tibetan language family）and English （Indo-European language family）belong to different family of language，so there is no exactly same pronunciation of phonemes between them. In other words，although there are some similarities in some phonemes，little differences also exist in the place of articulation among them. For the Chinese learners who learn English，they have already adapted to the Chinese pronunciation，thus，they would like to use the similar Chinese pronunciation to replace some English pronunciation which don't exist in Chinese pronunciation，for example，they prefer to pronounce /s/ instead of /θ/. Furthermore，some beginners usually use some Chinese characters or pinyin to replace the pronunciation of English words. It is also an obstruction of SLA. In addition，English is the intonation language，which differentiate the meaning by intonation，while Chinese is the tone language，which differentiate themeaning by tone. There are primary stress and secondary stress，rising and falling tone in English，but beginners usually speak without the rising and falling tone，so they cannot speak native English. This is the negative transfer caused by L1.2.2 The transfer of vocabularyThere are a number of meaningful radicals in Chinese，for example，银，铜，铁，are all related to metal，which can help us to remember Chinese characters. These radicals are just like affixes in English，such as pre-（before），vice-（deputy），-less （without），which also can help Chinese students to remember English vocabulary―positive transfer. However，there also exists negative transfer. Because some learners just know the basic meaning of English vocabulary and ignore their denotation and connotation，they often make some kinds of errors. What's more，some learners think that every English word has its corresponding Chinese meaning，so they often cannot choose right words by considering its context，and misuse some words. This is a kind of negative transfer. According to the classification，Chinese belongs to analytic language，but English is inflecting language. The Chinese word formation is totally different from English word formation. Chinese has no morphological change，but English alwayschanges with its tense. Thus，some Chinese English learners make the grammar mistake by losing the inflectional affixes，such as number，person，finiteness，aspect and case. There are several common negative transfers：the misuse of synonymy，the confusion of collocation between verb and preposition，the misuse of inflection. Chapter 3 How teachers help learners to defeat the negative transfer3.1 Explain the positive and negative transfer correctlyDuring teaching L2，the teachers are expected to explain the positive and negative transfer correctly. There are some teachers who prefer to emphasize too much about the differences between native language and target language，so that they can stimulate the learners to learn English harder. However，actually they need to balance the emphasis of interlingual similarity and difference. Although there really exists more differences than similarities between Chinese and English that effect Chinese L2 learning，teachers still need to explain both similarity and difference of intralingual at same degree. Otherwise，if they emphasize too much about difference，it may add too much pressure to the learners to learn English，which can not help to promote learning. Therefore，only teachers make the balance can encouragelearners to overcome the interference of L1，and facilitate the L1 positive transfer，thus improve learners' English.3.2 Be patient to the errors caused by transferNow that the L1 transfer cannot be avoided in SLA，teachers should be patient to the errors in phonetics，vocabulary，syntax，and discourse which are caused by transfer. Making errors is inevitable for learners during learning second language. Generally speaking，there is also an order of making errors. Therefore，if they could be patient to these errors，they would find which phase the learners have reached，and help them proceed into next phase by correcting their errors. Moreover，they need to encourage learners to face errors directly，so that they can avoid the L1 negative transfer consciously in the following learning.Chapter 4 ConclusionThe thesis has discussed the language transfer and mainly the L1 transfer，which decided into positive transfer and negative transfer. To sum up，language transfer is a very significant topic in SLA research. To know language transfer，learners can recognize the similarities and differences between their native language and target language，so they can try their best to avoid negative transfer and benefit a lot in thepositive transfer.作者简介：王雨露（1989.7.8-），女，汉族，内蒙古人，硕士研究生，研究方向：外国语言学及应用语言学。

Ionin_SLAentry

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (1,000 words)AUTHOR: Tania IoninThe term ‘second language acquisition’ refers to the acquisition of a new language by children and adults who already have full knowledge of their first language. It is thus distinct from childhood bilingualism, or simultaneous language acquisition, which refers to the child language acquisition of two languages simultaneously, with exposure to both languages beginning in infancy or soon after (Genesee 2000, Meisel 2001, 2004). Child second language acquisition, also known as sequential bilingualism, refers to the acquisition of a second language after age three of four, when much of the first language is already in place (Gass and Selinker 2001, Lakshmanan 1994, McLaughlin 1978). There is disagreement on exactly when child second language acquisition ends and adult second language acquisition begins (Gass and Selinker 2001), but age eight or nine is often taken as the upper boundary for true child second language acquisition (Bialystok and Miller 1999, Schwartz 2003).The input that child and adult learners receive in their second language takes many different forms; like child language acquisition, second language acquisition involves naturalistic exposure to the target language. However, the amount and type of input are different for second language learners immersed in the language on the one hand, and foreign language learners with classroom-only exposure to a foreign language on the other hand (R. Ellis 1989, Pica 1983). Furthermore, second language learners often receive negative evidence about the target language in the form of explicit and/or implicitinstruction (Bley-Vroman 1989, 1990, Doughty and Williams 1998; see White 1991 on positive vs. negative evidence in the classroom). There is a debate in the field of applied linguistics concerning the degree to which linguistic knowledge learned through explicit instruction can become internalized, implicit linguistic knowledge (N. Ellis 2005, R. Ellis 2002, Norris and Ortega 2000, Krashen 1981; see R. Ellis 2006 for an overview of the issues in grammar teaching). On the relationship between second language theory and second language instruction, see the papers in Eckman et al. (1995).In addition to the target language input, a potential source of knowledge for second language learners is their native language. Early morpheme-order studies (Bailey, Madden and Krashen 1974, Dulay and Burt 1974, Larsen-Freeman 1975) focused on developmental sequences across second language learners from different native language backgrounds, and found little effect of the native language (but see Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991). However, there is much evidence from other studies that second language learners are influenced by their native language in the acquisition of the target language, a process known as transfer (Dechert & Raupach 1989, Gass & Selinker 1992, Odlin 1989, among many others). Transfer has traditionally been divided into positive transfer or facilitation, which helps learners acquire properties of the target (second) language, and negative transfer or interference, which hinders learners in their course of acquisition (Odlin 1989). Generative approaches to second language acquisition look at transfer at the level of grammatical categories and features (Schwartz & Sprouse 1994, 1996, Schwartz 1998, Vainikka and Young-Scholten 1994, 1996; see White 2003 for an overview).The role that age plays in second language acquisition has received much attention in the literature. Early studies focused on how age affects ultimate attainment of the target language, and found that younger age of exposure to the target language is related to better performance on the target language phonology and syntax (Johnson and Newport 1989, 1991, Oyama 1978, Patkowski 1980; for critiques and replications of the Johnson and Newport 1989 study, see Bialystok and Miller 1999, Birdsong and Molis 2001, deKeyser 2000, among others). Following the proposal of Lenneberg (1967) that first language acquisition is subject to critical period effects, many researchers (Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson 2003, Long 1990, Patkowski 1980, Pulvermüller and Schumann 1994) have argued that age effects in second language acquisition are a result of biological maturation. At the same time, it has been argued that non-biological factors, such as the type and amount of target language input, and learners’ motivation and attitude, may account for, or at least contribute to, differences between child and adult second language learners (Flege, Frieda and Nozawa 1997, Klein 1995; for a variety of approaches to age effects, see the papers in Singleton and Lengyel 1995 and Birdsong 1999; see Birdsong 2004, 2006 for an overview). As pointed out by Long (1990) and Birdsong (2004), a biologically determined critical period should prevent native-like attainment in all learners past a certain age. While Coppieters (1987) found that even highly advanced adult second language learners in fact did not exhibit native-like attainment, much literature since then has pointed out the existence of adult second language learners who do perform near-natively on phonology (Bongaerts 1999) and syntax (Birdsong 1992,White and Genesee 1996). For a review of the recent literature on near-nativeness, see Bongaerts (2005), Sorace (2003).Within the field of generative approaches to second language acquisition, the critical period debate takes the form of a debate concerning whether innate mechanisms underlying language acquisition, in the form of Universal Grammar, are available to adult learners. In a highly influential proposal, Bley-Vroman (1989, 1990) argued that first language acquisition by children and second language acquisition by adults are fundamentally different processes. Bley-Vroman argued that while child language acquisition is guided by innate linguistic mechanisms, adult second language acquisition relies on problem-solving, instruction, and explicit strategies. Much work in the field of generative second language acquisition over the past twenty years has debated this view. Proponents of the deficit view argue that adult learners are impaired with regard to all or some aspects of language acquisition and/or constrained to those aspects of Universal Grammar instantiated in their native language (Hawkins and Chan 1997, Hawkins and Hattori 2006, Meisel 1997, Schachter 1990, Tsimpli and Dimitrakopoulou 2007). On the other side of the debate, proponents of the Full Access to Universal Grammar view argue that innate linguistic mechanisms remain active throughout adulthood, and that differences between children and adults stem from other sources (Epstein, Flynn and Martohardjono 1996, 1998, Schwartz and Sprouse 1994, 1996; see White 2003 for an overview). On the influential Full Transfer / Full Access model of second language acquisition (Schwartz and Sprouse 1994, 1996), second language learners transfer the grammatical characteristics of their native language to the second language, but are thenable to acquire new aspects of the target language through direct access to Universal Grammar.Evidence for Full Access views of second language acquisition comes from two different sources. The first source of evidence comes from developmental comparisons between child and adult second language learners, under a research program put forth by Schwartz (1992, 2003). On the assumption that innate linguistic knowledge is available to child second language learners, evidence of similar developmental sequences among children and adults (with the native language held constant) is used to argue that such knowledge is available to adult learners as well (Gilkerson 2006, Schwartz 2003, Unsworth 2005). The second source of evidence comes from studies of poverty-of-the-stimulus phenomena with adult second language learners: when adult learners are able to master aspects of the second language which are not instantiated in the native language, not obvious from the input, and not explicitly taught in the classroom, this provides evidence that innate linguistic knowledge is at work (Dekydtspotter, Sprouse and Anderson 1997, Dekydtspotter, Sprouse and Swanson 2001, Montrul and Slabakova 2003, Kanno 1998, among others). Much of this work has been done with phenomena at the syntax-semantics interface (see Slabakova 2006 for an overview). The syntax-pragmatics interface has also been examined in recent literature, both in second language acquisition (Sorace 2003, 2005) and childhood bilingualism (Serratrice, Sorace and Paoli 2004).Second language acquisition is a growing field, encompassing a variety of perspectives on how languages are learned (Doughty and Long 2003), including interlanguagepragmatics and approaches in applied linguistics, as well as generative approaches (White 2003), and, more recently, psycholinguistic perspectives and techniques (see Marinis 2003 for an overview). The study of second language acquisition is also closely related to the study of attrition and incomplete acquisition of the first language under the influence of a dominant second language (Montrul forthcoming, Polinsky 1997). Many of the same issues, including the role of transfer and the effects of age, are studied with regard to both second language acquisition and first language attrition.See also: Applied linguistics; child language acquisition; competence, communicative; competence, linguistic; competence, pragmatic; communication failure; cross-cultural pragmatics; development, pragmatic; intercultural communication; interlanguage pragmatics; psycholinguistics; semantics; semantics-pragmatics interface; sociolinguistics; specificity; syntax-pragmatics interface.Suggestions for further reading:Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.) (2003) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Blackwell.Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2001) Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.White, L. (2003) Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.BIBLIOGRAPHYBailey, N. Madden, C. & Krashen, S. (1974) ‘Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning?’, Language Learning, 24: 235-243.Bialystok, E. & Miller, B. (1999) ‘The problem of age in second language acquisition: Influences from language, structure and task’, Bilingualism: Language andCognition, 2: 127-145.Birdsong, D. & Molis, M. (2001) ‘On the evidence for maturational constraints in second language acquisition’, Journal of Memory and Language, 44: 235-249. Birdsong, D. (1992) ‘Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition’, Language, 68: 706-755.Birdsong, D. (2004) ‘Second language acquisition and ultimate attainment’, in A. Davis & C. Elder (eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Blackwell, 82-105. Birdsong, D. (2006) ‘Age and second language acquisition and processing. A selective overview’, Language Learning, 56-9-49.Birdsong, D. (ed.) (1999) Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Bley-Vroman, R. (1989) ‘What is the logical problem of foreign language learning?’, in S. Gass and J. Schachter (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second languageacquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Bley-Vroman, R. (1990) ‘The logical problem of foreign language learning’, Linguistic Analysis 20: 3-49.Bongaerts, T. (1999) ‘Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of veryadvanced late L2 learners’, in D. Birdsong (ed.), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 133-159. Bongaerts, T. (2005) ‘Introduction: ultimate attainment and the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition’, International Review of Applied Linguistics inLanguage Teaching, 43: 259-267Coppieters, R. (1987) ‘Competence differences between native and near-native speakers’, Language, 63: 544-573.Dechert, H. & Raupach, M. (eds.) (1989) Transfer in Language Production, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.DeKeyser, R. (2000) ‘The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22: 499-533. Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R.A. & Anderson, B. (1997) ‘The interpretive interface in L2 acquisition: the process-result distinction in English-French interlanguage grammars’, Language Acquisition, 6: 297-332.Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R.A. & Swanson, K. (2001) ‘Reflexes of mental architecture in second-language acquisition: The interpretation of ‘combien’ extractions inEnglish-French interlanguage’, Language Acquisition, 9, 175-227.Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.) (2003) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Blackwell.Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.) (1998) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974) ‘Natural sequences in child second language acquisition’, Language Learning, 24: 37-53.Eckman, F., Highland, D., Lee, P., Milcham, J. & Rutkowski, R. (eds.) (1995) Second Language Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ellis, N. (2005) ‘At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27: 305-352.Ellis, R. (1989) ‘Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same?’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11: 305-326.Ellis, R. (2002) ‘Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24: 223–236.Ellis, R. (2006) ‘Current issues in the teaching of grammar: an SLA perspective’, TESOL Quarterly, 40: 85-107.Epstein, S., Flynn, S. & Martohardjono, G. (1996) ‘Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19: 677-758.Epstein, S., Flynn, S. & Martohardjono, G. (1998) ‘The strong continuity hypothesis in adult L2 acquisition of functional categories’, in S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono & W.O’Neil (eds.), The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 61-77.Flege, J., Frieda, A. & Nozawa, T. (1997) ‘Amount of native-language (L1) use affects the pronunciation of an L2’, Journal of Phonetics, 25: 169-186.Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2001) Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (eds.) nguage Transfer in Language Learning.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Genesee, F. (2000) ‘Introduction: syntactic aspects of bilingual acquisition’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 3: 167-172.Gilkerson, J. (2006) Acquiring English Particle Verbs: Age and Transfer Effects in Second Language Acquisition, Ph. Dissertation, University of California at LosAngeles.Hawkins, R. & Chan, C. (1997) ‘The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: the ‘failed functional features hypothesis’, Second Language Research, 13: 187-226.Hawkins, R. & Hattori, H. (2006) ‘Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: a missing uninterpretable feature account’, Second LanguageResearch,22: 269-301.Hyltenstam, K. & Abrahamsson, N. (2003) ‘Maturational constraints in SLA’, in C.Doughty & M. Long (eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Blackwell, 539-588.Johnson, J. & Newport, E. (1989) ‘Critical period effects in second language learning: the influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language’, Cognitive Psychology, 21: 60-99.Johnson, J. & Newport, E. (1991) ‘Critical period effects on universal properties of languages: the status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language’,Cognition, 39: 215-258Kanno, K. (1998) ‘The stability of UG principles in second-language acquisition: evidence from Japanese’, Linguistics,36: 1125–1146.Klein, W. (1995) ‘Language acquisition at different ages’, in D. Magnusson (ed.), The Lifespan Development of Individuals; Behavioral, Neurobiological, and Psychosocial Perspectives: A Synthesis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 244-264. Krashen, S. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, Oxford: Pergamon.Lakshmanan, U. (1994). ‘Child second language acquisition of syntax’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 301-329.Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research,London: Longman.Larsen-Freeman, D. (1975) ‘The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult ESL students’, TESOL Quarterly, 9: 409-430.Lenneberg, E. (1967) Biological Foundations of Language,New York: Wiley & Sons. Long, M. (1990) ‘Maturational constraints on language development’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12: 251-285.Long, M. (2007) Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Marinis, T. (2003) ‘Psycholinguistic techniques in second language acquisition research’, Second Language Research, 19: 144-161.Meisel, J. (1997) ‘The acquisition of the syntax of negation in French and German, contrasting first and second language development’, Second Language Research, 13: 227-263.McLaughlin, B. (1978) Second-language acquisition in childhood. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Meisel, J. (2001) ‘The simultaneous acquisition of two first languages: earlydifferentiation and subsequent development of grammars’, in J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (eds.), Trends in Bilingual Acquisition,Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11-42. Meisel, J. (2004) ‘The bilingual child’, in T. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism, Oxford: Blackwell, 91-113.Montrul, S. (forthcoming) Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism. Re- examining the Age Factor, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Forthcoming 2008)Montrul, S. & Slabakova, R. (2003) ‘Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: an investigation of the preterite/imperfect contrast in Spanish’,Studies in Second Language Acquisition,25: 351-98.Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000) ‘Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis’, Language Learning, 50: 417-528.Odlin, T. (1989) Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Oyama, S. (1978) ‘The sensitive period and comprehension of speech’, Working Papers on Bilingualism, 16: 1-17.Patkowski, M. (1980) ‘The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a second language’, Language Learning 30: 449-472.Pica, T. (1983) ‘Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure’, Language Learning, 33: 465-497.Polinsky, M. (1997) ‘American Russian: Language loss meets language acquisition’, in W. Browne et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (the Cornell Meeting 1995), Ann Arbor: Michigan SlavicPublications, 370-407.Pulvermüller, F. & Schumann, J. (1994) ‘Neurobiological mechanisms of language acquisition’, Language Learning, 44: 681-734.Schachter, J. (1990) ‘On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition’, Second Language Research, 6: 93-124.Schwartz, B.D. & Sprouse, R.A. (1994) ‘Word order and nominative case in non-native language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage’, inT. Hoekstra & B.D. Schwartz (eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in GenerativeGrammar: Papers in Honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW Workshops.Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 317-368.Schwartz, B.D. & Sprouse, R.A. (1996) ‘L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model’, Second Language Research, 12: 40-72.Schwartz, B.D. (1992) ‘Testing between UG-based and problem-solving models of L2A: developmental sequence data’, Language Acquisition, 2: 1-19.Schwartz, B.D. (1998) ‘The second language instinct’, Lingua, 106: 133-160.Schwartz, B.D. (2003) ‘Child L2 acquisition: paving the way’. in B. Beachley, A. Brown & F. Conlin (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference onLanguage Development, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 26-50.Serratrice, L., Sorace, A. & Paoli, S. (2004) ‘Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax-pragmatics interface: subjects and objects in English-Italian bilingual andmonolingual acquisition’, Bilingualism:Language and Cognition,7: 183-205. Singleton, D. & Lengyel, Z. (eds.) (1995) The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition: A Critical Look at the Critical Period Hypothesis, Philadelphia:Multilingual Matters.Slabakova, R. (2006). ‘Is there a Critical Period for semantics?’, Second Language Research, 22, 1-37.Sorace, A. (2003) ‘Near-nativeness’, in C. Doughty & M. Long (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Blackwell, 130-151.Sorace, A. (2005) ‘Syntactic optionality at interfaces’, in L. Cornips & K. Corrigan (eds.), Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 46-111.Tsimpli, I. & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007) ‘The interpretability hypothesis: evidence from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition’, Second Language Research, 23: 215-242.Unsworth, S. (2005) Child L2, Adult L2, Child L1: Differences and Similarities. A study on the Acquisition of Direct Object Scrambling in Dutch. PhD Dissertation, Utrecht University.Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. (1994) ‘Direct access to X’-Theory: Evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German’. on T. Hoekstra & B.D. Schwartz (eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar: Papers in Honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW Workshops,Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 265-316. Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. (1996) ‘Gradual development of L2 phrase structure’, Second Language Research, 12: 7-39.White, L. (1991) ‘Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom’, Second Language Research, 7: 133-161.White, L. (2003) Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.White, L. & Genesee, F. (1996) ‘How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in second language acquisition’, Second Language Research, 12: 238-265.。

二语习得阅读书目

二语习得阅读书目1、牛津应用语言学丛书19本，上海外语教育出版社，重点阅读16本：《第二语言习得研究》The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Rod Ellis《第二语言习得研究》Understanding Second Language Acquisition, Rod Ellis《应用语言学原理与实践》Principles & Practice in Applied Linguistics, G. Cook, et al. eds.《英语教学史》A History of English Language Teaching, A. P. R. Howatt《语言教学的环境与文化》Context and Culture in Language Teaching, C. Kramsch《第二语言研究方法》Second Language Research Method, H. W. Seliger, et al.《语言学习认知法》A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, P. Skehan《语言教学的基本概念》Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching, H. H. Stern《语言教学的问题与可选策略》Issues and Options in Language Teaching, H. H. Stern 《语言教学面面观》Aspects of Language Teaching, H. G. Widdowson《语言教学交际法》Teaching Language as Communication, H. G. Widdowson2、当代国外语言学与应用语言学文库第三辑22本，外语教学与研究出版社，重点阅读：《二语习得引论》Introducing Second Language Acquisition, M. Saville-Troike《语言教学中的课程设计》Curriculum Development in Language Teaching, J. C. Richards 《成人二语习得中的僵化现象》Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition, Zhaohong Han《语言教学的流派》Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (Second Edition), J. C.Richards & T. S. Rodgers3、《语言教学的技巧与原理》Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching, D.Larsen-Freeman, second edition, Oxford University Press, 20004、《二语习得重点问题研究》Major Issues in Second Language Acquisition, 文秋芳，外语教学与研究出版社，20105《第二语言习得研究》商务印书馆。

现代语言教学的十大原则

80
靳洪刚：现代语言教学的十大原则
习者进一步明确语言学习的最终目的是完成生活中的各种任务，解决生活中的各种问题。任务教学设计一般须包含三个任务阶段及五个基本组成部分。任务的三个阶段分别
是：前期任务、核心任务、后期任务。前期阶段是任务准备阶段，多在课下完成。前期任务的目的是激活学习者已有知识，为新的语言学习奠定基础。从语言输入、信息来源、交际背景等方面为学生提供语言及交际框架（ scaffolding），帮助学生顺利进入核心任务阶段。因此，这一阶段的教学主要以激活已有知识、处理语言输入为主，活动多以理解诠释性阅读、听力为主。核心任务阶段包含两个方面的教学，一是以语言形式为中心的教学，目的是给学习者建立完成核心任务的交际框架，帮助学习者整合信息；二是以语言使用为中心的任务模拟、教学实施，多以口语输出、人际交流的方式在课上完成。核心任务的目的是提供具有一定认知及语言复杂度的模拟任务，让学习者有目的地使用目标语言，完成任务，取得预期结果。主要形式为，首先采用合班学习语言形式，然后分组互动，完成信息交换、信息组合、意见交换等任务。后期阶段是任务总结、反思、实际生活应用阶段，多以实地操作、书面输出或口头演说的方式在课上或课下完成，主要采用书面总结、实地调查、口头报告等形式。
一引言现代语言教育在近二十年来受到了三大领域科学研究成果的极大影响。这三大领域分别是：语言习得研究、认知心理学以及教育学。就第二语言习得领域而言，在过去的五十年中，研究者通过各种实验研究，如语言对比、错误分析、语言普遍原则、认知心理学、语言获得过程等方面的实验，对不同语言的习得顺序、习得速度、语言输入及输出的作用、课堂过程、学习策略等方面进行了系统研究，得出了不少定论。这些研究成果形成了第二语言教学领域的部分教学原则。就认知心理学来看，研究者从普遍学习理论，人类认知过程，大脑记忆、储存、加工等语言的处理过程，记忆储存方式，输入频率，视觉、听觉凸显性，反例对比等方面，提出具体的语言学习理论及第二语言教学策略，极大地影响了第二语言课堂过程及学习过程的教学原则。就教育学来看，研究者强调教学要以学习者为中心，要让学习者参与学习过程，进行各种合作及个人化的教学，强调与实际经验结合起来。从这一理论出发形成了多种第二语言教学方法，它们强调以学生为中心，以沟通为目的，通过任务教学的方式达到第二语言教学的目的。这些领域的科学研究及学科发展成果引入第二语言教学领域后，语言教学领域发生了巨大变革和根本性转变。这一根本性转变表现在语言教学的六个方面：第一，就语言教学原则（ methodological principles）而言，现代语言教学在教学经验的基础上，更重视借鉴科学的实证研究来指导教学（ empirically motivated methodological principles）；第二，就教学内容（ instructional content）而言，现代语言教学不再是单一的语言知识的学习，而是跨越三种交际模

the second language acqusition第二语言习得复习资料

1.Definition of Second language acquisition:It refers to a systematic study of how one person acquires a second language subsequent to his native language.Acquisition习得: 无意识地学会Learning学习：通过系统学习语法规律等学会2.Interlanguage 中介语Selinker (1972) coined the term “interlanguage” to refer to the systematic knowledge of an L2 which is independent of both these learners’ L1 and the target language. The term has come to be used with different but related meanings: (1) to refer to the series of interlocking systems which characterize acquisition. (2) to refer to the system that is observed at a single stage of development. (“interlanguage”), and (3) to refer to particular L1/L2 combination (for example,L1 French/ L2 English v. L1 Japanese/L2 English). Other terms that refer to the same basic idea are “approximative system” and “transitional competence”.定义：中介语：中介语理论假设第二语言学习者有一个自行创造的独特的语言系统，介乎学习者的母语和目的语之间，并随学习的进展逐渐向目的语靠拢。

Chapter 11 Second Language Acquisition

•
L1
FL/SL(TL)
•
•
Interlanguage (IL)
•
NL: TL comparisons ( Contrastive Analysis)
•
IL: TL comparisons (Error Analysis)
•
NL:IL comparisons (Transfer Analysis)
11.3. Contrastive analysis (CA) (1960s)
11.4 Error analysis (EA)
• Error analysis involves, first independently or objectively,
describing the learners’ interlanguage and the target language, then a comparison of the two languages is followed to locate mismatches. Different from contrastive analysis, error analysis gave less consideration to learners’ native language.
11. Some students do not care others. 12. They are busy searching jobs. 13. It has been existed for a long time. 14. The bus is arrived. 15. You should return the library the books. 16. He reported the police the accident. 17. I forgot the car accident happened at the corner of that

Research Design Contest

实验设计竞赛假设课题：外语词汇对母语词汇的依附背景不少学者认为，在成人外语学习过程中，外语词汇的掌握有一个依附于母语词汇的阶段，即外语词汇不是直接和概念连接，而是和母语对等词连接(e.g., Jiang, 2000；Kroll & de Groot, 1997) 。

但是只有少量的、间接的研究证据支持这个观点（e.g., Talamas, Kroll, & Dufour, 1999)。

本研究本研究的的思路和条件本研究的目的是为检验这个观点提供更为直接的正面或方面的证据，其思路是，如果外语词汇依附于母语对等词，那么其识别过程就依赖于其母语对等词的激活。

如果有两组外语词其它特性相同，但是一组的母语对等词频率明显高于另一组，那么前者的识别过程应该更快。

如果外语单词并非依附于母语，那么它们的识别就不应该受其母语对等词的频率影响，所以这些特性相近的词汇的识别时间应该相近。

所以我们可以进行一个外语词判断实验，实验任务是词判断，即lexical decision 。

被试是母语为中文的英语学生。

这个实验的关键材料是两组英文单词，每组各20个，一组的中文翻译的频率比较低，另一组的比较高，其它特性都相似。

设计要求1、请详细描述实验材料的选择步骤和取舍标准，包括需要进行哪些预测。

2、请描述需要什么样的被试，以及选择的步骤和标准。

3、请说出你设计的实验的因变量、自变量、设计类型、以及所需的统计方法。

奖品一等奖的要求是实验设计不需经过重大修改就可以实施。

二等奖的要求是实验设计经过一项重大修改就可以设施。

一等奖获得者得到由编著者亲笔签名的以下三本书，二等奖获得者得到由编著者亲笔签名的以下任何一本书。

1. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (2005) by Micheal Long and CatherineDoughty2. The Handbook of Language Teaching (2011) by Micheal Long and Catherine Doughty3. Conducting Reaction Time Research in Second Language Studies (2011) by Nan Jiang。

Second Language Acquisition

Second Language Acquisition二语习得定义1960年代开始，有人研究人们获得语言能力的机制，尤其是获得外语能力的机制，综合了语言学、神经语言学、语言教育学、社会学多种学科，慢慢发展出一门新的学科，叫“二语习得”，Second Language Acquisition。

自20 世纪70 年代以来,人们对二语习得从各个不同的方面进行了研究,所运用的研究方法也各具特色。

有的研究侧重于描写,有的研究偏重于假设,有的研究则采用实验。

20多年来,第二语言的多侧面、多方法的研究格局导致了该领域中的理论层出不穷。

目前较为流行的有:(一) 乔姆斯基的普遍语法与二语习得乔姆斯基和其支持者们认为,遗传基因赋予人类普遍的语言专门知识,他把这种先天知识称之为“普遍语法”。

他们的主要论点是,假如没有这种天赋,无论是第一语言还是第二语言的习得将是不可能的事情,原因是在语言习得过程中,语言数据的输入(input )是不充分的,不足以促使习得的产生。

乔姆斯基认为,语言是说话人心理活动的结果,婴儿天生就有一种学习语言的能力,对他们的语言错误不须纠正,随着年龄的增长他们会在生活实践中自我纠正。

有的人在运用语言时,总是用语法来进行核对,以保证不出错误,这就是所谓通过学习来进行监控的[ 1 ] (P19)。

随着语言水平的不断提高,这种监控的使用会逐渐越来越少。

从本质上说, 语言不是靠“学习”获得的, 只要语言输入中有足够的正面证据,任何一个正常人都能习得语言。

(二) 克拉申的监控理论在20 世纪末影响最大的二语习得理论当数克拉申的监控理论(Monitor Theory) 。

他把监控论归结为5 项基本假说:语言习得与学习假说、自然顺序假说、监控假说、语言输入假说和情感过滤假说。

克氏认为第二语言习得涉及两个不同的过程:习得过程和学得过程。

所谓“习得”是指学习者通过与外界的交际实践,无意识地吸收到该种语言,并在无意识的情况下,流利、正确地使用该语言。

读书笔记(RodEllisSecondLanguageAcquisition)

/s/blog_4b92bfc0010006f2.html（Oct. 22, 2007）读书笔记—Second Language Acquisition（Rod Ellis, 上海外语教育出版社）2006-12-03 20:15:41这本书用简洁的语言概述了第二语言习得的研究状况，通俗易懂，对于刚入门的读者来说会有很大帮助。

我认为该书在编排上最大的优点是在书的末尾有与正文有关的一些小案例，可以帮助读者更好的理解和掌握作者在书中讲到的理论。

在读完这本书后，我自己感觉收获颇丰。

——Second Language Acquisition（Rod Ellis, 上海外语教育出版社）1. What’s ‘Second Language Acquisition’?1) Introduction: describing and explaining L2 acquisitionL2 is fairly a recent phenomenon, belonging to the second half of the twentieth century. ‘L2 acquisition’ can be defined as the way in which people learn a language other than their mother tongue ,inside or outside of a classroom, and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) as the study of this.2) What are the goals of SLA?In general, SLA has not focused on the communicative aspects of language development but on the formal features of language that linguists have traditionally concentrated on. One of the goals of SLA description of L2 acquisition. Another is explanation : identifying the external and internal factors that account for why learners acquire an L2 in the way they to . One of the external factors is the social milieu in which learning takes place. Another external factor is the input that learners receive, that is , the samples of language to which a learner exposed. The internal factors are as follows: (1) Learners possess cognitive mechanisms which enable them to extract information about the L2 from the input ;(2)L2 learners bring an enormous amount of knowledge to task of learning an L2；（3）L2 learners possess general knowledge about the world which they can draw on to help them understand L2 input; (4) L2 learners possess communication strategies that can help them take effective use of their L2 knowledge.The goals of SLA , then , are to describe how L2 acquisition proceeds and to explain this process and why some learners seem to be better at is than others.2. The nature of learner language1) The main way of investigating L2 acquisitionThe main way of investigating L2 acquisition is by collecting and describing samples of learner language . The description may focus on the kinds of errors learners make and how these errors change over time, or it may identify developmental patterns by describing the stages in the acquisition of particular grammatical features such as past tense, or it may examine the variability found in learner language.2) Errors and error analysis(1) The first step in analyzing learner errors is to identify them. It is difficult to identify errors because of two reasons: firstly, it is often difficult to identifythe exact errors that learners make. secondly, it’s hard to distinguish errors and mistakes.(2) The second step is describing errors. Once all the errors have been identified , they can be described and classified into types. There are several ways of doing this . One way is to classify general ways in which the learners utterances differ from the reconstructed target-language utterance. Such ways include ‘omission’, ‘misinformation’ and ‘disordering’.(3) Explaining errors: the identification and description of errors are preliminaries to the much more interesting task of trying to explain why they occur.(4) Error evaluation3) Development patterns(1) The early stages of L2 acquisition : in the circumstances which L2 learners learna language as a natural, untutored process, they undergo a silent period. When learners do begin to speak in the L2 their speech is likely to manifest two particular characteristics. One is the kind of formulaic chunks. The second characteristic of early speech is propositional simplification.(2) The order of acquisition: accuracy order and the order of acquisition(3) Sequence of acquisition4) Variability in learner languageLearner’s language is systematic, but it is also variable. These two characteristics are not contradicted because it is possible that variability is also systematic.(1) It appears that learners vary in their use of the L2 according to linguistic context.(2) Learners also vary the linguistic forms they use in accordance with the situational context.(3) Another important factor that accounts for the systematic nature of variability is the psycholinguistic context.But it would seem that at least some variability is ‘free’. Learners do sometimes use two or more forms in free variation.3. Interlanguage1) Behaviorist learning theory2) A mentalist of language learningIn the 1960 and 1970 , a mentalist theory first language (L1) acquisition emerged. According to this theory:(1) Only human beings are capable of learning language.(2) The human mind is equipped with a faculty for learning language, referred to as a Language Acquisition Device. This is separate from the faculties responsible for other kinds of cognitive activity ( for example, logical reasoning).(3) This faculty is the primary determinant of language acquisition(4) Input is needed, but only to ‘trigger’ the operation of the language acquisition device.The conception of interlanguage drew directly on these mentalist views of L1 acquisition.3) What’s ‘interlanguage’?The term ‘interlanguage’ was coined by the American linguist, Larry Selinker, in recognition of the fact that L2 learners construct a linguistic system that draws, in part, on the learner’s L1 but it also different from it and also from the target language. A learner’s interlanguage is, therefore, a unique linguistic system. The concept of interlanguage involves the following premises about L2 acquisition: (1) The learner constructs a system of abstract linguistic rules which underlies comprehension and production of the L2. This system of rules is viewed as a ‘mental grammar’ and is referred to as an ‘interlanguage’.(2) The learner’s grammar is permeable.(3) The learner’s grammar is transitional.(4) Some researchers have claimed that the systems learners construct contain variable rules.(5) Learners employ various learning strategies to develop their interlanguages.(6) The learner’s grammar is likely to fossilize.4)A computational model of L2 acquisitionInput →intake→L2 knowledge →output4.Social aspects of interlanguageThree rather different approaches to incorporating a social angle on the study of L2 acquisition can be identified. The first views interlanguage as consisting of different ‘styles’ which learners call upon under different conditions of language use. The second concerns how social factors determine the input that learners use to construct their interlanguage. The third considers how the social identities that learners negotiate in their interactions with native speakers shape their opportunities to speak and, thereby , to learn an L2.1) Interlanguage as a stylistic continuumDrawing on work on variability in learner language, Elaine Tarone has proposed that interlanguage involves a stylistic continuum.Another theory that also draws on the idea of stylistic variation but which is more obviously social is Howard Gile’s accommodation theory.2) The acculturation model of L2 acquisitionA similar perspective on the role of social factors in L2 acquisition can be found in John Schumann’s acculturation model.3) Social identity and investment in L2 learningThe notions of ‘subject to’ and ‘subject of’ are central to Bonny Peirce’s view of the relationship between social context and L2 acquisition.5 Discourse aspects of interlanguageThe study of learner discourse in SLA has been informed by two rather different goals. On the one hand there have been attempts to discover how L2 learners acquire the ‘rules’ of discourse that inform native-speaker language use. On the other hand, a number of researchers have sought to show how interaction shapes interlanguage development.1) Acquiring discourse rules2) The role of input and interaction in L2 acquisition(1) According to Stephen Krashen’s input hypothesis, L2 acquisition takes place when a learner understands input that contains grammatical forms that are at ‘i+1’. According to Krashen , L2 acquisition depends on comprehension input.Michael Long’s interaction hypothesis also emphasizes the importance of comprehensible input but claims that it is most effective when it is modified through the negotiation of meaning.(2) Another perspective on the relationship between discourse and L2 acquisition is provided by Evelyn Hatch. Hatch emphasizes the collaborative endeavors of the learners and their interlocutors in constructing discourse and suggests that syntactic structures can grow out of the process of building discourse.(3) Other SLA theorists have drawn on the theories of L.S. Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist , to explain how interaction serves as the bedrock of acquisition.3) The role of output in L2 acquisitionKrashen argues that ‘Speaking is the result of acquisition not it’s cause’. In contrast, Merrill Swain has argued that comprehensible output also plays a part in L2 acquisition.6 Psycholinguistic aspects of interlanguage1) L1 transferIt is clear that the transfer is governed by learners perceptions about what is transferable and by their stage of development.2) The role of consciousness in L2 acquisitionStephen Krashen has argued the need to distinguish ‘acquired’L2 knowledge and ‘learned’ Ls knowledge . He claims that the former is developed subconsciously through comprehending input while communicating, while the latter is developed consciously through deliberate study of the L2.Richard Schmidt has pointed out that the term ‘consciousness’ is often used very loosely in SLA and argues that there is a need to standardize the concepts that underlie its use.Schmidt argues that no matter whether learning is intentional or incidental, it involves conscious attention to features in the input.3) Processing operations(1) Operating principlesThe study of the L1 acquisition of many different languages has led to the identification of a number of general strategies which children use to extract and segment linguistic information from the language they hear. Dan Slobin has referred to these strategies as operation principles. Roger Anderson describes a number of operating principles for L2acquisition, and he claims that his principles are ‘macro principles’.4) Processing constraints5) Communicative strategies6) Two types of computational modelOne type involves the idea of ‘serial processing’. The alternative type of apparatus involves the idea of parallel distributed processing.7. Linguistic aspects of interlanguage1) Typological universals: relative clausesA good example of how linguistic enquiry can shed light on interlanguage development can be found in the study of relative clauses.2) Universal GrammarChomsky argues that language is governed by a set of highly abstract principles that provides parameters which are given particular settings in different languages.3)learnabilityChomsky has claimed that children learning their L1 must rely on innate knowledge of language because otherwise the task facing them is an impossible one.4) The critical period hypothesisThe critical period hypothesis states that there is a period during which language acquisition is easy and complete and beyond which it is difficult and typically incomplete.5) Access to UGWe will briefly examine a number of theoretical positions.a) Complete access: An assumption is that full target-language competence is possible and that there is no such thing as a critical period.b) No access : The argument here is that UG is not available to adult L2 learners.c) Partial access: Another theoretical possibility is that learners have access to part of UG but not others.d) Dual accessAccording to this position, adult L2 learners make use of both UG and general learning strategies.6) Markedness7) Cognitive versus linguistic explanations8. Individual differences in L2 acquisition1) Language aptitudeEarly work by John Carroll led to the identification of a number of components of language aptitude. These are:(1) Phonemic coding ability.(2) Grammatical sensitivity.(3) Inductive language learning ability.(4) Rote learning ability.2) MotivationVarious kinds of motivation have been identified: instrumental, integrative, resultative and intrinsic.3) Learning strategiesDifferent kinds of learning strategies have been identified.Cognitive strategies are those that are involved in the analysis, synthesis, or transformation of learning materials.Metacognitive strategies are those involved in planning, monitoring, and evaluating learning.Social/ affective strategies concern the ways in which learners choose to interact with other speakers.9.Instruction and L2 acquisitionSome researchers have studied what impact teaching has on L2 learning. In this chapter we will consider three branches of this research. The first concerns whether teaching learners grammar has any effect on their interlanguage development. The second draws on the research into individual learner differences. The third branch looks at strategy training.1) Form-focused instruction2) Does form-focused instruction work?3) What kind of form-focused instruction works best?Given that instruction can work, it becomes important to discover whether some kinds of instruction work better than others. To illustrate this we will consider a number of options in form-focused instruction. The first concerns the distinction between input-based and production-based practice.The second issue concerns conscious-raising.4) Learner-Instruction matchingA distinct possibility is that the same instructional option is not equally for all L2 learners.5) Strategy strainingMost of the research on strategy training has focused on vocabulary learning.。

语言学阅读书目

语言学阅读书目应用语言学方向1. Brown, H. D. (2001). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Beijing: FLTRP.2. Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, U.K.: OUP.3. Johnson, K. (2002). An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Beijing: FLTRP.4. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (2000). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. Beijing: FLTRP.5. O’Malley, J. & Chamot, A. (1990). Learni ng Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.6. Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.7. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2005). Teaching and Researching Reading. Beijing: FLTRP.8. Hughes, R. (2005). Teaching and Researching Speaking. Beijing: FLTRP.9. Hyland, K. (2005). Teaching and Researching Writing. Beijing: FLRTP.10. James, C. (2001). Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis. Beijing: FLTRP.11. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. 2007 (2003). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. Beijing: Peking University Press.12. Robinson. P. (Ed.). (2007). Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Beijing: WPC.13. Rost, M. (2005). Teaching and Researching Listening.Beijing: FLTRP.14. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: OUP.15. Thomas, J., & Short, M. (2001). Using Corpora for Language Research. Beijing: FLTRP.语用学方向1. A New Course in Pragmatics，Chen Xinren，Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2009.2. Notes on Pragmatics, He Ziran, Nanjing Normal University Press, 2002.3. Pragmatics, J. Peccei, Routledge, 1999.4. Pragmatics, G. Yule, Oxford: OUP, 1996.5. Pragmatics, Huang Yan, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.6. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics, J. Thomas, London: Longman, 1995.7. Pragmatics: An Introduction, J. Mey, Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.8. Principles of Pragmatics, G. Leech, London: Longman, 1983.9. Understanding Pragmatics, J. Verschueren, London: Arnold, 1999.10. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, P. Brown and S. Levinson, Cambridge: CUP, 1987.11. Relevance: Cognition and Communication, D. Sperber and D. Wilson, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986/1995.12. Doing Pragmatics, P. Grundy, London: Edward Arnold, 1995.13. Pragmatics, S. Levinson, Cambridge: CUP, 1983.14. Cross-cultural Pragmatics, Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (eds.), Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1989.15. Interlanguage Pragmatics, Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka (eds.), Oxford University Press, 1993.16. Pragmatics in Language T eaching, Rose, K. & G. Kasper (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.17. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse, K. M. Jaszczolt, Pearson Education Limited, 2002. /北京大学出版社,2004.18. Pragmatics: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, Louise Cummings, Edinburgh University Press, 2005.19. Pragmatics and Grammar, Mira Ariel, Cambridge: CUP, 2008.20. Experimental Pragmatics, Ira A. Noveck & Dan Sperber (Eds.), Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.认知语言学方向1. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.2. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press.3. Goldberg, Adele 1995. Constructions: a construction grammarapproach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.4. Jackendoff, Ray 1995. Patterns in the mind. Basic Books.5. Ungerer, Jans-Jorg and Friedrich Schmid. 1996. AnIntroduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Longman.6. Jackendoff, Ray 1997. The architecture of language faculty. The MIT Press.7. Radford, Andrew, et al. 1999. Linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge University Press.8. Talmy, Leonard 2000/2003. Toward a cognitive semantics. The MIT Press.9. Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner 2002. The Way We Think. Basic Books.10. Taylor, John 2002. Cognitive Grammar. OUP.11. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav 2005. Argumentrealization. Cambridge University Press.12. Goldberg, Adele 2006. Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. OUP.13. Geeraerts, Dirk 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton.14. Geeraerts, Dirk and Hubert Cuyckens 2007. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. OUP.。

英语语言文学专业(学科代码：050201)

英语语言文学英语语言理论与应用方向必读书目：(1) Brown, G. & Y ule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. CUP.（话语分析，外研社￥27.90）代订购(2) Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Mouton, The Hague.，胶印本￥5.00(3) Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press（第二语言习得研究，上外，￥49.00），胶印本￥35.00/套，2册.(4) Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax. CUP ，胶印本10.00(5) Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. London: Edward Arnold Ltd.,1994. Reprinted by （外语教学与研究出版社，2000，￥41.91），胶印本￥30.00(6) Hurford James R & Heasley Brendan. 1983. Semantics: A Course book. Cambridge: CUP.复印本￥16.00(7) Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh --- The Embodied Mind胶印本￥15.0(8) Levinson. S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press（语用学，外研社￥38.90），代订购. (9) Jennifer,Hornsby &…,2006,Reading Philosophy of Language,Blackwell Publishing.胶印本￥20.00(10)Radford A. 1988/2000. Transformational Grammar: A First Course, Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press/Cambridge University Press.(转换生成语法，外研社，￥56.90)胶印本￥30.00参考书目：（1）Bal, M., 1985. Narratology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.（2）Bell, J. (1999/2004) Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-time researchers in Education and Social Science. Open University Press/外教社.（3）Carter, R. & Simpson, P. (eds.), 1989. Language, Discourse and Literature : An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics. London: Unwin Uyman.（4）Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.（5）Chomsky, N. 1975. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Plenum, New Y ork.（6）Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.（7）Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, Praeger, New Y ork. （8）Cobley, P., 2001. Narrative. London and New Y ork: Routledge.（9）Cook, G. 1989. Discourse. OUP. ★（10）Cook, V. 1993. Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.（11）Coulmas, F. (ed.). The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.（12）Fauconnier, Gile & Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think --- Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities.New Y ork: Basic Books..（13）Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Frames Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.).Linguistics in the Morning Calm.Seoul: Hanshin. 111—138.（14）Garman, M. Psycholinguistics. Beijing University Press(4th.), 2002.（15）Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. Cohesion in English[M]. London: Longman, 1976.Reprinted by 外语教学与研究出版社（2001）.（16）Halliday, M. A. K. and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. Construing Experience ThroughMeaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London/New Y ork: Continuum,1999.（17）Halliday, M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotic: the Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold, 1978. Reprinted by 外语教学与研究出版社（2001）. （18）Herman，David (ed.), 2003. Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford University: Publications of the Center for the Study of Language and Information. （19）Jackendoff, R. S. 1983. Semantics and Cognition.Cambridge, MA.：MIT Press. （20）Jorgensen, M. & Philips, L. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method.Sage Publications.（21）Kennedy, G. 1998. An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.（22）Langacker, R, W. 1987，1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites；vol. II: Descriptive Application.Stanford,California：Stanford University Press.（23）Larsen-Freeman, D & Long, M. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. (Chinese Edition) Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. （24）Leech, G. & Short, M., 1982. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. Longman Group.（25）Nunan, D. (1992/2002) Research Methods in Language Learning .CUP/外教社.（26）Ooi, Bincent B. Y. 1998. Computer Corpus Lexicography. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.（27）Ortony, Andrew(ed.). 1979. Metaphor and Thought, CPU.（28）Prince, Gerald, 1982. Narratology: The Form and Functioning of Narrative. Berlin• NewYork • Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers.（29）Radford A. 1997/2000. Syntax：A Minimalist Introduction. Foreign Language Teaching and Rimmon-Kenan, S., 1983, 2002. Narrative Fiction. Routledge.（30）Searle, J. 1969/2001. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 北京:外语教学与研究出版社（31）Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 1986/2001. Relevance: Communication and Cognition[M].Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社& Blackwell Publishers Ltd. （32）Stubbs, Michael. 2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.（33）Svensén, Bo. 1993. Practical Lexicography: Principles and Methods of Dictionary-Making.John Sykes and Kerstin Schofield. Oxford: Oxford Universitiy Press.（34）Sweetser, Eve E. 1990.From Etymology to Pragmatics --- Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. CUP.（35）Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive Grammar.OUP.（36）Taylor，John. 1989. Linguistic Categorization --- Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. OUP.(1995年第二版，2003年第三版)（37）Traugott, E. C. & B. Heine. 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization.Amsterdam：John Benjamins.（38）V erschueren. J. 2000. Understanding Pragmatics[M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press and Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.（39）申丹，1998.《叙述学与小说文体学研究》.北京大学出版社.，￥20.00（40）严辰松. (2000) 定量型社会科学研究方法. 西安交大出版社.翻译理论与实践方向必读书目：1、Bassnett, Susan and Andre Lefevere, ed. 1990. Translation, History and Culture. London:Cassell.上外，￥12.00（祝朝伟）/ 胶印本7.00 2、Gentzler, Edwin. 2001.Contemporary Translation Theories.Second Revised Edition.Multilingual Matters.上外，￥14.00（廖七一）/ 代订购3、Harish Trivedi, ed. 1996. Post-colonial Translation: Theory and Practice. London and NewYork: Routledge.（费小平）/ 胶印本￥10.00 4、Hermans, Theo. 1999.Translation in Systems: Descriptive and Systemic ApproachExplained. St. Jerome Publishing.，上外，￥12.00（廖七一）/ 胶印本，￥6.00 5、Hickey, Leo, ed. 1998. The Pragmatics of Translation. Multilingual Matters Ltd.（侯国金）上外，￥14.50 / 胶印本，￥10.00 6、Jones, Roderick. 1998. Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St. JeromePublishing.（李芳琴）/ 胶印本，￥10.00 7、Lefevere, Andre. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.￥11.00（祝朝伟）/ 胶印本，￥8.00 8、Simon，Sherry.1996. Gender in Translation. London and New York: Routledge.（费小平）/复印本，￥6.009、陈福康，《中国译学理论史稿》，上海外语教育出版社，2002，￥23.00（杨全红）/代订购10、谢天振：《译介学》，上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999年￥18.00（杨全红）/代订购推荐书目：Alvarez, Roman and M. Carmen-Africa Vidal, ed. 1996. Translation, Power, Subversion.Multilingual Matters Ltd.Baker, Mona, ed. 1998. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.Bassnett-Mcguire Susan. 1980. Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. Bassnett, Susan and Andre Lefevere. 1998.Constructing Cultur e: Essays on Literary Translation. Multilingual Matters Ltd.Bassnett, Susan and Harish Trivedi, eds. 1999. Post-colonial Translation Theory and Practice.London and New York: Routledge.Bell, Roger. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Longman.Catford, J.C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation.London: Oxford University Press.胶印本，￥5.00Chesterman, Andrew. 1997. Memes of Translation: The Spr ead of Ideas in Translation Theory.Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Davis, Kathleen. 2001. Deconstruction and Translation. Manchester and Northampton: St.Jerome Publishing.Flotow, Luise von. 1997.Translation and Gender: Translating in the Era of Feminism. St.Jerome Publishing.Gutt, Ernst-August. 1991. Translation and Relevance, Cognition and Context. Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd.Hatim, Basil. 2001. Teaching and Researching Translation. Pearson Education Limited. Hermans, Theo. 1985. The Manipulation of Literature. Croom Helm Ltd.Munday, Jeremy. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge.Newmark, Peter. 1981. Appr oaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Nida, E.A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Nida, E.A. 2001. Language and Culture: Contexts in Translation.Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Reiss, Katharina. 2000. Translation Criticism—the Potentials and Limitations: Catergories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment. Trans. Erroll F. Rhodes. St. Jerome Publishing.Robinson, Douglas. 1997/2002. Western Translation Theory: From Herodotus to Nietzsche. St.Jerome.Savory, Theodore H. 1957. The Art of Translation. London: Cape.Schaffner, Christian and Helen Kell-Holmes. 1995. Cultural Functions of Translation.Multilingual Matters, Ltd.Shuttleworth, Mark and Moira Cowie. 1997. Dictionary of Translation Studies.St. Jerome PublishingSnell-Hornby, Mary et al. 1994. Translation Studies: An Inter discipline.Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Steiner, G. 1975. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation.London: Oxford University Press.Toury, Gideon. 1995.Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Tymoczko, Maria. 1999. Translation in a Postcolonial Context. St. Jerome Publishing.V enuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York: Routledge.Williams, Jenny and Andrew Chesterman. 2002. The Map. St. Jerome Publishing.Ztaleva, Palma ed. 1993. Translation as Social Action. London: Routledge.郭延礼：《中国近代翻译文学概论》，武汉：湖北教育出版社，1998年。

1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。

ars
• The oldest paradigm, and the one that continues to generate the most research to this day, is artificial grammar learning (AGL). • Experiments expose learners to a set of letter strings (or • equivalent series of symbols) generated by a set of rules in the form of a Markovian finite-state grammar. Subjects never get to see the rules, and are generally not aware of the rules after being exposed to a set of exemplar • strings; yet they perform above chance when they are unexpectedly asked to classify new strings into those that conform to the structure of the exemplars and those that do not.
Basic findings
• Empirical research on implicit learning falls largely into three categories:
• artificial grammars, • sequence learning, • and control of complex systems.
Implicit and Explicit learning
• One of the most frequently asked questions in language teaching circles is whether grammar should be taught • explicitly. • And one of the central issues in the psycholinguistics of second language acquisition is whether adults can learn a language fully through the same implicit learning mechanisms used by the child in learning a first language
The Handbook of Second language Aquisition
Edited by Catherine.Doughty and Michael. H. Long
Introduction
• There are a number of different ways to understand second language acquisition (SLA), and each has its own strengths and limitations. One currently popular approach to SLA sees it as a special case of complex skill acquisition. From this point of view, one can ask whether SLA shares elements in common with other forms of complex skill acquisition such as learning to play the piano, developing mathematical abilities, or acquiring expertise in making medical diagnosis
The Cognitive Psychology of Implicit and Explicit Learning
• Definitions • For Arthur Reber,he defined implicit learning as “a primitive process of apprehending structure by attending to frequency cues” as opposed to “a more explici process whereby various mnemonics, heuristics, and strategies are engaged to induce a representational • system” (1976, p. 93). • Hayes and Broadbent are slightly more precise in stating • that implicit learning is “the unselective and passive aggregation of information about the co-occurrence of environmental events and features” (1988, p. 251).
• Relationships • Implicitly acquired knowledge tends to remain implicit, and explicitly acquired knowledge tends to remain explicit • Explicitly learned knowledge can become implicit in the sense that learners can lose awareness of its structure over time, and learners can become aware of the structure of implicit knowledge when attempting to access it
The processes in SLA
• • • • • • Implicit and Explicit learning Incidential and Intentional learning Automaticity and Second languages Variation Cross-linguistic influence Stabilization and fossilization
• Distinguish implicit learning from two concepts it is often confused with in the second language literature: • inductive learning (going from the particular to the general, from examples to rules) and implicit memory(learning without awareness) .