第二语言习得研究(对比分析)
《第二语言习得研究》重点知识点
《第二语言习得研究》重点知识点一、第二语言习得理论1.第二语言习得与第一语言习得的区别：第二语言习得是指学习者在已经掌握第一语言的基础上学习第二语言，与第一语言习得有所不同。
2.共同的习得条件：第二语言习得与第一语言习得都受到认知、社会、情感等多种因素的影响。
3.输入假设：学习者习得第二语言的过程中需要大量的输入来构建语言知识和语言能力。
二、第二语言习得过程1.初始期：学习者对第二语言的习得处于初始阶段，主要表现为对语言规则的不熟悉，需要借助外语教学材料和教师的指导。
2.中期：学习者开始积累语言知识，并能够进行简单的口语表达和书面表达，但仍然存在语法错误和用词不准确等问题。
3.发展期：学习者的语言技能和语言运用能力在这个阶段得到显著提高，能够流利地进行口语交流和书面表达。
4.准母语期：学习者的第二语言已经达到与母语相近的程度，几乎能够毫无困难地实现听、说、读、写等各方面的能力。
三、第二语言习得影响因素1.基础能力：个体的智力、工作记忆、认知能力等对第二语言习得有重要影响。
2.学习策略：学习者在习得第二语言过程中采取的方法和策略也对习得效果产生影响。
3.情感因素：学习者对学习第二语言的情感态度、自信心等情感因素对习得过程产生影响。
4.环境因素：学习者所处的学习环境，包括学校、家庭、社会环境等对第二语言习得有影响。
四、第二语言习得教学策略1.输出与输入平衡：教师应当提供足够的输入，同时鼓励学习者进行口语和书面的输出。
2.合作学习：通过合作学习，学习者能够在与他人进行互动中提高第二语言的流利度和准确度。
3.语境创设：教师可以通过创设各种真实的语言交际情境来提高学习者的第二语言习得效果。
4.个性化教学：教师应根据学习者的个体差异，采取不同的教学策略和方法，满足每个学习者的学习需求。
以上是《第二语言习得研究》的重点知识点。
了解这些知识点能够帮助我们更好地理解学习者在学习第二语言过程中的习得情况，并且在实际的第二语言教学中有所借鉴。
第二语言习得中语言迁移研究的类型对比分析——对比分析与语言迁移
二语 言或 目标语对第一语言或母 语的影 响， 言间的 语 迁移是双向的（ ｉ ｉ ｃ ｏａ ｔ ｎｆ ） ｂ —ｄ ｅｔｎｌ ａｓ ｒ 而决非是单 向 ｒｉ ｒ ｅ 的（ｎ ｉ ｃ ｏａ ｔｎｆ ） 这是 新世 纪里一个全新的 ｕｉ ｒ ｔｎｌ ａｓ ｒ ， ｄ ｅｉ ｒ ｅ 研究方 向。尽管 这些理论 和研 究或多或少存在着 这
一
受认知科学和普遍语法 的影 响， ｅ ｓｒ １７ ） Ｎ ｍ ｅ（９ １ 和 Ｓｌｋｒ１７ ） ｅｎ ｅ（９ ２ 分别提出了“ ｉ 近似 系统 ” ａｐ ｘ ａｖ （ｐ ｒ ｉ ｔｅ ｏｍ ｉ
二语习得研究精讲知识分享
对比分析与偏误分析
对比分析： 用比较的方法来预测和预防学习者在语
言表达中经常出现的错误。
偏误分析： “以教学为中心”转向“以学习为中心”
第一节 对比分析
对比分析（Contrastive Analysis） 产生于上世纪50年代，兴盛于60年代 初衷：在第二语言教学中预测学习者的难
点，预防学习者的语言偏误，从而提高第 二语言教学的效率。 严格意义上不属于二语习得。
二语习得研究正处于学科发展的十字路口， 可能延续下去，也可能分裂或者合并。
第二语言习得研究的发端与发展的
简要回顾
一、第二语言习得研究的发端 二十世纪60年代末： 1. Corder：《学习者偏误的意义》 2. Selinker：《中介语》 二、第二语言习得研究发展的途径 1. 50-60年代：理论初创 2. 70年代：理论大发展 3. 80年代中期至今：新兴研究领域与方法 三、汉语作为第二语言习得的研究 80年代、90年代和90年代后
一、对比分析产生的背景
2、“母语பைடு நூலகம்迁移”：母语在二语习得中的 作用问题。（语音、词汇、语法等方面的 干扰interference)
通过对比学习者的母语和目的语的不同之 处克服母语对二语习得的干扰。
3、对比分析的理论依据： 建立在行为主义心理学和结构主义理论学
基础之上。 语言表层上的对比分析受到学者质疑。
自身 3、研究方法： 心理学——实验研究 二语习得——描写研究
第二语言习得研究与心理语言学
看法一：二语习得是心理语言学的分支。即发展 心理学，也称应用心理语言学。
看法二：二语习得是独立学科，心理语言学则主 要研究与语言运用相关的心理过程，包括语言理 解、产生、获得，属于认知科学的一部分。 （David W .Carroll)
第二语言习得研究
心理语言学理论探讨语言学习过程中的心理机制和认知过程。该理论关注学习者的个体 差异、学习策略、记忆和注意等因素对语言学习的影响。
XX
PART 03
第二语言习得过程与特点
REPORTING
习得过程阶段划分
01
02பைடு நூலகம்
03
初级阶段
学习者开始接触第二语言 ，掌握基本词汇和语法规 则，能够进行简单的日常 交流。
掌握第二语言有助于拓宽个人视野， 增强认知能力，提高就业竞争力。
教育改革需求
许多国家将第二语言教育纳入基础教 育体系，对第二语言习得的研究有助 于优化教学方法，提高教育质量。
研究目的和问题
01
探究第二语言习得 的内在机制
揭示学习者如何掌握和运用第二 语言的规律，为教学实践提供理 论支持。
02
分析学习者个体差 异
REPORTING
认知发展对第二语言习得影响
认知能力
学习者的认知能力，如注意力、 记忆力、思维能力等，直接影响 第二语言习得的效率和质量。
学习策略
学习者在认知发展过程中形成的 学习策略，如元认知策略、认知 策略等，对第二语言习得具有重 要作用。
母语迁移
学习者的母语认知结构和经验对 第二语言习得产生迁移作用，包 括正迁移和负迁移。
文化适应和身份认同
该理论强调学习者在语言学习过程中的文化适应和身份认同。学习者不仅学习语言本身，还学习与之 相关的文化和社会规范，并逐渐融入目标语社群。
其他相关理论
神经生物学理论
该理论关注大脑在语言学习中的神经生物学基础。研究表明，大脑的某些区域与语言学 习密切相关，如布罗卡区和韦尼克区。这些区域的发展和功能对语言习得至关重要。
第二语言习得研究
第六章第二语言习得研究第二语言习得研究是一块较新的领域。
有的学者从科德1967年发表的《学生偏误的意义》一文算起，把该文和塞林克1972年发表的《中介语》一文看做是第二语言习得研究的开端。
另一部分学者认为把以拉多于1957年发表的《跨文化语言学》为标志的对比分析研究，作为第二语言习得研究的起点。
这样算来，第二语言习得的研究已有40年的历史。
上一章我们所谈的第二语言习得理论，侧重从学习者的内部机制探讨第二语言是如何习得的。
第二语言习得理论除此之外，主要还包括三个方面。
(1)对语言习得过程和学习者语言特征的研究，这部分又先后出现了对比分析、偏误分析、运用分析和话语分析几种模式，也就是从最初只是对目的语的研究发展到后几种模式对学习者中介语的研究。
(2)对第二语言学习者个体因素的研究，研究学习者生理、认知和情感方面的个体因素对语言习得的影响。
(3)对语言习得外部因素、即语言习得环境的研究，包括课堂教学的环境和社会大环境。
本章主要介绍这三个方面的内容。
第一节第二语言习得过程研究一对比分析(Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis)1对比分析的目的Deeply rooted in the behavioristic and structuralist approaches of the day, the CAI claimed that the principal barrier to second Ianguage acquisition is the interferenee of the first Ianguage system with the second Ianguage system, and that a scientific, structural analysis of the two Ian guages in questi on would yield a tax onomy of lin guistic con trasts betwee n them which in tur n would en able the lin guist to predict the difficulties a lear ner would encoun ter.2 Clifford Prator 'hierarchy of difficulty for grammatical structures of two Ianguages in contrast: Level 0-Tra nsfer. No differe nee or con trast is prese nt betwee n the two Ian guages. The lear ner can simply tran sfer (positive) a sound, structure, or lexical item from the n ative Ian guage to the target Ian guage.如英语和汉语都是“动词+宾语”的语序，因此以英语为第一语言或母语的学习者在学习汉语的这一结构时，没有困难。
近年来国内外第二语言习得研究方法概述
近年来国内外第二语言习得研究方法概述摘要:本文阐述了第二语言习得研究的内容和性质,并对近年来国内外第二语言习得的研究方法作了简要的回顾。
关键词:国内外第二语言习得研究方法一、第二语言习得研究的内容和性质第二语言习得是指人们逐步提高自己的第二语言或者外语水平的过程,是人们获得语言的心理活动过程、大脑运转过程及认知过程。
第二语言习得的研究目标是对以上这些过程进行的描述、分析和解释,以达到揭示人们是怎样习得第二语言,以及在这些过程中哪些因素会影响到第二语言的习得。
第二语言的习得研究,是作为从事第二语言教育的学者们最早关注的研究范畴,很多早期的研究主要集中在学习者语言的研究——特别是语法的特征,后来的工作旨向就是学习者语言的语用方面,具有社会语言学的前景。
很多研究者主要是继续集中精力研究第二语言学习者是如何发展他们的语法能力,也有很多研究者主要集中精力去研究学习者如何发展他们从事言语活动的能力。
有很多人试图发现或是去解释第二语言获得和使用的内在的心理语言学过程,还有人试图寻找影响发展的社会因素。
以上种种研究使得第二语言习得研究领域在二十世纪七十年代和二十世纪八十年代早期得到了很大的发展。
第二语言习得研究对语言学理论有了更大的关注。
最典型的例子就是乔姆斯基语法理论模型(普遍语法)及以语言的功能模型(Givon,1979a;1995)为基础的工作也变现得很清楚及语言类型学(如Comrie,1984)总的来说,第二语言习得的研究也同样受到行为主义理论和普遍语法理论的影响,学者们在不同时期提出了不同的第二语言习得理论:中介语理论、对比分析理论、语误分析理论、Krashen的监控理论等,其中中介语研究标志着第二语言习得研究作为独立研究领域的开始。
总的来看,目前第二语言习得研究的内容主要有以下三个大的部分:(1)语言能力和语用能力的研究:如词汇的使用特点分析、会话分析等。
(2)影响学习者第二语言习得的因素研究:内部因素和外部因素。
第一语言习得和第二语言习得比较研究
第一语言习得和第二语言习得比较研究一、本文概述本文旨在探讨第一语言习得和第二语言习得的比较研究，分析两者在习得过程、影响因素、习得策略以及习得结果等方面的异同。
第一语言习得，即母语习得，通常是在儿童早期自然发生的过程，而第二语言习得则是在已经掌握母语的基础上学习另一种语言的过程。
通过对比这两种语言习得的过程和机制，我们可以更深入地理解语言学习的本质，并为语言教学和语言学习提供有益的启示。
本文将首先回顾第一语言习得和第二语言习得的相关理论和研究成果，包括语言习得的普遍规律和个体差异。
然后，通过对比分析，揭示两种语言习得的共同点和差异，包括习得速度、习得顺序、习得策略等方面的差异。
本文还将探讨影响两种语言习得的主要因素，如环境因素、个体差异、学习动机等，并分析这些因素如何在不同类型的语言习得中发挥作用。
本文将对第一语言习得和第二语言习得的比较研究结果进行总结，并提出对语言教学和语言学习的建议。
通过比较两种语言习得的过程和机制，我们可以发现不同语言习得的特点和规律，为语言教学和语言学习提供更为科学和有效的方法。
本文的研究也有助于我们更好地理解人类语言学习的本质和能力，为语言学和相关领域的研究提供有益的参考。
二、第一语言习得概述第一语言习得，通常指的是儿童从出生开始到青春期之前，无意识地、自然而然地掌握母语的过程。
这一过程是儿童认知发展和语言发展相互交织的复杂过程，涉及到生理、心理、社会和文化等多个方面的因素。
在生理方面，儿童的大脑在出生时就已经具备了学习语言的潜能。
随着儿童的成长，大脑的语言区逐渐发育成熟，为语言学习提供了必要的生理基础。
心理方面，儿童在第一语言习得过程中表现出强烈的好奇心和探索欲望。
他们通过模仿、试错和实践，逐渐掌握语言的发音、词汇和语法规则。
儿童的认知发展也为语言学习提供了支持，他们通过感知、记忆、思维和想象等认知活动，理解和运用语言。
社会和文化因素在第一语言习得中也起着重要作用。
第二语言习得主要理论和假说
第二语言习得主要理论和假说
一、对比分析假说（行为主义：刺激强化形成习惯）代表：拉多定义：第一语言习惯迁移问题。
两种语言结构特征相同之处产生正迁移，两种语言的差异导致负迁移。
负迁移造成第二语言习得的困难和学生的错误。
主张：第二语言习得的主要障碍来自第一语言的干扰，需要通过对比两种语言结构的异同来预测第二语言习得的难点和错误，以便在教学中采用强化手段突出重点和难点，克服母语的干扰并建立新的习惯。
影响：积极：听说法和是视听法，特别是句型替换练习的理论基础。
消极：根本缺陷否认学习者的认知过程，忽视人的能动性和创造力。
二、中介语假说代表：塞林克基础：普遍语法理论和先天论的母语习得理论定义：中介语是指在第二语言习得过程中，学习者通过一定的学习策略，在目的语输入的基础上所形成的介于第一语言和目的语之间、随着学习进展向目的语逐渐过渡的动态的语言系统。
特点：1、中介语在其发展的任何一个阶段都是介于第一语言和目的语之间的独特的语言系统。
2、中介语是一个不断变化的动态语言系统3、中介语是由于学习者对目的语规律尚未完全掌握，所做的不全面的归纳与推论。
4、中介语的偏误有反复性5、中介语的偏误有顽固性。
在语音上易产生“僵化”或“化石化”现象。
意义：是探索第二语言习得者在习得过程中的语言系统和习得规律的假说。
把第二语言获得看做是一个逐渐积
累完善的连续的过程，而且看做是学习者不断通过假设—把语言习得过程完全等同于文化适应过程，把文化适应理解为对目的语社团的社会和心理的结合，未必全面。
二语习得三大主流理论的比较与分析
- 222 -校园英语 /二语习得三大主流理论的比较与分析四川工商学院外国语学院/王玲【摘要】二语习得主要研究学生在习得母语之后如何学习其他语言。
关于该研究主要有三大理论，即强调环境在塑造语言学习中的重要作用的环境论，重视学生先天特性的先天论，以及把学习者的内在特性和环境因素结合起来的相互作用论。
通过比较分析，笔者认为相互作用论为二语教学提供了可借鉴的理论依据，即语言学习的内因和外因应当同时并重。
【关键词】二语习得 环境论 先天论 相互作用论第二语言习得(Second Language Acquisition)是一个涉及许多相互关联因素的复杂过程，它研究的是学生在习得母语之后如何学习其他语言。
到目前为止，关于二语习得研究主要有三大派别，即强调环境在塑造语言学习中的重要作用的环境论(Environmentalist Theories)，重视学生先天特性的先天论(Nativist Theories)，以及把学习者的内在特性和环境因素结合起来的相互作用论(Interactionlist Theories)。
这些理论为人们加深对二语习得的认识带来了新的理念和视角，下面是本文对这些理论的简要探讨。
一、二语习得三大主要理论1.环境论。
环境论认为环境因素在二语习得中发挥着重要作用。
行为主义、联结主义和文化适应模式等理论在讨论二语习得时都非常重视环境的作用。
行为主义(Behaviorism)认为语言学习是模仿、练习、反馈和习惯形成的结果。
根据行为学家的观点，所有的学习都是以同样的过程进行的。
学习者获得语言输入，形成文字和物体或事件之间的“关联”，通过重复强化这些关联经验。
学习者模仿正确就会获得鼓励，或收到反馈以纠正他们的错误。
行为主义者把二语学习者视为“语言生产机器”，而语言环境则被看作是关键的决定因素。
联结主义者(connectionists)也把二语习得大部分归因于环境的作用，而不是学习者本身固有的内在能力，并主张人与生俱来就是很简单的学习力，没有任何具体的语言结构。
第二语言习得理论研究概述(推荐文档)
§1 第二语言习得研究概述§2 对比分析与偏误分析§3 中介语研究§4 第二语言习得顺序研究§5 克拉申的语言监控模式§6 第二语言学习者语言系统变异研究§7 第二语言习得研究的社会文化模式§8 语言输入与互动研究§9 普遍语法与第二语言习得§10 多元发展模式§11 第二语言习得的认知模式第一章：第二语言习得研究概述母语VS目的语母语通常指学习者所属种族、社团使用的语言，也称“本族语”。
一般母语通常是儿童出生后最先接触、习得的语言，母语也被称作“第一语言”。
目的语：指学习者正在学习的语言，可指其母语或第一语言，也可指他的第二语言。
第一语言VS第二语言一语指儿童幼年最先接触和习得的语言。
二语指相对于学习者习得的一语之外的任何一种其他语言。
二语的概念只强调语言习得的先后顺序。
习得acquisition VS学习learning（1）就语言获得的方式而言：习得指非正式的语言获得informal learning，类似于儿童母语的获得方式。
学习指正式的语言规则学习formal learning，即通过课堂教学的方式来获得第二语言。
（2）就语言获得的心理过程而言：习得指在自然状态下“下意识”的语言获subconscious learning。
学习指有意识的conscious语言知识的获得。
就语言获得的知识类型而言：通过习得方式获得的知识是隐性语言知识implicit knowledge，通过学习方式获得的知识是显性语言知识explicit knowledge。
★习得与学习的关系无接口观点non-interface position：认为通过习得和学习所获得的知识分别属于不同的且互相独立的类型，即隐性知识和显性知识。
有接口观点：认为显性知识通过操练可转化为隐性知识。
第二语言教学的目标：促使学习者把显性知识转化为隐性知识。
二语习得之对比分析
思考
1、目标、动力 、兴趣、 毅力 “厚脸 皮”——积极交际 2、课堂上积极主动 ，注意语言的功能、形 式
一个成功的第二语言学习者具备的特点？
作业1： 根据本章的内容，结合实际，抓住一点 或者几点（生理、认知、情感）分析其 在第二语言中的影响。不少于2000字。
（3）如何激发动机？ A:充分利用学习者本身已有的动机，并不断“充 电”使之增强。 B:语言作为交际工具是最根本的动机，要激发学 习者交际的需要。 C:教师的教学活动是最直接的影响学习动机的因 素，教师要不断地改进教学 D:以鼓励和表扬为主，多给学习者成功的机会， 让他们看到自己的进步。
E:适当运用竞争机制、学习竞赛、激发上进心， 调动积极性。
二、认知因素 2、语言学能
也叫第二语言学习的能力倾向，是指学习第 二语言所需要的特殊的认知素质 有影响的三种语言学能的测验： 卡罗尔 萨彭 现代语言学能考试（1959） 初级现代语言学能考试（1967） 平斯勒 语言学能考试（1966）
二、认知因素
根据卡罗尔的观点，语言学能主要考查四种 能力： 语音编码解码能力（感知记忆新的发音） 语法敏感性（识别语法结构和功能） 归纳推导能力 强记能力
三、充分利用语言环境提高学习效率
1、课堂教学除了传授知识与规则和技能 训练之外，也应该提供习得的机会 2、把作为语言实践的各种课外活动纳入 到教学中去，精心安排，提供真实的情景 提供习得的机会。 3、充分利用汉语的大环境，教师要激发 学生投身到社会环境的热情。 总之要建立课内与课外相结合， 学习与 习得相结合的 立体的教学体系， 核心在 于充分的利用汉语学习环境。
L2学习者的“外在因素”，是指语言习得 发生的环境而言的。 主要包括两个方面： 1 社会环境 第二语言习得发生的自然环境与教学环境。 2 语言输入与互动环境 语言输入环境：口语和书面语； 互动环境：交互式与非交互式两种语言获 得方式。
第二语言习得研究中语言数据的分析方法及其对外语教学的启示
摘要语言学习是一种内在的过程自50 年代以来第二语言习得研究经过了对比研究这些不同的阶段体现了不同的理论基础每一种数据分析方法对第二语言习得研究均有其独特的贡献错误分析及语言使用分析这几种语言数据分析方法的阐述并从不同的语言分析方法中获得一些有关外语教学的启示语言数据分析方法AbstractGiven that learning is an internal process which cannot be observed directly, researchers make inferences as to the nature of the process in part from an analysis of the product, learner language. In order to improve the quality of these inferences, it is useful to examine the historical development of modes of data analysis, noting how different data analysis procedures evolved, with each successive type of analysis reflecting a new stage of awareness of what second language acquisition entails. And the understanding of the second language acquisition helps to improve language teaching.In second language acquisition research, there are different development stages, i.e. contrastive analysis, error analysis, performance analysisIntroductionSince second language acquisition is a new, uncharted field, it is by no means obvious how such investigation ought to be conducted. Many of its original research methodologies are consequently borrowed from first language acquisition research. Still others have come from education and the related disciplines. As their experience grows, however, second language acquisition researchers are becoming more creative in the way they seek answers to questions in their unique field of specialization. Nowadays, in second language acquisition research, there are various means that have been employed to collect SLA data. In this paper, we will trace the historical development of the types of data analysis in an attempt to come to a better understanding of the second language acquisition process. The discussion will be limited to the contrastive analysis, error analysis, performance analysis as well as their application and limitations. And some implications for foreign language teaching will be included in the discussion.Since contrastive analysis, error analysis and performance analysis are the ways to study learner performance, this paper will be carried out from this perspective. It begins with a discussion on contrastive analysis and its application and limitations. Then, Chapter Two gives an account of error analysis with its application and limitations. Chapter Three focuses on performance analysis with reference to some aspects of its study. By analyzing contrastive analysis, error analysis and performance analysis, we can be enlightened with regard to the implications adopted while teaching and learning a second language. To facilitate second language learning and teaching, teachers should adapt their teaching techniques and methods to meet learners’ requirements and help L2 learners to acquire the language effectively. Therefore, the last chapter comes up with the implications for foreign language teaching, which are based on the application and limitations of these modes of data analysis.Chapter OneContrastive AnalysisBefore the SLA field was established, researchers from the 1940s to the 1960s conducted contrastive analysis, systematically comparing two languages. They were motivated by the prospect of being able to identify points of similarity and difference between particular native languages and target languages, believing that a more effective pedagogy would result when these were taken into consideration.1.1 What Is Contrastive Analysis?Contrastive linguistics is defined as a subdiscipline of linguistics concerned with the comparison of two or more languages or subsystems of languages in order to determine both the differences and similarities between them. The contrastive analysis is concerned with not only the comparison and contrast of two or more languages to determine the differences as well as similarities between them, but also with the possible consequences for a given field of application. What’s more, it is also the identification of probable areas of difficulty in learning another language.As Lado (Ellis, 1999) makes clear, ‘The teacher who has made a comparison of the foreign language with the native language of the students will know better what the real problems are and can provide for teaching them.’ CA is developed in order to predict the areas of difficulty that learners with specific L1s would experience, so that teaching could provide massive practice to eliminate the chance of errors induced by the first language. This approach is based on the similarities and differences that exist between two or more languages, at the same time taking into account a number of axioms about L2 learning behaviour.1.2 The Contrastive Analysis HypothesisThe contrastive analysis hypothesis has its roots in behaviorism and structuralism. Behavioristic theories of human learning emphasize interfering elements of learning,claiming that interference means difficulty in learning. Structuralism lays a strong emphasis on differences between languages. Structural linguistics provides tools with which to describe accurately the two languages in question, and to match those two descriptions against each other to determine the differences and similarities between them.The conviction that linguistic differences can be used to predict learning difficulty gives rise to the contrastive analysis hypothesis---Where two languages are similar, positive transfer will occur; where they are different, negative transfer, or interference, will result.In general, the contrastive analysis hypothesis can be stated in three main versions, the strong version, the weak version, and the moderate version. The strong version is proposed by C. Fries and R. Lado. It emphasizes a priori prediction of difficulties in learning a second language. It states that all L2 errors can be predicted by identifying the differences between the target language and the learner’s L1. The weak version is proposed by Wardhaugh, which only recognizes the significance of interference across languages and tries to explain those difficulties. This version requires of the linguist only that he use the best linguistic knowledge available to him to account for observed difficulties in second language learning. It does not require the prediction of those difficulties, and conversely, of those learning points which do not create any difficulties. However, both versions agree that the greater the differences between the two languages, the greater the difficulties. That is, both versions equate differences between two languages with difficulties in L2 learning. The moderate version proposed by Oller and Ziahosseiny differs from the other two versions in that it emphasizes the significance of minimal distinctions, which may actually cause the greatest interferences and difficulties. According to them, the greatest difficulties in the second language are neither apparent similarities nor apparent differences, but subtle distinctions exist.However, from our teaching experience, we find that both great differences and subtle differences can cause difficulties. If we weaken the claim of predictability of the strong version, and integrate the three versions by paying attention to both greatand subtle differences between the two languages, we can make CA more useful to our teaching practice.1.3 Objectives of CAThe contrastive analysis is based on the following assumptions: A) Second language learning involves overcoming difficulties in the linguistic systems of the target language. B) The main difficulties in learning a second language are caused by interference from the first language. C) Contrastive analysis can predict, or at least account for, difficulties in L2 learning. D) Teaching materials based on contrastive analysis can reduce the effects of interference and difficulties and facilitate L2 learning. A number of fundamental and applied objectives have traditionally been attributed to CA. According to Van Els et al (1984), CA has the following three major objectives:1. Providing insights into similarities and differences between languagesThe first object can be interpreted as an attempt at establishing linguistic universals and language-specific characteristics of languages. Languages are not structurally isomorphic. Often there is divergence or convergence between L1 and L2. We speak of divergence for the L2 learner when there are more structural elements available in the target language for expressing specific meanings than can be found in the source language, while the opposite holds true in the case of convergence.As soon as any two languages have been described using the same theoretical categories, a work of reference can be provided for a systematic comparison and contrast of the major patterns in the two languages at the level or levels concerned. Comparison of a category in one language with a category in another language first of all presupposes a criterion of equivalence. To establish that the two systems are comparable, we first need to show their contextual equivalence, then ask to what extent they are formally equivalent.Let’s take the attributive possessive pronouns of English and their counterparts inChinese to illustrate this point. Their contextual equivalence can be shown by giving their principal contextual similarities and differences.First, both languages have the units “sentences”, “clause”, “phrase” and “word”. Secondly, both languages have a word class “noun” normally operating as the head of the nominal phrase and a word class “pronoun”, which may occur in the nominal phrase to replace the noun or the whole nominal phrase. Thirdly, the English attributive possessive pronoun and its counterpart in Chinese can only precede the noun it modifies. However, English attributive possessive pronouns have wider use than their counterparts in Chinese. English possessive pronouns, with the exception of the third person singular masculine and nonhuman, each has an attributive form as well as a predicative and nominal form. The predicative and nominal forms of possessive pronouns function independently as nouns rather than as determiners in prenominal positions. The possessive pronoun in Chinese has the same form whether it is used attributively or predicatively and nominally.PERSONENGLISH CHINESE PERSON ENGLISH CHINESE 1my 我的 3 masc his 他的 1+our 我们的 3 fem her 她的 你的 3 nonhum its 它的 2 您的 3+masc 他们的 2+your你们的 3+fem 她们的3+nonhum their 它们的From the table above, we can see that the first person attributive possessive pronouns, singular and plural, of the two languages have one-to-one correspondence. The major differences lie in the second and the third persons. First, in English the second person attributive possessive pronoun has only one form “your” for both singular and plural, whereas in Chinese the second person possessive pronoun has three forms: “你的” for singular familiar, “您的” for singular polite, and “你们的” forplural. Secondly, in English the third person plural attributive possessive pronoun has only one form “their” for masculine, feminine and nonhuman. But in Chinese, there are three different forms: “他们的” for masculine, “她们的” for feminine and “它们的” for nonhuman.As shown in the above example, the beginners may have difficulty in using the possessive pronouns in English and their counterparts in Chinese. The following sentences have the same meaning-- This is their book. /This book is theirs. /这是他们(她们)的书. In Chinese, the sentence only has one form, but in English it can be expressed with either attributive or nominal possessive pronouns. So it is probable for the beginners to confuse these two forms. Then based on the findings of the analysis, we can formulate a prediction of probable difficulties and errors in L2 learning, or account for existing difficulties and errors.2.Explanation and prediction of difficulties in second language learningAttempts have been made to formalize the prediction of difficulties. Prator (James, 1980) proposes a hierarchy of six levels of difficulty, which are applicable to grammatical features of language.Level 1—Transfer: When there is complete one-to-one correspondence between items or structures of the two languages in contrast, the learner can simply transfer positively these items or structures from the native language to the target language. These items or structures will cause no difficulties. For example, both French and English have the word ‘table’, which can have the same meaning in both languages.Level 2—Coalescence: When two or more items in the first language become coalesced into one in the target language, the leaner should overlook the distinction he has become used to when he uses the item in the second language. For instance, “他们/它们/她们” in Chinese equals to ‘they’ in English.Level 3—Underdifferentiation: When an item in the native language is absent in the target language, the learner must avoid that item when he uses the target language. To the English speakers, nouns may have singular and plural forms, while in Chinese the nouns only have singular form.Level 4—Reinterpretation: When an item that exists in the native language is given a new shape or distribution, the learner must learn that new shape or distribution. An example is French expertise (expert’s assessment) and English expertise (skillfulness).Level 5—Overdifferentiation: This is the opposite to level 3, that is, when a new item in the target languages bears little, if any, similarity to that in the native language, the leaner must learn it anew. ‘Do’ acts as an auxiliary verb in English, in Chinese there is no equivalent.Level 6—Split: This is the opposite to level 2, that is, when one item in the native language becomes two or more in the target language, the learner must learn to make a new distinction. To the English speaker learning French, ‘director’ becomes ‘directeur’ (masculine) and ‘directrice’ (feminine).3. Developing course materials for language teachingThis objective can be viewed as derived from the two objectives mentioned above, and is first stated in Fries (Van Els et al, 1984):‘The most effective materials for teaching a second language are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner.’And in the preface of Linguistics Across Cultures written by Lado, it is said:‘The plan of the book rests on the assumption that we can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulty in learning, and those that will not cause difficulty, by comparing systematically the language and culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the student. In our view, the preparation of up-to-date pedagogical and experimental materials must be based on this kind of comparison.’1.4 Application and Limitations of CA1. ApplicationContrastive analysis as applied to L2 teaching emphasizes differences betweenlanguages rather than similarities, and it is pedagogically-oriented, with the aim to discover and predict learning problems and difficulties. It has been used in the following areas: prediction, diagnosis of a proportion of the L2 errors committed by learners with a common L1, the design of testing instruments for such learners, course design and teaching.PredictionThere are four things that contrastive analysis can predict: First, what will cause problems; Second, difficulty in L2 learning; Third, errors that learners with the common L1 will make. The prediction of errors can mean either the prediction that there will be errors in certain areas or the prediction of the forms of errors. Contrastivists have more cautiously made predictions of the specific types of errors; and Fourth, the tenacity of certain errors, that is, the strong resistance of these errors to extinction through time and teaching.Diagnosis of ErrorsIt is important for both the teacher and the learner to know why certain errors are committed. Contrastive analysis can provide this kind of knowledge. It is on the basis of such diagnostic knowledge that the teacher can organize feedback to the learner and do some remedial work. Knowing why he has committed these errors provides the basis for the learner to monitor and avoid these same errors in the future.TestingOne of the requirements of a good language test is validity, that is, it should be a true measure of the student’s command of the language he has been learning. Test validity is usually achieved by testing a representative sample of the students’ repertoire. This is where contrastive analysis has a part to play. In general, contrastive analysis has three roles to play in testing. First, it can carry suggestions about what to test (such as the difficulties or the errors L2 learners will meet); Secondly, it can show to what degree to test different L2 items; Thirdly, it can suggest how to test these L2items. For objective tests, a contrastive analysis of L1 and L2 will suggest the type of distractors to use. The distractors may be the errors L2 learners with common L1 will make or the difficulties they will meet when learning L2. For integrative tests such as dictation and cloze, contrastive analysis may suggest which items are to be included in the dictation and which items are to be deleted in the cloze. That’s to say the phonologically similar items can be included in the dictation and the items having no close relation in morphology, lexics or grammar can be deleted in the cloze.Course Design and TeachingContrastive analysis can specify those features of L2 which are different from corresponding features of L1, and those which are identical. James (1980) suggests while the learner is exposed to all parts of the L2, he must be given opportunities to confirm his positive transfer on the one hand and to learn what he does not know on the other. Thus the importance of including both different and identical features in teaching materials is emphasized. Those L2 patterns not paralleled by equivalents in L1 will be introduced to the learner. Their presentation will be facilitated by the prior introduction of the identical variants taught at an earlier stage. Since it is a universal principle of education that learning should proceed from the simple to the difficult, it follows that items that are identical in L1 and L2 should be taught first. Contrastive analysis can show which items in the two languages are identical and which are different, and how identical and how different they are. Thus contrastive analysis can provide a basis for grading of teaching materials. Contrastive teaching involves presenting to the learner at the same time all the terms in a L2 system in contrast with the corresponding L1 system. The systems concerned may be grammatical, phonological, or lexical. These pairs of terms form problem-pairs. Such pairs should be suitably contextualized and analyzed. For these items in particular, we can use intensive techniques such as repetition or drills, in order to overcome the interference and establish the necessary new habits.2. LimitationsWhile the association of CAH with behaviorism gave it academic legitimacy, it ultimately led to its downfall. When predictions arising from CAs are finally subjected to empirical test, serious flaws are revealed. There are doubts concerning the ability of CA to predict errors. While CA predicts some errors, it clearly does not anticipate all. If a majority of learner errors are not caused by interference, then CA is of limited value, far less than is thought to be the case when CA first started. For instance, the way an error is classified, e.g. due to L1 interference or not, differs from study to study. Whiteman and Jackson (1972), who tested the predictions of four different CAs of English and Japanese by studying the English performance of 2500 Japanese secondary school students on a multiple choice and a cloze test, conclude that contrastive analysis is inadequate to predict the interference problems of a language learner. The interference plays such a small role in language learning performance that no contrastive analysis, no matter how well it is conceived, can correlate highly with performance data, at least at the level of syntax. Thus, a comparison of the learner’s L1 and L2 can’t help to predict or explain very much about the process of SLA.Although CA is as old as FLT itself, attempts at converting descriptive data from CA into teaching programs have by no means always been successful. Neither has there been systematic research into the effect of teaching methods based on CA; it has never been demonstrated that course materials based on CA are more effective than other materials based on different principles. The realization that linguistic difference can not be equated with learning problem has made people reticent to implement the objectives of CA.In a word, CA ascribes most errors to interference of L1, but empirical evidence has shown that interlingual errors (i.e. errors caused by the interference of the learner’s L1) only constitute a small proportion of L2 learners’ errors, and that among other factors, intralingual effects of learning (i.e. result from the structure of the L2 itself) play an important role. CA which aims to predict errors resulting from L1 interference fails to account for other types of errors. Linguistic differences betweenL1 and L2 do not automatically lead to L2 learning problems, and not all L2 learning problems can be retraced to linguistic differences between L1 and L2. As the interference was replaced by other explanations of learning difficulties in 1970s, CA declined. But as a methodological option, it isn’t abandoned. As such, it is useful in a broader approach to detecting the source of error, namely error analysis.Chapter TwoError AnalysisAt the end of 1960s, people began to question one of the main objectives of contrastive analysis, namely the explanation and prediction of L2 learning problems. People began to realize more and more that this approach left the L2 learner out of consideration. The fact that there was no empirical basis for CA in turn resulted in more attention being paid to error analysis. This notion became popular in L2 learning research after 1970.2.1 What Is Error Analysis?Error analysis is an activity which is at once ancient and new. It is ancient in that since ancient times this technique has been used by teachers, but in an informal and intuitive way. It is new because as a scientific technique based on psycholinguistics it was developed in the late sixties. Along with the birth of psycholinguistics, the focus in second language teaching shifts from the view of the teacher as the controller of language learning towards a more learner-centered view which stresses learners’ creative role in L2 learning. One major result of this shift has been the development and application of error analysis as a chief means of both assessing learners’ learning in general and of the degree of match between their learning syllabus and the teacher’s teaching one.According to Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, error analysis is the study and analysis of the errors made by second and foreign language learners. It is a methodology of describing L2 learners’ language systems. EA aims to find out how well the learner knows and learns a language, and it obtains information on common difficulties in language learning as an aid in teaching or in the preparation of teaching materials. It also provides data from which inferences about the nature of the second language learning process can be made.Error analysis is distinguished from contrastive analysis by its examination of errors attributable to all possible sources, not just those which result from theinterference of the first language. Therefore, although error analysis and contrastive analysis are not mutually exclusive, the former can easily supersede the latter.2.2 Fundamentals and Significance of EACorder (1981) claims that learners’ errors provide to the researcher evidence of how the target language is learned or acquired and what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language.Human learning is fundamentally a process involving making errors, which forms an important aspect of learning any skill or acquiring any knowledge. Language learning is like any other human learning. In the course of learning a second language, learners will produce utterances which are ungrammatical or otherwise ill-formed, when judged by generally accepted rules of the language they are learning. This is obvious not only to teachers of languages but to any native speaker of the target language who comes in contact with them. That is to say L2 learning, like L1 acquisition, is trial and error in nature, hence errors are unavoidable. Errors made by L2 learners can be observed, analyzed, classified, and described. In errors made by L2 learners lie some of the keys to the understanding of the process of second language learning.A learner’s errors, then, provide evidence of the system of the language that he is using at a particular point in the course. Second language learners can be viewed as actively constructing rules from the data they encounter and gradually adapting these rules in the direction of the target language system. Then the speech of second language learners can be analyzed in its own terms. Learners’ errors are the clearest evidence for the learner’s developing systems and can offer us insights into how they process the data of the language. If learners actively construct a system for the second language, we will not expect all their incorrect notions about it to be a simple result of transferring rules from their first language. We will expect many of their incorrect notions to be explicable by direct reference to the target language itself. This is, in fact precisely what error analysis reveals. In addition to errors due to transferring rulesfrom the mother tongue, learners also make many errors which show that they are processing the second language in its own terms. Errors of this type are often similar to those produced by the child in the mother tongue and suggest that the second language learner is employing similar strategies, notably generalization and simplification. From these errors, which represent the product of learning, we can also gather hints about the underlying process of learning.2.3 Description and Explanation of ErrorsAccording to the stages in which errors are made, Corder (James, 1998) identifies three stages: The first is the presystematic stage. In this stage the learner is only vaguely aware that the target language has a particular system, but his use of the target language is through random guessing. He is neither able to correct his errors nor to explain them. The second is the systematic stage. In this stage the learner has discovered some rules of the system of the target language, but is inconsistent in applying these rules. He usually cannot correct his errors although he can explain why he makes them. The third is the postsystematic stage. In this stage the learner is quite consistent in his use of the target language. When he makes an error, he can both correct it and explain why it is incorrect. Though errors still exist in this stage, the occurrence of errors becomes infrequent.Errors of CompetenceTo be sure, L2 learners still commit errors which can be traced to L1 interference and as such are termed interlingual errors. They are caused by the structure of L1. A large number of similar errors are being committed by second language learners, regardless of their L1.These errors are called intralingual errors. They are caused by the structure of L2. Interlingual errors depend on linguistic differences between L1 and L2 and are traditionally interpreted as interference problems. Intralingual errors are by definition not predictable on the basis of CA, they can not be traced back to differences between L1 and L2, but they relate to a specific interpretation of the target。
第二语言习得主要理论和假说
第二语言习得主要理论和假说一、对比分析假说（行为主义：刺激—反应—强化形成习惯）代表：拉多定义：第一语言习惯迁移问题。
两种语言结构特征相同之处产生正迁移，两种语言的差异导致负迁移。
负迁移造成第二语言习得的困难和学生的错误。
主张：第二语言习得的主要障碍来自第一语言的干扰，需要通过对比两种语言结构的异同来预测第二语言习得的难点和错误，以便在教学中采用强化手段突出重点和难点，克服母语的干扰并建立新的习惯。
影响：积极：听说法和是视听法，特别是句型替换练习的理论基础。
消极：根本缺陷——否认学习者的认知过程，忽视人的能动性和创造力。
二、中介语假说代表：塞林克基础：普遍语法理论和先天论的母语习得理论定义：中介语是指在第二语言习得过程中，学习者通过一定的学习策略，在目的语输入的基础上所形成的介于第一语言和目的语之间、随着学习进展向目的语逐渐过渡的动态的语言系统。
特点：1.中介语在其发展的任何一个阶段都是介于第一语言和目的语之间的独特的语言系统。
2.中介语是一个不断变化的动态语言系统3.中介语是由于学习者对目的语规律尚未完全掌握，所做的不全面的归纳与推论。
4.中介语的偏误有反复性5.中介语的偏误有顽固性。
在语音上易产生“僵化”或“化石化”现象。
意义：是探索第二语言习得者在习得过程中的语言系统和习得规律的假说。
把第二语言获得看做是一个逐渐积累完善的连续的过程，而且看做是学习者不断通过假设—验证主动发现规律、调整修订所获得的规律，对原有知识结构进行重组并逐渐创建目的语系统的过程。
三、内在大纲和习得顺序假说代表：科德《学习者言语错误的重要意义》反映内在大纲偏误定义：第二语言学习者在语言习得过程中有其自己的内在大纲，而学习者的种种偏误正是这种内在大纲的反映。
第二语言习得是按其内在大纲所规定的程序对输入的信息进行处理。
内在大纲实际上是人类掌握语言的客观的、普遍的规律，学习者不是被动地服从教师的教学安排、接受所教的语言知识，而是有其自身的规律和顺序。
国内外二语习得研究对比
１引言第二语言习得主要研究人们在掌握母语后获得二语的过程和规律。
作为一门独立的学科，它兴起于上世纪６０年代末、７０年代初，其标志为中介语理论的提出，迄今已有三十多年的历史。
近年来二语习得研究的领域不断拓宽，各种理论和学说不断更新，研究方法和手段日益科学化和多样化。
自２０世纪８０年代中期二语习得研究领域在中国开始起步，国内在这个领域的研究也已经历可２０余年的发展历程。
我们重新审视二语习得研究的发展历程和现状，不但有助于我们深化对这门学科性质的认识，而且能够帮助我们科学地分析和决策语言教学实践中出现的问题，具有重大现实指导和启发意义。
２国外二语习得研究的历史回顾行为主义心理学和结构主义语言为二语习得研究的早期发展提供了必要的理论前提。
盛行于２０世纪中期的行为主义心理学认为，学习是一种行为形成的过程，语言行为是由“刺激———反应”构成的。
这种理论强调，语言是一种人类行为，而不是一种思维现象，语言的发展被描述成一系列习惯的养成。
同期对语言学习理论产生重大影响的还有结构主义语言学，这一语言学流派认为，所有人类的语言都是有层次的，层次性是语言的本质属性之一，语言学应着重研究语言的结构和形式。
行为主义心理学和结构主义语言学的有机结合催生了影响深远的对比分析学说。
该学说在二语习得研究的发展历程中有着重要的意义。
Ｆｒｉｅｓ（１９４５）最早从理论上提出将对比分析应用于教学，主张应在对学习者的母语和所学外语进行科学对比和仔细比较的基础上编写教材。
一般认为，Ｌａｄｏ的《跨文化语言学》（１９５７）是第一部探讨具体的对比分析方法的著作。
Ｌａｄｏ把外语学习的主要困难归于母语与目的语的差异，认为通过对比两种结构的异同可以预测外语学习者的语言错误和难点。
根据Ｌａｄｏ的对比分析假设，母语与目的语相似的地方容易产生正迁移，而负迁移往往来自于两种语言的差异，国内外二语习得研究对比汪玲玲盛楠（巢湖学院，安徽巢湖２３８０００）摘要：第二语言习得已经发展成为一门独立的边缘交叉学科，经过３０多年的发展历程，近年来二语习得研究的领域不断扩展。
- 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)。
2.局 限：
⑴ 在基本假设的第三个方面提到，差异越大，干扰越大，学 习的困难也就越大。但实际情况并非如此：
①两种语言差别大，虽然掌握起来要慢一些，但干扰反而小，掌 握的准确度要大。比如，印欧语系学习者在掌握另一种拼音文字 时母语可能产生干扰，在他们学习汉字时决不会存在。 ②两种语言表面上很相似，也许掌握起来要快些，但细微差别所产 生的干扰则更大，准确度更难掌握。语言的差异于学习者可能遇到 的困难之间的关系是一个复杂的问题，二者不是简单的成正比的关 系。
⑶差异（difference）=困难（difficulty） 两种语言差异越大， 学习困难就越大，这种差异构成了语言习得的难度等级。
2.分析方法：对比和分析
系统对比学习者的母语系统和目的语系统。Lado提出 对比和分析两种语言的音位、语法、书写、文化等方面。 但在实践中，语音、语法的对比较多，文化对比当时没有 引起学者们的关注。
行为主义心理学不能作为对比分析的理论基础。因为语言的产出 是创造性的，不是那种刺激—反应的模式。
THANK YOU
⑵ 根据对比分析有些预测的错误并未出现，而出现的错误
却无法预测。
⑶ 对比分析在结构主义语言学理论的影响下，只对语言的表层
结构进行对比，而且主要集中于语音、词汇、语法几个方面，
没有语义、语用、话语、文化等方面的比较，因此这种对比也
是不全面的。分析的基本内容
01 基本假设：语言迁移（Language Transfer）
02
分析方法：对比和分析
03 两个观点（两个流派）
1.基本假设：语言迁移（Language Transfer）
⑴母语的语言形式、意义及其分布、文化迁移到第二语言系统中去。 ⑵目的语与母语结构特征相似时，产生正迁移，学起来容易。 “我学习法语。/I study French.” 反之，产生负迁移，学起来困难。母语干扰是引起困难和偏误的 主要原因或者唯一原因。二语学习者的任务就是克服母语的干扰， 即克服来自母语的负迁移。 “ I went to the school yesterday. /我去了学校昨天。”
简单来说，就是从一般到个别。先从整体描述两种语言，在 选择对比的语言项目，然后对比选出的语言项目，最后预测。
2.难度等级： 下面是二语习得专家Rob Ellis提出的六个难度等级（degrees） ⑴两种语言里语言成分相同。汉语和英语的语序都是“S+V+O”。 ⑵学习者母语两个语言点对应目的语一个语言点。如英语中的 “borrow”和”lend”在汉语中都是“借”。 ⑶学习者母语中的语言点在目的语里没有对应成分。如英语中的定 冠词the、韩语敬词、泰语表示说话人性别的成分，汉语普通话中 都没有。 ⑷母语中的某个语言点在目的语中虽有相对应的语言点，但在形式 和分布上存在差异。英语和汉语都有被动句，英语是有标记的,汉 语存在有标记和无标记两类。
04
05
对比分析的意义与局限
一、第二语言习得研究的开端
1.有的学者从科德（Corder）1967年发表的《学生偏误的意义》 一文算起，把该文和塞林克(SelinKer)1972年发表的《中介语》 一文看做是第二语言习得研究的开端。 2.另一部分学者认为把以拉多(Lado)于1957年发表的《跨文化语 言学》为标志的对比分析研究，作为第二语言习得研究的起点。 这样算来，第二语言习得的研究已有40年的历史。
①The bowl has been broken into pieces.（有标记） 碗被打得粉碎。 （有标记） ②More highways will be built here.（有标记） 这里将修更多的公路。（无标记）
⑸目的语中的某个语言点在学习者母语中没有。汉语有声调，英语 没有；汉语有个体量词（一棵树、两盏灯）和名词动词形容词重叠 式在许多语言中没有。
二.对比分析的背景
语言学家们试图为语言教师提供一种比较的方法来预测和 预防学习者在语言表达中经常出现的错误。对比分析方法正是 基于这一期望应运而生的。
时间： 产生于20世纪50年代，兴盛于60年代。
目的：预测两种语言之间的差异所造成的学习难点，从而在教学中
采取预防性措施，建立有效的第二语言教学法。（Lado） （1）心理学基础：行为主义心理学和迁移理论； 理论基础： （2）语言学理论基础：结构主义语言学。
四、对比分析的步骤和难度等级
1.对比分析的步骤:
⑴描写（description）: 对学生的母语和目的语进行准确、清晰的描 写。这种描写以一定的语法体系为依据。 ⑵选择（selection）:选择一定的语言项目、规则或结构进行对比。
⑶对比（comparison）:对选择好的语言项目进行细致的分析和对比， 找出共同点和不同点。 ⑷预测（prediction）：对学习中可能出现的错误和难点进行预测。
3.两个观点（两个流派）
⑴强势说：第二语言所有偏误都可以通过对比目的语和母语来预测。 ⑵弱势说：并非所有偏误都源于母语干扰；对比分析需要跟偏误分析同 时进行；偏误来自学习者的真实语言，而不是从语言对比中推测出来； 对比分析可以证实哪些偏误是由第一语言和第二语言的区别引发的。
显而易见，弱势说的观点更符合实际，更具有操作性。
⑹母语中的一个语言点对应汉语中两个或多个语言点。英语 or，在 汉语中大致对应“或者”和“还是”。“或者”一般出现在陈述句 中，“还是”大多出现在疑问句中。
五.对比分析的意义与局限
1.意 义：
⑴有利于确定教学中的重点和难点； ⑵有利于预测学生可能犯的错误；
⑶有利于选择测试项目； ⑷有利于发现在单语研究中发现不了的问题； ⑸有利于不同国家的教材编写和教学。
第二语言习得研究
——对比分析
小 组 成 员
刘露 田郁 阿力 黎文光
美丽 米妮 姜超 付俊豪
刘菲夏 林丽爱
参 考 书 籍
《第二语言习得研究》王建勤
《对外汉语教学入门》周小兵 《对外汉语教育学引论》刘珣
目 录
01
第二语言习得研究的开端
02
对比分析的背景 对比分析的基本内容
对比分析的步骤和难度等级
03